TRANSACTIONS
AND
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
AMERICAN
PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.
1903.
VOLUME XXXIV.
PUBLISHED FOR THE ASSOCIATION BY GINN & COMPANY,
29 BEACON STREET, BOSTON, MASS.
EUROPEAN AGENTS. ENGLAND : EDWARD ARNOLD, 37 BEDFORD STREET, STRAND, LONDON, W.C.
GERMANY: OTTO HARRASSOWITZ, LEIPZIG. FRANCE : H. WELTER, 59 RUB BONAPARTE, PARIS.
P II
A5"
Xcrfajoot
J. S. Gushing & Co. — Berwick & Smith Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.
CONTENTS OF VOL. XXXIV.
TRANSACTIONS.
I. Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis : Descriptive Passages ... 5
FRANK GARDNER MOORE.
II. Word-Accent in Catullus's Galliambics 27
THOMAS DWIGHT GOODELL.
III. The Succession of Spartan Nauarchs in Hellenica /. . . 33
CARLETON L. BROWNSON.
IV. Magister Curiae in Plautus's Aulularia 107 41
HENRY W. PRESCOTT. V Hephaestion and the Anapaest in the Aristophanic Trimeter 49
C. W. E. MILLER. VI. The Latin Monosyllables in their Relation to Accent and
Quantity. A Study in the Verse of Terence .... 60
ROBERT S. RADFORD.
VII. Three New Types 104
FRANCIS A. MARCH.
PROCEEDINGS.
Proceedings of the Annual Session, July, 1903 i-lxiii
tStos as a Possessive in Polybius iv
EDWIN L. GREEN.
Notes v
JOHN C. ROLFE.
The Cult of the Nymphs as Water-Deities among the Romans . vi
F. G. BALLENTINE.
On the Omission of the Copula in Certain Combinations in Greek viii
J. E. HARRY.
Character-Drawing in Thucydides x
CHARLES FORSTER SMITH.
Report on the Proposed Change in Time of Meetings .... xvi
i
2 Contents.
The Codex Canonicianus XLI and the Tradition of Juvenal . . xix
HARRY L. WILSON.
The Fiscal Joke of Pericles xx
B. PERRIN.
Danielsson's Assimilation mit nachtraglicher Diektasis in
Homer xx
H. C. TOLMAN.
Notes (Hor. C. i. 3. 1-8, Plato Rep. 423 B) xxii
MORTIMER LAMSON EARLE.
Rousselot's Phonetic Synthesis xxiii
E. WASHBURN HOPKINS.
Notes on Greek Grammar xxiii
MILTON W. HUMPHREYS.
Is the Present Theory of Greek Elision Sound ? xxiv
H. W. MAGOUN. The Question of the Coincidence of Word-Accent and Verse-Ictus
in the last two Feet of the Latin Hexameter xxvi
H. J. EDMISTON.
Studies in the Metrical Art of the Roman Elegists xxviii
KARL P. HARRINGTON.
Notes on the Order of Words in Latin xxxi
C. L. MEADER.
The Land of Cocaigne in Attic Comedy xxxii
EDWIN L. GREEN.
The Proemium to the Aeneid xxxii
THOMAS FITZ-HUGH.
The Greek Comic Poets as Literary Critics xxxiv
WILLIAM W. BAKER.
Cicero's Appreciation of Greek Art xxxv
GRANT SHOWERMAN.
Three Terra Cotta Heads xxxvii
O. S. TONKS.
Head of an Ephebos from the Theatre at Corinth xxxvii
RUFUS B. RICHARDSON.
The Gerund and Gerundive in Livy xxxviii
R. B. STEELE.
On Some Verb-Forms in the Ramayana xl
TRUMAN MICHELSON.
Notes on Andocides and the Authorship of the Oration Against
Akibiades xli
W. S. SCARBOROUGH.
Contents. 3
The Meaning of o/i/xa TtTpairrai in Euripides Hippol. 246 . . . xli
J. E. HARRY.
Did Cicero write bcllum Poenicum in Brutus 75 ? xliii
MINTON WARREN. The Incongruities in the Speeches of Ancient Historians from
Herodotus to Ammianus Marcellinus, — Introduction. . . xliii ALFRED GUDEMAN.
Quintilian's Criticism of the Metres of Terence xlviii
ALFRED GUDEMAN.
The Dactylic, Heroic, and /car* eVoTrAiov Forms of the Hexameter in their Relation to the Elegiac Pentameter and the Prosodiac
Tetrameter li
H. W. MAGOUN.
Afterthoughts (A& before Proper Names beginning with a Con- sonant ; de tenero ungui, Hor. C. 3. 6. 24 ; caniculd) ... Iv
JOHN C. ROLFE. Diaeresis after the Second Foot of the Hexameter in Lucretius . Ix
H. J. EDMISTON.
The Ablative Absolute in the Epistles of Cicero, Pliny, and Fronto Ixi
R. B. STEELE.
The Optative Mood in Diodorus Siculus Ixii
EDWIN L. GREEN.
Proceedings of the Philological Association of the Pacific Coast,
December, 1902 Ixiv-cvii
The Apocope of s in Lucretius . Ixv
SAMUEL B. RANDALL.
The Modes of Conditional Thought Ixvii
H. C. NUTTING.
Livy's Account of the Dramatic Satura Ixvii
J. ELMORE.
The So-called Mutation in Indo-European Compounds .... Ixviii BENJ. IDE WHEELER.
The Siamese Vowels and Diphthongs Ixxi
C. B. BRADLEY.
Herder and Goethe Ixxii
J. GOEBEL.
Herder's Attitude toward the French Stage Ixxxiii
C. SEARLES.
Sepultura — sepulcrum Ixxiii
J. E. CHURCH, JR.
4 Contents.
What is Comparative Literature ? Ixxiv
C. M. GAYLEY.
The Poetica of Ramon de Campoamor; Is the Dolora a New
Literary Type ? Ixxx
SAMUEL A. CHAMBERS.
The Citizenship of Aristophanes Ixxxii
A. T. MURRAY.
Rhythm as concerned in Poetry Ixxxvii
LEON J. RICHARDSON.
The Use of ella, lei, and la as Polite Forms of Address in Italian Ixxxix O. M. JOHNSTON.
Dryden's Quarrel with Settle xc
GEORGE R. NOYES.
The Scalacronica Version of Ha-velok xci
EDWARD K. PUTNAM. On the Relation of Old Fortunatus to the Volksbuch .... xcii
A. F. LAXGE. The Literary Relations of Edgar Allan Poe and Thomas Holley
Chivers xcii
A. G. NEWCOMER.
A Middle English Anecdoton xciv
E. FLUGEL.
The Omission of the Auxiliary Verb in German xcv
CHARLES R. KEYES. The Sources of the Paris Promptuarium Exemplorum .... xcvi
P. J. FREIN.
Structure of the Verb in Hupa (a Californian language) . . . xcviii PLINY E. GODDARD.
The Chinese Normal Essay c
JOHN FRYER.
The Scholia on Gesture in the Commentary of Donatus . . . ciii
J. W. BASORE.
The Source of Sheridan's Rivals cv
W. D. ARMES.
TRANSACTIONS
OF THE
AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION,
1903.
I. — Studies in Tacit ean Ellipsis: Descriptive Passages. BY PROF. FRANK GARDNER MOORE,
DARTMOUTH COLLEGE.
THE brevity of Tacitus is usually felt as a quality of the narrator of events, who aims constantly at rapidity of move- ment, not without a certain scorn for petty detail, and hence omitting all that is not essential to his narrative. And yet this pace is not confined to less important events, in order that the historian may move more slowly through scenes of greater significance. There is the same brevity, as a rule, even where momentous issues are concerned, and nowhere is it more marked than in vivid descriptions.1 Not that impatience to return to narrative furnishes any adequate explanation of these vigorous outline pictures. Other motives influenced Tacitus even more than his passion for conciseness. Few,
1 Of those who have written upon the various forms of ellipsis in Tacitus no one in the writer's knowledge has separately considered his use of this figure in descriptive passages. Thus, the following dissertations, valuable as they are, con- tain little or nothing to the present purpose : Wetzell, C., De usu -verbi subitan- tivi Tacitino (Cassel, 1876); Clemm, G., De breviloquentiae Taciteae qvibusdam generibus (Leipzig, 1881); StuhL, C, Quibus condicionibus Tacitus eltipsim verbi admiserit, etc. (Wurzburg dissertation, 1900; cf. however, pp. 7-8, 23-24, 29). Xor is anything to be gathered from Constans, L~, £tude sttr la langue de Tacite, 1893, p. u8ff.; or Gantrelle, J., Grammaire et Sft'le de Tatite*, 1882, p. 44; or Draeger's Syntax und Stil des Tacitus. The present paper, it may be needless to add, rests upon nearly complete collections from all the works of Taci- tus. In the citations the text of Nipperdey has been followed in the Annals, Heraeus in the Histories, and Gudeman in the minor works.
5
6 Frank Gardner Moore. [*9°3
surely, will be prepared to dispute the statement of Nipperdey 1 that brevity was to Tacitus not an end in itself, but a means to work upon the feelings of the reader, — a truth more than ever obvious if we exclude for the time all thought of ellipsis in narration, and limit our view to pointed description, with omitted verbs. These descriptive passages may reach a con- siderable length. More frequently they are brief descriptive touches in the midst of narration. They may sum up the character of a man, or outline the peculiarities or the cus- toms of a nation. Thus characterization will necessarily be included with description, since the descriptions in many instances take on a broader range, and include a resume of a situation, or even an estimate of a whole period. It will be seen that from the nature of the case the ellipsis with which we have to do in all passages of the kind will be overwhelm- ingly that of the substantive verb, leaving a series of nomina- tives, an enumeratio partium, which has the effect, not so much of a formal description, as of a suggestive sketch. The question will inevitably arise whether these are, after all, cases of ellipsis, or not, — whether the insertion of verbs, even in thought, would not have been resented by the author of these bold sketches, as though a literalist in interpreting a Whistler to a class of beginners should add a line here and a line there, with pedantic remarks about the eccentricities of the artist. And if we discard the idea of ellipsis and have recourse to the term nominative absolute, — with some of the writers of dis- sertations upon the Latinity of Tacitus,2 — the appropriate- ness of the term must be considered, together with the possibility that some day our grammars may recognize a nominative of intimation, requiring no verb to bring it into line with the syntax of orthodoxy, and of scarcely less im- portance than its companion, the infinitive of intimation, more commonly labelled the historical infinitive.
It was formerly claimed that Tacitus's brevity sprang from his desire to be objective,3 — a claim sufficiently untenable on the most general grounds. Vividly as he pictures to us men
1 Annals*, Einl. p. 42. 2 Thus Stuhl, op. cit. pp. 8, 23-24.
8 Draeger, op. cit? § 238.
Vol. xxxiv.] Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis. 7
and society from Tiberius to Vespasian, he has given us almost nothing that is purely objective. He has forced us to see everything with his own eyes, — has imparted to us his per- sonal impressions of things and men, and seldom if ever allows us to escape from the subjectivity of his method. At present certainly the subjective individualism of Tacitus is duly recognized as one of his leading traits.1 And a col- lection of impressionist descriptions from iheAgrico/a on down through the Annals gives a striking array of evidence that the personality of the writer dominates every attempt to describe or to characterize ; that we cannot hope even to imagine that we see things as they really were, but only as they appeared to the keen eye of a Tacitus.
The more a writer sets himself to give his own impressions, instead of following a traditional objective method, the more certain is he to develop his own mode of expressing those impressions, or to adopt and perfect a mode which had been employed by his predecessors. Obviously the impressionistic resources of the word-painter lie largely in the direction of selecting salient points, each one of which will stimulate the imagination of the sympathetic reader ; and then in producing a whole picture in a few bold strokes, every one of which testifies to the individuality of the author. To omit the copula, to reduce compound tenses to a string of participles, to strip verbs to the stark nakedness of the infinitive of inti- mation,— these were the methods ready to hand.2 Often
1 Cf. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa, I. p. 326, and especially 327 : " Durch diese Subjektivitat unterscheidet sich Tacitus von den meisten antiken Schriftstel- lern und iibertrifft auch die, welche ihm darin ahnlich sind. Dieses Uberstromen einer machtigen Individualitat, die, sich selbst dessen unbewusst, alien Menschen und Begebenheiten ihren Stempel aufdruckt, weist Tacitus eine fast singulare Stellung in der antiken Litteraturgeschichte an, in welcher die Unterordnung des Individuellen unter das Traditionelle fast ein Dogma war." Cf. p. 322, n. I ; 243- 244. Cf. Wackermann, O., Der Geschichtschreiber P. Cornelius Tacitus, Guters- loh, 1898, pp. 74, 83.
2 Another method, not employed by Tacitus, is seen in Terence, Phormio,
950-951 :
Nol6 volo ; volo ndlo rursum ; cape cedo ;
Quod dictum, indictumst; qudd modo erat ratum, inritumst.
Here the wavering of the old men is cleverly pictured in the fewest words, —
8 Frank Gardner Moore, [*9°3
employed before, both in prose and verse, either in narrative or in descriptions and character sketches, they were now to be given a far wider use by Tacitus in every variety of char- acterization and description, not to mention their employment in vivid narration. In many cases in prose it is impossible to say that the verb " to be " was really excluded by the writer, and not merely omitted by ellipsis, especially where the pas- sage is a brief one. With increasing length, however, it be- comes more and more probable that the writer did not even intend a verb to be supplied with the first touch of descrip- tion, certainly not with the remaining features of his picture.
Even Cicero has passages which may be interpreted in an impressionistic sense. Thus in de Off. 3, 47 : nostra res pub- lica . . . quae Cannensi calamitate accepta maiores animos habuit quam umquam rebus secundis ; nulla timoris signifi- catio, nulla mentio pacis. Grammatically speaking, this is, of course, equivalent to nulla erat, etc., but rhetorically there is every reason to think that Cicero was better satisfied with his word-picture than with a logical statement.1 If epistolary examples are not to be excluded, we may cite ad Att. 4, 3, 3 : Clamor, lapides, fustes, gladii, haec improvisa omnia, — a comic fragment according to Ribbeck, Com. Rom. Frag? p. 145, and perhaps to be classed with narratives.
More elaborate descriptive sketches are to be found in Sallust, but not very frequently.2 Thus Jngiirtha 17, 5 : Mare saevom importuosum : ager frugum fertilis, bonus pecori, arbore infecundus: caelo terraque penuria aquarum. Genus hominum salubri corpore, velox, patiens laborum.
In portrayal of character, or the estimate of a man's quali- ties, a similar form had been used by Cicero, as in Brutus
nothing inserted which could be spared (except 's/, 951), nothing omitted which ordinary wits could not supply. It is needless to say that this method must have been very freely used in animated conversation. For that reason it would be avoided by the historian, the majority of whose ellipses are at the furthest remove from familiar and everyday speech, as also from the style of lively debate (as in Cic. de Off. 3, 87, for example).
1 On the frequent ellipsis with nullus, cf. Stuhl, op. cit. p. 17; Wetzell, op. cit.
P-5-
2 Cf. Constans, L., De sermrne Sallusiiano, Paris, 1 880, p. 252.
Vol. xxxiv.] Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis, 9
246 : M. Messalla minor natu quam nos, nullo modo inops, sed non nimis ornatus genere verborum ; prudens acutus, minime incautus patronus, in causis cognoscendis componendisque diligens, magni laboris, multae operae multarumque causa- rum. A copula may be inserted, to be sure, but only to the detriment of such a series of characterizations.1
Sallust's familiar portrait of Catiline is another case in point (5, 3-6): Corpus patiens mediae, algoris, vigiliae supra quam cuiquam credibile est; animus audax, subdolus, varius, cuius rei lubet simulator ac dissimulator," alieni appetens, sui profusus, ardens in cupiditatibus ; satis eloquentiae, sapientiae parum : vastus animus immoderata, incredibilia, nimis alta semper cupiebat.2
A well-known parallel is Livy's estimate of Hannibal, 21,4, 6-7: Caloris ac frigoris patientia par; cibi potionisque desiderio naturali, non voluptate modus finitus ; vigiliarum somnique nee die nee nocte discriminata tempora; id quod gerendis rebus superesset, quieti datum ; ea neque molli strato neque silentio accersita.
In such passages as these it is clear enough that the omis- sion of the verb is not due merely to the desire to avoid unnecessary repetition. Evidently there was a conscious aim to sketch in bold lines, all the more impressive because they appear to be hasty strokes, leaving the imagination to com- plete the picture. If the writer was conscious at first of an ellipsis, he had soon drifted away into what is purely pictorial, and not to be reduced to prosaic assertion, except with the loss of its most characteristic feature.
1 Another example from Cicero is Cato Maior 12: Nee veto ille [Fabius Maximus] in luce modo atque in oculis civium magnus, sed intus domique prae- stantior. Qui sermo, quae praecepta, quanta notitia antiquitatis, scientia iuris augurii ! Multae etiam, ut in homine Romano, litterae; omnia memoria tenebat non domestica solum, sed etiam externa. The exclamatory sentence, of course, does not concern us here, except in its suggestive association with the other brief and emphatic assertions, of the kind in which the omission of the copula is most frequent.
z In the similar portrait of Sulla (Jugurtha 95, 3) the first member contains a fuit, but its influence cannot be felt beyond an infinitive (otio luxurioso esse) in the middle of the passage.
io Frank Gardner Moore. [*9°3
From Vergil it is evident that Tacitus drew no small part of his inspiration in this, as in so many other directions.1 An instance from Aeneid I, 637-642 :
At domus interior regali splendida luxu Instruitur, mediisque parant convivia tectis : Arte laboratae vestes ostroque superbo, Ingens argentum mensis caelataque in auro Fortia facta patrum, series longissima rerum Per tot ducta viros antiquae ab origine gentis.
Here it is possible to supply instruiintur, or an equivalent, from instrnitur (638). But as the verses were read the hearer more naturally accepted lines 639-642 as a catalogue, leading up possibly to a verb, the omission of which gave him no trouble whatever. Thus parant convivia is amplified by an enumeratio partium, not in apposition, but independently treated.
Another example from the first book, 166-168 :
Fronte sub adversa scopulis pendentibus antrum,
Intus aquae dulces vivoque sedilia saxo,
Nympharum domus.
Also ib. 703-706 :
Quinquaginta intus famulae, quibus ordine longam Cura penum struere et flammis adolere penates ; Centum aliae totidemque pares aetate ministri, Qui, etc.
Aen. 2, 368-369:
Crudelis ubique Luctus, ubique pavor et plurima mortis imago.
Aen. 4, 200-202 :
Centum aras posuit vigilemque sacraverat ignem, Excubias divom aeternas ; pecudumque cruore Pingue solum et variis florentia limina sertis.2
1 Schmaus in his dissertation, Tacitus ein Nachahmer Vergils, Bamberg, 1887, confines himself to a few instances of ellipsis with postquam, ubi, etc., and ignores the elliptical descriptions (pp. 45-46). Wetzell, op. cit. p. 57, emphasizes Tacitus's indebtedness to Vergil in this general direction, but has nothing pertinent to the present inquiry.
2 Taking solum, etc., as nominative with Ladewig.
Vol. xxxiv.] Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis. \ \
Aen. 3, 618-620:
Domus sanie dapibusque cruentis, Intus opaca, ingens. Ipse arduus, altaque pulsat Sidera, etc.
In the description of the Harpies, ib. 216-218 :
Virginei volucrum voltus, foedissima ventris Proluvies uncaeque manus et pallida semper Ora fame.
And of Scylla, ib. 426-428 :
Prima hominis facies et pulchro pectore virgo Pube tenus, postrema immani corpore pistrix Delphinum caudas utero commissa luporum.
Also of Achaemenides, ib. 593-595 :
Dira inluvies immissaque barba, Consertum tegumen spinis ; at cetera Graius, Et quondam patriis ad Troiam missus in arm is.
A few typical examples will thus confirm the belief that Vergil's omission of the copula in such passages had nothing to do with the exigencies of his metre, as has been main- tained.1 He had unquestionably adopted this more pictur- esque mode of description by a brief summary of leading features. Essentially poetic in its nature, it had not com- mended itself for general use in historic prose, in spite of the influence of Sallust. It remained for Tacitus to appro- priate it with his usual skill to his own purposes, in longer or shorter descriptive passages, and in character sketches, whether of individuals or of nationalities.
In the Dialogus there is little material for our present purpose. Naturally enough one finds a series of character- izations such as in 25 : Adstrictior Calvus, nervosior Asinius, splendidior Caesar, amarior Caelius, gravior Brutus, vehemen- tior et plenior et valentior Cicero. But this does not differ from Cicero himself. A similar passage is found in 18: Sic Catoni seni comparatus C. Gracchus plenior et uberior, sic
1 Schmaus, op. cit. p. 45.
12 Frank Gardner Moore. L19°3
Graccho politior et ornatior Crassus, etc. More suggestive of certain passages in the Histories and the Annals, but in itself no novelty, is 36: Hinc leges adsiduae et populare nomen, hinc condones magistratuum . . . hinc . . . hinc . . .*
In the Agricola characterizations are after the manner of those already cited from Sallust, and obviously under his influence. Thus, 9 : lam vero tempora curarum remissio- numque divisa : ubi conventus ac iudicia poscerent, gravis intentus severus, et saepius misericors : ubi officio satis factum, nulla ultra potestatis persona.
Of the Britons, 1 1 : sermo haud multum diversus, in depo- scendis periculis eadem audacia et, ubi advenere, in detrec- tandis eadem formido.2 Also in 12: In pedite robur ; . . . Honestior auriga, etc. Of Britain itself, 12 : Solum, praeter oleam vitemque et cetera calidioribus terris oriri sueta, frugum patiens, fecundum.
Turning to the Germania, and collecting the many charac- terizations in this elliptical form, one is not surprised to find that they number about seventy.3 Taken separately a large proportion of these would call for no remark. A brief state- ment with a negative, or with emphasis upon a demonstrative or an adjective, with hinc, inde, plus, and the like, would have occasioned no surprise in an earlier writer, but taken together they become a marked feature of the book, which owes no small part of its poetic coloring to these impressionistic touches. It is needless to give more than a few examples ; thus, 4 : Unde habitus quoque corporum, quamquam in tanto hominum numero, idem omnibus : truces et caerulei oculi, rutilae comae, magna corpora et tantum ad impetum valida : laboris atque operum non eadem patientia, minimeque sitim aestumque tolerare, frigora atque inediam caelo soloque adsueverunt.4
1 Cf. Wetzell, op. cit. p. 19.
2 Cf. ii: Habitus corporum varii, atque ex eo argumenta; 21: Inde etiam habitus nostri honor et frequens toga.
8 If the term " characterizations " may cover all statements as to the manners, etc., of the Germans.
4 Here it is possible to regard oculi, comae, corpora, as appositives to habitus, but a comparison with other passages of the kind makes it probable that the enumeratio partium is independent of what precedes. In a series of nominatives
Vol. xxxiv.] Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis. \ 3
Another, less open to debate, 5 : Terra etsi aliquanto specie differt, in universum tamen aut silvis horrida aut paludibus foeda, umidior qua Gallias, ventosior qua Noricum ac Pan- noniam adspicit ; satis ferax, frugiferarum arborum [injpati- ens, pecorum fecunda, sed plerumque improcera.1
Another instance brings the " historical " infinitive into the description, 7 : et in proximo pignora, unde feminarum ulu- latus audiri, unde vagitus infantium. Hi cuique sanctissimi testes, hi maximi laudatores, etc.2
In this connection should be cited, 30 : Duriora genti cor- pora, stricti artus, minax vultus et maior animi vigor. Mul- tum, ut inter Germanos, rationis ac sollertiae : praeponere electos, audire praepositos, etc. (a series of nine infinitives).3 . . . Omne robur in pedite, quern . . . Rari excursus et fortuita pugna.
Further descriptive passages with the predominance of simple nominatives are, 23 : Potui umor ex hordeo aut fru- mento, . . . Cibi simplices, agrestia poma, recens fera aut lac concretum : sine adparatu, sine blandimentis expellunt famem. 40 : Laeti tune dies, festa loca, quaecumque adventu hospitioque dignatur. . . . clausum omne ferrum ; pax et quies tune tantum nota, tune tantum amata, etc. 46 : Fennis
of intimation it is not difficult to accept tolerare as an infinitive of intimation, leav- ing frigora, etc., to stand by itself (after a semicolon).
1 In this case the fact that no verb was intended to be supplied with horrida, foeda, etc., made the concluding clause sed plerumque improcera less harsh than it has usually been felt to be. An enumeration of features could easily be fol- lowed by a correcting statement, relating to the last item in the enumeration. Tacitus's first readers would probably not have agreed with his modern editors in positively requiring the insertion of sun/.
2 The controverted question as to audiri in this passage may receive some illumination from the examples cited below of such infinitives used in connection with nominatives of intimation in descriptions; cf. pp. 14-18, 21, 23.
8 These infinitives have been treated by most commentators as epexegetic, in apposition with multum . . . ralionis ac sollertiae. Furneaux and Gudeman retain the idea of apposition, but style the infinitives historical, without explaining their divergence from the accepted use of terms. It is surely more probable that the infinitivus adiimbrativus here describes in outline, without grammatical refer- ence to the words preceding, and that we have thus an example of such infinitives in a general statement belonging to present time, having in themselves no sense of time at all.
14 Frank Gardner Moore. [1903
mira feritas, foeda paupertas : non arma, non equi, non penates ; victui herba, vestitui pelles, cubile humus : solae in sagittis opes quas inopia ferri ossibus asperant.
After such pen-pictures of the men of the North it is not strange to find in the historical works a vivid portraiture worked out by the same method of enumerating the more striking features, and leaving the imagination of the receptive reader to complete the picture.
From the character sketches in the Histories we may select a few specimens :
i, 10, Mucianus : Luxuria industria, comitate adrogantia, malis bonisque artibus mixtus ; nimiae voluptates, cum vacaret ; quotiens expedierat, magnae virtutes. . . . variis inlecebris potens, et cui expeditius f uerit tradere imperium quam obtinere.
I, 48, Vinius: Pater illi praetoria familia, maternus avus e proscriptis. Prima militia infamis : . . . mox Galbae ami- citia in abruptum tractus, audax callidus promptus, et prout animum intendisset, pravus aut industrius eadem vi.
1, 49, Galba : Vetus in familia nobilitas, magnae opes; ipsi medium ingenium, magis extra vitia quam cum virtutibus. Famae nee incuriosus nee venditator ; pecuniae alienae non adpetens, suae parcus, publicae avarus ; amicorum liberto- rumque . . . patiens, . . . ignarus.
2, 5, Vespasian : Vespasianus acer militiae,1 anteire agmen, locum castris capere, noctu diuque consilio ac, si res posceret, manu hostibus obniti, cibo fortuito, veste habituque vix a gregario milite discrepans, prorsus, si avaritia abesset, antiquis ducibus par.
2, 5, Mucianus : aptior sermone, dispositu provisuque civilium rerum peritus.
4, 55, Classicus : Classicus nobilitate opibusque ante alios: regium illi genus et pace belloque clara origo.
1 The writer has ventured to insert a comma after acer militiae, from the conviction that to Tacitus and his Roman readers acer was not simply in agree- ment with the subject of the infinitives, but formed with militiae a distinct element in this portrait of Vespasian, which consists of adjective phrases (one of them assuming the form of an ablative of quality, — cibo fortuito) combined with infinitives of intimation, and all upon an even footing, as the different features which he wished to emphasize.
Vol. xxxiv.] Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis. 1 5
From the Annals we take the following : i> 33. Germanicus : Nam iuveni civile ingenium, mira comitas et diversa ab Tiberii sermone, vultu, adrogantibus et obscuris.
2, 2, Vonones : Sed prompti aditus, obvia comitas ; ignotae Parthis virtutes, nova vitia, et quia ipsorum moribus aliena, perinde odium pravis et honestis.
3, 40, Florus and Sacrovir : Nobilitas ambobus et maiorum bona facta, eoque Romana civitas olim data, cum id, etc.
4, I, Sejanus : Corpus illi laborum tolerans, animus audax ; sui obtegens, in alios criminator ; iuxta adulatio ct superbia ; palam compositus pudor, intus summa apiscendi libido, eiusque causa modo largitio et luxus, saepius industria ac vigilantia, etc.
5, i, Livia : Sanctitate domus priscum ad morem, comis ultra quam antiquis feminis probatum ; mater inpotens, uxor facilis et cum artibus mariti, simulatione filii bene composita.
6, 51, Tiberius: Pater ei Nero et utrimque origo gentis Claudiae, . . . Casus prima ab inf antia ancipites. . . . Morum quoque tempora illi diversa : egregium vita famaque, quoad privatus vel in imperiis sub Augusto fuit ; occultum ac sub- dolum fingendis virtutibus, donee Germanicus ac Drusus superfuere.
13, 45, Poppaea: sermo comis, nee absurdum ingenium. Modestiam praeferre et lascivia uti: rarus in publicum egressus, etc.1
From characterizations of a people or word- portraits of men we turn to descriptions in the midst of narration. These range from mere descriptive touches, — brief and pointed, but extremely numerous, — to more elaborate sketches of a situa- tion, or a resum6 of conditions through a longer or shorter period.
Descriptive touches can be illustrated in a few typical examples only :
1 Here again the infinitive of intimation, in combination with the other nomi- natives. Comparing Sallust's portrait of Sempronia, which Tacitus could not have forgotten, one may suspect that in that case also the infinitive after ingenium eius haud absurdum was not meant as an apposition (Cat. 25, 5).
1 6 Frank Gardner Moore, [1903
From the Agricola, 5 : Non sane alias excitatior magisque in ambiguo Britannia fuit : trucidati veterani, incensae colo- niae, intercepti exercitus, etc. 16 : eadem inertia erga hostis, similis petulantia castrorum, nisi quod, etc. 1 7 : Sed ubi cum cetero orbe Vespasianus et Britanniam reciperavit, magni duces, egregii exercitus et minuta hostium spes. 32 : Nee quidquam ultra formidinis : vacua castella, senum coloniae, inter male parentis et iniuste imperantis aegra municipia et discordantia. Hie dux, hie exercitus: ibi tributa et metalla, etc. 38 : vastum ubique silentium, secreti colles, fumantia procul tecta, nemo exploratoribus obvius.
But in the most striking example in the Agricola description and narration are inextricably interwoven, — 37 : Turn vero patentibus locis grande et atrox spectaculum : sequi, vulnerare, capere, atque eosdem oblatis aliis trucidare. lam hostium, prout cuique ingenium erat, catervae armatorum paucioribus terga praestare, quidam inermes ultro ruere ac se morti offerre. Passim arma et corpora et laceri artus et cruenta humus ; et aliquando etiam victis ira virtusque.
In the Histories descriptive touches in the merest outline are extremely frequent, especially in the first two books, from which alone between fifty and sixty instances may be gathered.
Book I, 17: Sermo [Pisonis] erga patrem imperatoremque reverens, de se moderatus ; nihil in vultu habituque mutatum, etc.
I, 20 : Ubique hasta et sector, et inquieta urbs actionibus. Ac tamen grande gaudium, quod, etc.
I, 35 : ignavissimus quisque et, ut res docuit, in periculo non ausurus nimii verbis, lingua feroces ; nemo scire et omnes adfirmare, donee, etc.
i, 40: Neque populi aut plebis ulla vox, sed artoniti vultus et conversae ad omnia aures ; non tumultus, non quies, quale magni metus et magnae irae silentium est.
i, 82 : Postera die velut capta urbe clausae domus, rarus per vias populus, maesta plebs ; deiecti in terram militum vul- tus ac plus tristitiae quam paenitentiae.
2,13: Quippe in acie nihil praedae, inopes agrestes et vilia arma, nee, etc.
Vol. xxxiv.] Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis. 1 7
2, 19: lamque totis castris modesti sermon es, et . . . lau- dari providentia ducis, quod, etc.
2, 22 : Vixdum orto die plena propugnatoribus moenia, ful- gentes armis virisque campi.
2, 38 : Modo turbulent! tribuni modo consules praevalidi, et in urbe ac foro temptamenta civilium bellorum.
2, 41 : Apud Othonianos pavidi duces, miles ducibus in- fensus, mixta vehicula et lixae et praeruptis utrimque fossis via quieto quoque agmini angusta. Circumsistere alii signa sua, quaerere alii; incertus undique clamor adcurrentium vocantium.
2, 89: Quattuor legionum aquilae per frontem totidemque circa e legionibus aliis vexilla, mox duodecim alarum signa et post peditum ordines eques, dein quattuor et triginta cohortes, etc. . . . Decora facies et non Vitellio principe dignus exercitus.
3, 22 : Proelium tota nocte varium anceps atrox, his, rursus illis exitiabile. . . . Eadem utraque acie arma, crebris inter- rogationibus notum pugnae signum, permixta vexilla, etc.
3, 67 : voces populi blandae et intempestivae, miles minaci silentio.
3, 83 : Saeva ac deformis urbe tota facies : alibi proelia et vulnera, alibi balineae popinaeque ; simul cruor et strues cor- porum, iuxta scorta et scortis similes ; quantum in luxurioso otio libidinum, quidquid in acerbissima captivitate scelerum, prorsus ut, etc.1
4, i : plenae caedibus viae, cruenta fora templaque, etc.
5, 13: Obstinatio viris feminisque par ac . . . maior vitae metus quam mortis.
In the Annals the same mode of description is employed with great frequency :
Book i, 49: Diversa omnium, quae umquam accidere, civi- lium armorum facies. . . . Clamor vulnera sanguis palam, causa in occulto ; . . . permissa vulgo licentia atque ultio et satietas.
i, 6 1 : Medio campi albentia ossa, ut fugerant, ut resti-
i Cf. p. 20 (Hist. 3, 30).
1 8 Frank Gardner Moore. [I9°3
terant, disiecta vel aggerata. . . . Lucis propinquis barbarae arae, aput quas, etc.
i, 64: Contra Cheruscis sueta aput paludes proelia, procera membra, hastae ingentes, etc.
1, 65 : Neque is miseriarum finis. Struendum vallum, petendus agger; . . . non tentoria manipulis, non fomenta sauciis, etc.
2, 20-21 : utrisque necessitas in loco, spes in virtute, salus ex victoria. Nee minor Germanis animus, etc.
2, 80 : Contra veterani ordinibus ac subsidiis instructi : hinc militum, inde locorum asperitas, sed non animus, non spes, ne tela quidem nisi agrestia, aut subitum in usum pro- perata.
3, 4 : Dies, quo reliquiae [Germanici] tumulo Augusti in- ferebantur, modo per silentium vastus, modo ploratibus inquies ; plena urbis itinera, conlucentes per campum Martis faces.
4, 25 : Ab Romanis confertus pedes, dispositae turmae, cuncta proelio provisa : hostibus contra omnium nesciis non arma, non ordo, non consilium, sed pecorum modo trahi occidi capi.
4, 62-63 : . . . lamentari . . . pavere . . . ; nequedum comperto, quos ilia vis perculisset, latior ex incerto metus. Ut coepere dimoveri obruta, concursus ad exanimos complec- tentium, osculantium ; et saepe certamen, etc.
4, 67 : Caeli temperies hieme mitis . . . aestas in favonium obversa et aperto circum pelago peramoena.
4, 70: Quo intendisset oculos, quo verba acciderent, fuga vastitas ; deseri itinera fora.
12, 7: adductum et quasi virile servitium. Palam severitas ac saepius superbia; nihil domi inpudicum, nisi domination! expediret.
14, 63 : turn ancilla domina validior et Poppaea non nisi in perniciem uxoris nupta, postremo crimen omni exitio gravius.1
1 Nipperdey supplies patienda fuerunf, or an equivalent. But the aggrava- tions of Octavia's lot might be merely enumerated, without any distinct thought of a predicate.
Vol. xxxiv.] Studies in Tacitcan Ellipsis, 19
1 6, 13: Non sexus, non aetas periculo vacua. Servitia perinde et ingenua plebes raptim exstingui, etc.
1 6, 29: non ilia nota et crebritate periculorum sueta iam senatus maestitia, sed novus et altior pavor manus et tela militum cernentibus.
The same mode of description in broad lines is also to be found on a larger scale, or with a more obviously pictorial intention, especially where a state of feeling is described, and the impressions of spectators dwelt upon ; also in summariz- ing conditions. •
Thus in the Histories i, 4, — the feeling in Rome after the death of Nero : Sed patres laeti usurpata statim libertate licen- tius ut erga principem novum et absentem ; primores equitum proximi gaudio patrum ; pars populi integra et magnis domi- bus adnexa, clientes libertique damnatorum et exulum in spem erecti: plebs sordida et circo ac theatris sueta, simul deter- rimi servorum, aut qui adesis bonis per dedecus Neronis ale- bantur, maesti et rumorum avidi.1
Of the impression made by Galba's entry into the city, with a glance at the unusual military conditions in the city, I, 6: Tardum Galbae iter et cruentum interf ectis Cingonio Varrone, etc. . . . Introitus in urbem trucidatis tot milibus inermium militum infaustus omine atque ipsis etiam, qui occiderant, for- midolosus. Inducta legione Hispana, remanente ea, quam e classe Nero conscripserat, plena urbs exercitu insolito ; multi ad hoc numeri e Germania, etc. . . . ingens novis rebus ma- teria, etc.
In picturing conditions at the court of Galba, i, 7: Venalia cuncta, praepotentes liberti, servorum manus subitis avidae et tamquam apud senem festinantes, eademque novae aulae mala, aeque gravia, non aeque excusata.
Of the state of things on the eve of Otho's departure from Rome i, 88 : Igitur motae urbis curae ; nullus ordo metu aut periculo vacuus : primores senatus aetate invalidi et longa pace desides, segnis et oblita bellorum nobilitas, ignarus mili- tiae eques, quanto magis occultare et abdere pavorem nite-
1 Heraeus4 supplies erant with laeti, which reduces a vivid picture in outline to the level of mere statement of fact.
2O Frank Gardner Moore. [1903
bantur, manifestius pavidi. . . . Sapientibus quietis et rei publicae cura; levissimus quisque et futuri improvidus spe vana tumens ; multi adflicta fide in pace anxii, turbatis rebus alacres et per incerta tutissimi.
In 2, 70, the gruesome description of Vitellius's visit to the battlefield of Bedriacum : Inde Vitellius Cremonam flexit et . . . insistere Bedriacensibus cam pis ac vestigia recentis vic- toriae lustrare oculis concupivit,1 foedum atque atrox specta- culum. Intra quadragensimum pugnae diem lacera corpora, trun«i artus, putres virorum equorumque formae, infecta tabo humus, protritis arboribus ac frugibus dira vastitas. Nee minus inhumana pars viae, quam Cremonenses lauru rosaque constraverant, etc.
Vitellius's army marching out of Rome is thus described, 2, 99: Longe alia proficiscentis ex urbe Germanici exercitus species : non vigor corporibus, non ardor animis ; lentum et rarum agmen, fluxa arma, segnes equi ; inpatiens solis pulveris tempestatum, quantumque hebes ad sustinendum laborem miles, tanto ad discordias promptior.
In the account of the siege of Cremona, 3, 30 : Ac rursus nova laborum f acies : ardua urbis moenia, saxeae turres, fer- rati portarum obices, vibrans tela miles, frequens obstrictus- que Vitellianis partibus Cremonensis populus, magna pars Italiae stato in eosdem dies mercatu congregata, etc.2
1 Meiser punctuates with a full stop after concupivit, and a colon after diem. But the question is immaterial for the purpose in hand, since we have already had examples of nominatives in a series after a preceding accusative, instead of accu- satives in apposition; cf. pp. 10, 22-25.
2 Cf. p. 17 (Hist. 3, 83). In 3, 33, in the horrible scenes of the sack of Cre- mona occurs a sentence of vivid narrative in infinitives of intimation, into the midst of which is interjected the phrase faces in manibus, — a bit of description (cf. Ann. 3, 4, above, p. 18). In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the explana- tion that this stands for faces in manibus habentes (gerentes, tenentes), apparently unsupported by certain parallels, it may not be out of place to suggest that, if we could divest ourselves of habit, and take the infinitives, not as tenses of narration, but of mere picturesque suggestion, as a Roman doubtless did, it would not seem altogether strange to have such intimating infinitives (nominative) followed by an intimating nominative of another substantive, even singly, and accompanied only by a prepositional phrase. This would be an extreme example, only to be justified by the intense feeling provoked by the story. The passage is : Quidam
Vol. xxxiv.] Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis. 2 1
Among the scenes of the revolt under Civilis, Tacitus gives us this picture, 4, 62 : Quippe intra vallum deformitas haud perinde notabilis : detexit ignominiam campus et dies. Re- vulsae imperatorum imagines, inhonora signa, fulgentibus hinc inde Gallorum vexillis; silens agmen et velut longae exsequiae ; dux Claudius Sanctus effosso oculo dims ore, ingenio debilior.
From the Annals not a few such descriptions may be quoted. Of conditions in the last days of Augustus, 1,3: Domi res tranquillae, eadem magistratuum vocabula ; iuniores post Actiacam victoriam, etiam senes plerique inter bella civium nati : quotus quisque reliquus, qui rem publicam vidisset? Igitur verso civitatis statu nihil usquam prisci et integri moris ; omnes exuta aequalitate iussa principis aspec- tare, etc.
An impression of the reign of Augustus is given in 1,9, in oratio obliqua : Non regno tamen neque dictatura, sed prin- cipis nomine constitutam rem publicam ; mari Oceano aut amnibus longinquis saeptum imperium ; legiones provincias classes, cuncta inter se conexa; ius aput cives, modestiam aput socios ; urbem ipsam magnifico ornatu ; pauca admodum vi tractata, quo ceteris quies esset.
Another, from the opposite point of view, in chapter 10, abounds in ellipses of esse, but does not have the pictorial effect.
In a historical resume in descriptive terms, 3, 27-28 : Hinc Gracchi et Saturnini, turbatores plebis, nee minor largitor nomine senatus Drusus ; corrupti spe aut inlusi per interces- sionem socii, etc. . . . lamque non modo in commune, sed in singulos homines latae quaestiones ; et corruptissima re publica plurimae leges. . . . Exin continua per viginti annos discordia; non mos, non ius; deterrima quaeque inpune ac multa honesta exitio fuere.
Again a sketch of conditions under Tiberius, 4, 6-7 : Sua consulibus, sua praetoribus species ; minorum quoque magis-
obvia aspernati verberibus tormentisque dominorum abdita scrutari, Jefossa eruere, faces in manibus, quas, etc. (Heraeus8 omits the comma after eruere. Cf. Clemm, op. cit. p. 49.)
22 Frank Gardner Moore. L19°3
tratuum exercita potestas ; legesque, si maiestatis quaestio eximeretur, bono in usu. . . . Rari per Italiam Caesaris agri, modesta servitia, intra paucos libertos domus ; ac si quando cum privatis disceptaret, forum et ius.
No bolder example of the impressionist manner in descrip- tion can be found in Tacitus than Annals i, 41, in the account of the departure of Agrippina and the other women from Cologne at the time of the mutiny : Non florentis Caesaris neque suis in castris, sed velut in urbe victa f acies ; gemitus- que ac planctus etiam militum aures oraque advertere. Pro- grediuntur contuberniis. Quis ille flebilis sonus ? quid tarn triste ? Feminas inlustres ; non centurionem ad tutelam, non militem, nihil imperatoriae uxoris aut comitatus solid. Per- gere ad Treviros et externam fidem. Pudor inde et miseratio et patris Agrippae, Augusti avi memoria ; socer Drusus ; ipsa insigni f ecunditate, praeclara pudicitia ; iam inf ans in castris genitus, in contubernio legionum eductus, quern militari voca- bulo Caligulam appellabant, etc. Here the last enumeratio, — socer Drusus, ipsa, inf ans, is given as it presented itself to the minds of the conscience-stricken soldiers, and yet the histo- rian seems to have deliberately avoided the oratio obliqua, even after such words as pudor, miseratio, memorial
Another of the most important passages is Histories 2, 6. There is first a summary of conditions in the East from the time of the civil wars. This is followed by brief mention, in historical infinitives, of the altered feelings of the eastern legions, — their awakening to a consciousness of their own resources. Then an enumeratio, in a series of nominatives, not appositives to the preceding accusative, vires suas. It is a catalogue pure and simple, grammatically as incomplete as any index, but rhetorically most effective, and giving every evidence of study. But to quote the entire passage : Nulla seditio legionum ; tantum adversus Parthos minae vario eventu, et proximo civili bello turbatis aliis inconcussa ibi pax,
1 Cf. Ann. 15, 5, where a series {Irritum obsidium; tutus manu et copiis Tigranes ; fugati, qui expugnationem sumpseranf) really represents the enumera- tion of disadvantages in the mind of Vologaeses, as is shown by an almost imme- diate lapse into indirect discourse (sibi inbecillum equitem, etc.).
Vol. xxxiv.] Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis, 23
dein fides erga Galbam. Mox, ut Othonem ac Vitellium scelestis armis res Romanas raptum ire vulgatum est, ne penes ceteros imperil praemia, penes ipsos tantum servitii necessitas esset, fremere miles et vires suas circumspicere : septem legiones statim et cum ingentibus auxiliis Suria ludaea- que, inde continua Aegyptus duaeque legiones, hinc Cappa- docia Pontusque, et quidquid castrorum Armeniis praetendi- tur, Asia et ceterae provinciae nee virorum inopes et pecunia opulentae, quantum insularum mari cingitur, et parando in- terim bello secundum tutumque ipsum mare.
Finally, if after all these specimens of Tacitus's manner in descriptive passages, we turn to the opening chapters of the first book of the Histories, and read his charac- terization of the whole period which he proposes to cover, it is almost impossible to resist the conclusion that that passage also belongs with those we have been consider- ing, in spite of its extraordinary extent, — that it is, in other words, not a narrative in epitome, but a vivid pic- ture, painted with the same methods which he so constantly uses elsewhere. The second and third chapters show a complete suppression of verbs, with the exception of the brief opening sentence : Opus adgredior opimnm casibus, etc., and a concluding reflection at the end of chapter three. Between these limits there are more than two hundred words. If one begins upon the officious task of inserting erat, erant, est, sunt, he finds that even with a reasonable economy of verbs some fifteen insertions will have to be made, and the result would be a Livian epitome, — such an epitome, to be sure, as Livy himself might have written, a condensed, but still highly rhetorical narrative. That the thought of narra- tion was far from the mind of Tacitus would be suggested at once by the absence of simple perfects. More significant still is the general character which pervades the whole. And yet the passage cannot be classed with characterizations of the familiar type, owing to the exclusion of imperfects. What in another situation might be mere statement of fact, is here graphic enumeration of the features of an entire period. It must be regarded as an enumeratio partium on
24 Frank Gardner Moore. [1903
the largest scale. And if the scale is without parallel, there was surely much to justify it here, in this rapid survey of all the reigns to be included in the Histories.
The fact that opus . . . opimum is not followed by accusa- tives in free apposition, but by an unbroken series of nomina- tives is precisely paralleled by several instances which we have already examined.1 An objective writer might have drifted into a tame series of loose appositives, or directly into matter-of-fact statement. The intensely subjective Tacitus notes down in bold strokes his own impressions, — what he saw as he scanned the horizon of his Histories, what he willed that his readers should see as with his eyes. The dark side of his picture he presents in the second chapter ; the brighter lights are added in the third. And the whole, under this interpretation, becomes the greatest single work of the master of impressionism.
On the other hand every edition to which the writer has had access2 distributes periods with such a lavish hand through this entire passage as to show that the editors are apparently agreed in understanding chapters two and three as a narrative, strikingly rhetorical, highly finished and gen- eral in character, but still a narrative, — an abridged version of the whole work. It becomes necessary then to supply the omitted verbs ; but the commentators, to whom this ungrate- ful duty would seem naturally to fall, content themselves with remarking on the omission of a stray erat, etc., perhaps in chapter three, as though the second had not been full of similar ellipses.3 The inadequacy of such comment, the absence of any remark upon the passage as a whole, of any citation of parallels, seem unaccountable. One is left to con- clude that the editors have seen nothing extraordinary in an epitome as a feature of a preface, — or else, and more prob- ably, have contrived, in spite of their punctuation and inter- pretation, to gain the picturesque effect which seems to be so much more completely realized, if all idea of narration is
1 Cf. pp. 20, n. i, 22.
2 Including Meiser, Gantrelle, Wolff, and van der Vliet (1901). 8 Cf. Heraeus * on 3 init.
Vol. xxxiv.] Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis. 2$
discarded in favor of pictorial description, and the pointing revised to indicate an unbroken enumeration.
With such changes in punctuation the passage would run as follows :
(2) Opus adgredior opimum casibus, atrox proeliis, discors seditionibus, ipsa etiam pace saevum : quattuor principes ferro interempti ; trina bella ci villa, plura externa ac plerumque permixta ; prosperae in Oriente, adversae in Occidente res ; turbatum Illyricum, Galliae nutantes, perdomita Britannia et statim omissa ; coortae in nos Sarmatarum ac Sueborum gentes, nobili- tatus cladibus mutuis Dacus, mota prope etiam Parthorum arma falsi Neronis ludibrio ; iam vero Italia novis cladibus vel post longam saeculorum seriem repetitis adflicta ; hausta aut obruta [urbes] fecundissima Campaniae ora, et urbs incendiis vastata, consumptis antiquissimis delubris, ipso Capitolio civium manibus incenso ; pollutae caerimoniae, magna adulteria; plenum exiliis mare, infecti caedibus scopuli; atrocius in urbe saevitum; nobilitas, opes, omissi gestique honores pro crimine et ob virtutes certissimum exi- tium ; nee minus pfaemia delatorum invisa quam scelera, cum alii sacerdo- tia et consulatus ut spolia adepti, procurationes alii et interiorem potentiam, agerent verterent cuncta odio et terrore ; corrupti in dominos servi, in patronos liberti, et quibus deerat inimicus, per amicos oppressi. (3) Non tamen adeo virtutum sterile saeculum, ut non et bona exempla prodiderit ; comitatae profugos liberos matres, secutae maritos in exilia coniuges ; pro- pinqui audentes, constantes generi, contumax etiam adversus tormenta servorum fides ; supremae clarorum virorum necessitates, ipsae neces for- titer toleratae et laudatis antiquorum mortibus pares exitus ; praeter mul- tiplices rerum humanarum casus caelo terraque prodigia et fulminum monitus et futurorum praesagia, laeta tristia, ambigua manifesta ; nee enim umquam atrocioribus popult Romani cladibus magisve iustis indiciis adpro- batum est non esse curae deis securitatem nostram, esse ultionem.
Such is Tacitus's sombre picture of the revolution year and the Flavian period.1 That the great pessimist would have only wrath and contempt for the editorial assumption of real ellipses throughout such a passage, seems to need no further demonstration. But instead of attempting to draw distinc- tions between ellipses, nominal and real, it would be better if we had a convenient name for these nominatives. The term "nom- inative absolute" has been employed; but even in its Latin
1 Cf. Wolfflin, Sitzungsber. der kgl. bayer. Akad.t 1901, I. § 2: "eine ge- drangte Uebetsicht des Charakters der flavischen Periode : die schweren Schick- salsschlage, welche die Stadt, Italien und das Reich trafen, und als Gegenbild der gesunkenen Moralitat Zuge antiker Tugend," u.s.w.
26 Frank Gardner Moore. [1903
dress this is open to objection, since if the scope of our gram- mars is extended to late Latin, the term is required to desig- nate a use analogous to the ablative absolute, and the genitive and accusative absolute of vulgar and late writers.1 And in an English form the phrase would give rise to endless con- fusion with our own construction of the same name. " Nom- inative of intimation " has been more than once suggested above, in view of similar functions and* frequent association with infinitives of intimation. And if the grammars of the new century can be supposed to trouble themselves about a Latin terminology, we may propose the corresponding nomi- nativus adumbrativus.
In conclusion one cannot fail to observe that this rhetorical mode of description was more freely used by Tacitus in the Histories than in the Annals;* that the most conspicuous example of all stands at the very beginning of the Histories, and in close chronological connection with the picturesqueness of the Germania. This method was, in other words, the prod- uct of his most rhetorical period. Its appropriateness for an age in which the recitatio flourished, and every writing was judged first and foremost by its effect upon the ear, will be granted without argument. Given the ready apprehension of the southern races, and their impatience of dull statement where a hint suffices, the wonder is that the fin-de-siecle description does not play a more important role in Roman prose.
1 An actual nominative absolute (for the ablative) appears to be first found in Lucifer of Cagliari (t370> cf. Schmalz, in Stolz und Schmalz, Lateinischc Grammatik, § 98, An. 3.
2 In general it has been noted that ellipsis of the verb " to be " becomes rarer in the later books of the Annals; cf. Wetzell's statistics, op. cit. pp. 25, 32; Stuhl, op. cit. p. 29.
Vol. xxxiv.] Wor£-accent in Catullus 's Galliambics. 27
II. — Word-accent in Catullus' s Galliambics. BY PROF. THOMAS DWIGHT GOODELL,
YALE UNIVERSITY.
THE object of this paper is to state as simply as possible, with the minimum of discussion, the relations found to exist between word-accent and the rhythmical structure in the Attis of Catullus (carm. 63). Elsewhere (Chapters on Greek Metric, pp. 165 ff.) I have called attention to the fact that Horace in his one poem in ionic verse (carm. Ill 12) makes every word-accent fall on one of the three beats of the ionic foot. For an accented long syllable or a long monosyllable that is a necessity and of no significance ; but for accented short syllables, in the penult of an iambic or pyrrhic word or in an antepenult, the case is different. Throughout this one poem every accented short syllable (21 instances) is the former of the recurrent pair which the meter requires, never the latter ; that is, it coincides in every instance with the beat, or with the first half of the divided beat, though in other meters Horace did not hold himself to any such rule. In Catullus the principle is the same, but the matter is not quite so simple, and there are exceptions. Yet it seems clear that Catullus intended to make the word-accent a dis- tinct assistance to his readers in following the wild and shift- ing movement. So far as I have seen, this has not been pointed out; and the schemes hitherto given for the poem, disregarding this principle, make the rhythm of some lines difficult instead of everywhere comparatively simple to render.
To make this plain let me first clear the ground by explain- ing terms. The fundamental form of the verse is shown in the following scheme, in which the feet are marked off as in modern music (since that method makes plainer to the eye the relation of the anaclastic feet), and the invariable caesura is marked by a comma.
28 Thomas Dwight Goodell.' [I9°3
In this scheme any long except the last, and except the two that immediately precede the main caesura, may be resolved ; any two shorts may be combined into one long, though the two shorts following the main caesura are not often so combined. Thus the verse has two stable places, two longs before the caesura, one long (of course anceps) at the end ; all else is free, and a great number of combinations are made by Catullus, though not all possible ones.
Farther, to remove all ambiguity from the statement of the law, we will say that each ionic foot has three beats, two for the thesis and one for the arsis, and each trochaic dipody has two beats, a down-beat on the first trochee, an up-beat on the second trochee. I do not mean thereby to assert that the ancients beat the time of the anaclastic feet in this way. I do not know whether they did or not ; I am merely defining a term of my statement of the law in question. Finally, when a long is resolved into two short syllables, it will be convenient to say that the beat coincides with the first of the two shorts, since on that syllable the beat begins.
With this understanding of terms the law is, for Catullus as for Horace, that an accented short syllable regularly coincides with a beat. Horace in his perfectly regular ionics allows no exceptions. Catullus allows exceptions in the case of iambic words, and of pyrrhic words made iambic by position or by standing at the end of the line ; these would by the law be excluded from the verse ; but Catullus admits them under certain restrictions. That such iambic words have elsewhere something peculiar about their metrical treatment is well known to Latinists, and I will not dwell upon the fact.
The following lines will amply illustrate the rule and the exceptions :
i. super alta uectus Attis celeri rate maria
\j \j I __ \j _ ^ | __ ^_ 9 \^ v^ | __ v^ w v./ w i ._
3. adiitque opaca siluis redimita loca deae
Vol. xxxiv.] Word-accent in Catullus 's Galliambics. 29
ii. canere haec suis adorta est tremebunda comitibus
w w | — \j — w I , w w I \_/ w w w I
22. tibicen ubi canit Phryx curuo graue calamo
— I — vy w w w | »_|_w\^ vy w | _
30. viridem citus adit Idam properante pede chorus
w vy I — ww w w I 1 w \^» | vy vy vy vy |
39. sed ubi oris aurei sol radiantibus oculis
46. liquidaque mente uidit sine quis ubique foret
w w | _ w_w I , ww|_w w vy w | _
60. abero foro, palaestra, stadio, et gymnasiis ?
63. ego mulier, ego adolescens, ego ephebus, ego puer.
vywlwww vywwl i v/w I _ w wwv^|_
It is evident that the combination _ w w w ^, occurring where anaclasis may be expected, is on the score of quantities alone ambiguous. It may stand for an ionic a majors by resolution of the second long, or it may stand for a trochaic dipody by resolution of the long of the second trochee. Some editors have in all such cases assumed the latter alternative, and have so marked the ictuses. He who takes this alterna- tive finds my rule falsified in many cases, as in the very first line. Which of us is wrong ?
I should begin the argument by asking, Why assume ana- clasis in all these cases ? He who does so takes on himself the burden of proof. We have no authority for assuming anaclasis in every galliambic line. For example, of the two lines cited by Hephaistion (p. 39 W.) as illustrations of this verse,
ToAAat fjirjTpbs opciijs (friXoOvpcroi opo/mocs, ats fvrfa TrarayetTai KCU
the first is not anaclastic in either half, and the second is in both halves of precisely this ambiguous type. And in Catul- lus, line 60 is not anaclastic in the second half, and in line 18,
30 Thomas D wight Goodell. [J903
where the text is doubtful, the first half is not anaclastic if aere be read :
hilarate aere citatis erroribus animum.
\J \J | W V-< | » | \J \J \J \J |
In short, while anaclasis was admitted freely and perhaps even preferred, there is no evidence for the notion that it was any more strongly preferred in this than in other ionic rhythms. The shifting from anaclastic to plain ionic feet in different lines contributes to the wildness of effect desired. And on the positive side I should say that the evidence of the unambiguous lines in favor of my rule justifies the belief that the rule was observed in these ambiguous cases. There is no evidence against this belief ; the application of the rule in such cases makes the rhythm clear at a glance and raises no difficulty, while it makes the practice of the poet harmoni- ous throughout the composition. The word-accents will then in such cases determine whether the foot is anaclastic or not; lines i, n, 22, 39 are therefore not anaclastic in the second half, lines 3, 30, 46, 63 are ; in the first half, line 30 is not anaclastic, lines 22 and 63 are ; and so in other cases.
The number and distribution of iambic words forming exceptions to the rule are interesting. In the 93 lines of the poem occur about 70 such cases. Differences of reading affect the figures slightly, but the precise numbers are not important enough to make it worth while to enter into the subject here. Their distribution is shown in the following scheme :
w w I — w — w I i w w I w — w I —
3 27 9 2 29
The last half-line contains some 31, of which 29 end the line, and two (in lines 64 and 72) make the second and third syllable after the caesura. About 39 cases occur in the first half of the line, of which about 27 are found in the anaklo- menos, and form the short of the first trochee and the long of the second trochee. Nine make the final short of the anaklo- menos and the long immediately following, while three are the second and third syllables of the line. These marked
Vol. xxxiv.] Word-accent in Catullus' s Galliambics. 3 1
preferences as regards location of the exceptional iambic words appear to have some significance, but I am not quite certain what. The large proportion, nearly 39 per cent, occurring in that one place in the anaklomcnos, may have a bearing on the question of the ancient method of beating time in such anaclastic feet; but no great weight can be given to this consideration, since a slightly larger number close the line, while none occur in the corresponding place in the second anaklomcnos.
It is worth noting also that the total number of these cases is in part made up by the recurrence of a few almost neces- sary words, like deae deitm, domum domo, fcrnm fera, era eram erat, fui fui t, met mea mettm. It is notable, too, that these iambic words are far more frequent in the lines where the tone of excitement is most marked; lines 50-73, the lament of Attis, contain 26 cases, or 37 per cent of the cases in not quite 26 percent of the lines. Line 55 contains three cases, as does line 92.
Finally, two other apparent exceptions to the rule must be considered briefly. The word ub(i} occurs thrice (lines 39, 67, 87) and ag(e) once (line 93) before a vowel, thus becom- ing metrically monosyllabic. In 39 and 87 this quasi-mono- syllable is the second syllable of the initial pair of short syllables ; in 67 and 93 it is the first short of the first anaklo- menos. As monosyllables these words hardly come under the rule at all ; wherever they are full disyllables they con- form to it, as in 21-25, and the second occurrence of age in 93. In line 64 we have a case not so readily disposed of. If we read
ego gymnasi fui flos, ego eram decus olei,
the second word, a trisyllable, violates the rule. The Mss. vary in details here too much to constitute any authority for the precise spelling gymnasi. If we may read gymnasii, and take fui as a monosyllable, we shall have the rule fully ob- served by gymnasii as by gymnasiis in 60. The scheme would then be
32 Thomas D wight Goodell. [*9°3
At first sight it seems violent to make fui a monosyllable ; but instances of this occur, as CIL. I. 1194, in the line (as given by F. D. Allen, Remnants of Early Latin, no. 139, p. 62),
fui parens domineis s^nibus, huic autem 6psequens.
Here also, by the way, the word-accents clearly mark the rhythm. My colleague, Professor Peck, to whom I owe this reference, also reminds me that monosyllabic suis is an exact parallel, while the varying treatment of huic is very similar, and that the comedians not infrequently treated fui and fuit as monosyllables, as Plautus in Trin. 106, 619, 1090. I do not, however, urge this remedy ; it is possible that in this wildest part of the poem Catullus admitted this irregularity to enhance the desired effect. And the irregularity would appear the slighter, because this relation between ictus and accent seems to have been traditional1 for genitives like
gymnast with the metrical value _ w
But after noting all possible exceptions, it remains true that the general relation of word-accent to the beats, when once observed, makes it easy to read the poem in true galliambic rhythm ; and this is the main thing. The prose accents locate so many of the beats that the rest take care of them- selves. One is even obliged to look very closely to find the exceptions ; I am not sure that I have caught them all, so elusive are they after one gets the general swing.
1 For the facts in Plautus and Terence see Pease, Proceedings of this Associa- tion, 1898, p. xxvi.
Vol. xxxiv.] Succession of Spartan Nanarchs. 33
HI. — The Succession of Spartan Nanarchs in Hellenica I. BY PROF. CARLETON L. BROWNSON,
COLLEGE OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK.
IN 1879 Julius Beloch established the proposition that the normal tenure of the Spartan nauarchs was yearly (R/tein. Museum, XXXIV.). His demonstration was accepted as conclusive by such scholars as Curtius (Gr. Gesch. II.6 88 1), Gilbert (Staatsalt. I. 64), and Holm (Bursian's Jahrcsber. 1880, III. 352), and the general soundness of his rule that the nauarchia was an annual office has not, I think, been ques- tioned. But the rule does not appear to be strictly observed during the important years from 41 1 to 404 B.C. Beloch him- self contended (Philologiis, XLIII.)that it was, but he did not offer adequate proof to support his contention, nor has any one else done so. If such proof could be presented, it would go far toward settling the long-disputed chronology of this period.
The conditions of the problem are these : in his account of the seven years from 411 to 404 Xenophon mentions by title five Spartan nauarchs, — Mindarus, Cratesippidas, Lysander, Callicratidas, and Aracus. Besides these five, a certain Pasip- pidas is referred to in such a way as to indicate quite clearly that he also was a regularly commissioned nauarch. Accord- ingly, we have but six nauarchs instead of the seven required by Beloch's rule of annual tenure. It is therefore assumed by those who have discussed the subject that the rule is here violated, that some one of the six nauarchs mentioned held office for two years. I believe, however, that such is not the case. -^
In the conflict of opinions, it is agreed on all sides that Mind'arus was chosen nauarch for the year 411-410, Calli- cratidas for the year 406-405, and Aracus for the year 405- 404. The question, then, is as to the terms of the three remaining officers, Pasippidas, Cratesippidas and Lysander,
34 Carleton L. Brownson. [i9°3
which apparently must be forced in some way to fill the space of four years from 410 to 406. The process of reasoning from the certain to the uncertain may most conveniently begin with Callicratidas and work backward from the time of his command. His appointment is mentioned by Xenophon in I. 6. i of the Hellenica, where he says : "In the next year [quite certainly 406], Lysander's term having expired, the Lacedaemonians sent out Callicratidas to command the ships." Therefore, since the nauarch held office for a year, Lysander's term was the year 407-406. This conclusion is also distinctly indicated by the whole narrative, contained in Chapter V., of Lysander's doings as nauarch. Going backward a step far- ther, we find it stated in I. 5. i that Lysander was sent out as nauarch on the expiration of Cratesippidas's term. Again we should say, relying upon the established rule of annual tenure, that Cratesippidas must have held office during the year 408-407. But when we search for corroborative evidence to support this conclusion, we seem at first to find exactly the opposite. For Xenophon records the appointment of Crate- sippidas in the very first chapter of the Hellenica (I. i. 32), in connection with events which belong quite clearly to the year 410. Therefore, it would appear that Cratesippidas's term covered no less than three years, from 410 to 407. If so, of course Beloch's rule of annual tenure breaks down entirely. Here, then, is the crucial point, the point which must be examined most carefully.
We are not aided at all by. any reference to Cratesippidas's doings as nauarch. For he is absolutely unmentioned from I. i. 32, where his appointment is alluded to, to I. 5. i, where he gives place to his successor. We have no resource, therefore, except to go back to the very beginning of the Hellenica and examine the events which preceded his assump- tion of the command. It will be remembered that Xenophon's story opens with a description of various operations in the Hellespont, terminating in the battle of Cyzicus (410 B.C.). The Spartan nauarch, Mindarus, is killed in this battle, and his epistoleus, Hippocrates, sends to the ephors the famous despatch recording the loss of the Peloponnesian ships and the
Vol. xxxiv.] Succession of Spartan Nauarchs. 35
desperate condition of the men. Xenophon then goe's on to tell of the aid rendered to the Spartans by Pharnabazus, the building of new ships at Antandrus, and the receipt mean- while of the news that Hermocrates and the other leaders of the Syracusan contingent of the Peloponnesian fleet had been .exiled from Syracuse. Turning then to events which took place at a distance from the main seat of war, Xenophon pro- ceeds thus (I. I. 32): " In Thasos at about this time a revolu- tion took place, and the Spartan party were driven out, also Eteonicus, the Spartan harmost. And Pasippidas, the Spartan, was accused of having brought this about with the aid of Tissaphernes, and was consequently exiled from Sparta. As for the fleet which he [Pasippidas] had collected from the allies, Cratesippidas was sent out to take command of it, and he received it in Chios." We see, therefore, that between the term of Mindarus (41 1-410) and that of Cratesippidas, whose dates must still be left uncertain, comes another nauarch, Pasippidas. If his period of command can be determined, an important step has been taken toward the solution of the problem. But let it first be noted that Xenophon clearly means to put the Thasian revolution in the same year as the battle of Cyzicus (410 B.C.). The exile of Pasippidas and the appointment of Cratesippidas followed this revolution ; but whether immediately or after an interval, short or long, we cannot determine from the language of the passage I have quoted. Xenophon frequently confuses the topical and the annalistic methods in the Hellenica ; the three events here related — the Thasian revolution, the exile of one nauarch and the appointment of another — may be grouped together simply because they depend one upon another ; the second and third may well have taken place a year or two years after the first. After all, therefore, the conclusion which we have already reached, that Cratesippidas held office for the year 408-407, is at least not absolutely forbidden by the language
the passage just quoted ; it remains to be seen whether it can be confirmed by any arguments tending to fix the term of his predecessor in the nauarchia, Pasippidas.
As to this Pasippidas, we may say at the outset that in all
36 Carleton L. Brownson. [19°3
probability he was not sent out to collect ships from Sparta's allies until some time after the battle of Cyzicus. In fact, it must have been some time before the result of that battle was known at Sparta. For Hippocrates, epistolens under Mindarus, was evidently left without even a despatch boat. He did manage, we know not how, to send off a message to the ephors, but it was intercepted by the Athenians. When at length the ephors did receive the news, they sent an embassy to Athens to propose terms of peace. Possibly they might have done this and nevertheless prepared at the same time to continue the war by giving Pasippidas the commission referred to. But that was hardly Sparta's way. She was not only, as Thucydides remarks, slow to follow up an advan- tage, but also slow to recover energy after a reverse. More- over, recognizing that the sea was not her element, she was always most unreasonably discouraged by a naval defeat, and never more than half willing to maintain a fleet at all. So after the battle of Arginusae she was ready to abandon the struggle with Athens, weak as the latter then was. So after the loss of her fleet at Pylos she had completely given up naval warfare for no less than a dozen years. Here at Cyzicus again she had lost her entire fleet, and the ephors must have thought once again of abandoning the sea altogether. It would have been very strange if they had not at least sus- pended any further naval preparations pending the peace negotiations with Athens. These negotiations took some time ; and after they had failed, Sparta might well have delayed still longer, perhaps considerably longer, before send- ing out Pasippidas to relieve Hippocrates and undertake the gathering of a new fleet. Besides, Hippocrates, a man who later proved himself a brave and efficient officer, was already on the ground. Upon the death of Mindarus he, as epistolens, had succeeded to the chief command, just as Eteonicus suc- ceeded Callicratidas after Arginusae, just as the epistoleus regularly succeeded the nauarch in case of need. Sparta, seldom energetic, might well have preferred to leave him in command at a time when naval success, if it could be thought of at all, seemed so far in the future.
Vol. xxxiv.] Succession of Spartan Nauarchs. 37
It is most probable, therefore, that a considerable period elapsed after the battle of Cyzicus before Pasippidas received his commission. If so, it is all but impossible that he could have collected a fleet from scattered allies of Sparta when the Athenians absolutely commanded the sea, that he could have been suspected of complicity in the Thasian revolt, accused in Sparta, tried, condemned to exile, and succeeded by Crate- sippidas, all within the same year (410) in which the battle of Cyzicus was fought. Even if he had been commissioned as soon as the news of Cyzicus reached Sparta, it would still be extremely difficult to crowd all these later experiences of his into the remainder of the year 410. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that when Xenophon speaks of his condemnation and the succession of Cratesippidas in connection with the Thasian revolt of 410, he merely follows, as we have already suspected, a topical arrangement, and does not mean to ascribe either of the two later events to the same year as the first. But if these later events do not belong to the year 410, neither do they necessarily belong to the year immediately following. The supposed chronological restraint is entirely removed, and we are free to follow the evidence already cited that Crate- sippidas only became nauarch two years afterward, in 408. Pasippidas's term may then be the year 409-408, a conclusion which accords well with the indications which have just been reviewed.
But it will be objected that if Pasippidas was exiled for complicity with the Thasian revolt of 410, he must have been on the ground or near by in some official capacity, and not quietly at home in Sparta, still waiting for his commission as nauarch. The Thasian revolt, however, was, if I may say so, a continuous performance. Thasos had first revolted from Athens in 411, a year before this time, then back again to Athens. But this was by no means the end. For in I. 4. 9 of the Hellenica we read, "Thrasybulus also subdued Thasos, which was in a bad state on account of wars and revolutions and famine." This was certainly as late as 408, probably in 407. Since 410, accordingly, Thasos had gone back once more to Sparta, — surely once more, perhaps several times.
38 Carleton L. Brownson. [X9°3
For trouble had been continuous, as Xenophon implies in the passage quoted. At any time, therefore, between 410 and 407 Pasippidas might have been concerned in Thasian affairs in some way that was deemed disloyal to Sparta. The first mention of Thasos in 410 suggests to Xenophon the fate of Pasippidas ; if that fate overtook him as a result of events later than those of 410, it was no doubt careless in Xenophon to record it here. But such carelessness is far from unusual in the Hellenica ; it is evident again in connection with this same unhappy island of Thasos ; for, having left it Athenian in 410, Xenophon next mentions it to tell of its subjugation by Thrasybulus, an Athenian general, omitting all reference to a defection from Athens which must necessarily have taken place in the meantime.
Thus far it appears at least possible that Pasippidas was chosen nauarch for the year 409-408. Evidence which goes very far to prove that such was really the case is found in the third chapter of the Hellenica. There (I. 3. 13) Pasippidas is mentioned as one of the Spartan ambassadors who accompany the Athenian embassy which Pharnabazus has engaged to conduct to the king. He is not only one of the Spartan am- bassadors, but the principal one, — HaannriSas KOI erepoi is the language which Xenophon uses, although nine other envoys from various states are all mentioned by name. These embassies probably set out in the year 408, possibly a little earlier, certainly not later. Can it be possible that Pasippidas had already been banished, then so soon recalled from exile, and immediately intrusted with so extremely im- portant a mission ? Certainly such a supposition is altogether improbable. On the other hand, if we suppose that Pasippi- das had not yet been exiled, and that he was nauarch for the year 409-408, he would have been exactly the man to head a Spartan embassy to Persia, — an embassy which started out either toward the close or at the close of his year of com- mand. Just so, twenty years later, it was by virtue of his office as nauarch that Antalcidas undertook his famous mis- sion to the court of Susa. Such a parallel case is certainly significant.
Vol. xxxiv.] Succession of Spartan Nauarchs. 39
At least three further bits of evidence tend to show that Pasippidas was not a recalled exile, but a nauarch, as yet un- accused, at the time when he acted as ambassador to Persia. In the first place, Hermocrates, the Syracusan, who is men- tioned in the list of the ambassadors, is described (I. 3. 13) as "already an exile," --rjSrj favyuv. These words seem so en- tirely superfluous, in view of the fact that Xenophon has already told the whole story of Hermocrates's banishment, that they are suspected by all editors, and by some bracketed. Now in the list of ten ambassadors which is given, the name of Hermocrates immediately follows that of Pasippidas. I believe that Xenophon means the phrase TJ&T) favytov, which is applied to Hermocrates, to distinguish the two men, to indi- cate that, while Hermocrates's exile was an accomplished fact, that of Pasippidas was still in the future. Secondly, Pasippi- das was accused of having conspired against Sparta with Tissaphernes. Such a charge would naturally have been pressed against him, not while Tissaphernes was a nominal ally of Sparta and a power to be feared and conciliated, but after his fall and the advent of Cyrus, that is, after the year 408. The third item of evidence is by far the most impor- tant. A few weeks after the departure of the embassy so often referred to, we find Clearchus, who was besieged in Byzantium, trying to help himself by gathering together the ships which had been left behind in the Hellespont by Pasip- pidas {Hell. I. 3. 17). How by him and when? If, as editors suppose, he had long ago been superseded in the nauarchia, then banished, and later recalled, these ships must have been drifting around in the Hellespont for two years or thereabouts, failing in some strange way to unite themselves to the Spartan fleet, and, still more strangely, escaping the vigilance of the Athenians, who during all this time had been cqursing up and down the Hellespont at will. Such a sup- position is nothing less than impossible. Manifestly these ships had been under the command of Pasippidas as nauarch up to the time when, in the summer of 408, he set out upon his journey with Pharnabazus. So the evidence furnished by the Clearchus incident harmonizes with all the rest in indicat-
'
40 Carleton L. Brownson. [I9°3
ing that Pasippidas was nauarch during the year 409-408. This fact confirms the conclusion already suggested by other arguments, that his successor, Cratesippidas, held office from 408 to 407 ; and Cratesippidas, in his turn, was followed by Lysander, Callicratidas, and Aracus, each filling out the allotted term of one year, as required by Beloch's rule.
It remains only to be noted that the interval between the death of Mindarus (410) and the succession of Pasippidas (409) was a kind of interregnum. For reasons which have already been given, Hippocrates, epistoleus and legal succes- sor of Mindarus, was left to command the Peloponnesian sailors — for fleet there was none — and to direct the building of new ships at Antandrus. The fact that he was thus left in command, and that the appointment of a new nauarch was delayed for a year, is no more a violation of Beloch's rule than the fact that during long periods of Spartan history the office of nauarch lapsed entirely.
If the above conclusions are deemed sound, the succession of Spartan nauarchs will serve as a means of settling almost all the chronological uncertainties of the years from 411 to 404, first and chiefly the important and long-disputed date of Alcibiades's return to Athens.
Vol. xxxiv.J Magister curiae in Plautus's Aulularia 107. 41
IV. — Magister curiae in Plautuss Aulularia 107. BY DR. HENRY W. PRESCOTT,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA.
THE relation of Plautus to his Greek originals has long been a fertile theme of discussion. Dissertations, such as those of Ostermayer, Schuster, and Wollner, within the limited fields of mythology, religion, and military activity, and the illuminating chapter in Leo's Plautinische Forschungen, which relieves the obscurity of many a word and phrase, of many a structural complication, have led us to understand more intel- ligently the process of translation in Plautus's hands : thorough Latinization, so far as the language is concerned, is certainly the rule ; crudities in translation are rare — such a bit of mechanical work as his perfossor parietum (Pseud. 98O),1 almost an etymological equivalent for the rot^to/ji^o? of his original, is abnormal. Yet the difficulties of his task led him often, as Leo has shown, to produce a composite picture, a mixture of Greek and Roman elements. The phrase which forms the subject of this paper has been hitherto said, or at least implied, to be a mere verbal equivalent of the Greek ; It is my belief that it is a commendable translation, and that the passage in which it appears suggested to the Romans of Plautus's day a perfectly clear picture with very slight traces of its Greek background.
The context of the passage is a dramatic exposition of the miser Euclio's character ; in the verses in which the phrase magister curiae occurs, the departure of the miser is explained by his statement that the magister of his curia promised that day to distribute money among the individual members of the
1 My colleague, Doctor Nutting, suggests that the passage in Cif. in Vatin. 5, II (licet impune per me parietes in adulescentia perfoderis, vicinos compilaris, matrem verberaris) makes it doubtful whether Leo is justified in saying (PI. Forsch. 93) ..." dieser Ausdruck gibt clem Romer nicht die anschauliche Vorstellung wie dem Griechen rotxwpi/x0*-"
42 Henry W. Prcscott. [1903
curia : he must go to receive his share or else incur the sus- picion of being too well-off to need the largess in question :
1 06 — Nimis hercle invitus abeo : sed quid agam scio Nam noster nostrae quist magister curiae Dividere argenti dixit nummos in viros : Id si relinquo ac non peto, omnes ilico Me suspicentur, credo, habere aurum domi.
(Cf. 179-180.)
The passage is admitted to be of Greek origin : the distri- bution of money in this fashion is not attested for the age of Plautus. It suggests at once the division of the theoric fund among the demesmen of Attica, probably by the demarchs (Demosth. 1091, 37; Haussouillier, La Vie Municipale en Attigue, 129, n. 3). Scholars are, however, by no means agreed as to the wording of the original. Admitting that the passage betrays the influence of the Greek, they differ with regard to the precise equivalent in the other tongue of magister curiae. Turnebus maintained that it was rpLTrvap^of, and Wagner (in his note on the verse, and De Plauti Aulu- laria, 15 n.) follows him; Benndorf (as quoted by Ussing) that it was e7rt/4e\77T?7? rewy <f>v\a)v, pointing to a passage in Lucian ( Tim. 49) for his justification ; since curia corresponds in political significance to <f>paTpia, (f)paTpiap%o<; is an easy suggestion ; Francken accepts Sijfiapxos (which, however, in Cure. 286 Plautus chooses to transliterate rather than trans- late), and Ussing follows him. It is immaterial to me at present what stood in Plautus's original. It will be admitted that, whatever the precise expression was, the word or phrase denoted a political division of Attica and a magistrate who served in some important capacity, necessarily financial. Us- sing's statement that a magister curiae is nowhere mentioned as a Roman official, if true, leaves us a choice between assuming that such a magistrate existed at Rome but has accidentally escaped mention, and imputing to Plautus a crude transla- tion, magister curiae in the latter case being a mechanical rendering of S^/ia/a^o? or something similar. Neither of these alternatives is, I think, to be accepted.
Vol. xxxiv.] Magister curiae in Plautus's Aulularia 107. 43
An attempt was made by Ps.-Asconius to discover in magister curiae a reference to a Roman official. Cicero (in Verrem I. 8. 22) refers to certain divisores omnium tribnum — election agents who distributed money among the tribes allotted to them : on this passage Ps.-Asconius queries whether these were legally appointed tribal officers, such, he says, as Plautus in his Aulularia calls magistri ciiriaruin, or whether they were criminal agents — utrum legitimos habent omncs tribns divisores, qnos Plautus in Anlnlaria magistros curiarum vocat, an divisores criminis nomen est? The undisputed answer to this question is in favor of the second alternative, and his quotation of Plautus in support of the first alternative is admitted to be inapposite, as tribal officers are not to be identified with officers of the curiae.
The Roman curiae were associations of families, in earlier times of importance as political units, but in the Republic, after the division into tribes and centuries was perfected, as religious corporations : x under the supervision of a curio maximus, curiones and fiamines they celebrated the sacra publica, the expense of which was paid from the common treasury, aes curionum. Obviously the existence of these bodies, which had no magistri, would have helped little toward the understanding of Plautus's magister curiae.
There were, however, other units in Rome, and elsewhere in Italy, during Plautus's lifetime, which constituted religious confederations similar to the curiae and over which presided magistri, assisted by flamines like those of the curiae? Q. Cicero (de petitione 8. 30), in giving what he calls the ratio totius urbis, enumerates as distinct entities the conlegia, montes? pagi, vicinitates : primitive local groups, known as pagi, anfl vici, and similar associations of hill-dwellers, mon- tani, survived at Rome in the historical period alongside of the gentes, curiae, and tribus. Like the curiae they played in this later period an important part in the religious life of the
1 Mommsen, SR. III. 89 ff.; Marquardt, SV. III. i88ff.; Pauly-Wissowa IV. 1815 ff., 1836 s.w. curia and curio.
2 Mommsen, SR. III. 112 ff.; Marquardt, SV.* I. 3 ff., 9 n. 4, 14 n. I. 8 The text, omnium, is properly corrected to montium.
44 Henry W. Prescott. [1903
city : long before the age of Plautus the pagits Capitolinus formed the conlegium Capitolinorum, and the pagns Aventi- nettsis the conlegium mercatorum or mercurialium in connection with the temple of Mercury on the Aventine.1 In these two cases the pagi and conlegia are almost undistinguishable, but in general the pagi, mantes, and vici formed, quite apart from the conlegia, religious associations with an organization re- sembling that of the curiae, and as we shall presently see, that of the conlegia : as the festivals of Fordicidia and Fornacalia were celebrated by the curiae, so the Septimontium and the Paganalia were in charge of the montani and pagani respec- tively. Magistri are certified for the vici of Plautus's time by Livy 34. 7. 2, who under the year 195 refers to them as wearing the toga praetexta ; an inscription of the Ciceronian period (Mommsen, SR. III. p. viii. n. i) refers to magistri and famines montanorum ; and an inscription antedating the Empire, but not certainly Roman (Mommsen, SR. III. 116, n. 7; Waltzing, Etude, etc., I. 101, n. 6), mentions the magistri of two pagi and of the vicus Sulpicius. There can be little doubt that magistri of all these organizations were well known in Plautus's day, scanty as the evidence naturally is.
Not only these local communities, but more important religious and industrial corporations were organized in like manner, and for similar though more varied purposes. Q. Cicero mentioned one other important factor in the ratio totius urbis ; these were the guilds known as conlegia. The importance of these colleges at Rome is well known. All of them were more or less religious in character; the guilds of the Capitoline and the Aventine already mentioned, that of the Great Mother, established in Plautus's lifetime,2 and the Arval Brothers,3 certainly an old fraternity, were largely so. The industrial guilds were ascribed by tradition to the reign of Numa;4 and even the imperfect record of early inscrip- tions attests the existence of thirteen for the last century B.C. ; 6 in Plautus's day,6 probably, a guild of poets and actors was
1 Waltzing, Atudc sur Its Corporations Profcssionelles, I. 35-36, 39-40. 8 Waltzing, I. 36. 8 Henze, Acta Fratrum Arvalium, pp. i-ii.
« Waltzing, I. 62 ff. 6 Ibid. I. 87-88. 6 Ibid. I. 82.
Vol. xxxiv.] Magister curiae in Plautuss Aulularia 107. 45
given the temple of Minerva as a meeting-place. These religious and industrial guilds had one or more presidents styled magistri; some of the distinctly religious guilds, as the Arval Brothers, had a fiamen as well (Henze, pp. iv ff.). The mention of a magister in the 5. C. de Bacchanalibns falls in the second year before Plautus's death ; and as in the case of the magistri pagorum, vicorum, and montium, it is mere accident that references are not more numerous in the early Republican period. The functions of the magistri of the colleges were religious and secular;1 our evidence is most nearly complete for the Imperial period — here we find them convoking and presiding over the conlegia, enforcing the rules of the fraternities, in charge of the area commitnis, or common treasury, receiving and disbursing funds, distribut- ing largess of food and money received from patrons or out of the common treasury, supervising the giving of dinners and public shows, and the erection of statues. Doubtless some of these functions were not exercised in Plautus's time because of the difference in prevalent conditions, but the existence of the magistri is certified in the poet's own day, and their functions were certainly similar to those of the magistri in the later period.
So far I have shown the existence of a remarkable con- formity in certain organizations in Roman public life : corpo- rations bound by kinship, contiguity, or common interests, differing in origin and purpose, but very much alike as regards the names and the functions of their officials : all of them, with the exception of the curiae are presided over by magistri, and all of a religious character, including the curiae, have alongside the magistri lesser dignitaries called famines. That such organizations and their officers were characteristic of Roman life in Plautus's day is clear. But even if this is admitted, the poet was certainly perverse in leaving to the wits of his audience an association of ideas which were not apparently easily connected. If magister meant much to his hearers, magister curiae, it seems, did not : why did he not
1 Pauly-Wissowa, IV. 420-421, s.v. Collegium.
46 Henry W. Fresco tt. [1903
accommodate his verse to magister pagi, or mentis, or vici, or conlegi ?
Such a change, however, would not be necessary to make the phrase intelligible to a Romanized African in the reign of Augustus. It is a striking feature of the province of Africa, as appears from the evidence of inscriptions, that the conlegia so common in other parts of the Empire are not mentioned. In place of them we find in about fifty inscrip- tions of more than twenty African towns in the first few cen- turies after Christ, curiae, which have been recognized as old Latin institutions surviving in the municipia of Roman and of Latin rights.1 This organization of curiae is not restricted to Africa ; its prominence there is probably due to the absence of conlegia. Inscriptions prove the existence of the same divisions in Spain, — here the Lex Malacitana gives us infor- mation about details, — in Sardinia, and most important of all for our purposes, in the town of Lanuvium in Italy. The curiae in these towns were associations of neighboring families, having a general resemblance to the Roman curiae, and in so far as they are local communities to \\iQpagi, monies, and vici of Republican Rome. The purposes, however, of these municipal curiae resemble those of the conlegia : they had a common treasury, received gifts and legacies, honored in various ways their patrons and officers, they erected statues to gods and emperors, took charge of the burial of deceased members, received donations from the emperors, gave festi- vals and dinners, and played a prominent part in the public shows. At the head of these municipal curiae were magis- tri, certified in two inscriptions (CIL. VIII. iiooS,2 14683), who carried out the purposes summarized above, and with the magistri there were associated flamines as in the Roman organizations already noted.
The case, then, may be briefly stated thus : we find as a part of the very foundation of the Roman State the Roman
1 Mommsen, SR. III. 90 ; Schmidt, Rh. Mus. 45, 599 ff . ; Pauly-Wissowa, IV. 1815 ff., s.v. curia.
2 Mag(isterio) : Schmidt, Rh. Mus. 45, 607, n. 2 for mag(istratu) of the Corpus.
Vol. xxxiv.] Magister curiae in Plautus's Aulularia 107. 47
curiae, communities of kinsfolk, with rights and privileges, civil and religious ; in Plautus's time their religious activities predominate ; their officers are a curio and a flamen for each curia, and a curio maximtts. Beside them we find primitive local units surviving as religious societies, — thefagant, man- tani, and vicini, — these with magistri and famines. As another component part of the city-state we find the guilds, conlegia, religious and secular, under magistri with religious and important secular, especially financial, powers, and with flamincs in some cases. Two centuries, and later, after Plau- tus's death we find in a municipinm of Latium, in Spain and in Sardinia, and in Africa, a division of the people into curiae, associations of neighboring families, banded together for mutual benefit, organized under magistri and famines for purposes resembling those of the Roman conlegia. Is it too much to assert that these municipal curiae were no sudden growth in the reign of Augustus, but a peculiarly Latin organization of the citizen body as common in the municipia of Italy in Plautus's day as they were later in Africa ? And was not magister curiae a perfectly natural term to use, as familiar to Plautus and his audience as it was to the people of Lanuvium in the early centuries of the Empire ? The only argument against this supposition is an argument from silence ; such an officer of such a municipal division does not appear in inscriptions that antedate the Empire. Still, even the magister conlegi and the magistri of the local communi- ties, which must have been well known in the poet's time, are seldom mentioned in the scanty inscriptional record of the Republican period ; influential as these organizations were, especially &ie conlegia, the magistri are mentioned in less than half a dozen inscriptions before the reign of Augustus. Nothing, I think, but the meagreness of inscriptional evidence for Plautus's own age accounts for our ignorance of a magis- ter curiae in the municipia of the second century B.C. If this is the case, the phrase in the Anlularia was no unintelligible compound, made up of two words, each in itself intelligible, but both together a meaningless verbal equivalent of the Greek original ; rather it was a rational translation, conveying
48 Henry W. Prescott, [1903
to the audience a clear conception of an officer presiding over a small portion of a Roman municipium and possessed of enough financial power to make his distribution of money easily understood, even if in Plautus's time such a distribution was not natural in Italy. This distribution, and this alone, may be purely Greek. The rest I conceive to be a thorough Latinization of the original.
Vol. xxxiv.] Hcphaestion and the Anapaest. 49
V. — Hephaestion and the Anapaest in the Anstophanic
Trimeter.
BY PROF. C. W. E. MILLER,
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY.
THE use of the anapaest in the iambic trimeter has been treated so frequently in notes and special articles, and its use in the comic trimeter has been elaborated with such fulness in treatises like Rumpel's " Der Trimeter des Aristophanes," Philologus, XXVIII (1869), pp. 599-627, Bernhardi's " De incisionibus anapaesti in trimetro comico Graecorum," Acta Soc. Philol. Lips. I, pp. 245-286 (Leipzig, 1872), and Per- schinka's, " De mediae et novae quae vocatur comoediae atticae trimetro iambico," Diss. Phil. Vindob. Ill (1891), pp. 321-373, that the writer feels constrained to state the circumstances that led to the production of this paper.
About five years ago I was reading Hephaestion 's Manual for the specific purpose of noting such passages as might betoken a lack of understanding, or ignorance, on his part with reference to the things he was discussing, when, among other things, I came upon the following well-known passage (p. 21 W.): TO) Se BavTvXa) ro> tcara ra? Tre/Hrra? e/iTTtTrroim ^topa?, ijKicrra ol lafiftoTroiol €%pijcravTO TroiijTai ' <nravia><t B€ Kal oi rpayi/coi, ol Se KCO/JLIKOI eruye^ft)?, uxnrep teal ev TO> lanftiicq*, TW CTTI TT}<? apriov avaTraicrTfo ' etcdrepov <yap dXoyov • ovre yap €V ro) la/jifiiica) €%pf]V avajraiffrov errl Trjs apriov ^copa?, efi ^5 ovSe o-TToySeio? ey^to/jet, ov Xu^t? e&rlv 6 avajraiffTOS • ovre ev TO) Tpo%al/d&, €7rl rrjs TrepiTrrjS TOV Sa/crwXo^, e^>' ^? ou&e GTTOV- Seto? eyxwpel, ov o/ioiia? \v<m o 8a/cTu\o9. " As for the dactyl in the odd places (of trochaic verse), the iambic poets almost completely refrained from its use, and the tragedians but rarely employed it, though the comedians constantly used it, as they did also the anapaest in the even places of iambic verse; for either use is irrational;1 for neither ought the
1 In the discussion that followed the reading of this paper, it was suggested that the word 4X0701' meant " contrary to reason, unreasonable," but I still think
50 C. IV. E. Miller. [1903
anapaest to be employed in the even places of iambic verse, since also the spondee, of which the anapaest is the resolu- tion, is excluded from these positions, nor should the dactyl be used in the odd places of trochaic verse, inasmuch as also the spondee, of which the dactyl is in like manner the resolution, is excluded from these feet."
A few moments' reflection caused me to believe that Hephaestion was mistaken in his views. It occurred to me that, contrary to Hephaestion's dictum, the even places were the very ones in which one should expect to find the anapaest, and I ventured to predict that the statistics of the Aristo- phanic trimeter would show a larger number of anapaests in the even feet than in the odd feet, the first foot, for obvious reasons, being excluded from consideration. Unfor- tunately other engagements prevented me at that time from testing the correctness of my prediction, but this year I have had occasion to take the matter up anew, with the result that my expectations have been fully realized.
My line of reasoning was as follows. The ordinary scheme of the iambic trimeter, no account being taken of resolutions, is
W I W_«_| W I \J I W I \J •
The irrational long, as is well known, is admitted only in the odd places. The scansion of the trochaic tetrameter, regardless of resolutions, is
vy | w I w I vy II \J | w | \J | A-
The irrational long is allowed only in the even feet. But if, as Hephaestion tells us, the trochaic trimeter catalectic was by some called an acephalous iambic trimeter,1 there is some ancient warrant for our considering the iambic trimeter a cephalophorous, or, to use a term for which we are indebted
that the rendering given above is to be preferred, and I am pleased to note that this is also the view taken by Thomas Foster Barham in his English translation of Hephaestion, Cambridge, 1843. 1 ne word &^oyov is there translated (p. 150) by alcgous, and, in a footnote to this word, is added the explanation, " that is, not according to just reckoning, or proportion."
1 P. 2O W. : Tplfierpov dt Ka.Ta\T)KTiK&v . . ., 5 Tim d/c^0aXoc ia.UjSiKOv KO\OV<TI.
Vol. xxxiv.] Hephaestion and the Anapaest. 51
to Hermann, an anacrustic,1 trochaic trimeter with the scansion
and, with this scansion, the irrational long, apart from the anacrusis which freely admits short, long, or double short, has the same position in both iambic and trochaic verse, being confined to the even feet, or to the end of the dipodies. Now the great frequency of the irrational spondee occasioned by this irrational long, the dipodic structure of most iambic and trochaic verse, the regular diaeresis between the cola of the trochaic tetrameter, and the predominance of the penthe- mimeral caesura in the iambic trimeter, — all conspired to produce a tendency to a kind of catalectic effect at the end of the dipodies. If this reasoning be correct, the dactyl, which has the very opposite of a catalectic effect, would be ill adapted for the second part of the dipody, and hence, wher- ever used in large numbers, as in the Aristophanic trimeter, would be found more frequently in the odd feet than in the even, or, speaking in terms of the ordinary scansion, the anapaest would occur more frequently in the even places than in the odd.
Now this is exactly what the statistics presented by Rumpel, " Der Trimeter des Aristophanes, " Philologtts, XXVIII (1869), pp. 599-627, show. For purposes of ready reference, I pre- sent them here in tabulated form both for the ordinary scan- sion as well as for the anacrustic scansion ; but, to facilitate comparison, I have, in the case of the anacrustic scansion, given the average number of. dactyls per thousand trimeters, instead of the actual number employed; and I have also inserted twoj? columns giving the ratios of the anapaests (or dactyls of the anacrustic scansion) of the odd feet as com- pared with those of the even feet. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of all of Rumpel's figures, but I believe them on the whole to be correct. I have tested their accuracy by
1 I am not unmindful of Masqueray's pronunciamento, " Je rejette absolument cette theorie. L'anacruse est une invention moderne " ( Traiti de meirtque grecque, p. 152), nor have I failed to note Weil's article in Rev. des et. gr., 1900, pp. 185 f., and Gleditsch's still more recent utterances on the subject of anacrusis (BphW. 1903, col. 793).
52 C. W. E. Miller. [1903
comparing my own statistics for both the Knights and the Plutus, and by counting the number of trimeters in each play. In the Knights my count showed one anapaest more for the second and fifth feet each, the other figures agreeing. In the Plntus I counted one anapaest less for the fourth foot and two less for the fifth. But these and similar differences in the number of the trimeters do not in the least affect the results in question. The only serious error detected was in the number 1182, which Rumpel gives as the number of the trimeters in the Ranae. I have made several counts, but cannot find more than 854, including lyric and bracketed trimeters. By the correction of this mistake, the Ranae receives the ninth place, instead of the last, in the order of frequency ; the averages for this play and for the whole of Aristophanes are raised, and the proportion of pure trimeters given by Rumpel and incorporated in the text-books, instead of being one for every 68 trimeters,1 is increased to one for every 66 trimeters. No distinction has been made in the table on p. 53 between comic, lyric, and tragic trimeters, but all have been counted alike. The percentage of the tragic and lyric types is so small2 as not to appreciably affect the results of our investigation. In reference to the table for the anacrustic scansion it may be noted that for every anapaest of the ordinary scansion there is always a dactyl in the pre- ceding foot of the anacrustic scansion except when the anapaest is preceded by a resolution (o w ^ I \j <u _ instead
i l J \
of o _ | w w _). But these exceptions are so rare and so doubtful (see Rumpel, I.e., p. 627), that for all practical purposes they may be ignored.
A glance at the table reveals an overwhelming preponder- ance of the anapaest in the second and fourth feet as com- pared with the third and fifth feet respectively, or, in the anacrustic scansion, of the dactyl in the odd places as com-
1 As a matter of fact Rumpel gives the ratio I : 168, but this is manifestly a typographical error as may readily be seen by scrutinizing the figures from which the ratio was deduced.
2 For the details, see Zielinski, Die Gliederung dtr altattischen Komodie, pp. 292 f.
Vol. xxxiv.] Hephaestion and the Anapaest.
53
I
£
Cn O
U
n H
0) |
||
c^ |
U |
|
0 |
||
c |
PH |
|
X |
HH |
|
INARY |
O |
y. 0 |
ANAPAEST (ORD |
TRIMETER |
ORDINARY SCANSI |
a |
||
= |
||
h |
||
fa |
||
O |
JETERS. |
* |
*ff«;s:s.*;r»ii*« |
00 CO |
eA H |
5 |
^* *^ w^ O t*** CO ** ^S 00 t^s O |
v% |
ri H |
H |
9***V9>*VZX* |
I ft |
(J |
,_; |
^£>S c?^^-<8 ffj |
CO CO |
Q |
|||
1|« |
2 o- o |
JPcTco^^?^^ !^a ?? |
c? |
ZQ*5 |
o M |
||
.2 !? |
u ••* |
VO ^VOI^^O ^Tfvo tx*- |
w% |
MTl--««rOTtNCO-^ |
N |
||
.2 ?? |
u HH o |
•:««n^V^4« «!<?<! |
^. |
"* |
|||
"3 |
« OONCONCOOt^Ox-co |
0 |
|
H |
rOcoScOrtcocococON n |
CO |
|
| |
- |
O O^ ^^ ** ^O ^^ C1! ^^ O^ *^ ^^ |
00 CO CO |
z h O |
. |
^N tr^ ^^ O ^^ ^^ O O ^^ ^" ^D |
s |
H M S D Z |
CO |
coct^cTcTrTg'coS^ = |
M |
|J | |
CM |
^ u^ NN IA M tx, O CO O^ ^t" O^ |
fO 00 |
- |
|||
i— I |
U^I^NCO «co rN.rs.»MNO *^ |
t |
|
"3 "o £ ^f2 o ^ |
u^ d |
=5153555%** |
vn w |
"o d- Kj |
U) B -4 |
vO f^ O \O ON t^ OO CO OO t^ t-» |
oo |
. . N • •««•§. |
|||
i 8 s • * i! i i M |
1 |
s
>
•&
t
o
1 i
54 C. W. E. Miller. [1903
pared with the even, and this preponderance obtains not only in the plays taken collectively, but also, without ex- ception, in the plays taken individually. In this connection it must also be noted that the tables given by Perschinka, I.e., pp. 360 and 372, show the same overwhelming pre- ponderance for the poets of the Middle and of the New Comedy, and for the fragments given by Kock in Vol. Ill, 418-468. The figures are as follows:
NUMBER OF ANAPAESTS PER 1000 TRIMETERS.
I. II. III. IV. V.
Middle Comedy . . . 125 94 26 41 23
New Comedy ... 119 84 23 37 23
Kock III, 418-468 . . 124 100 25 86 63
Aristophanes .... 129 1 133 30 95 38
Now it seems certain that if the anapaest really was the resolution of the irrational spondee, as Hephaestion would have us believe, the poet, though indulging in a certain amount of license if you choose, must have striven for, or unconsciously drifted toward, the more frequent employ- ment of the anapaest in those feet that admitted the spondee, that is to say, in the odd feet. But this was not the case, for, as has just been stated, our tables show an overwhelming preponderance in the even feet. Hence, the conclusion must be that Hephaestion was certainly mistaken, and that, whatever may have been the theory of the metricians, the anapaest of the iambic trimeter was certainly not regarded by Aristophanes and the poets of the Middle and the New Comedy as a resolution of the spondee.
The thought may now arise that there is nothing very novel about the conclusion that has just been stated. I am, of course, fully aware that I am not the first to have assailed Hephaestion's position. About a century ago, G. Hermann expressed dissent from Hephaestion's view, a view that seems to have had so strong a hold on Porson, and that caused so
1 The figures actually given by Perschinka are 124, 128, 28, 92, and 36, which numbers are based upon Rumpel's erroneous calculation, above referred to, of the total number of trimeters in Aristophanes.
Vol. xxxiv.] Hephaestion and the Anapaest. 55
much needless discussion between him and Hermann. On p. ccxii of hisflraef. ad Hec. (ed. Dune.), Hermann incidentally combats the view that the anapaest may be considered the resolution of the irrational spondee. He argues that an irrational long could not be resolved into two shorts any more than one short can be resolved into two shorts. At the bottom of the page he goes on to say : " Quae quum ita sint, nulla prorsus caussa est, quare imparibus locis prae paribus aliqua praerogativa concedatur. Nee sane earn dari videmus in comicorum trimetris, qui, praeterquam in ultima sede, ana- paestum in locis omnibus recipiunt, quum dactylum a paribus excludant. . . . Parium atque imparium locorum hie nulla ratio haberi poterit, quia, ut patet ex iis, quae supra disputa- vimus, anapaestus non spondei, sed iambi locum obtinet" Hermann came very near discovering the restrictions that are operative in the use of the anapaest, when on p. ccxiv he says : " Quod si tamen numerus ipse anapaestum ab una quinque priorum sedum magis, quam a caeteris, removeri postulat, erit ea non quinta sedes, ut videtur Porsono, sed tertia. Quintae enim sedis prorsus eadem ratio est, quae est primae, secundae, quartae. Sola tertia eo a caeteris differt, quod in earn incidere solet caesura." But to show that he did not get at the root of the matter, attention need only be called to a previous remark on the same page with refer- ence to the use of the anapaest in the second foot : " in quibus formis etsi nulla est, quae principium ordinis in secunda sede habeat, poterit tamen in hac quoque sede anapaestus eo excusari, quod primus versuum ordo, quo pleniore spiritu profertur, eo^facilius paullo majorem numeri vehementiam admittat," whereas the use of the anapaest in the second foot needs no excuse, as it is the one foot in which it is most frequently employed in the Aristophanic trimeter, not even the privileged first foot exceeding it in the total number of admissions of the anapaest.
Rossbach and Westphal also rejected the doctrine that the anapaest is a resolution of the irrational spondee. Gnech. Metrik, II2, p. 448 (= Theorie der mnsischen Kiinste, III, p. 182), they say: "Die irrationale Arsis [of iambic and
56 C. W. E, Miller. [1903
trochaic verse] lasst keine Auflosung zu. Unrichtig ist es, wenn die Metriker dies annehmen. Sie verstehen unter dem anapaestus den in den dialogischen lamben eingemischten kyklischen Anapaest, der aber mit dem irrationalen Iambus nichts zu thun hat und schon desvvegen keine Auflosung desselben sein kann, weil er auch an solchen Stellen des Verses vorkommt, von welchen der Spondeus bei den Griechen durchaus fern gehalten ist," and on p. 455 (= iSQ3), footnote: " Hephastion halt den (kyklischen) Daktylus fur eine Auflo- sung des (irrationalen) Spondeus, doch haben beide Fiisse nichts mit einander zu thun." Compare also pp. 4S62 f. (= 22/3) : " Die Komodie unterscheidet sich von der Tragodie nicht bios durch die uneingeschrdnkte Zulassung [the italics are mine] der Anapaeste," etc., and pp. 4852 f. (= 226s) : " Die Komodie, sowohl die sicilische wie die attische, verstattet die Zulassung des kyklischen Anapaestes an jeder der f unf ersten Stellen ohne Einschrankung [the italics are mine], einerlei, ob derselbe ein Eigenname ist oder nicht."
Klotz, Grundziige altromischer Metrik, p. 306, makes the following remarks : " Ausserdem aber sind in alien Senkungen mit Ausnahme der letzten auch zwei besonders fliichtige Kiir- zen zulassig, und zwar in der Comodie ohne Einschrankung [the italics are mine], im Euripideischen Drama nur im ersten Fusse bei gewohnlichen Wortern (wie auch bei Aeschylus u. Sophokles)," etc.
"Nun hat man nach Hephastion's (21) Vorgange den folgenschvveren Fehler begangen, den bereits Rossbach-West- phal II2 S. 455 griindlich abgewiesen haben, dass man diese Kiirzen als die Auflosung der irrationalen Lange ansah und darauf hin in den Texten der Tragiker die zwei Kiirzen in der inneren Senkung vielfach wegconjiciren wollte, vgl. Aug. Nauck, Euripid. Studien I S. 63 u. a., sicher mit Unrecht. Denn diese beiden Kurzen unterscheiden sich durchaus von den die zweimorige Hebung sowie die anapaestische und daktylische Senkung ausfiillenden Kurzen und ebenso auch von den die ausseren Senkungen der trochaischen und iambi- schen Dipodien bildenden irrationalen Langen, von jenen dadurch, dass sie nicht durch Wortpause von einander
Vol. xxxiv.] Hephaestion and the Anapaest. 57
getrennt oder Endsilben eines mehrsilbigen Wortes sein und als solche vom folgenden Worte getrennt werden diirfen ; von diesen aber dadurch, dass sie weder in der Tragodie noch in der Comodie bloss an die ausseren Hebungen gebunden sind. Daraus aber geht mit Evidenz hervor, dass diese Kiirzen Stellvertreter nicht etwa der irrationalen Lange, sondern der regelrechten Kiirze sind. . . . Damit stimmt auch der metrische Charakter und ethische Werth dieser fliichtigen Kurzen vollstandig, wie diesen die Verstechnik der griechischen und romischen Comodie fest ausgepragt hat; sie retardirten nicht, wie die irrationalen Langen, sondern belebten den rhythmischen Fluss."
Gleditsch, Metrik der Griechcn u. Romer*, p. 139, does not mention Hephaestion, but the statement, " Als eine Abwei- chung von der strengen rhythmischen Messung ist es zu betrachten, wenn in einigen iambischen Massen statt des Iambus der Anapaest eintritt, bei dem nicht an eine Auflo- sung der Arsis des Iambus, sondern an eine Ausgleichung der vier Chronoi des Anapaest mit den drei des Iambus durch schnellere 070)777 zu denken ist," may perhaps be construed as a protest against Hephaestion, and perhaps there is also a fling at Klotz, who, I.e., thinks that the two shorts of the anapaest are the representatives of the single short of the regular iambus. But the next sentence, " Der Anapaest tritt auch an den geraden Stellen ein, aber nur in dem Dialog der Komodie mit grosserer Freiheit, sonst mit Beschrankung auf den An fang des Verses," etc., smacks somewhat of Hephaes- tion. On p. 141 is found a supplementary statement with reference to th^ comic trimeter : " Der Trimeter der Komodie entbehrt haufig der Caesur, giebt der Auflbsung eine grosse Ausdehnung, so dass die dreisilbigen Fiisse uberwiegen, schliesst den Anapaest nur vom 6. Fusse aus und liisst ihn sonst ohne Einschrdnknngen zu [the italics are mine], oft mehrmals hintereinander, nur wird die Teilung desselben (w I w _ oder w w I _) gemieden ; selbst der Prokeleusmatikos statt des Jambus (^ w oo) ist vereinzelt zugelassen."
The foregoing citations show that Hephaestion's theory of the anapaest has many times been rejected, and its rejection
58 C. W. E. Miller. [1903
has been supported by more or less cogent arguments, which it is not my purpose to discuss. But the method in which the problem has been attacked in this paper seems to be a new one, and I do not know of anybody that has treated the matter in this way. The results of such a method of treat- ment have, at least, not found their way into the current manuals and into current discussions of the subject. None of the authors from whom we have quoted seems to have had any inkling of the preponderance of the anapaest in the very feet in which its use had been condemned by Hephaes- tion. Everywhere we meet such terms as " ohne Einschran- kung " and " uneingeschrankte Zulassung." Even Rumpel, to whom we are indebted for exhaustive statistics as to the frequency of the anapaest in the Aristophanic trimeter, says, I.e., p. 610: " Bei weitem am haufigsten . . . tritt im aristo- phanischen trimeter der kyklische anapaest auf, nicht nur durch seine menge — es kommt bereits auf 2\ trimeter ein ana- paest— , sondern auch durch die uneingeschrankte zulassung in den fiinf ers ten fits sen [the italics are mine] scharf von dem tragischen geschieden," though, it is true, after having given his statistics for the individual feet of each play, he gives the totals and remarks : " Der anapaest ist hiernach am haufigsten im zweiten, am seltensten im dritten fusse angewendet," without, however, adding a word of comment. Of course, the author of an article does not always tell all he knows about his subject, and Rumpel may have known more about this matter than it was convenient or possible for him to tell. But this statement sadly reminds me that there are also a num- ber of points connected with the present subject that it was inconvenient or impossible for me to discuss within the limits of this paper. So, for example, it seems clear to me why the number of anapaests in the fifth foot as compared with the fourth is proportionately greater than that of the third as compared with the second. Then, too, the method, by which I reached my conclusion in regard to the relative frequency of the anapaests in the various feet of the trimeter, was only briefly outlined, and, if there were time, I could give by way of further illustration the results of a detailed study of the
Vol. xxxiv.] Hephaestion and the Anapaest. 59
anapaest in the Equites, of the spondee in all of Aristophanes, and of the tribrach (anacrustic scansion) in all of Aristophanes and a portion of tragedy. But the presentation of these matters must be reserved for a future paper or papers, and, for the present, I shall have to be content, if, in regard to the erroneousness of Hephaestion's theory, this paper has made assurance doubly sure, and if, in addition to having pointed out the limitations in the use of the anapaest and the reasons therefor, it has incidentally shown that in spite of the fact that the ancient metricians may have known little or noth- ing about anacrusis, they might have learned a great deal more about the structure of iambic verse by the application of modern anacrusis, and that certainly we moderns cannot afford to deprive ourselves entirely of so valuable an auxiliary to the proper understanding of what is in some respects the most important form of Greek rhythm.
60 Robert S. Radford. [1903
VI. — The Latin Monosyllables in their Relation to Accent and Quantity. A Study in the Verse of Terence.1
BY PROF. ROBERT S. RADFORD,
ELMIRA COLLEGE.
I. PROBLEM AND METHOD.
IT is the purpose of this paper to investigate the cause of the syllable-shortening which occurs after short monosyllables in early Latin verse, and also in a more general way the part which monosyllabic words play in the accentuation of the Latin sentence. The data illustrating the quantitative and accentual relations of monosyllabic words will be drawn almost entirely from the six plays of Terence, although simi- lar results have been obtained by the writer from an exami- nation of ten of the plays of Plautus. In a study which involves the Latin sentence-accentuation it is scarcely neces- sary to state that the writer is greatly indebted to the brilliant labors in this field of Ritschl,2 Klotz, Lindsay, Skutsch, Wack- ernagel, and many others, not to mention the detailed inves- tigations of Ahlberg, Podiaski, Kampf, and O. Brugman. Special indebtedness will be acknowledged in each case, but it will be readily understood that my total indebtedness to these scholars is greater than can be indicated in single references.
The two most frequent forms of syllable-shortening in early Latin occur in iambic words and in words preceded by a short monosyllable. In the case of iambic words the shortening is
1 A paper treating the same subject in relation to the verse of Plautus was read by the writer before the Johns Hopkins Philological Association, April 24, 1903. An abstract of this paper has already been published in the Johns Hopkins Uni- versity Circulars, Vol. XXIII, and the paper will appear in full in an early number of the American Journal of Philology.
2 I think it proper, however, to state that at the time when I reached the main conclusions of this article I was not acquainted with that part of Ritschl's Prole- gomena which treats the same subject, nor with Wackernagel's article in Indogerm. Porsck., Vol. I.
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 6 1
now very generally attributed to the word-accent upon the initial syllable ; a slight modification of this view would be to hold that the shortening is due to the analogy of pyrrhic words such as ems and agit, in which the quantitative rela- tions do not retard the development of a clear stress-accent. A second and still larger class of shortened quantities arises when a short monosyllable, or dissyllable which has become a monosyllable by elision, precedes another word, as sed abstn- listi, sed argenti. What is the cause of this shortening ? Why is it that the short monosyllable has the power of short- ening a following long syllable? Upon this question students of early Latin verse are far, I think, from having reached an agreement. It happens, necessarily, from the very structure of iambic verse, that a long syllable shortened in an iambic sequence is in every case either preceded or followed by the verse-accent ; upon this coincidence rests the older view, still held by Seyffert, Leo, and Brix-Niemeyer, of an artificial 1 shortening produced by the verse-accent. Accentual scholars are themselves greatly divided in opinion at this point, and it does not seem necessary to mention all the theories which have been proposed, that of Klotz being especially difficult of acceptance, at least in the extreme form in which it is stated, Grundziige, p. 68 ff., p. 45 ff. Ahlberg (De corrcpt. iamb. Plant, qttaestiones, Lund, 1901, p. 52 ff.), and Lindsay (The Captivi, London, 1900, p. 352), have, it is true, clearly put forward the view that some form of word-grouping has taken place, and that the group-accent has in some way come
1 The use of this term must not be understood as implying that I question in anapaestic verse or even occasionally in the beginning of a verse or colon of iambic or trochaic verse the occurrence of an " artificial " or metrical shortening produced by the very concrete, the very real verse-accent. If the cases of sed- tllum, sed-illum were only a few in number, I should be ready to accept the metrical explanation, to which I have no theoretical objections. But since these cases are very numerous, and since we know from many ancient testimonies that it is the special characteristic of Latin iambic verse to reproduce the cadence of colloquial speech, and thus to bring the verse-accent (as a subordinate factor) into cooperation with the word-accent, the metrical explanation appears to me untenable for iambic verse as a whole.
2 In his earlier writings (e.g. Lat. Lang., p. 202), Professor Lindsay hesitated between this view and the explanation given by Klotz, Grundz., p. 68 ff.
62 Robert S. Radford. [1903
into play, but neither of these scholars has undertaken to explain how the primary or secondary accent has come to rest upon the atonic monosyllable in a group like sed tile, sed abstulisti. So far as regards the word-grouping, Havet also long ago pointed out that sed-abstulisti forms to a certain extent ' one body ' (see the quotation of his views in Plessis, ed. Ade/phoe, p. 5), and in his Mttrique (e.g. §§ 353, 363) he regularly links the monosyllables by a hyphen with the follow- ing word to indicate their proclitic character, but the particu- lar explanation which he gives of the shortening in this group is so intimately connected with his theory of ' initial intensity' that it does not call for further notice here ; on the theory of ' initial intensity ' I shall make some observations in a later section of this article (see p. 95, below).
I wish to bring forward for the solution of this problem a method which as a whole has been hitherto untried. I pro- pose in brief that for the moment we shall wholly dismiss the question of syllable shortening, shall observe the short mono- syllables when they precede not long but short initial sylla- bles, and determine independently the place of both the primary and the secondary grammatical accent in the groups thus formed. This means that we shall first determine the place of the primary accent in the groups sed hie (dissyllabic group), sed agit (trisyllabic group), sed homines (quadrisyl- labic group), and the place of the secondary accent in the similar groups sed amore, sed amaverunt, sed hilaritudo. It is not possible, to be sure, to determine directly the place of the accent in all these groups, nor is it necessary. A single group, the trisyllabic, offers exceptional opportunities for the determination of its accent, and affords the one point where an accent-law may be established, capable of extension in principle to all the groups.
A trisyllabic group of this type (w, \j w) may assume two forms ; it may either form an anapaest, sedagtmt, or a tribrach, sed agit. Now from the first of these forms, the anapaestic, we can derive no aid; for, owing to the structure of iambic verse, the group can never occur without receiving the verse- accent either upon the initial syllable, se"d agnnt (much the
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 63
more frequent form), or upon the ultimate sect agunt (less frequent form). Hence in this case we can draw no conclu- sions as to the natural accent.
But with the second form of the trisyllabic group, viz., the tribrach form, sed agit, the case is wholly different ; for so far as concerns the structure of iambic verse, the group is perfectly flexible and may receive the ictus equally well and with nearly equal frequency either upon the initial syllable, std agit, or upon the second syllable, scd dgit. So far, how- ever, as concerns the word-grouping, the group must not admit the ictus upon the second syllable, if in consequence of peculiarly close grouping it has acquired the grammatical accent of a single tribrach word, i.e. the grammatical accent, std agit, belonging to an improvised compound (as we may say), just as the accent ineo belongs to 'a permanent com- pound. For it is a well-known rule of Latin iambic verse that a tribrach word receives the metrical accent in general only upon the initial syllable and thus almost always in agree- ment with the grammatical accent, i.e. regularly gJnere, very rarely gene"re.
Before we proceed to apply the test just indicated to the verse of Terence, it will be necessary to comment briefly upon the general character of the Latin monosyllables. According to an oft-repeated rule of the grammarians the monosyllables are usually without the accent.1 Thus Priscian (Keil, G. L. Ill, p. 479, 20= Scholl, De accentu linguae lat., p. 194) in speaking of the accent of iam (in iam dudum) says : Gravem, ut omnia fere monosyllaba praepositiva ; see also ibid., p. 478, 22 (accent of at}\ p. 24, 21, etc. This rule does not apply of course to monosyllabic nouns and verbs, as many other testimonies of the grammarians show (cf. Scholl, De ace., p. io8f.), but only to those words which, owing to their meaning, are naturally unaccented in many languages, viz., the monosyllabic prepositions, conjunctions, pronouns, and adverbs (see, e.g., Wallin, Yale Psychol. Lab. Studies, IX, p. 21 f. ; Meyer-Lubke, Gramm. d. roman. Spr., I, p. 503 ;
1 L. Mullet reaches the same conclusion on metrical grounds, Res Mttrica\ p. 467.
64 Robert S. Radford. [1903
G. Paris, Role de V accent lat., p. 19). Hence there seems no good reason for doubting the substantial truth of the gram- marians' rule, which means no more than the similar rule respecting the accent of prepositions, i.e. the prepositions — both praepositiones compositae and adpositae — are unaccented in a considerable majority of the cases in which they occur, as confero, conferre, in navem, ex hello. Besides, as will be shown later, the grammarians often distinctly recognize that the monosyllables may acquire an accent when they form part of a compositum or word-group. Thus it is evident from the grammarians' statements that the monosyllabic conjunc- tions, pronouns, and adverbs bear precisely the same relation to the accent as the monosyllabic prepositions. This con- clusion is expressly confirmed by Audax (Keil, VII, p. 360, i ff.1), to whom we owe the clearest account of the accent of these particles that is to be found in Latin literature subse- quent to Quintilian : non omnes partes orationis aequales sunt . . . nam et pronomen subiacet nomini, et verbo servit adverbium . coniunctio quoque et praepositio ad clientelam maiorum partium pertinent . hae ergo partes, quae adpendices sunt, sic maioribus copularitur, tit tanquam in tinam partem orationis'2' coalescant, proprium vero fastigium perdant, non omnes dumtaxat, sed pleraeque.
It is necessary also to review briefly the treatment in iambic verse both of primary and of secondary word-accents belong- ing to the syllable-group, ^ w ^ :
A. PRIMARY ACCENTUATION. — To determine with precision the place of the primary grammatical accent in trisyllabic groups of the form w, w ^ is possible only through the fact that tribrach words such as genere do not as a rule admit the metrical accent upon the second syllable. Yet the statement sometimes made that Latin tribrach words never under any conditions admit the accent gentre in iambic verse is not
1 This is substantially the same as the anonymous quotation in Scholl, De ace., p. 175 f., entitled " Interr. et resp." which, however, is not placed, as might be expected, in the chapter on the accent of conjunctions.
2 ' Una pars orationis ' is the special term which the grammarians employ of the composita, which, like huiusce modi, istius modi, etc., are known to be such through the test of the accentuation; cf. Scholl, De ace., p. 124 ff.
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 65
altogether accurate, so far at least as regards the first foot of a verse or colon ; and since we can scarcely expect that tribrach groups shall be treated more rigorously in this respect than tribrach words, it is important to state the usage of the iambic poets in respect to the first foot somewhat more fully than is done by Klotz, Grnndz., p. 274 ff., or by Ritschl, Proleg., p. ccxxv ff. The evidence is conclusive that the Roman poets have sometimes admitted in tribrach words and in words ending in a tribrach the accentuation gentre in the first foot of a verse or colon, although far more rarely and with much greater hesitation than they have admitted the accentuation pcctore in the same place. The usage of the later poets may be found in L. Miiller, Res Metr., p. 168 : Seneca and Prudentius have each one such accentuation of the tri- brach in the first foot (fngimus, gen/re), not to mention the more frequent cases in less careful writers such as Ausonius, Avienus, Terentianus, etc. From the Christian poets also some examples have been collected by Hiimer, Lateinisch- Christlichen Rhythmen, p. 27. Examples from the metrical inscriptions are given by Hodgman, Harvard Studies, IX, p. 139, i.e. CLE. 67, 3 itdque ; 92, 3 Stefhdnc ; 211, 3 nimia.
1 1 2
Ahlberg (De proceleusmaticis antiquae poesis lat., Lund, 1900, I, p. 32) accepts the accentuations sequiminei Merc. 782,
mulie'iis (first foot of second colon) Most. 169, Minerua, Bacch.
5 1
893. Hence, even in cases where a correction would involve little textual change, it appears unnecessary to follow Langen (Philologies, XXXI, p. 109), and recent editors in emending Mil. 1 120 itdne (GotJ^nd Leo : itan\ Andr. 478 hlcine (Umpf.: hie inparatum), Caecil. com. frgnt. 232 egdne (retained by Ribbeck3), or to adopt with Scholl a change of order in Cas. 564 : hominem amatorem (cf. Humphreys, Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. VII (1876), p. 132 f.).1 Examples in other feet than the first, however, are so rare in the republican and early imperial poetry that they must be regarded with extreme sus- picion and are commonly removed from the text by transpo-
1 Add also Kicine, Most. 507; egdne, Cure. 119 (in cretic verse; GCtz, egon); reprime, Ace. trag. frgm. 381.
66 Robert S. Radford. [J9°3
sitions, yet it is important to recognize that a few such cases occur in our Mss. in texts otherwise free from suspicion, i.e. Most. 1 100 sere"re, Men. 877 valtdus, Andr. 596 corrige're, Sen.
64 4
Med. 267 femin/d ; see also Klotz, Grundz., p. 274. Quite
2
similar to the treatment of tribrach words is the treatment in iambic verse of the compound phrases (which are often written as one word) ending in a tribrach or an anapaest, such as adeo, inibi, veluti, interibi, intered, intereos, proptered, prop- tereos, etc. According to the ancient orthography these phrases may equally well be written separately, i.e. in ibi, ad eo, inter ibi, inter ed, etc. (see, e.g., CIL. I, ind. p. 609), but so far as concerns the accentuation, they apparently never admit of separation into their component parts (decomposi- tion), but always receive the metrical accent upon the ante- penult, i.e. in ibi, dd eo, int/r ibi, inte"r eos.
B. SECONDARY ACCENTUATION. — I have so far discussed only cases of the primary accent in tribrach words, and students of Latin verse-accentuation have generally been content to confine their treatment to these cases. Of almost equal im- portance, however, are the cases of tribrach sequences which involve the secondary accent, that is, in which the syllables immediately preceding the primary accent form a tribrach series, as cdldmitdtem, mtseridnim, fdmilidrem, hlldrttudo, etc. I have not been able to find in current discussions of Latin verse-accentuation any treatment of cases of this sort except a brief reference to somewhat similar cases in an article by Lindsay, Philol., LI (1892), p. 373 (footnote). In point of fact the secondary accent in calamitdtem is observed almost as strictly by the Roman dramatists as the primary accent in ghiere. Of the nearly 200 cases of this kind occur- ring in Plautus, the secondary accent appears to be disre- garded in only two or three, e.g. in the iambic verse-close of Mil. 562 mdltttost tame'n and in the bacchiac verse-opening
45 6
of Cist. 3 dpZrtiistis . [With respect to the latter case it is possible, but not especially likely, that the Latin bacchius admits the accentuation ^ ob _L instead of the usual wdo_^.; cf. Christ, Metr., p. 419 f.] Terence has apparently violated
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 67
the secondary tribrach accent twice, once in the middle of the
verse, once in the verse-close: Andr. 941 cum tud rZlltfonc
• it
odium; Heaut. 906 8p?rfiere ostiiim. In both these cases
6 1
other scansions than those which I have adopted are possible, i.e. religione, opfrue're, but not especially probable (cf. Hauler, Einl. P/iorm., p. 543). The elision of the final syllable in both cases prevents a double conflict and apparently renders the single conflict somewhat less harsh, but is far from pro- ducing a recession of the accent, i.e. religion(e\ as has some- times been supposed. It must be added that editors of Terence have not always sufficiently regarded this secondary accent in their conjectures ; thus the reading facilitat(em) has been adopted by all recent editors except Umpfenbach in Andr. 232 instead of the Ms. faci'ilfatem, but is wholly inadmissible in view of the unusual conflict, and the same is true of Fleckeisen's conjecture cupiditat(e\ Heaut. 208. Finally, this accentuation occurs once in the first foot of Saturnian verse, if the quantitative view of the Saturnian be correct, i.e. Naev. 109 (Havet) Sicilicn s/s paciscit.
We may sum up the conclusions which we have reached as follows : In words and compound phrases forming a tri- brach such as genere, inibi (in ibi\ etc., the grammatical accent is in rare instances disregarded in the first foot of a verse or colon ; there are also a very few cases, chiefly in the first foot or the verse-close, of the disregard of a secondary tribrach accent in words like caldmttdtcm. It is evident that in any tribrach worel^roups which we may discover to exist the same licenses will be admitted. It only remains to note briefly that the treatment of syllable-groups forming a dactyl (_ ^ w) is considerably less strict ; that in dactylic words such as pectore a primary grammatical accent is rather freely dis- regarded in the first foot and occasionally disregarded in the other feet (cf. Klotz, Grundz., p. 274 ff.); further, that a secondary dactylic accent, such as that of commodltdtcs, was rather freely disregarded by the Roman iambic poets prior to the time of Phaedrus l in their strenuous endeavors to form
1 Phaedrus has avoided these accentuations almost entirely; compare, how- ever, in the verse-close App. 21, 12: detinnisti pedes.
4 56
68 Robert S. Radford. [1903
legitimate iambic and trochaic verse-closes — thus in the verse-close, with harsh double-conflict : Andr. 569 at si cor- rigitur, quot commodities vide ; Phonn. 843 ; cf . 284 ; cf . 676; Hec. 122 ; Ad. 880; Pacuv. trag. frgm. 164 R. ; id. inc. LIV R., etc. — also occasionally in middle of verse, with eli- sion of final syllable, i.e. with single conflict : Andr. 844 ; Hec. 797 ; Laber. com. frgin. 113 R. ; Af ran. com. frgm. 7, etc. ; finally, we may note that dactylic compound phrases such as attamen, quomodo, nescw, and obviam admit to a certain extent — most often in the first foot — of being treated as two words through decomposition, i.e. at tdmen, quo modo, ne scio, ob viam (cf. Klotz, Grundz., p. 276; Ritschl, Pro/eg., p. ccxxxvii ; Skutsch, Forsch., p. 158). The reason for the difference of treatment in the verse-accentuation of tribrach and dactylic words need not be discussed here (compare, however, Klotz, Grundz., p. 278 f .) ; I shall only remark in conclusion that, owing to the decomposition (recomposition) which is admitted even in the most frequently occurring dac- tylic composita, it is not possible for us to employ as rigorous tests for the determination of the regular accent of dactylic groups (_, ^ w) as can be employed in the case of tribrach groups (w, w w).
II. COMPARISON WITH GREEK VERSE.
It is evident that if, in pursuing this investigation, we shall find the Latin tribrach group accented either wholly or in very large part upon the initial syllable, i.e. sed agit, the question will still present itself, whether, after all, there is not some reason in the special kind of iambic or trochaic verse, some reason in the placing of the caesurae for the non- occurrence of the accentuation sed-dgit. With this question in view, I have examined about 1500 Greek iambic and tro- chaic verses in Philemon and Aristophanes, and I find that in Greek, where the influence of the stress-accent does not exist, the two accentuations occur with equal frequency in trochaic verse and in the longer iambic verses, in 500 verses of this sort the metrical accent falling 9 times upon the sec-
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 69
ond syllable and an equal number of times upon the initial syllable, while in the iambic trimeter the accent upon the second syllable bears to the initial accent the ratio approxi- mately of 2 : 3.1 Thus the trimeter alone is found to be some- what more favorable in its structure to the initial accent for the reason that of its two chief caesurae the semiquinaria is more frequent than the semiseptenaria. The two most com- mon forms of a Greek trimeter containing one of these trisyllabic groups may be seen from the following verses:
Phil./rgm. go, I (Kock) : /ze^w ra *aKa jnxowri | iroXXoi, S.Wora. Id./rgm. 90, 6 TWOVTO yeycve | TO KO.KOV rf\iKov trep rjv.
3
The results obtained through an examination of Greek verse may be stated in detail as follows: In more than 600 iambic trimeters of Philemon the ratio of the medial to the initial accent is 12: 19; the medial accent occurs in frginm. 31, 5 ; 44, 4 ; 60, 2 ; 79, 1 1 ; 88, 9 ; 89, i ; 90, i ; 90, 1 1 ; 98, i; 131 ; 207; 240. In 450 trimeters of Aristophanes's Eqnites (extending through v. 1025) the ratio is 5:8; the medial accent occurs in Eq. 124; 140; 202; 482; 938. In 150 iambic tetrameters of Aristophanes the ratio is 4:4; the medial accent occurs Eq. 338; 433; 859; 899. In 350 tro- chaic tetrameters and dimeters of Aristophanes (Nub., Eq., Ran., Av.) the ratio is 5:5; the medial accent occurs Eq. 280; Av.28o; 388; 396; 790. In the 1 500 verses examined the medial accent occurs 26 times, the initial accent 36 times. In making the count^cases of the secondary accent, such as Phil.frgm. 100, 2, rt<? eXdXrjaev, were estimated according to the Latin accent-law. A distinction was also made between real and apparent trisyllabic groups, e.g. in Phil. frgm. 7, i jap CTTI TO pr)(J<', the preposition ejri is, of course, proclitic, and the first part of the resulting group, yap eTrl-ro prjf^a, is not trisyllabic but quadrisyllable. We may conclude, I think, from these statistics that in respect to the placing of the metrical accent upon the first or the second syllable of such
1 This ratio will hold good approximately for all the trimeters of the Middle and New Comedy according to the references given by Perschinka, De med. et nn: com. trim, iamb., Dissert. Philol. Vindob. Ill, 330 ff.
7<D Robert S. Radford. [1903
phrases as pa Alia, TT/SO? e'/te, Ta /ca/ca the Greek is absolutely indifferent, as it is upon the whole indifferent in the accentua- tion of the tribrach word.1
III. SUMMARY OF TERENTIAN USAGE,
The same test yields very different results when applied to the Latin poets. The accentuation of all the tribrach groups occurring in Terence is given in detail in a later section of this paper (p. 78 ff.), but since I wish, before proceeding farther, to discuss the origin and the effects of this accentua- tion, I shall here briefly summarize the results obtained in the fuller discussion. There are in Terence 176 certain or highly probable cases of tribrach (trisyllabic) groups of the form w, w ^ which show the initial accent, 3 certain cases of tribrach groups which show the medial accent, and half a dozen cases in which the accentuation is ambiguous (see p. 82 f., p. 85). We may estimate the ratio of the initial to the medial accent to be about 40: I, and we shall be justified in concluding that the former accentuation alone has been known to the spoken language of the republican period. With quadrisyllable groups of the form w, w ^ w the case is some- what different ; in these groups the accent has vacillated in the republican period between the first and the second syllables. Yet since the recessive force of the accent is seen to be much less in quadrisyllabic words, which are accented either generibus or gen^ribus^ than in trisyllabic words, which are accented only gtnere, and since consequently the force of the recession is insufficient to overcome entirely the slight pause which falls between the monosyllable and the following word,
1 According to F. Hanssen, " Ueber den griech. Wortictus," J\hein. Mus. XXXVII (1882), p. 258 ff. (cf. also Havet, Cours elem. ite metr., p. Il6f.) Greek tragedy is not wholly indifferent in tribrach words; on the other hand, Greek comedy is altogether indifferent, according to Humphreys, Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. VII (1876), p. 133; Klotz, Grundz., p. 269 f.; Perschinka, /./., p. 330 ff.
2 According to the valuable data furnished by Professor Humphreys, who, after a comparison of Greek usage, has made the necessary corrections for the influence of the verse-form (Trans. Am. Phil. Assoc. VII, p. 137), the accent generibus has been from three to five times as frequent in the actual speech of the republican period as the accent generibus.
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 7 1
the more usual accentuation of the quadrisyllable groups has been that of the second syllable, i.e. scd hdmines, although the initial accent, se'd homines, appears also to have been in current use.
It is chiefly through the tendency of the monosyllables to coalesce in pronunciation with the following word that trisyl- labic groups have been formed in Latin and have received re-accentuation in accordance with the three-syllable or the earlier initial accent law. As has already been indicated, the pause that divides a word of one or two morae from the following word may be shown by numerous metrical tests to be extremely brief in a quantitative language like the Latin ; yet, even with the diminishing pause, a recession of the accent cannot easily arise without a fixed or usual order of words. Hence, if, as appears to be the case, a general recession of the accent has taken place in these groups, this must be due to the analogy of the many phrases which have acquired a fixed order. We may suppose that the analogy of the numerous verbal compounds with monosyllabic prepositions, such as abeo, ineo,pereo, subeo, has first exerted its influence and led to the recession of the accent in all the trisyllabic locutions of fixed form or frequent occurrence. The latter, the fixed locutions, are indeed very numerous ; thus with enim alone we have et enim, at enim, sed enim, ncqne enim, quid en im, quod enim, quia enim, ego enim, etc., all of which are virtual composita and in very frequent use. Again, in consequence of the ^les of word-position by which the per- sonal and demonstrative pronouns are attached in the sen- tence directly to prepositive conjunctions, to interrogative words and affirmative particles, a multitude of fixed locutions arise containing ego and the various forms of is ; i.e. et ego (Seyffert, Stud. Plant., p. 12), nam ego (ibid., p. 20), pol ego (Kellerhoff, Student. Stud., II, p. 60 ff.), quid ego (Kampf, Pronom. Personal., p. 31 f.), quod ego (ibid., p. 33), at ego, sed ego, dum ego, ubi ego, etc. ; at ea, et ea, sed enm, at enm ad enm, in eum, ab eo, quid eo, etc. ; with homo also we have the frequent phrases hie homo, is homo, quis homo, qui homo, etc. In short, of the 180 cases of the tribrach group found
72 Robert S. Radford. [1903
in Terence, nearly two-thirds occur apparently in fixed locu- tions of this character. Finally, the analogy of the fixed locutions is followed by the merely fugitive and infrequent combinations, i.e. the analogy of quid agit and idagit is fol- lowed by sed agit, and the accentual group in its developed form does not apparently require the closest possible connec- tion in sense, provided always that the single words involved belong to the same clause. Thus we have not only the fre- quent phrases quid ais and tit ais, but also Phorm. 380 quern ami'cum tiiom ais f ui'sse, and not only the frequent phrase ubi erit, but also Hcc. 474 me'o erit ingenio.
Lindsay (Lat. Lang., p. 167 ff., and Journal of Philology, XX, 150 ff.) and Skutsch (Forsch., p. 157 ff.), in treating the sentence-accentuation in Plautus and Terence, have already discussed at length the proclisis of the Latin prepositions, but they have overlooked the similar proclisis 1 of the mono- syllabic conjunctions and adverbs. Yet the proclitic charac- ter of the Latin monosyllables, as a class, has always been recognized in a general way by Latin metricians, and has often been invoked in the explanation of special rules of Latin prosody; see L. M tiller, Res Metr?, pp. 164-170, 460-467; Ritschl, Proleg., pp. ccxiii, ccxxxiii, etc.; Podi- aski, Quomodo Tcrentius in tetrametris iambicis et trochaicis, etc., pp. 7, 10, etc.; O. Brugman, Quemadmodum in iambico senario, etc., p. 18; Kohler, De verb. ace. in troch. sept. Plant., p. 29; cf. Weil et Benloew, L' Accentuation lat., p. 56, and Corssen, Ausspr., II2, 862 ff. The Roman grammarians also recognize no distinction in character between the prepositions and other monosyllabic words, as the testimony of Audax, quoted above (p. 64), clearly shows. Finally, the Latin iambic poets of the classical period, when admitting a short monosyllable to form part of the resolved arsis,2 treat the
1 I do not forget in making this statement that many German scholars employ ' enclisis' as a general term for word-grouping (Tonanschluss), and avoid entirely the use of the term ' proclisis,' which, as is well known, is not of ancient origin, but a coinage of G. Hermann's. On my own account I have not hesitated to employ 'proclisis,' after observing the general use of the term among Romance scholars.
2 By ' arsis ' is meant the strong, or accented part of the foot.
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 73
prepositions and conjunctions precisely alike ; i.e. they use in-amore and ft-amore, with equal frequency, as quasi-quad- risyllabic words; for examples, see B. Schmidt, De Senccae tragg. rationibus prosodiacis et mctricis, p. 46 f .
In saying that the Latin monosyllables are regularly pro- clitic, I do not mean to deny that there are many single phrases in which monosyllabic words have acquired an en- clitic use through the observance of some fixed order. Such phrases are nescio quis (iicscioquis\ nisi si (nisist), simttl ac (simulac\ ctiam mine (etiamnnnc), and the like, a fuller enu- meration of which may be found in Corssen, Aussfr., II2, 835- 86 1. Especially frequent in these phrases is the quantitative type w w, c;, which, by an extension of usage, seems some- times to be pronounced as a single word in the caesurae of the chief Latin verses, on the basis of the form alone. Impor- tant as these enclitic phrases are, they constitute a very small part of the total use of monosyllabic words. The parts of the substantive verb are also regularly enclitic; compare the frequent writing amatast, amatumst in our Mss. Hence, it is necessary to distinguish carefully between the groups quid opus alone and quid opus-est. The first is trisyllabic {quid opus) ; the second is quadrisyllable, and has a variable accent (quid opus-est or quid 6pus-est\ just as we have found the accent to vary in quid agitur and sed homines. The case is similar with et ego or at ita alone, and the fuller combinations et ego-me or at ita-me.^L
According to the view here adopted, trisyllabic groups, such as sed enim, sed ego, sed homo, etc., have originally arisen through the proclisis of the monosyllable, but with the result that a dissyllable with short penult has practically become enclitic whenever a monosyllable precedes. This explanation may appear at first to be somewhat at variance with the results reached by Wackernagel in his extremely valuable and comprehensive article, " Ueber ein Gesetz der Indogermanischen Wortstellung," Indogerman. Forsch., I (1891), p. 333 ff. In the part of this article devoted to the Latin word-order (p. 406 ff.1), Wackernagel has shown, with
1 See, also, the summary in Stolz, Histor. Gramm. d. lat. Spr., I, p. 105.
74 Robert S. Radford. [1903
great completeness, that the Latin personal and demonstra- tive pronouns manifest a strong tendency to occupy the second place in the sentence, — a place which is not only commonly occupied, in Latin, by such unemphatic words as enim, quidem, etc., but which is associated, in most of the Indo-European languages, with accentual weakness, or encli- sis. It follows that the personal and demonstrative pronouns are enclitic whenever they follow the prepositive conjunctions, as well as in some other cases. While it did not fall within the scope of his article to treat the verse-accent of the early Latin poets, Wackernagel has clearly demonstrated, in sub- stance, that at some period of the Latin language the initial accent existed in many of the groups which we are now dis- cussing, viz. sed ego, std eitm, quid eo, etc., as well as sed tuy se"d mihi, and the like. I gladly recognize the great value of Wackernagel's independent proof of the fact, but in respect to the process, although he has found it convenient to employ the term ' enclisis ' throughout, I cannot see that his results are necessarily opposed to the account which I have just given. In the first place, in a very large number of the trisyllabic groups which we are now discussing, the weakly accented word does not, as a rule, occupy the second position in the sentence, i.e. dd eum, dd emm, tibi ego, sat erat, turn agam, hie homo, etc., so that no theory of enclisis will apply to these cases. Secondly, the personal and demonstrative pronouns, being usually employed without emphasis, are more or less weakly accented in all parts of the sentence; hence they naturally gravitate to the second, or enclitic posi- tion, which is, however, rather to be considered a proof than a cause of their weakness. In view, of these considerations it seems probable that the initial accent has arisen in the man- ner already described, although it is not to be denied that in some cases word-grouping through enclisis may also have op- erated, and the two processes may have gone on side by side. In any case the results are clear enough. The mono- syllables which are, as a rule, atonic, often acquire the accent of the word-groups into which they enter, as in se"d- homo, std-homines, and with the accent they acquire the
Vol. xxxiv.]
Latin Monosyllables.
75
power of shortening a following unaccented syllable, as in se"d-ha?c, std-arghiti. Groups containing the pronouns ille, iste, ipse, and other weakly accented words, such as nndc* omnis, esse, eccnm, hercle, ergo, etc., often adopt a similar accentuation; thus, on the analogy of std ego, se"d fa, se"d enm, we have sed tins, se"d Ilia, se"d fstum;2 on the analogy of std age, s/d enim, we have std trgo, etc. Through false analogy the popular pronunciation sometimes gave to the monosyllable an accent incorrectly and, consequently, dis- regarded a genuine grammatical accent, as we may see from accentuations like se"d iixor, pe"r hortum, which are occasion- ally admitted by Plautus. Cases of this last kind are very rare in Terence; Spengel cites only e"ho obsccro (Andr. 781),
3
quod interest (Eun. 233); cf. s/d interim (Eun. 607; Meant.
1 3
882(1)); tuam mveniri (Andr. 939).
3
The following table will serve to show at a glance the manner in which the syllable-shortening arises:
WORDS. |
WORD-GROUPS. |
SHORTENING BY ANALOGY. |
|
Dissyllabic |
erus dgit |
sed hie tlbi amicus |
sed hate fibi drgenti |
Trisyllabic |
< genere |
sed ea qudd enim qut erit quid habuisset quid opus |
std Ilia qudd lius ita Usse tuam Inveniri ut 2x-me |
Quadrisyllable |
generibus |
quid opus-est sed etiam qut homines |
se"d dbsecro * sed Interim quid Interest |
* All such cases as sed obsecro, in which a trisyllabic word of this kind is short- ened after a monosyllable, are due to " false analogy."
1 The examples here used are taken from Spengel, Einleit. Andria, p. xxviii ff.
2 Compare Ahlberg, Procel., p. 49 : Haec vocabula cum vocabulo praecedenti proxime coniuncta quasi enclitica fiunt : et ipsus, ut ifsus, sid eccum. This is a statement of the result, not of the process : a special form of accentuation, so
76 Robert S. Radford. [1903
The question may well be asked at this point, What is the accentuation of trisyllabic groups formed by long monosylla- bles, i.e. groups of the form _, v/ w ? Such groups are not in all respects similar to tribrach groups, for the reason that a somewhat longer pause (' latens tempusj Quintil. IX, 4, 98) falls after a long monosyllable than after a short ; hence the long monosyllable possesses a greater independence ; compare also the accent gtneribus with exJiibeas. I propose to discuss the accent of these groups in full elsewhere; it will be suf- ficient to point out here that the initial accent is the usual, though not the sole, form of pronunciation for the republican period. Thus Plautus and Terence have only hoc age in the middle of the verse, although hoc age is very frequently em- ployed in the first foot (cf. p. 68, above); in addition, hdc age has always been admitted by the Roman poets in the accentual fifth foot of the hexameter. The recessive accentu- ation has already been shown by Lindsay and Skutsch to be the rule in such prepositional groups as in rein, in mare, in locum ; it is the rule also in groups like at tu, sed tamen, et tibi.
IV. ADDITIONAL METRICAL TESTS.
The metrical test which has already been described may be applied in a somewhat different and perhaps a still more striking form. The application to which I refer consists in observing the formation of the proceleusmatic feet. The iambic proceleusmaticus consists of four shorts arranged in pairs, the two pairs being contained as a rule in separate words, e.g. vides hodie, ego tibi, and it involves, as is well known, a regular agreement of verse and word accent. Fortunately, by means of the valuable collection which has been made for an entirely different purpose by Ahlberg, De
contrary to the general law of the Latin accent, can only have arisen through some widespread and powerful analogy. Yet perhaps we have no right to assume in the first place that in the genuine Roman language two consonants produce definite length in unaccented or in weakly accented syllables, unaccented syllables being those which have neither a genuine primary word-accent nor a metrical accent; cf. Leo, Plautin, Forsch., p. 291; Corssen, Ausspr. II,2 p. 618 ff.
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 77
proceleusmaticis, I, p. 131 ff., we can readily examine the formation of all the iambic proceleusmatici which occur in the dramatic poets of the republic. In Ahlberg's collection we find forty-two examples of the type vides db ea (inclusive of nine examples which involve syllable-shortening, as in rogat tit Ilium), but of the type sed ab ta we find only a single case, i.e. Cist. 594 ego addnnm, which maybe excused by the license of the first foot, cf . p. 65, above.1 Hence proceleusmatici of the types sed ab fa, id nt e"rus, et homo ubi, neqne ego dmo are evi- dently avoided by the iambic poets, although in these assumed types the thesis is formed in a thoroughly legitimate manner (see Ahlberg, /./., I, ioff.), and although the dissyllabic arsis also is one of the most usual forms, see ibid., p. 23. Hence, since neither the assumed formation of the thesis is avoided taken separately nor that of the arsis taken separately, it is clear that the avoidance of these types is due to the effect produced by the two formations when occurring together, and this effect is none other than the false accent sed ab /a, neque ego dmo. The twelve examples of the type vides db ea cited by Ahlberg from Terence are as follows — from the iambic trimeter (/./., p. I35f.): Andr. 737 ego quid agas; Heaut. 872 ego domi ero ; Phorm. 98 ea si'ta erat(see Ahlberg, p. 156); Eun. 509 video ab ea; Phorm. 48 alio, ubi erit; — from the iambic sept, and oct^(p. 140 f.): Phorm. 491 capiti. || idem ego; Eun. 309 modo quod ames ; Ad. 192 si ego tibi illam; — from the trochaic sept. (p. 149 f.): Phorm. 346 vide quid agas ; Heaut. 966 tibi qui erat ; Eun. 224 vide quid agas ; — from the trochaic oct. (p. 151): Eun. 618 rogat lit ilium. Similar examples from Plautus and the dramatic fragments are: Bacch. 508; Men. 70; Mil. 136; Stich. 419; Poen. 693; Enn. trag. frgm. 297; Fab. tog. Titin. 98; Mil. 1257; 1276; Asin. 430; Most. 176; True. 131; Poen. 818; True. 581;
1 Only apparent exceptions are offered by Naev. com. frgm. 21 quis heri apucl te, and by ScholPs text of True. 693 isquidem hie apud nos (Mss. : apud nos est hie), since dpud-te, dpud-nos are really trisyllabic. Only apparent also is the exception Epid. 593 ndmquid ego ibi, where the real division is num quid- ego fbi (see p. 84, p. 98, below). On the other hand, extremely doubtful even in the first foot is such a procel. as Fleck, reads with the Calliopian Mss. in Heaut. 93-1 : et id erit, where Umpf. and Dz. read with A post, et id.
78 Robert S. Radford. [1903
Mil. 994; Rud. 731 ; True. 879; Aid. 734; J5^;V/. 641 ; Men. 162; J/<wA 305; 833; Pers. 832; C?//. 461; Cure. 160; 170; 7W». 715; Amph. 748; Pacuv. trag. frgm. 99; Pseud. 1283. The Latin accentuation of .$•<?*/ tfgV/ as a single word is also made probable by some of the general rules of Latin prosody. Two of these may be mentioned here : (i) the absence of a full or genuine word-end within the trisyllabic group is shown by its admission in all the uneven feet (see p. 92, below) to form the iambic anapaest, i.e. sed agiint, since the thesis of this shortened, this exceptionally swift anapaest does not in general admit division by a word-end ; see Ritschl, Proleg., p. ccxxxvii; Klotz, Grundz., p. 3O7.1 (2) The general law of Latin prosody against the placing of monosyllables before the pauses is evidently based upon their proclitic character ; for it is a rule of the Graeco-Roman poetry that a full word-end must fall at the end of a metrical period (Rossbach-West- phal, Metr. II2, p. 106), and such a word-end scarcely falls in Latin within a complex like si-bona.
V. TERENTIAN USAGE IN DETAIL.
It seems desirable to explain clearly the system of meas- urements upon which the following statistics for the accentua- tion of tribrach groups in Terence are based. In cases which involve a primary accent, such as id agis, the measurement of the tribrach requires no explanation, but in cases involving a secondary accent, it must be borne in mind that the secondary group should be measured from the place of the primary grammatical accent. Thus in Eun. 931 : mddo &dules\centu- lus, the rule is not violated because the first part of the phrase is quadrisyllable when estimated from the place of the pri- mary accent in adulesce'ntulus ; on the other hand hSmo adii- lescens (P/iorrn. 1041) and pol ego amator (cf. Eun. 936 cum
1 The metrical law of Lachmann and Ritschl which forbids the divided thesis of the anapaest, etc., is subjected to thoroughgoing criticism by Maurenbrecher, Hiatus und Verschleifung im alt. Lat., Leipzig, 1899, p. 26 ff; Maurenbrecher's careful analysis (/./., p. 31) proves only that the law is not one of absolute validity, which we have little right to expect it to be in the case of poets so little bound by fixed conventions as the Roman dramatists.
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 79
amatore) are the only admissible accents in genuine trisyllabic groups. In the cases, also, where the last member of a tri- syllabic phrase coalesces through elision with some following word, as in quid 2g(o) hodie (¥\&\\\.. Most. 531), there is clearly no violation of the rule ; for this phrase may be considered as made up not of quid and ego alone (quid-€go\ but of quid and e"go-hodie ; cf. Andr. 684 ubi tibi erit, though we find only ubi ^lbi alone. Similarly the complex character of the follow- ing prepositional phrases with apud is clear : Andr. 254 mihi apud-forum ; Heaut. 377 scio, apud-patrem. Finally not every chance occurrence of the forms v, ^ ±> and ^, ^, ^ constitutes a trisyllabic sentence-group, but the words in- volved must at least belong to the same clause and be connected in the sentence-enunciation. Where the words belong to different clauses, set off by punctuation, the rule does not apply. Hence I omit from these statistics examples both (i) of the form w; 6 ^ and (2) of the form 6; w ^, viz., (i) Eun. 630 fit, ubi; Heaut. 154 fit, ubi ; 628* 1 ego, erus ; Phorm. 1029 sic dabo : age; Hec. 610 pol. f, abi ; 637 fit. || ea; Ad. 646 Quid? || ego; cf. 943 haecquidem. || age; 946* quid? || 6go (Dziatzko); 982 da modo. || age. — (2) Andr. 713 siqui'd. || age; Hcaut. 974 ego, id obesse ; Eun. 252 nego; ait?; cf. 381 sine. || at enim istaec. To prac- tically the same head should be referred two apparent excep- tions in which the monosyllable is closely connected with the preceding word through elision, and at the same time is separated from the following dissyllable by the principal caesura, e.g. :
Eun. 512: Ubi ve"ni, caiis(am), ut | ibi man£rem, r£pperit. Ibid. 394 Triumphal. || h6c provis(o) ut, | ubi tempiis stet.
It would be harsh and unnatural in these examples to read ut | ibi, ut | ubi and thus place a caesura within the short- ened anapaest ; we should rather consider ut-ibi as separated by a species of tmesis and causam ut when followed by the principal caesura as equivalent to a single word in the same manner in which we are accustomed to read well-known
1 » indicates passages where the text is uncertain and editors are at variance.
8o Robert S. Radford. [1903
Vergilian lines such as ' Multum ille et \ terris,' where illet is metrically a single word ; cf. L. Miiller, Res Metr., pp. 275, 350. In conclusion we may summarize the rule for measur- ing and accenting trisyllabic groups as follows : Any three short syllables, the first of which is a monosyllable or a dis- syllable reduced to a monosyllable by elision, receive the met- rical accent only upon the initial syllable, i.e. 6, w w or 6, ^>, w, in case the three shorts immediately precede a fixed word- accent and belong to the same clause.
I shall consider the example of tribrach groups occurring in Terence under the following divisions : A. necessary cases of the accentuation se"d agit (with 2 subdivisions) : B. appar- ent exceptions, such as at ita me, quod dpus est : C. real ex- ceptions attested by the Mss. transmission.
A. NECESSARY CASES OF THE ACCENT SED AGIT. — (a) Cases in which the quantity of the final syllable is certain in each in- dividual case, inclusive of the cases of final -s not making position in thesis. Especially noteworthy are the phrases se~d- agis, agit, aget, age, ea, eris, erit, erus, era, ita, opus, ego opinor, etc. Cf. quid agis Andr. 134; Heaut. 947; 976; PJiorm. 216; Ad. 60; 780; — quae agis Ad. 680; — sat agit Heaut. 225 (Mss. reading); — qui aget Phorm. 27; — age age Heaut. 332 ; 722 ; Phorm. 662 ; Ad. 877. In Heaut. 611 most editors read :
*N6n em6' : quid agis? || Optata 16quere. || Qui ? || Non £st opus.
But Fleck, has already adopted here the reading of the best Mss. of the Calliopian recension, viz., ages D^1 (P gis in ras.\ on the ground that the future tense is better suited to the sense, cf. v. 608 : egon ? ad Menedemum ibo : dicam. For the textual corruption, compare especially Ad. 343, where all Mss. except A have quid agis instead of the quid ages re- quired by the sense. [Note further quid agis Ace. trag.frgm. 191 R. ; Lucil. XXIX, No. 31 M. ; — fd agit Enn. trag.frgm. 185 R. ; — quod agis Terentianus Maurus 2368; quid dgts occurs once in the whole Roman literature in an apparently sound text, viz., Sen. Troad. 607 quid dgis, Uh'xe, where it may be explained as due to the license of the first foot. Ac-
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 8 1
cording to the references for agis in Lodge's Lexicon Plau- tinum the type se"d agis is found in Plautus 47 times in the following phrases : quid agis (28 times), siqufd agis (6 times), quo agis (2), tii agis (2), te agis (3), vf agis (i), re"m agis (i), bene agis (i), male agis (i), quod agis (i), fdagis (i), cf. for the last Corp. Gloss. Lat. II 761, u, 12. Plautus also has quid agit (3 times), tiia agit (uxor) (i), satagit (i); the cor- rupt texts Aul. 658, Mil. 81 1 are omitted. There are only 4 passages in the dramatists in which the scansion quid dgls (in- stead of quid agis} is even possible, viz. Rnd. 337 ; Eun. 378 ; 797; Ace. trag.frgm. 135 R. ; three of these cases belong to the first foot. The type s/d age (references in Lodge, Lex. Plant.} occurs in Plautus 6 times as follows : s£d age ( I ), age age (2), rem age (i), palam age (i), tua age (i).]
Andr. 337 nisi ea; 837 ubi ea; Heant. 334 an ea; Phorm. 480 quid eum? || Ut; 1015 sed ea; — Andr. 420 tibi erit; 684 ubi erit ; Phorm. 889 datum erit ; Hec. 474 m£o erit ; — quid ita Andr. 371; Eun. 366; 725; 861 ; 897; 959; 1008; Heaut. 610; Phorm. 568; — Heaut. 874 neque ita; 941 s£d ita; Ad. 161 an ita; 483 nisi ita; — Phorm. 47 ubi era; 634 ut erus ; cf. 471 et qui'dem ere, which may, however, be taken as etqufdem ere. Umpf. and Dz. read tibi e"re Andr. 508, but the text is corrupt and the order much confused in the Mss. ; Fairclough now reads tibi ere, Fleckeisen tibi rcnuntio, tre. An exception might seem to be offered also by Hcc. 799 :
Edepol n6 meam erus esse 6peram d£putat parvi preti,
but we need not hesitate to accept here the order which is found in D (and also in F): ee ems, i.e. e"sse erus. [Note also quo erus Pompon, com. frgm. 45 R. According to a collection of examples which in part is based upon the Le- maire Index and is, therefore, only approximately complete, Plautus has the type se"d erus (ere, era} 31 times. The four passages in which either sed erus or sed erus (with length by position) is possible, are to be read according to the latter scansion, since certain cases of erus are not rare in Plautus. The accent nisi Srr/s in a single apparently correct text (Poen. 839) may be explained as due to the license of the first foot
82 Robert S. Radford. [1903
of a colon (fifth foot of the septenarius).] — quid opus, Andr. 490; Phorm. 762; — PJwrm. 440 siqui'd opus, i.e. si quid opus; 654 sed mi'hi opus (probable scansion); 681 tibi opus; 716 ita opus; Ad. 996 quod opus. The ambiguous passage Eun. 223 si sit opus, vel totum is to be read opus, as is also Ad. 617 id anus mihi; for certain cases of opus in Terence, see Heaut. 80; Ad. 254, etc. [Note also Afran. com. frgm. 145 R. fit opus; Titin. com. frgm. 4 R. id opus ; cf. Pompon. com. frgm. 66 R. age anus. The usage of Plautus is similar in respect both to opus and to anus ;{ a single exception, in opus Vidul. 75, is due to the license of the first foot.] For apparent exceptions occurring in quid opus-est and similar phrases with est, see p. 87, below.
Hec. 538 ut ego opi'nor ; for the numerous examples of this phrase in Plautus, where it is always similarly accented, see Kampf, Pronom. Personal, p. 4; cf. Andr. 179 neque ut opinor ; Eun. 22 quom ibi adessent ; 242 quae habitudost ; 522 quid habuisset; 588 in alienas ; 606 pol ego is essem ; 764 volo ego adesse ; 926 quod ei amorem; Heaut. 191 ad earn in urbem ; 592 tibi opis ; 637 at id omitto ; 836 pro ali- mentis ; Phorm. 94 mi'hi onus ; cf. 175 ego in eum incidi ; 332 quia enim in illis ; 412 ego adipiscar; 509 quod homo inhu- manissumus; 531 s£d utut ; 545 Geta alienus ; 553 siqui'd opis; 1041 homo adulescens ; 1046 quod is iubebit; cf. Ad. 232 turn agam ubi 1 illinc. {Total 73.)
(/3) Cases in which the quantities of the final syllables are not perhaps altogether certain in single cases, but are suf- ficiently certain collectively. It is generally agreed by Ter- entian critics that many final syllables which were ' half-long ' or prevailingly long in Plautus are to be considered as defi- nitely short in Terence ; thus verbal forms in -at and -et which were originally iambic, such as erat, amat, amet, habet, are pyrrhics in Terence (see Bomer, De correptione vocab. iamb. Terentiana, p. 12); homo retains a long final only in arsis (Bomer, /./., p. 18; Fabia, ed. Ad., p. 55); ego, ibi, ubi have a long final only in arsis, and even then in very rare cases
1 A dissyllable when elided is commonly treated as a monosyllable in Latin.
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 83
(Klotz, Grundz.,^. 5 if.; Bomer, /./., p. 34, p. 63; Hauler, Anh. 2. Phorm., v. 176). On the other hand verbal forms of the first and second persons, such as ago, ero, eras, habes, abis, are probably to be considered as having more often a long final in Terence ; hence cases like Andr. 614 id ago, 714 domi ero,1 will not be included in this collection. On the principles just stated we have the following examples of groups involv- ing the so-called ' half-longs ' : ( I ) erat, amat, amet, habet ; Eun. 736 sat erat (or sdterat, like poterat ; see Leo, Plant. Forsch., p. 266 ; L. Miiller, Res. Metr., p. 466 f., and compare the word-division in the Plautus Mss.) ; Meant. 629 s6d erat ; 966 qui erat; Phorm. 97 si'ta erat; 768 sat erat (saterat); Ad. 494 mi'hierat; Eun. 986 quid? amat?; Ad. 341 quom amet; Andr. 954 qufa habet; Heaut. 835 d^cem habet; Phorm. 1041 si habet; Ad. 382 sfbi habet; — (2) homo: mf homo Andr. 721; Phorm. 1005; Ad. 336; — Andr. 778 pol homo ; Eun. 960 qui's homo ; — (3) apu(a\ ibi, nbi: cf. Phorm. 198 modo apud portum ; Andr. 343 sed ubi ; 928 is ubi ; Enn. 719 parem ubi; Heant. 983 6t ibi; cf. Phorm. 827 s£d ubi nam ; cf. Ad. 527 me, ubi; 570 sci'o ubi. On the other hand in two ambiguous passages we should scan nbi and ibi: Eun. 414 is ubi molestus; Ad. 584 quid ibi facit; the latter is
1 7
rightly so scanned by Speng^l, for the original quantity is preferable on other grounds in the pure seventh foot of the septenarius. ( Total 24.)
(4) The following phrases occur with ego in Terence : dn ego, at ego, ecquid ego (i.e. ec quid ego), e"t ego, (et quidem ego), id ego, idem ego, nam ego, ne"que ego, nisi ego, quasi ego, quid ego, quod ego, qudm ego, quhn ego, quom ego, se"d ego, tibi ego, tuam ego, vir ego, ubi ego, ut ego: — Andr. 252; 508 (id ego, rightly scanned as trochaic verse by Fleck, and Faircl); 519; 563; 612; 850; 886; 944; Eun. 142; 265; 293; 496; 822; 930; 958; 1081; 1086; Heaut. 191; 252; 529 (quid ego ni); 5635631; 663; 686; 956;993; 1032; Phorm. 491; 519; 587; 685 ; 844 ; 1000 ; 1031 ; 1052 ; Hec. 98 ; (195 : et quidem ego, or etqui'dem ego) ; 408 ; 524 ; 564 ; 850 (rightly scanned as tro-
aThis is the accentuation of Spengel and Fleck., and is approved by C. F. W. Miiller, Plant. Pros., pp. 155, 182 ; other editors accent wrongly domi ero.
5 j. Robert S. Radford. [1903
chak by Umpf . and Dz.); Ad. 128 ; 256 ; 378 ; 568 ; 749* ; 784 ; 877 (ecqtttd ego)', 916; (946, Umpf.); 972 ( Total 5O> In the
example ecquid ego cited from Ad. 877 we have what appears at first the inadmissible accentuation of a trochaic word upon the ultima, cf . Podiaski, U.f p. 62 ; but this accentuation is only apparent ; for all the compounds formed of two mono- syllables admit in early Latin of being resolved into their original parts (Ritschl, Proleg., p. ccxxii f. ; Klotz, Grttndz.t p. 324). Hence we may write here if we wish ec quid ego, just as we often find this division in the Plautus Mss. (e.g. in B ec quid Cos. 242, et quid Ampk. 577, etc.), and as Leo writes in Sen- Oed. 263 quid quid ego fugi ; see also the lat- ter's remarks, Plant. Forsck-, p. 236. The extent to which the expressions containing ego have acquired a fixed order and become phraseological may be seen from the fact that the full form quid ego without elision occurs in Terence 13 times, quod ego 7 times, at ego and sed ego 4 times each, // ego 3 times, etc. That qitzJego-3n6. quidille possess most of the characteristics of actual compounds may be seen further from the fact that they take precedence over the compound quidni or fBOBB1; for in connection with ego and ille qteidni (qieittni ) suffers tmesis and the forms quid ego ni (Heaut. 529), quid illam ni(Ad. 662) result; for additional examples, see Plessis on Ad. 662 and Brix-Niemeyer on Mil. 1120. Hence so far as the actual usage of the language is concerned, Priscian (Kefl, III, 24, 23 f.) appears to be mistaken when he says that the conjunctions enter into composition with no words which are declined except with the indefinite pronouns, i.e. in siquis, meyuts, numqttis. We may be sure that if the Latin gram- marians had had occasion to develop fully this topic and to discuss in an independent manner the compounds capable of being formed with the help of conjunctions, they would have shown differences of opinion at this point, just as they differ widely in the lists which they give of the compound conjunc- tions and of the prepositions which may serve to form com- pound verbs (on the latter contrast, for example, Priscian, Keil,
1 For the latter fona, see dedottius, Keil, V, 66, 16 ; Carp. Glass. Lai. IV, 158, 19, etc.
Vol. xcriv.] Latin Monosyllables. 85
III, 56, 9f. with Donatus, IV, 366, lof., who excluding only apud and fetus leaves ample room for such compounds as contrafacere, frofttn-olare,1 propteresse, etc.). We can cer- tainly recognize no difference in closeness of connection between si-quis and si-ego, between cc-quis and et-ille, and if the question be decided on the basis of the accent to which Priscian so constantly appeals in the determination of compo- sita and on the basis of such usages as quid ego mi, we shffliM be compelled to recognize the phrases which are made up of conjunctions and of the personal or demonstrative pronouns as comfosita in the sense of improper compounds.1 On the other hand, if we adopt the traditional orthography, />. the usual word-division, as our standard, we shall recognize more justification for Priscian's statement; for siquis, ccquis, quis- quis, etc., are written very frequently together in Mss. and inscriptions, while we find, e^. in the Plautus Mss-, the orthography polcgo, quiaegot sedego, siego% etc., less frequently. That sed ego is the only accent known to Terence is also strikingly shown by the small number of cases in which the scansion appears doubtf uL For Terentian critics are agreed that the scansion ego is quite rare in Terence, and conse- quently we are not at liberty to assume this scansion freely. In point of fact, while scd ego is certain in 50 passages, we shall need to assume sed ^go in only 3 passages, viz. Heaut. 309 ita timuL jj at ego nihfl esse; 610 mine tibi ego
respondeo ; Hcc. 243 etsi scio ego, Philumena. There are no
1Haret writes fnfterofUmi as a compound in Phaedras ; see his remarks, «£ /*«*•-, p. 218, § 93.
* Lindsay, Lai Lmmg* p. 361 1, has some jast remarks apon word-gronpa as distinguished from genuine coaapowids. and apon the dmkalry of almrays dmtm- gnishing sharplv between the two. Since the present stady is fcr olmoas reasons based upon the ancient terminology, I haTe porposely taken no accoaat oflhe tjSgff^i^^rf which exists in modern nsage between the two terms ; see farther, p. loo, below. Upon the difficulty of distinguishing geanine compnarinn from • encfisis' in many cases, see also Stolz, Hist, Gramm, d, lot. Sfrmd*. L p. 404 «. Of coarse Ac true view is that neither aftas nor stegv, neither etemim nor ftaJ-
modern sense, thoagh afl alike are amfftitf i a»a»»»ac|.iiaim«iiiir' me
of the term, which is based primarily apon the meaning and the (e.g. Priscian, Kefl, H, 177, 15 &).
86 Robert S. Radford. [19°3
other passages in Terence which present any difficulty ; for in Andr. 762 the reading tibi di'co ego an (Umpf., Fleck.) is as well supported as tibi ego dico an, and in Eun. 155 Umpf. retains the Ms. reading aut ego in place of the correction at
ego. Cases like Andr. 967 £t quidem e"go, i.e. e^quidem ego scarcely require mention after the researches of Luchs (Comm. Prosod. II) and Ahlberg {Procel. I, p. 62 ff.)upon theenclisis of quidem and in view of the orthography hicquidem, illequi- dem, etc., now generally adopted by our editors. Besides the compositum e'tquidem, like e~ttamen, se~dtamen, sitamen, etc., is expressly attested by the grammarians (Audax, Keil, VII, 349, 18). Here belong also Andr. 164 quemquidem ego si; Meant. 632 idquidem ego, si. For examples involving ego me (egome) and ego sum. (egosum), see the treatment of quadrisyllable groups below (p. 90).
(5) Cases of ais and ait seem to acquire a separate treat- ment, since Fleckeisen has shown that this verb was originally inflected according to the fourth conjugation and with long final syllable ; cf. Brix-Niemeyer on Men. 487. Whether, however, the long final of ais is retained by Terence under any conditions is extremely doubtful ; for this scansion, though accepted by Hauler and by most editors, rests solely upon the uncertain reading ais advtntum in Phorm. 315; the two other passages sometimes quoted, Hec. 346 and Ad. 570 quid ais? may both be explained like decipls ? Phorm. 528, as cases of syllaba anceps in pansa (see Hauler's note on Phorm. 528; Bomer, /./., p. 11). In any case the final syllable of ais is short in thesis in Terence, and the phrases quid ais, quid tu ais, quid ait, etc., are to be considered tribrach groups in the following passages : Andr. 184.; 517; 575; 588; 616; 665* ; 872 ; 933 (quid tu aYs); Eun. 334 ; 425 ; 654 ; 748 ; 829 ; 948; 957; Heaut. 182; 303 (qufd alt); 701; Phorm. 199; 380 (tiiom aYs) ; 383 (qui aYs) ; 700 (ut aYs) ; 755 ; 873 ; 1004 ; Hec. 236; 523; Ad. 556; 920 (quid tu aYs). (Total, 29.)
(6) Cases involving enim require special mention. As is well known, the final m of this particle was especially weak in early Latin, and Leo, Plant. Forsch., p. 302 ff., has even made an attempt to show that it was not pronounced before
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 87
the time of Lucilius. This extreme view, which Leo would himself probably now wish to modify, must be rejected for many reasons, and especially because it is not possible to accent et tni, at Jni in Plautus and Terence. It is, however, a reasonable view that except in arsis the final m of enim, like the final s of other words, was very faintly pronounced in early Latin ; hence the following cases of at eni, tt eni,1 id eni, quia eni, quid eni probably belong among tribrach groups: Andr. 848; Run. 751; 1074; Heaut. 3 17 (bis); 713; 800; Phorm. 487; Hec. 311 ; Ad. 730; 830. (Total, u.)
B. APPARENT EXCEPTIONS, WHICH ARE REALLY QUADRISYL- LABIC GROUPS. — It remains to notice those cases in which the group w, w v> appears at first to be accented upon the second syllable, but in which the accentuation is really ^,, 6 w, o through the attachment of an enclitic at the farther end of the phrase. These groups which are few in number may be distinguished very definitely ; they are formed either by the attachment of the substantive verb in certain phrases, as opus est (cf. opusf), ego sum (egosum\ or by the attachment of the personal pronouns, as in the formulae ego me, ego te, etc. (egome, egote\ ita me (itame\
(i) It has long been recognized by metricians that parts of the substantive verb like est, sit, sum, sim constitute one phrase with the preceding word, especially if the latter be a word ending in a pyrrhic, a trochee, or a tribrach (L. Muller, Res Metr., p. 466; cf. Lindsay, Lat. Lang., p. 167, and Classical Review, V (1891), p. 405). It can cause no surprise then to find the accents sed-opns-est* and se"d opus est equally fre- quent in the dramatic poets. Terence has four cases of the former: Heaut. 558; Ad. 601 ; Andr. 638; 265 sed mine peropus est, i.e. per opus est? He has also four cases of
1 On etenim in Terence, see Clement, A.J.P. XVIII, 414 ; in Eun. 1074 et enim still has, according to Langen (Beitrage, p. 271), the meaning of " und wahrlich." On postpositive etenim, see Clement, A.J.P. VII, 82; similarly, we often find in the poets postpositive sed enim, neqtie enim, quid enim.
2 With sed 6pus est, compare cases like excute-dum (Aul. 646), circumspice- dum (Most. 472), accipe-sis (Pers. 412); see Ritschl, Opusc. II, 568; Klotz, Grundz., p. 311.
8 Compounds with intensive per- are separable compounds, as Andr. 486, per
88 Robert S. Radford. [1903
the latter: Eun. 479; PJiorm. 560; Hec. 768; 865. The in- fluence of the copula upon the accent is usually but not necessarily confined to frequent formulae ; thus the drama- tists have no example of sed /nts est, yet we find Com. frgm. inc. inc. 742 R. hie dger est. A second very frequent formula is ego sum, and the evidence that it was often viewed by the Roman as a single word is complete. Thus egosum is glossed as one word, Corp. Gloss. Lat., Ill, 406, 4, it is provided with an abbreviation in the Commentarii Not. 7V- ronian., it is counted as a word of six letters in the ingen- iously constructed verses of the carmina duodccim sapientium, Baehrens, Poet. Lat. min. IV, p. 120, v. 10 (see Baehrens, /./., l,praef., p. XII), finally it is not infrequently written as a single word in the ' vetus ' of Plautus, e.g. egosum, Mil. 427; at/gosum perditus, Poen. 1379; for the similar enclitic forms potissnm, potissit, etc., see Leo, Plant. Forsch., p. 267, and Neue-Wagener, FonnenleJire d. lat. Spr. II, p. 176 f. Hence Terence writes Andr. 245 quemquam ut ego sum ; cf. Heaut. 825 ego homo sum (or, homo sum), but he has also quam ego
sum, Eun. 527 and PJiorm. 808. 1
ecastor stilus puer; see Lindsay, Lat. Lang., p. 198. Altogether similar to perdpus est are the Plautine nescio quis, nescio pol, i.e. ne scioquis, etc., on which see Luchs, Hermes, VI, 264 ff.
1 Similarly, punctuation is very possibly intentionally omitted Man. Anc. I, 28 ductisunt ; VI, 16 [appejllatussum. The present context naturally suggests some comment upon the formulae est enim, sunt eiiim. As is well known, the differ- ence between — est enim, the regular order, and — enim est, the occasional order, has been much discussed; for the literature of the subject, see Reisig-Schmalz, Varies. Ill, 850 f. The view of Madvig (de Fin., p. 92) and Drager {Histor. Syntax, II, 164 f.) on this question is correct, i.e. in the position sapientia est enim the copula is formally enclitic and forms a word-complex with sapientia, Hence the form of statement adopted by Neue-Wagener, Formenlehre d. lat. Spr. II, p. 977 ff., is not wholly satisfactory : " Sehr haufig steht enim an dritter Stelle, wenn eine Form von esse, besonders esf, mit einem Worte oder einem Satz- theile vorausgeht, wie acta est enim, pro Cluent. 37, 104." It should rather be said that in such cases enim stands in what is apparently the third place ; for in examples like satis est enim, expressa sunt enim, the particle no more occupies the third place in reality than it does in the examples a Graecis enim, ab Us enim (also cited by Neue), where it stands after a preposition and its case. This arrangement constitutes the regular usage, as may be seen from the examples in Neue and Drager. On the other hand, as Priscian so often teaches, word-corn-
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 89
(2) While Plautus and Terence commonly know only the accent std ita, an itat ntque ita and the like (see the examples cited p. 81), a special case is presented by at ita me in the imprecatory formulae. Langen (R/tein. Mus. XII (1857), p. 426 ff.) has shown that the position of the personal pro- noun me is fixed for each individual formula of this kind, and that in those formulae which contain the particle ita the pro- noun always follows immediately upon the particle, i.e. ita me di ament, ita me set vet luppiter, etc. The stereotyped char- acter which belongs to the asseverative formulae in general is also aptly described by Kellerhoff, Student. Stud. II, p. 77: "(Earum) verba adeo inter se cohaerent, ut fere individua esse nee quaedam a quibusdam separari posse videantur." Hence, through the enclisis of the personal pronoun, ita me becomes practically a trisyllabic word in the frequent for- mula ita-me di-ament ; cf . especially Wackernagel, Indogerm. Forsch. I, p. 410. Hence we find ita me actually written as one word in the 'decurtatus,' Merc. 762, and we find the whole formula written together (cf. mehercule, mediusfidius) in the 'vetus,' Poen. 1413 itantediament, i.e. ttamediament (for this accentuation of the phrase, which is the normal one, see Hauler's note on Phorm. 165). Much less frequent than ita me in the imprecatory formulae is the fuller form with prefixed at, i.e. at ita me, whicli constitutes a quadrisyllable group. In this group the accent at ita me is found twice in Terence, once in Plautus : Phorm. 807 vin scire ? at ita me servet luppiter; Hec. 258; Mil. 501. Here belong also the following examples of bene, ita me: Ettn. 1037 Bene, fta me
plexes (compositae dictiones) are also occasionally separated in actual use ; hence we sometimes find the order -enim est, as Cic. Cat. mat. § 24, nemo enim est tarn senex. This latter becomes the regular order in such combinations as quid-cnim est (Cat. mat. § 5), neque-enim est (Tusc. 4, 22, § 50), is-enim est (Fin. 3, 22, § 75) ; see still other examples in Drager, /./., II, 165, and in Hand, Tursell. II, p. 400 ff.; at the same time the distinction made by Hand, viz., that quid is emphatic in the order quid enim est, and est emphatic in the order quid est enim, may be true. Very instructive also to the student of Latin accentual groups are the additional examples of Cicero's usage quoted by Neue-Wagener, U., p. 979 f., i.e. opus erat enim, satis erat enim, eius rei enim, et formae enim, hoc quoque enim, nihilo minus enim, non lubet enim, non modo enim, quo modo enim, quae potest enim, quam multi enim, si quando enim, etc.
9O Robert S. Radford. [1903
df ament, factum ; Hec. 642 ; Phorm. 883. [In Plautus, ac- cording to the examples cited by Lodge, Lex. Plant., p. 113, the initial accent dt ita me is found five times,1 ntque ita me is found once.]
(3) The same enclisis of the personal pronoun appears in the familiar locutions ego me, ego te, ego vos, etc., where, in the Latin word-order, the two pronouns assume a fixed position in relation to each other ; cf . Rein, De pronom. ap. Ter. collocatione, Leipzig, 1879, p. 3 f . ; Mahler, De pronom. ap. Plant, collatione, Gryphisw., 1876, p. 3 ff. Metrical schol- ars have already observed in their study of the caesura that the pyrrhics mihi, tibi, ego form practically a single word with a following pronoun (see Waltz, La langue et la me'triqtte d' Horace, p. 187 f.), and this observation is fully confirmed by the evidence of the glosses and the Mss., which sometimes write the two together, i.e. Corp. Gloss. Lat. Ill, 524, 13 ' etegote' (where, however, the Greek Kayo) o-e stands first); Mil. 23 ' egome' B; Poen. 1407 ' egote' BC. Hence Plautus uses almost equally the accentuations // ego te and et e"go te. Terence has certainly ft (quid, pe"r, ibi) ego te with initial accent in the following passages: Andr. 533; 536; 834; Eun. 338 ; Hec. 610, while the accent on the second syllable perhaps occurs in the disputed passage Andr. 289 hdnc per e"go te (so Spengel, but most editors read quod pe"r ego //).
C. GENUINE EXCEPTIONS. STATISTICS. — The Terence Mss. offer three examples of exceptional accentuation in tribrach groups which appear to be textually sound, i.e. Hec. 200 qui'c- quam ab a/zarum fngenio ullam ; Ettn.'66i aliqui'd domo dbe~
4 2
untem abstulisse; ib. 107 Samia mihi mater fiiit, ea &#*tabit
4
Rhodi. Of these examples the third alone is sufficiently excused2 by the difficulty of forming the verse-close (cf. p. 67 f., above).
1This includes Poen. 1258, where it is necessary to correct the Ms. reading dt me ita to dt ita me.
3 It is perhaps possible that the two remaining exceptions, although they are not excused, are mitigated somewhat by the continuous elision, i.e. dom(o) abeunt(em) abstulisse. For certain licenses in the treatment of a word are per- haps occasionally introduced through the elision of the ultima ; thus Skutsch, Forsch., p. 107 ff., accepts amab(anf).
Vol. xxxiv.]
Latin Monosyllables.
It seems desirable to exhibit in brief statistical form the results which we have reached in an extended examination of the tribrach groups in Terence. In the following table all examples in which the quantity of the final syllable is certain for single cases are represented by e a ; examples which in- volve erat, amat, amet, habet are represented by erat ; those which involve ibi, ubi, homo (opus\ by ibi ; those which in- volve enim are not included in the table.
INITIAL ACCENT. |
AMBIGUOUS. |
MEDIAL. |
||
Ea. . . .. Erat . f. . |
73 12 |
3 |
||
Ibi. . \ . Ego . . . Ais . . . |
12 5° 29 |
3 3 (2) |
||
Total . . |
176 |
6(8) |
3 |
Those who have followed my analysis of the several kinds of examples will, I believe, agree with me in the view that cases admitting the accent sed ibi, sed opus cannot really have been ambiguous to the Romans of the republic ; at the most it will be admitted that the Romans of this period may have hesitated in reading the three cases of ego. Hence, classing these cases only as genuinely ambiguous and estimating them at half value, I reach the conclusion that the ratio of the initial accent to the medial in the tribrach groups of Terence may be placed at 176 : 4-^, or at about 40 : i.
Those who are acquainted with the principles on which the verse of the early dramatists is constructed will know how to interpret the frequent cases in which the initial accentuations occur several times in the same verse :
Ad. 780 : Nostin? || Jam scibo. || Quid agis ? quo abis? || Mitte m<§. Phorm. 216 : Non p6ssum ad£sse. || Ah quid agis ? quo abis ; Antiph6? Heaut. 317 : Quid-illo facias ? || At enim. \ Quid enim ? \ Si sinds,
dicam.H Sine. Ad. 680 : Et scio : nam te amo : quo magis qude agis curae stint mihi.
92 Robert S. Radford. [1903
Phorm. 199: Quid agam?\ Quid dis ? \ Huius patrem vidisse m£, patru6m tu6m.
See also Hcant. 191 ; Phorin, 1041, etc.
D. OBSERVANCE OF THE DIPODIC LAW. — Since trisyllabic groups, like sed agunt or idagutit, are freely allowed by the republican dramatic poets to form the iambic anapaest, and since the thesis of this shortened anapaest, according to the well-known metrical law, cannot be divided between two words, it follows, as I have already pointed out (p. 78), that sed agunt was regarded by the republican poets as very nearly the equivalent of a single anapaestic word.1 Still another proof of this fact remains to be pointed out. Sed agunt is not admitted as a shortened anapaest in all the feet, but is excluded from the same places from which redigiint is excluded, i.e. from the critical feet of iambic and trochaic verse, which commonly admit anapaestic and spondaic words only so far as they retain their normal prose accent. Ritschl (Proleg. pp. ccxxiii, ccxxxvi), with his wonderfully clear insight into all the problems of early Latin verse, has not failed to notice that Plautus commonly excluded these ana- paestic groups from the critical feet of the dipodies. A fact of similar bearing is noted and correctly explained by Podi- aski, /./., pp. 9 f., 55 f. In the seventh foot of the iambic octonarius and of the trochaic septenarius, in which the met- rical law forbids the oxytonesis of iambic words, but admits that of anapaestic words, an iambic word when preceded by a short monosyllable is regarded as the equivalent of an anapaestic word;2 hence, we have a legitimate verse-close in Phorm. 165 :
Ita m£ di b£ne ament, lit mihi liceat tarn diu quod amo frui. Cf. also Kohler, De verb. ace. in troch. sept. Plant., p. 30.
1 Similarly, in the strict Ovidian treatment of the dactylic pentameter a close like 'reiciet quid amansj i.e. quasi-trisyllabic close, is not admissible; cf. L. M tiller, Res. Metr., p. 248.
2 The same is true, of course, of the fifth foot of the senarius. The explana- tion given by Luchs {Studem. Stud. I, p. 13) of this part of his metrical law is scarcely the true one, as I hope to show more fully elsewhere.
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 93
I have examined three plays, i.e. Phormio, Hecyra, Adel- p/ioe, in order to determine how far the anapaestic groups observe the dipodic law in Terence. In the passage from the first to the second foot of the septenarius they are, of course, freely admitted (cf. Podiaski, /./., p. 73 f.), especially when they are preceded by a second coalescing monosyllable, as Phorm. 1040 hem quid afs; 200; 538. The following,
1 Z
also, are familiar cases of enclisis : Hcc. 6 ob earn rem; 584
4
ut apiid ma ; 705 in ea re; Ad. 590 qu6d quidem erft, i.e.
22 6
quodquidem erft. The three plays show the following excep- tions to the dipodic law: Phorm. 777 tii, Geta, abi prae; 951 quod modo erat; Ad. 6i7emisse: id anus mihi; 618 mfssa,
4 6
ubi earn; 704 nam tibi eos; cf. Hcc. 172 Horunc. Ea ad
6 6
hos (doubtful reading). These five exceptions to the dipodic
2
law, in the case of anapaestic groups, are scarcely more numerous than the exceptions admitted by Terence in the case of anapaestic words (see the dissertations of Brugman and Podiaski) ; it is noteworthy, also, that four of these cases are again preceded by monosyllables, and hence are excus- able as quasi-choriambic words (cf. Ritschl, Prolcg. ccxiii). On the other hand, anapaestic groups occur 55 times in the critical feet, with the normal accent std agiint, and are admitted 40 times in the licensed feet, with the abnormal accent scd agunt.
E. QUADRISYLLABIC GROUPS. — In trisyllabic groups we have seen that the three-syllable law was able, practically, to obliterate the pause after a short monosyllable, and to fix definitely the accent std ego. The case is quite different with quadrisyllabic groups, such as scd homines, for the reason that, in the case of fourth paeon words, there exists only a strong tendency toward the recessive accent, but no absolute four-syllable law. In the case of quadrisyllabic groups, the slight pause after the monosyllable tended to check this recessive tendency. Nevertheless, Biicheler, Umbrica, p. 171, was probably correct in assuming that the Umbrian neidhabas, Ig. IV, 33 (i.e. nci adhabas\ points to the existence
94 Robert S. Radford. [1903
of the accent »/ adeas in early Latin. The examination of the accent of these groups in three plays of Terence (Andr., Eun., Heaut.) yields the following results. The predomi- nance of the one accent or the other depends largely upon the kind of verse employed. In trochaic verse the accent on the fourth syllable is nearly twice as frequent as the accent on the third syllable, the ratio for the three plays being 23: 13; in iambic verse the accent on the third syllable is nearly three times as frequent as the initial accent, the ratio being 77 : 27. Hence, since iambic verse greatly predomi- nates in Terence, the accent on the third syllable is nearly twice as frequent as the initial accent in the three plays, taken as a whole, the combined ratio being 90 : 50. Hence, if we should look only at the combined ratio, we might, perhaps, conclude that sed homines alone represents the gram- matical accent. It is more probable, however, that s/d homi- nes has been a genuine, though a less usual, pronunciation, and that the grammatical accent has vacillated, in the repub- lican age, between the first two syllables. This may be shown from the following considerations: (i) The initial accent, as has already been mentioned, is actually twice as frequent in trochaic verse, which proves that it was by no means avoided. (2) Many single phrases show the initial accent predominant, also, in the combined ratio. Thus, quid agitur occurs in Plautus and Terence 10 times (5 cases in iambic verse, 4 in trochaic, I in cretic: Pers. 17; 309; Pseud. 273 ; Stich. 528 ; 722 ; True. 860; Phorm. 610; Ad. 373 ; 883 ; 885); quid agitur occurs 6 times (5 cases in iambic verse, I in trochaic : Most. 1076 ; Pers. 406 ; Pseud. 457 ; Eun. 271 ; 456 ; Ad. 901). Similarly the type s/d igitur occurs in Terence 7 times (3 cases in iambic verse, 4 in trochaic : Andr. 375 ; 383 ; 519; -598 ; 749 ; Eun. 854 ; 966) ; the type sed igitur occurs 5 times (all the cases being in iambic verse : Andr. 103; Eun. 46; Heaut. 818; Phorm. 924; Ad. 746). It is noteworthy that the recession is especially frequent in quadrisyllable groups, such as se"d opiis est, se"d ego me, etc., owing to the analogy of the simple se"d opus, se"d ego, etc. ; cf. p. 82 f ., above. (3) In proceleusmatic feet (iambic), which follow very closely
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 95
the grammatical accent, the accent on the third syllable is somewhat more usual, as Hec. 259 quam ego: id ddeo ; but the initial accent is also found, as Pkorm. 563 quid est quod opera ; Pers. 480 homines e"go hodie ; Cure. 93 viden ut aperi- untur (where ut is unnecessarily bracketed by Gotz); Asm. 699; Trin. 846; True. 763 ; see Ahlberg, Procel. I, p. 131 ff. It only remains to indicate those parts of the verse in which the initial accent chiefly occurs. In trochaic verse this accent is found occasionally in all the feet, but chiefly in the first and fifth, i.e. in the first foot of each colon ; as, —
Andr. 335 : Ego idagdm mihi qui ne detur. || Sdthabeo Davom 6ptume.
1 5
In iambic verse the initial accent occurs chiefly in the third foot and immediately after the caesura of the senarius or octonarius (e.g. Andr. 413 ; 536 ; 883 ; cf. the frequent accent fdcilius in the same position), in the fourth foot of the sena- rius (e.g. Andr. 89; 417; 749; 762) to aid in forming the well-known senarius-close, 6 \ ^ w ^. \ ^ jL II, cf. Luchs, Student. Stud. I, p. 13 ; Klotz, Grundz., p. 243, and at the very close of the senarius or octonarius, cf. Klotz, /./., p. 280 (e.g. Andr. 311; Eun. 84; 854). The following examples illustrate these positions: —
Andr. 413 : Hodie.6bservare, ut(p.v/W ageret de nuptiis.
3
lb. 749 : Satin sanus, qui me id r6gites? II Quern ego igitur rogem? Ib. 311 : Video. 6mnia experiri certumst prius quam pereo. || Quid hie agit?
In the light of these results I wish to comment briefly on the theory of ' initial intensity,' which was first put forward as applicable to Latin words by L. Havet, De Saturnio, Paris, 1880, p. 26 ff. (cf. Mtmoires de la Socittt de Linguistique, VI (1889), p. 13 f.), and has since found other adherents.1 Ac- cording to Havet an intensive pronunciation, i.e. a stress- accent, was associated with the initial syllable of Latin words. This ' initial intensity ' is, however, quite different from the
1 Cf. especially J. Vendryes, Recherches sur fhistoire et Us efftts de Pintensite initiale en Latin, Paris, 1902, and see the criticism of the theory by Solmsen in his review of this work, WoLflin's Archiv, XIII, p. 137 f.
o/3 Robert S. Radford. [1903
Latin accent described by the grammarians ; for the latter, in Havet's judgment, was a musical accent and exerted no influ- ence upon Latin prosody. Further, Havet recognizes this ' initial intensity ' as belonging not only to words but also to groups, and he explains the shortening in tibi tstum as due to the initial intensity of the group: "(Les monosyllabes brefs) peuvent abreger la premiere syllable du mot suivant, parce qu'ils font jusqu'a un certain point corps avec lui" (Havet quoted by Plessis, ed. Ad., p. 5). It is clear that so far as concerns the fact of intensive pronunciation in the first sylla- ble of tibi istum> this explanation is identical with the one which I have offered, but when the question is asked whether the intensive pronunciation of the first syllable is due to the laws of the Latin accent, Havet holds that it bears no rela- tion to these laws, but that the initial syllable is stressed qua initialis. Since then he admits the principle of word-groups in Latin pronunciation, the conclusion would seem to follow, if the theory of initial intensity be correct, that trisyllabic and quadrisyllable groups1 should be stressed on the first syl- lable with equal or nearly equal frequency. In practice we find, however, that these groups do not follow such a law of initial intensity, but that they obey rather the law accord- ing to which the Latin accent must recede three syllables and may (in words like facilius) recede four. Hence it appears that the accentuation of these groups cannot be explained by the theory of initial intensity, but only on the basis of the Latin accent-law.
VI. ANCIENT TESTIMONIES.
A. EVIDENCE OF THE GRAMMARIANS AND GLOSSES. — It is not my purpose to review at length in this paper the testimonies of the Latin grammarians upon the accentuation of three- syllable groups nor to examine fully the evidence of the word- division in the inscriptions and Mss. ; a brief treatment of these topics will be sufficient here. The Latin grammarians have
1 The verse-form would not itself prevent this accentuation, as is shown by the regular accent fdcilius.
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 97
nowhere had occasion to treat in a general or theoretical way the accent of such word-groups as we have examined ; their lists, however, of the more frequent compound conjunctions not only furnish us with much valuable information on the general subject of accentual groups (composita}, but include several examples of the present kind. Thus Priscian ex- pressly informs us that the compound conjunctions et enim l (etenirn) and sed enim (sedenim) have the initial accent: Keil, III, 93, II f. ( = Scholl, DC ace., p. 192) Composita vero dtque tienim, sedenim. Haec enim ex accentu composita esse nos- cuntur. Similarly sedenim is named as a composition also in a gloss on Max. Viet., Keil, VI, 203, 12 ; si enim, i.e. probably slenim, is named as a compositum by Donatus, Keil, IV, 365, 2 ; ibid., p. 389, 5, and by Cledonius, Keil, V, 24, 25 ; com- pare, also, the treatment of quidistic (in early Latin often quidistic) as a compositum by Priscian, Keil, III, 85, 33 ; Corp. Gloss. Lat. V, 622, 55 'quidistic sub uno accentu est profecto vel omnino.' There can be little doubt that the numerous other compounds of enim have a similar accent, i.e. at enim, neque enim, quid enim, quod enim, id enim, etc.
Among the glossarists Festus treats neceunt ( = non eunf) and necerim ( = nee eum) as single words (p. 162, 11 Mull.; Paul. exc. Fest., p. 162, 21 Miiltr), but the most complete evi- dence may be drawn from Gotz and Gundermann's Corpus Glossariorum Lat. The conjunctions here glossed as com- pound words are sede[c]cum, II, 181, 19 (where the gloss eTrtSt apparently indicates that the force of the simple conjunction is lost as completely as in the Italian ebbene (=etbene\ ' very good ') ; sedenim, IV, 565, 52 ; utenim, IV, 470, 45 : quid- enim, IV, 461, I ; quidita, II, 167, 14; IV, 158, 33, etc.; cf. quidistic, V, 622, 55; quid igitur, IV, 421, 1 6. In addition we find glosses upon the pronouns and verbs atego and astego,
1 Et enim is nearly always written in our texts of Latin authors as one word; it is scarcely necessary to say that no such uniformity exists in the Mss., which no more write et enim than they write ob viam and i» vicem invariably as one word. On account, however, of being much the most frequent of all the compounds of enim, etenim is usually written as one word, and this orthography is much more frequent than sedenim, quidenim, etc., which also occur.
98 Robert S. Radford. [1903
II, 284, 34 (where, however, the Greek stands first); et ego,
III, 342, 22 (where also the Greek stands first); ide\_g~\o (=€70) auro'[z/]), II, 80, 40; numquid ego (i.e. num quidego as a rule), =egone, IV, 369, 35; idagis, idagit, the latter = efe/jyeZ, II, 76, 12, 13; quiamat, II, 167, 5. The grammarians also name quidita among the compound adverbs (quidita, Audax, Keil, VII, 348, 14; quid ita, Dositheus, VII, 410, 24), and an abbreviation for the frequent phrase ego enim is found in the Commentarii Not. Tironian. It is instructive to com- pare also the traditional orthography in our texts of etenim, potero, poteram, satago, retr(o)ago, retr(o)eot veluti (cf. velut, nemut\ adeo, ideo, postidea, ant(e}idca, ub(i)tibi, necuter, neuter (according to some, cf. Lindsay, Lat. Lang., p. 39), necopinantem, etiam, quoniam, etc., although it should be remembered that the separate writing et enim, sat ago, vel uti, ubi ubi, nee opinantem is also frequent in the Mss., and even the division ad eo, id eo is sometimes found.
B. WORD-DIVISION IN INSCRIPTIONS AND Mss. — Finally, the word-division in the inscriptions and Mss. has an important bearing upon the question of the accent ; for, from the time of Quintilian (I, 5, 25) the Roman grammarians often expressly connect the question of punctuation and word-division with the determination of the accent, often in the formula 'ratio distinguendi (dividend!) regulas accentuum corrumpit ' ; see the numerous passages of the grammarians on this subject, which are collected by Scholl, /./., p. i27f. They also fre- quently recommend an unusual word-division, i.e. hauscio instead of han(d) jc/t? (Pseudo-Phocas, Keil, V, 441, i), on the ground that it corresponds more fully to the accentuation. In the case of the Latin prepositions, both monosyllabic and dissyllabic, the omission of punctuation in writing is well known, but the similar usage by which the monosyllabic con- junctions, adverbs, and pronouns are joined in writing with the following word has received less attention, although it is by no means rare. Marius Victorinus, Keil, VI, 23, 7 ff., pre- scribes the omission of punctuation in nechoc and necillud just as in ingalliam and initaliam : sed ne ea quidem, quae cum praepositione dicuntur, circumpungetis, ut circumduci et cir-
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 99
cumveniri, et nonnulli et paulopost, nee haec, ut ingalliam, initaliam, nechoc, necillud, quae infinite dicuntur. In accord- ance with this orthography the monosyllables are at times written together with the following word in inscriptions of the best period, as may be seen from the examples collected by Corssen, who cites Ausspr. II2, p. 868 etcoronis, itauti, astu = ast tu (often in the formula 'astu ea ita faxsis,' Acta fratr. arv. ; cf. attn glossed as tuvero, Corp. Gloss. Laf., IV, 22, 23), p. 877 quodie (very frequent, cf. also CIL. II, suppl., index, p. 1 1 8 1 ), qidvixit, p. 879 huncincrem, p. 88 1 nonliccbit, nondebuernnt. This list might be greatly increased from inscriptions of the best character, -and if examples are not to be found collected, like those involving the prepositions, in the various Indices of the CIL., it is because the editors have often ascribed the absence of the division-points to careless- ness or to exposure rather than to the true cause, viz. the Roman method of word-division. In the minuscule Mss. of the Carolingian period also, upon which the word-division of our texts chiefly rests, we find the monosyllabic particles and pronouns not seldom joined with the following word; cf. Wattenbach, Lat. Palaeogr.? p. 76 ; Lindsay, Lat. Text. Emendation, p. 14. In carefully written Mss. of this period the traditional rules of word-division approved by the gram- marians are commonly observed by the copyists, so that their usage is in substantial agreement with the inscriptions of the fourth and fifth centuries. It is scarcely necessary to add that the word-division of the minuscule Mss. is seldom strictly uniform in doubtful cases, and the uniformity which often appears in printed texts is due to the modern editor. Except in the case of obvious blunders, however, the word-division of the Mss. is clearly the authoritative division for critical pur- poses, and determines in each case what constitutes ' one part of speech ' (ima pars orationis).
In the case of the Terence Mss., as it happens, Umpfen- bach has not included in his critical apparatus 1 variations in the word-division, but their usage is probably not very differ-
1 On the general character of Umpfenbach's collation of the Terence Mss., see Minton Warren. Am, Journ. Phil. Ill, 59.
IOO Robert S. Radford. [1903
ent from that of the Palatine Mss. of Plautus, which afford examples on every page like metarbitro (B), Cas. 143, sisim 293, nemihi 341, etc. It is noticeable that Umpfenbach writes always refert, non dum, vel nti, quis nam (on the basis of the frequent nam guts, quis . . . nam, cf. Hand, Turs. IV, 18 ff.), inter est (Ad. 393), inter siet (Enn. 685), super est (Phorm. 162), etc. These last examples are in accordance with the usage of many of the best official inscriptions (cf. Corssen, Ausspr. II2, p. 853), and superesse at least is generally recog- nized as a separable compound (cf. L. Miiller, Res Metr., p. 264). Nowhere, in fact, is it more difficult to distinguish between the genuine and the separable Latin compounds * than in the case of many of the compound verbs ; it is clear, however, from the evidence of Latin verse and the statements of the grammarians that these words were regularly accented as composite^ i.e. inter siet (cf . inter ibi, inter eost propte'r eos}t suptr erat, circum dedit, ante venit, etc.
One other question of Terentian orthography is valuable for the light which it throws upon the accentuation, viz. the assimilation which occurs at times in the praepositiones ad- positae and which implies a closeness of connection equal to that existing in the case of the praepositiones compositae. Thus Umpfenbach (praef. xiv) points out that the Bembinus has offactum, Heaut. 956, for ob factum, oppeccatum> ib. 990, for ob peccatum, while at te occurs 8 times for ad te ; for assimilation in other authors, see Neue-Wagener, Formenl. II, pp. 783, 905. Hence we cannot doubt that the secondary grammatical accent is fully observed in the following :
Caecil. com. frgm. 266 R. : Sa£pe est etiam sup palliolo s6rdid6 sapientia.
It is evident from these facts, which might easily be illus- trated by more numerous examples, that the Latin word- division is far from being fixed in a multitude of cases, and
1 It should be remembered that many of the combinations which later came to be felt as genuine compounds were still separable compounds or word-groups in early Latin ; cf. Ter. Hec. 364 qua me propter adduxi ; 630 ne revereatur, minus iam quo redeat domum.
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 101
that those writers upon Latin accentuation who have treated the subject almost entirely in dependence upon the traditional word-division have chosen too narrow and too uncertain a basis for their study.
VII. EVIDENCE OF THE ROMANCE LANGUAGES.
The Romance languages have preserved in rich abundance the word-groups formed by the coalescence of monosyllabic words, i.e. Span, tambien = tambene, Ital. ebbe"ne = etbene, ossia = autsit, nemme'no = necminus, etc. (for the treatment of these phrases in Italian, see Meyer-Liibke, Gramm. d. roman. SpracJi. I, p. 508), but the accent of these groups as a rule has been derived from the late period of vulgar Latin, when the pro- cesses of decomposition (recomposition) were applied to all the composita which were still recognized as such, i.e. cxplicat (Fr. esploie) instead of the classical faplicat, desuper (Fr. desure) instead of the classical de"super, etc. ; cf. Meyer- Liibke, /./., I, 495. Notwithstanding the great changes wrought in this period, the original accent has been retained in some cases. Thus, as Corssen, Ausspr. II2, p. 889, and Skutsch, Forsch., p. 158, have noticed, the Italian forms colla, delta, sulla give evidence of the accent cum ilia, d$ Xlla, sub ilia, just as we know from th§. Latin grammarians (see the passages quoted by Scholl, De ace., p. 192 f.) that dflnde, pMnde, etc., continued to be the usual colloquial pronunciation in contrast with the more formal delude, perlnde, etc. So also the relative pronoun qui, which was generally atonic in Latin, but of course became tonic in these groups, has both forms preserved in Spanish, i.e. the tonic form qnien and the atonic que (cf. Seelmann, Ausspr. d. lat., p. 57); for other possible cases, see Meyer-Liibke, /./., p. 504 ff. We may expect that additional cases of the preservation side by side of the tonic and the atonic forms of the Latin conjunctions- and adverbs will be recognized when the problem of these double forms has been more fully worked out by Romance scholars than is the case at present.
IO2 Robert S. Radford. [1903
VIII. PREVIOUS INVESTIGATORS.
It remains to indicate how far students of early Latin verse have already advanced in the direction of the conclusions which have been reached in this article. The particular cases of trisyllabic groups in which uniform accentuation has already been noted are indeed very numerous. Thus the invariable accentuation of quid ita has been pointed out by Luchs, Hermes, VIII, 114; of quid ego in certain phrases by Keller- hoff, Student. Stud. II, 55 (cf. also Seyffert, Stud. Plaut., p. 9); of at enim by Seyffert, Berl. Phil. Woch. 1885, Sp., p. 40, and Ribbeck, Com. Rom. Fragmentd1, p. xxxiv ; of quid ais by Conradt, die Metr. Compos, d. Kom. d. Ter., p. 159; of hie homo by Luchs, Comment. Pros. I, p. 6 f. ; of quis homo, is homo by Nilsson, Quomodo pronomina ap. PL et Ter. collocenlur, Lund, 1901, p. 61 (footnote). Several of these accentuations are also discussed by Skutsch, Forsch., p. 154, and in his edition of the Captivi, which came into my hands after my own results had been reached, Lindsay adds qui homo, tibi ego dico (pp. 367, 372). In the quadrisyllable groups Biicheler, Umbrica, p. 171, has inferred the Plautine accentuation n2 adeas from the Umbrian form neidJiabas ; Hartmann, K. Z. XXVII, p. 558, has derived igitur as a weakened form from quid agitur.
Finally, Ritschl, Proleg., pp. cclviii-cclxi, has discussed this problem with his usual thoroughness and breadth of view. He does not limit his inquiry to the proclisis of the preposi- tions, but mentions also ' other similar combinations of words,' i.e. quid agis, quid ais, ut opust, qudd homo, quod edis, etc., and from the analogy of these combinations he clearly derives the Plautine accentuation of dt illo, e"t iste, se"t intus, quod omnes, etc. (cf. Proleg., p. cclxi: ' correptiones valde propin- quae eadem prorsus ratione reguntur '). Hence in this, as in all other questions of Latin sentence-accentuation, Ritschl has sketched in brief but clear outlines the general conclu- sions which further study can only serve to strengthen. While the present study of syllable-shortening was at first
Vol. xxxiv.] Latin Monosyllables. 103
undertaken independently,1 it will fulfil its purpose if it shall be instrumental in reviving Ritschl's solution of the problem and shall offer additional evidence in support of his conclu- sions.
1 Unfortunately, a copy of the Prolegomena was not accessible to the writer during the first part of his work. The above reference to Ritschl must not be understood as meaning that he recognized in the Proleg. the complete recession of the early accent in sed ea, sed agis, dd eumt etc.
IO4 Francis A. March. [1903
VII. — Three New Types. BY PROF. FRANCIS A. MARCH,
LAFAYETTE COLLEGE.
THE time has come fer urging the adoption in common print ef the new types which ar necessary to denote the elementary sounds ef our language.
Three original Roman letters, A O V, now giv us the types fer six elementary vowels, as in far fast, at fare, obey go, net ner, full rule, but bur.
It is the cemmon way with nations using the Roman alfabet to use the same letter fer an elementary sound when prolengd as when quickly utterd, even tho the sound becomes weaker er narrower as it is drawn out ; full and rule, but and bur go together ; a diacritic is added when we hav occasion to distinguish.
But with advancing nations variations ef articulation pass these bounds. Periods ef great deeds, great national efforts expand the speech, and the thinkers and writers ef the fellow- ing age need to enlarge the alfabet.
So fer exampl the generation that fellowd the Elizabethan age workt over the spelling, and among other changes they found that i and u each represented two sounds, a vowel and a consonant, and each had two ferms, i and/, u and v. They differentiated by using j and v always fer the consonant sounds, i and u only fer the vowels ; and so two letters wer added to the alfabet.
The introduction ef a new letter in cemmon printing, in newspapers, er literature, is a matter ef great difficulty. Many things ar necessary to make a good working type. Many generations ef type founders hav used their best powers in bringing the Roman types to perfection. A type that wil net look out ef place, a raw recruit, is not easy to invent. Then each word has its own personality to the reader's eye ; putting in new types changes the picture. We carry words
Vol. xxxiv.] Three New Types. 105
with us as pictures, and a changed picture balks the reader, er diverts him.
These difficulties wer avoided in the differentiation ef the semivowels; all ef the types i j u v wer familiar and each used with a familiar power, so that it is net strange that under the guidance ef the great scholar, Philemon Holland, and the Cambridge editions ef the new translation of the Bible (King James's), the new letters wer completely establisht in a singl generation.
A similar procedure may giv us the new letters now needed. There ar two forms ef a in familiar use, the old a which we use in script and italics and know in Greek and German, and the Roman a. A new type " a " made to match the lowercase Roman fents, may be used fer "a" whenever it sounds like a in far, and giv us a new letter that wil cause no embarrassment to any reader. There ar two forms also ef u, the lowercase u and the small capital u. A new type like the small capital to match the lowercase fents, and used only fer the u's which hav the sound ef but, burn, wil giv us a manageabl new letter fer the alfabet. And an O like a script O with a curve like a drept breve, and used only for o's which sound like the " o " in not, nor, wil do fer the third new letter which our alfabet demands.
The Scientific alfabet in whjch these new types ar used was promulgated by the American Philological Association in 1877. They hav been thoroly tested as part ef a key alfabet fer all alfabetic languages. (See plates and exposi- tion in Funk & Wagnalls' Standard Dictionary.) They raise to their proper prominence the free middle tones in which, as Grimm declares, the English surpasses all other languages. They work wel in the alfabet ef English litera- ture and ef every day use.
Much has been done by the last generation to simplify the spelling of anomalous words, but any one who uses one of these types in a book, er article, er advertisement, wil do as much fer good English as he who adepts a hundred corrected words in old types from the goodly lists ef the 3500 presented in the Century and Webster.
PROCEEDINGS
OF THE
THIRTY-FIFTH ANNUAL MEETING
OF THE
AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION
HELD AT NEW HAVEN, CONN., JULY, 1903
ALSO OF THE FOURTH ANNUAL MEETING OF THE
.
Philological Association of the Pacific Coast
HELD AT SAN FRANCISCO, CAL., DEC., 1902
MEMBERS IN ATTENDANCE AT THE THIRTY-FIFTH ANNUAL MEETING (NEW HAVEN, CONN.).
Francis G. Allinson, Brown University, Providence, R. I.
R. Arrowsmith, New York, N. Y.
William W. Baker, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Floyd G. Ballentine, Bucknell University.
William N. Bates, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Penn.
Paul Baur, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
C. F. Brusie, Mount Pleasant Academy, Sing Sing, N. Y.
George Davis Chase, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
Sherwood Owen Dickerman, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Mortimer Lamson Earle, Columbia University, New York, N. Y.
William Wells Eaton, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt.
Herman L. Ebeling, Haverford College, Haverford, Pa.
W. A. Eckels, Miami University, Oxford, O.
Homer J. Edmiston, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa.
George V. Edwards, State Normal College, Ypsilanti, Mich.
L. H. Elwell, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass.
Edward Fitch, Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y.
Thomas Fitz-Hugh, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va.
Thomas D. Goodell, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
E. L. Green, South Carolina College, Columbia, S. C. Albert Harkness, Brown University, Providence, R.I. Karl P. Harrington, University of Maine, Orono, Me. J. E. Harry, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, O. Samuel Hart, Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn. Eugene W. Harter, Erasmus Hall High School, Brooklyn, N.Y.
F. M. Hazen, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass. George Hempl, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. John H. Hewitt, Williams College, VVilliamstown, Mass. Henry T. Hildreth, Roanoke College, Salem, Va.
E. Washburn Hopkins, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. Milton W. Humphreys, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. Stephen A. Hurlbut, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. George B. Hussey, East Orange, N. J.
A. V. Williams Jackson, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. Eva Johnston, University of the State of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. Roland G. Kent, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. J. C. Kirtland, Jr., Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N. H. Charles Knapp, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, N. Y.
i
ii American Philological Association.
Abby Leach, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.
Grace H. Macurdy, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.
H. W. Magoun, Redfield College, Redfield, S. D.
F. A. March, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa.
Clarence Linton Meader, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.
John Moffatt Mecklin, Washington and Jefferson College, Washington, Pa.
Alfred W. Milden, Emory and Henry College, Emory, Va.
C. W. E. Miller, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Clifford Herschel Moore, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Frank G. Moore, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H.
J. Leverett Moore, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.
Morris H. Morgan, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Edward P. Morris, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Elisabeth H. Palmer, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y.
James M. Paton, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn.
Tracy Peck, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Bernadotte Perrin, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Edward D. Perry, Columbia University, New York, N. Y.
John Pickard, University of the State of Missouri, Columbia, Mo.
William K. Prentice, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J.
Robert S. Radford, Elmira College, Elmira, N. Y.
W. S. Scarborough, Wilberforce University, Wilberforce, O.
Charles P. G. Scott, Radnor, Pa.
Henry S. Scribner, Western University of Pennsylvania, Allegheny City, Pa.
E. G. Sihler, New York University, University Heights, New York, N. Y.
M. S. Slaughter, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
Charles Forster Smith, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis.
Kirby F. Smith, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Herbert Weir Smyth, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
Sidney G. Stacey, Erasmus Hall High School, Brooklyn, N. Y.
H. C. Tolman, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn.
Minton Warren, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
John C. Watson, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y.
Harry Langford Wilson, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md.
Willis Patten Woodman, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J.
Henry P. Wright, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
John Henry Wright, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
[Total, 75.]
AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.
NEW HAVEN, CONN., July 7, 1903.
The Thirty-fifth Annual Meeting was called to order at 4.30 P.M. in the Trowbridge Library of the Divinity School of Yale University, by the President, Professor Charles Forster Smith, of the University of Wisconsin.
The Secretary of the Association, Professor Herbert Weir Smyth, of Harvard University, presented the following report : —
i. The Executive Committee has elected as members of the Associa- tion : —
Prof. Hamilton Ford Allen, Washington and Jefferson College.
Dr. Floyd G. Ballentine, Bucknell University.
Dr. Samuel E. Bassett, Yale University.
Prof. O. F. Emerson, Western Reserve University.
Prof. Charles H. P'orbes, Phillips Academy.
Prof. John P. Fruit, William Jewell College.
Harwood Hoadley, Esq., New York, N. Y.
Stephen A. Hurlbut, Barnard College.
Dr. Roland G. Kent, University of Pennsylvania.
Prof. J. W. Kern, Washington aftd Lee University.
Ernst Loren Meritt, Esq., New Haven, Conn.
Dr. Alfred W. Milden, Emory and Henry College.
J. Mollison, Esq., Summerside, Prince Edward Island.
F. P. Moulton, Esq., Hartford, Conn.
Dr. Oliver S. Tonks, Boston, Mass.
N. P. Vlachos, Esq., Yeadon, Pa.
Charles Heald Weller, Esq., Yale University.
Miss Julia E. Winslow, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Dr. Henry B. Wright, Yale University.
*, 2. The President appointed in May the following members to serve as a Committee to present a report to the National Educational Association on the subject of a reform of English Spelling: F. A. March, Chairman, C. P. G. Scott, George Hempl, B. I. Wheeler, and F. G. Hubbard.
3. The Report of Publications by members of the Association since July i, 1902, showed a record of books, pamphlets, and articles by ninety- four members.
4. The TRANSACTIONS and PROCEEDINGS were issued in February, 1903. Separate copies of the PROCEEDINGS may be obtained only of the Publishers.
IV
American Philological Association.
Professor Smyth then presented his report as Treasurer for the year 1902-1903: —
RECEIPTS.
Balance from 1901-1902 $725.19
Sales of Transactions $127.73
Membership dues 1460.00
Dividends Central New England and Western R. R. . 6.00
Offprints l.oo
Interest 36.77
Philological Association of the Pacific Coast (less expenses) 209.80
Total receipts for the year $1841.30
$2566.49
EXPENDITURES.
Transactions and Proceedings (Vol. XXXIII) . . . $1275.09
Contribution to the Platonic Lexicon (.£40) .... 194.80
Salary of Secretary 300.00
Postage 59.88
Printing 70.00
Expressage 4.02
Stationery .70
Incidentals 3.35
Total expenditures for the year $1907.84
Balance, July 6, 1903 658.65
$2566.49
The President appointed Professors Elwell and C. H. Moore as auditors of the Treasurer's report.
The reading of papers was then begun.
i. *!8ios as a Possessive in Polybius, by Professor Edwin L. Green, of South Carolina College.
Phrynichus the grammarian (Lobeck, Phrynichus, p. 441) says that in his time the adjective fStos was in general use as a possessive : rh, tdia irpdrru Kal ret tdia irpdrrei ol TroXXoi \{yov<riv flKTJ are his words. He is here dealing with a non-Attic use of f5ios, which came into the language some centuries before the time he wrote. In the Greek of the New Testament Wtos largely takes the place of a common possessive pronoun (Blass, G.N. T. 48, 8; Hatzidakis, Einleitung i. d, neugr. Grammatik, p. 293; Thumb, Die gr. Sprache im Zeitalter des Hellenismus, 184 A 6), and Dietrich {Untersuchungen z. Geschichte d. gr. Sprache, pp. 195 f.) has observed this use of fStos long before the time of New Testament writers.
Polybius uses fSios as a possessive in more than threescore passages in the five books of his Histories that have come down entire.
fSios as a possessive appears both as an adjective and as a substantive, the former use being more common. Two examples will suffice to illustrate the
Proceedings for July, 1903.
adjective use: L IO. I, rbrrt Si [o! Ma/tcpr?!-™] rait ISiott rpdypafftv oXoffxcpus Sid rAj vvv piffflffat airtat, ol piy ivl KapxijSoviovt Ka.Tt<j>evyov: ii. 3. 3, [ol A/TwXol] KO.ra.-ri.ffTevffa.vTft Ta.1t i'5/aiy Svvd^tai KO.TO. woabf fvffapffwt elxov: cf. i. 30. IO; 48. 10; 79. 13.
In the substantive use Idiot has the meaning "his (their) own men." [TO, e-npia.~\ ffTpaQerra, *arA TWV ISiuv f^ptro (i. 40. 13) will be sufficient to illustrate this: cf. iii. 43. 8; 73. 7; 100. 6; v. 85. i. In us vepl Mas (iii. 23. 5), Idlat is for TIJS idlas x^Paj-
In a few passages the genitive of a reflexive pronoun is found in connection with Wios: i. 26. I, 5* TO« Kopx^So^oti ^ *-«pl Zi/c«XJaj dXXA repl ff<pui> a.inG>v K.o.1 r^j iSias xwpoj i idv&vvos ylinprcu: cf. i. 52. I; iL 23. 12.
Wtoj is once reenforced by a reflexive genitive: rait I8la.it airroO Swdpeffi (v. 47. 5), which has good warrant in classic Greek (Lobeck, /^-.).
A pronoun in the third person could be put in the place of ISiot in every pas- sage except iii. 26. 5, repl S>v ijfifls iv TTJ rapaffKtvy rijt idLat rpaynaTtiat ni*)ff0ti>- TCJ, where ijnwi> airrav would be required. In Polybius IStos as a possessive has always the force of a reflexive.
2. Notes, by Professor John C. Rolfe, of the University of Penn- sylvania.
a. On Plaut. Slick. 193 ff.
Haec verba subigunt med, ut mores barbaros Discam atque ut faciam praeconis compendium Itaque auctionem praedicem, ipse ut venditem.
The italicized words are usually taken in the sense of * spare myself the expense of an auctioneer.' The writer suggested the interpretation, ' ply the trade of an auctioneer,' and supported it by an examination of the uses of facere in this sense and by other arguments.
b. Some References to Seasickness in the Ancient Writers.
The following passages were cited from Greek and Roman writers : Aristoph. Thesm. 882; Plato, Legg. 639 B, Theaet. 191 A; Aristot. Rhet. iii. 4. 3; Alciphron, Epist. ii. 4; Plaut. Amph. 329, Merc. 388; Cic. ad Ate. v. 13. l,v. 21. 3, ad Fain. xvi. ii. i; Caes. B. C. iii. 28. 4; Hor. Epod. 9. 35, Epist. i. 1.93; Cels. i. 3; Seneca, Epist. 53. 3, 4, 5, 108. 37, de Ira iii. 37. 3; Petr. 103; Suet. Caiig. 23; Fronto, p. 15 N.; Comm. EinsH. viii. 214. 32 K. There are also indirect refer- ences, such as Soph. Ajax, 1142 ff., Synesius, Epist. iv. p. 163 D., and perhaps Liv. xxi. 26. 5. The writer would be glad to have his attention called to others, both direct and indirect.
The general subject was discussed, and also the orthography of the word for seasickness. In Latin it is apparently always nausea (nausia), while nautea means ' bilge-water.' So Plaut. Asin. 894, Cure. IOO, and probably Artemo, ap. Fest. p. 1 66 Th. The latter gave place at an early period to sentina.
These notes will be published in full elsewhere. Remarks were made by Professors Earle, C. H. Moore, F. G. Moore, and Knapp.
vi American PJiilohgical Association.
3. The Cult of the Nymphs as Water- Deities among the Romans, by Dr. F. G. Ballentine, of Bucknell University.
That the Lymphae and Nymphae were water-deities among the Romans has been recognized by several scholars, as Bloch, for example, in Rosch. Lex. s. v. Nym- phen, and Wissowa, ibid., s.v. Lymphen. Few, however, seem to have perceived and no one heretofore, so far as I know, has shown that the Romans from a time before the classical period down to at least the third century A.D. actually honored the Nymphae or Lymphae as goddesses, who gave water to men through rain or springs or rivers. How little this has been understood is well shown in the recent characterization of the Nymphs by Wissowa in his Rel. u. Kult. d. Rom, p. 182.
The existence of any general cult of the Nymphs as water-deities was first con- jectured by Professor M. H. Morgan in a paper read before the Association in 1901 entitled, " Rain-gods and Rain-charms," p. 108.
The earliest evidence that the Romans prayed to the Lymphae for water is found in Varro, Rer. Rust. I. I. 6, where, at the beginning of his work, in invok- ing various deities he says : " Nee non etiam precor Lympham et Bonum Eventum quoniam sine aqua omnis arida ac misera agri cultura . . ." Lympha in this passage seems certainly to be a goddess who bestows water for agriculture and, since in "aqua" the reference would most naturally be to rain, we have here pretty sure evidence that at least by the first half of the first century B.C. Lympha or the Lymphae were prayed to for rain. Still better proof that such was the case we obtain also from Varro through St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, 4. 22, who says that we ought to know what each god furnishes, " Ex eo enim poterimus, inquit (Varro), scire quem cuiusque causa deum invocare atque advocare debe- mus, ne faciamus, ut mimi solent, et optemus a Libero aquam, a Lymphis vinum." So also ibid., 6. i. and 4. 34, he clearly shows that Varro and those of his time held that just as Liber should be asked for wine, Ceres for bread, and Vulcan for fire, so the Lympbae should be asked for water.
Vitruvius also, it should be noted, informs us that in this century temples were built for the worship of the Lymphae; cf. De Arch. I. 2. 5.
The cult of the Nymph luturna (older Diuturna) clearly shows that already by the middle of the third century B.C. the Nymphs were believed to provide water, and were worshipped especially as water-deities. The date of the public estab- lishment of the cult of luturna we get with some certainty from Servius on Verg. Aen. 12. 139: "luturna fons est in Italia. . . . Huic fonti propter aquarum inopiam sacrificari solet : cui Lutatius Catulus primus templum in Campo Martio fecit; nam et luturnas ferias celebrant qui artificium aqua exercent, quem diem festum luturnalia dicunt." Aust, De Aed. Sacr. p. 17, rightly, I think, puts the date of the construction of this temple shortly after the battle at the Aegatian Islands in 241 B.C.
What, then, was the nature of this cult ? That the temple was built in honor of luturna as a water-goddess appears, I think, from the fact, as Aust rightly observes, that it was probably built in fulfilment of a vow made in a naval battle. Servius, moreover, informs us that one part of her cult was a festival celebrated in her honor as a water-goddess by those who used water in their trade, — a festival which Ovid, Fasti, I. 46=:, shows still existed in his time. From this reference to the festival by Ovid and from Servius' use of " nam " it is almost certain that
Proceedings for July, 1903. vii
when the latter speaks of this festival he does not refer to his own but an ancient time, probably that of the building of the temple by Catulus.
That luturna was honored in this festival as a goddess who bestowed water is made all the more certain from Servius' preceding remark : " Huic fonti propter aquarum inopiam sacrificari solet." Servius here again, no doubt, refers to the same early period l and shows that in times of drought sacrifice was n.ade to I uturna, the Nymph of the spring, for water. That the Nymph is here a rain-goddess can scarcely be doubted.
Still further evidence that luturna was honored as a water-deity is found in her connection with the Vulcanalia, a festival celebrated to avert danger or secure aid in case of fire. In the Fasti for August 23d we find concerning this festival, with Mommsen's restorations, C.I.L. 6. 2295: " [Volcanalia Feriae.] Volcano. [Volcano in Circo Flam. (inio). luturnae et Nymp]his in Campo. Opi Opiferfj] Quir [ino]," an inscription whose date falls between II B.C. and 1 6 A.D. In this restoration Mommsen, I believe, is right in connecting the expression " [Nympj- his in Campo " with the temple of luturna built by Catulus in the Campus Martius.
Cicero, De Har. Resp, 57, shows the connection of luturna and the Nymphs with this festival : " Sed etiam inaudita sacra inexpiabili scelcre pervertit idemque earum templum inflammavit dearum quarum ope etiam aliis incendiis subvenitur." The nature of their assistance is made certain by the information of Servius, for there can be no doubt that luturna and the Nymphs were honored in the Vulcan- alia as goddesses who gave the water to be used in case of fire.2 They were, more- over, connected with this festival at least before 56 B.C., the date of the De Har. Resp., and probably at a very early time since the festival was an ancient one and the temple of luturna goes back to the middle of the third century B.C.
luturna, finally, presides over ponds and rivers according to Verg. Aen. 12. 139-140, and, if we may believe Arnobius, 3. 29, was the mother of Fons, on the day of whose festival wells were crowned with(chaplets to secure abundant water; 8 the luturna inscriptions also, recently discovered, may well concern the Nymph as a water-deity.4
From this evidence it therefore seems certain that luturna and the Nymphs were worshipped by the Romans as goddesses who gave water from about the middle of the third century B.C. to at least the end of the first century B.C. The revival of the cult in the age of Augustus is marked by the restoration of her temple in 2 B.C.
Passing now from luturna, we have next to cite concerning the Nymphs as water-deities, Hor. Serin. I. 5. 97-98: " Dein Gnatia Lymphis j Iratis exstructa dedit risusque iocosque," explained as follows by Porphyrio : " Per haec quoque oppidulum significat penuria aquae laborare." If Porphyrio is right, as seems probable, we have here trace of a belief in the time of Horace that the Lymphae bestowed the water of springs.
Again in Ovid, Fast. 273-275, Egeria furnishes the water of a stream : " De- fluit incerto lapidosus murmure rivus: . . . Egeria est quae praebet aquas." In a very interesting passage in Statius, Theb. 4. 683 ff., and Lactantius on v. 717, the
1 So Preller, Rom. Myth. a. p. 128.
J So Mom. u. Mar., Ant. Rom. p. 12, n. 2; Wissowa, Rel. u. Kult. p. 185.
» Cf. Fowler, Rom. Fest. p. 240.
4 Cf. Notizie degli Scavi 1900, pp. 292 and 293.
viii American Philological Association.
power of providing the water of springs and rivers is once more ascribed to the Nymphs.
That the Nymphs were held not only to dwell in or near certain springs, but also to provide their water, is made more certain by several inscriptions. When new springs were found, shrines were dedicated and offerings made to them; cf. C.I.L. 10. 4734, C.I.L. 3 3116. In C.I.L. 5. 3106 the Nymphs have been asked to grant the return of some water, probably that of a spring : " Nymphis Lymphis- que | Augustis ob reditum | aquarum | P. Pumponius Cornelianus C, I | ut vovit." In C.I.L. 8. 2662, of the beginning of the third century A.D., the Nymphs appear in all probability as rain-goddesses ' : " . . . Hanc aram Nymphis extruxi, nomine Laetus, . . . quod dives Lambaesem largo perfudit flumine Nympha," an inscrip- tion of five hexameters.
Further, the Nymphs seem to have presided in a way over aqueducts and their water, probably because of their connection with the sources of the water : cf. C.I.L. 9. 5794, C.I.L. 10. 5163, C.I.L. 12. 1093, Orelli, 7148, C.I.L. 6. 551, C.I.G. 4616 — inscriptions ranging in date from the first to the third centuries A.D.
Finally, as evidence that the Nymphs were water-deities, it should be noted that Nympha is often explained by late writers and scholiasts as "dea aquarum"; cf. Cor. Glos. Lat. 4. 125. I, 4. 262. 10, 5. 467. 63, 5. 313. 46, 4. 124. 55, 5. 314. I, Isid. Ep. 8. II. 96, Ovid. Am. 2. 14. 13-14.
In short, it seems clear that the Lymphae were believed to provide water through rain or springs from at least the beginning of the first century B.C.; that luturna from about the middle of the third century B.C. was honored as a goddess who provided water; and that the Nymphs, either in general or individually, as luturna, Egeria, or the Nymph of some spring, from at least the middle of the third century B.C. to about the middle of the third century A.D., were believed to preside over rain, springs, and perhaps rivers, and in the Roman religion of the time held the place of water-deities.
Remarks were made by Professor Morgan.
4. On the Omission of the Copula in certain Combinations in Greek, by Professor J. E. Harry, of the University of Cincinnati.
That the ccpula is regularly omitted with eVoi/ios, particularly in the first and second persons, has become almost a prepossession among grammarians and com- mentators. Wecklein, in his edition of the Prometheus (1896), says; TO irpwrov teal Sevrepov Trpfxruwov rod et'/ii irapaXefirrrat atraviuTepov, ftAvov 5e ev rip troifws e'lvcn 17 irapdXeii/as ffvv^&rjy Ka.1 Si) Kal &vev rov e>c!> «U <rtf, and then cites the stock examples.
The omission of the copula belongs to elevated language (rare in proverbs, seldom in Pindar). Cf. Prom. 42 (vri\T)s cri)), Plato, Protag. 313 B (IVoi/aoj el dvaXiffKfiv), Polit. 277 E («cai ait ye ?TOI/LM>S duroXoi/teti'). When subj. and pred. are juxtaposed, they take care of themselves, — the copula is not needed. In Prom. 475 W^'Mos stands alone, el being understood. The text is sound; there is no need of changing, with van Herwerden, to lards ef ; the person is indicated by fftavrbv oiiK exe'*- So in Soph. O. C. 461 &rci£ios f*tvt OiShrous, *caToi»cri<roi, 1 So Dar. and Sag. D. s.v. Fontes.
Proceedings for July t 1903. ix
the voc. following the adj. indicates clearly enough that the second person is meant.
The copula is not generally omitted with froi/ios. In the first pers. sing., where the use of the adj. is very common, the copula is expressed far more fre- quently than it is omitted, — in other words, just the reverse of Wecklein's state- ment is true: Hdt. 7. 158 troths et>t pwdtciv, Plato, Gorg. 5106 tyu Iro^i elfu tiraiveiv, Rep. 335 E tywy' olv, fy?;, froths elm Koivuvtiv TIJS no-xv, Legg. 646 B, Antisthenes, Odysseus, Isaeus 12. 10, Dinarchus I. 51, Demosthenes 53. 23, 18. 177 (vir&pxftf fyfis *T<MMOI)I Eur. Hec. 302, 985, Phoen. 484, Hel. 1058, Soph. Phil. 90, Ar. Kan. 860. In the third pers. there are at least a hundred examples of the use of the copula, the omission being rare.
In the older language the suppression of the copula was not felt as an ellipsis, as in the later stage. Cf. Aesch. Prom. 47, 178, 320, 506, 987, Eur. Suppl. 41, 187, Thuc. 3. 38. 4, Soph. At. 710, 890, 924.
In Lucian there are several examples of the omission with ?TOIAWS, but Lucian is not a criterion for Attic usage. Kruger cites no examples from him (Spr. § 62. I. 5), when he says: "Die erste und zweite Person der Kopula fehlt Qber- haupt selten . . . ofter jedoch bei ?roi/toj, das selbst ohne tyu von der ersten Person gebraucht wird. " But the careful grammarian adds the saving clause : " Doch wird auch dem Iroi/uos oft elfi.t beigefiigt." Jebb, in his note on Ajax 813, is not so guarded in his language : " ZTOIHOS without the verb efyii, as in O. T. 92 : Eur. El. 796: Dem. Or. 9. 4: Plat. Polit. 277 E, and often." There are very few examples (except those cited) even in poetry. Some authors, as Lysias and Herodotus, never omit the verb. Schneidewin-Nauck (O. T. 92) merely say: " Ueber die Auslassung von elfii bei froi/xos s. Kruger."
For false opinions respecting the omission of the copula with the verbal adjec- tive, see Bishop, Amer. Journ. Philol. 20. 247.
In Homer £TOI/XOS is used only of things. In the lyric poets there are no examples. Aeschylus has only two certain instances (Ag. 791, Cho. 1025), Sophocles two of the omission (already cited) and three of the use of the verb (Ant. 264, Phil. 90, 569). Euripides omits the copula four times {Phoen. 969, Med. 612 \_Rhes. ~\ 959, Heracl. 501), and employs it four times {Hec. 302, 985, Phoen. 484, Hel. 1052) ; also once with the subjunctive. In Aristophanes the verb is regularly expressed ( Vesp. 341, Ran. 860, Nub. 807), the only excep- tion being Thesm. 59 (8s and ?Tot/xoj juxtaposed, and the inf. sixteen words dis- tant). The prose writers seldom omit the verb with troifws : Herodotus I. 42, 86, 113, 141; 4. 42; 5. 15; 7. 140, 147, 148, 158; 8. 21; 9.46, Thucydides 4.
28. 2; 6. 29; 7. 3. I, 83. 2; 8. 9. I and often (forty examples), Isocrates 14.
29, 17. 16, Lysias I. 29; 7. 34; 12. 9; 13. 26; 20. 26; 28. 7; 34. 2 (and often), Isaeus Irot/uos 8' tlpl <5/ic6<rcu, Aeschines, 2. 133; 3. 240, Dinarchus I. 20; I. 51. Demosthenes has 27 examples, all with the copula, except four, one of which probably had much to do with the framing of the rule. Plato, of course, omits the copula more frequently than the orators and historians (farm. 137 C, Polit. 277 E, 308 E, Laches 180 A, 194 A, Eryxias 399 E). In most of these it might have been omitted with other adjectives. But even in Plato the verb is more frequently expressed (Theaet. 151 C, Apol. 32 B, Phaedr. 231 C, Euthyd. 274 C, Protag. 312 D, 313 B, Gorg. 86 B, Rep. 391 B, Legg. 646 A, 831 C, Symp. 200 D, Epistle i)' 3576. Xenophon never omits the copula, except An. 7. 8. II (ws
American Philological Association.
xP1)pd'TUV) '• Mem* 3- I3- 3» Cyropaed. 4. I I, 5i;Xw<ras flrt Uroifwt eiVt '? 5- 4- 24» Anab. I. 6. 3 voplffas eroifwvs efmt, 4. 6. 17 Irot/i6s efyu . . . iVwt, 6. I. 2; 7. I. 33.
The so-called rule is not only not mandatory; it is not even permissive. If we say simply that there is a tendency to omit the copula with ?rot^ios, all we mean is that this adjective belongs to a group of words frequently used in sen- tences which require the utmost brevity. And this is true of English, French, German and Italian as well as of Greek. The starter on the track says to the sprinters, " Ready ! " " Set ! " and then fires his pistol. The military officer says, " Ready ! " " Aim ! " " Fire ! " We might as well cull a few examples of "Murder! " or "Police! " from Dickens, and assert that the copula is regularly omitted with certain words in English as to try to frame a rule based on a few isolated cases of the omission of the verb with ITOI/MS found in Sophocles, Euripides, and Demosthenes.
Remarks were made by Professor Humphreys.
5. The Succession of Spartan Nauarchs in Hellenica I, by Profes- sor Carleton L. Brownson, of the College of the City of New York (read by Professor Goodell).
This paper appears in the TRANSACTIONS.
i
6. Assumed Singulars, by Dr. C. P. G. Scott, of Radnor, Pa. This paper will appear in a later volume of the TRANSACTIONS. Adjourned at 5.45 P.M.
SECOND SESSION.
Tuesday evening, July 7.
The Association assembled at 8 P.M. in the Marquand Chapel of the Divinity School to listen to the address of the President. The speaker was introduced by the Rev. Anson Phelps Stokes, Jr., Secre- tary of Yale University, who welcomed the Association to New Haven and Yale University.
7. Character-drawing in Thucydides, by Professor Charles Forster Smith, of the University of Wisconsin.
"Thucydides aims," says Bruns (Das Literarische Portrat der Griec hen, 1896) in substance, " in a strictly objective way to represent the cause of history itself, not to give a succession of individual pictures. To only a few preferred individ- uals does the historian give such distinctive features, and these sparingly touched, as lift them from the mass. The private life and personal character of historical personages come into consideration only as these influence the course of public events. He avoids passing judgment in his own name on historical characters;
Proceedings for July, 1903. xi
hence independent characterizations of individual men apart from the narrative are excluded."
The historian's abstention from direct characterizations is at first a disappoint- ment to us, but the more we think of it, the more likely we are to justify him. It is greater art to make the narration and grouping of facts convey judgments, whether of commendation or condemnation, than to pronounce opinions. If we can only be sure of the facts, the rest will take care of itself. The clear and truthful statement of facts is history herself pronouncing judgment. Facts stand and carry their judgment with them. Some such austere view of the historian's function Thucydidcs seems to have held, and when we read the whole history with this idea in mind we can but admire his reserve and self-restraint.
But the historian does give us very real pictures of some of his men. How does he accomplish this ? Two ways are open to him — narration of men's deeds and dramatic presentation of the motives at work, in the speeches. To the small list of preferred characters whom Thucydides treats not as types, but as individuals of clearly marked features and impressive personality, belong, on the one side, especially Pericles, Cleon, Nicias, Alcibiades, Demosthenes; on the other, Archi- damus, Brasidas, Gylippus, Hermocrates. To these might be added a few minor — at least by comparison minor — characters, eg. the Athenians Phormio and Paches, and the Spartans Alcidas and Sthenelaidas. Still three others Thucydi- des makes to stand out from the mass, either by narration of facts or by brief characterizations, the Spartan Pausanias, and the Athenians Themistocles, and Antiphon. But the exigencies of space and time compel a choice even among these few especially preferred characters of the history, and so the attempt is here made to indicate Thucydides' method of character-drawing and to give a clear idea of what he thereby accomplishes by four of the chief personages : Brasidas and Cleon, Nicias and Gylippus. These are so set counter to each other in the his- tory as to bring out more effectively by contrast each other's strength and weakness.
After Pericles, Brasidas seems to be the favorite character of the historian. He first appears in a minor exploit, but one thoroughly characteristic, and we feel at once the historian's sympathy with the man. It was the affair at Methone (ii. 25) when a large Athenian and Corcyraean force that had been disembarked from fifty ships was attacking the place. " Now Brasidas, son of Tellis, a Spartan," says Thucydides, " happened to be in those parts keeping guard, and seeing the danger, came to the aid of the inhabitants with a hundred hoplites. He made his way through the scattered parties of Athenian troops, whose attention was occupied with the fortress, and threw himself into Methone, suffering a slight loss; he thus saved the place. The exploit was publicly acknowledged at Spartal, Brasidas being the first Spartan who obtained this distinction in the war." The real Brasidas is now before us, and his great career is not more conspicuous in deeds from this time on than their representation, through bare recital of facts in Thucydides' austere history, is lifelike and effective.
Passing over with mere mention the next brief appearances of Brasidas, — the speech of the Lacedaemonian commanders (ii. 87), the audacious plan to surprise the Peiraeus (ii. 93), the advice given by him to Alcidas to attack Corcyra (iii. 79), — we notice the emphasis given to Brasidas' conduct in the attack upon Pylos (iv. n, 12), when the intrepid and desperate fighter, after receiving many wounds, swoons away while his shield drops off into the sea, and, being
jrii America* Philological Association,
washed ashore, is taken up by the Atheniaus and used for the trophy raised far their victory.
IB tike j*ar 424, by a. dash Bat Hot at Methane, he oaks tip with 300 packed mem mi •••!• Mnpu fiium the AnVeaiaai (nr. 70-73). When a little later he
is sent to the dissatisfied Athenian allies m Chalcidke, tike *•*••«"• works into the narrative, as an expnnatiBB of titt ChakidiaaB*- dea%e iv Bnaidas, a masked characterizaltikiui of" the man. " He was even more willing to go than they were to semi bom. The Chakidians, loo, desired to have him, for at Sparta he had
always been conffiKtered a mam off uau§j. And oat this expedition be pumJ. invaluable to tbe I in > dai •!•••! At the same time he gave an impression of justice and moderation in his behav&ar to the cities, which induced many of them to revolt, while otheis were betrayed into his hands. Thns the Lacedaemonians were able to- lighten the pressure of war upon Peloponnesus, and when, shortly after, they desired to negotiate, they had places to give in return far what they sooght tQ.rec0iv.er. And at a later period of the war, after tfee Sidiliian expedition, the honesty and ability of Braskfas, whkh some had experienced and of which others had W»«l the onue, manhr *"•*• i»«l fhfr Athenian affies to the l*ml*f- mmmmm. For as he was die fi^ who was sent ont and pcored himself to be in cnuj way i good maa, he left in tioeir miiais a firm conviction that others would be Ike Mm" (ir. Si).
On an expeditio n with Perdiccas of Maoeonm among die IHyrana, !»•••• il«»
displayed extraordinary courage and presence of nmnd. The nf *« •A^Hmm*. fgfl into '- - " "jible panic and decamped in the n^ghL Brasidas arranged his
troops for an orderly retreat and encouraged his men in a short If***1** which, whether ever made or mot, dearly sets forth, we may accept, the motives under- lying Mi oondbnrt on this trying occasion. " Mobs Eke these,'" Hid. he, "if an adversary withsfiairi their firat atta^ do b«t threaten at a distance and make a Boorish ]fvil r i.± . ^i ::" .-; v-.r ':- :: :-;- :':---• i:t ----- - -- -^ : :-.-
after Mm when there is no danger1" (nr. 126). The result was as he antici- pated, and his whole army escaped without km out of Ike litil1 • of countless • an Haling, (re. 125—128).
la tike AmfUfOmt tmtamg^ BaunoB* mfaam: ClennhSenteMDer,422,Thucydi- des attribotes to Ike uoHieBi of dona sentiments which are undoubtedly his own. "The soldiers,"' said he, " drew comparisons between the generals; what skill and enterprise might be expected on the one side, and what ignorance and cowardice on the other." It was as tbe •"•^••» expected. When Brasidas observed from within the waHs the ..army of dean moving off in disorder he shouted: "Those men do not mean to ace us; see how their spears and then- heads are shakings such benm»im always shows that an army n> going to run away. Opes the gates and let us at them! " Them ••• ir 4, the Athenian cenlrc with I jo hopfitcs^ speedily supported by the mam buujv he was entirely successful. "Qeony who had never intended to remain,™ says TTiucydides, "fled at once and was overtake* awl sbm." Bat aafiuluinlilj Brasidas also was «?g.fn.. Thucydides pronounces no eulogy upon the dead hero. He simply states: "Bcasidas was boned with pubhc Iwrnoo in front of the agora. The whole body of the allies, in military array, followed him to tbe grave. The Am- phipolitans enclosed bus sepukhre, and to ton day they sacrifice to him as a hero, and also celebrate games and yearly offerings in his honor" (v. 6-n).
Proceedings for July, 1903. jriii
Thncydides has nowhere g»co a formal risanrliriii sliiui of Brasidas, bat we see in die facts, as he states diem, in Brasidas the greatest warrior of the Spartan side, a winning penonafity, aatsfeemmm of farce and address.
If Brasidas k Thncydides' favorite ihmailn. Oeon k hk especial aveniaaL In other cases he leaves to die facts of hktory dte verdict of approval or condemnation; Oeon he has condemned in few monk, bnt uxtmktakably. Giote suspects die canse to be personal — die fact that Oeon was the reputed accuser when dw historian was baamhed, Bat it was Brasid Thncydides and caused hk banishment, and jet Brasidas k bam. dw bayed widi warm interest. Oeon k ianvdaced hi the hktory with words that betray strong aversion, "Glean, due son of flcacnetus, who also had carried the former decree of death, being in other respects dt£ meat violent of the «-J*i*»»*, and by Car die most persuasive at die time with the demos, came forward and spoke" (in. 36). It was not hk fust i|i|iisisan before dte Ecdesia, but
nation. The proposition which he had carried in a former assembly aad was now defending was to kffl aD MfeylmmemB of nuuunry age— about 6000— and to sdl as slaves d»e women and cttdrea. We shall find him two yens later carrying a like dacm. "to destroy Scione ami put the <*«*•« to the sword." The speech in the matter of the BG^tesneans k one of the mmt remarkable m Thncydides and justifies the epithet -most violent* (mu 37-49).
Once again he appears as the bbKtering demagogue (hr. 21-23 a**1 ** f.). When the I n i iln inimiioi, m imiomj si flu iftmuiim rflhi offered advantageous teems, Oeon persuaded the fllnraiini Bat die blockade spmi iludT wat intenmlmn%, smi dw waftd* to the Athenians. Oe*m, penxiring diat he wjs becooring an mistrust, first boldly challenged the iijiifcfumi Pjios; then, when he was him- self delegated to go ami inspect die situation, he urged rather to send a fleet. "He declared sarcastically that if the generak were good for •ujlhim,. dKy m^t easOy sail to die kbmd and take dK men; that he wonU do it, if he were generaL" \\"ben Nkias ofiered to resign m Oeon's favor, uue fatter tried to ba^ out, bat die multitude ridknlcd him into going. He chose Demosthenes as hk c«0eagne, and vauntingbr said dot in twenty days he would return with dtt Lacedaemonians as prkonem or wouM smy them am the spot. "Hk vain words," says Thncydides, "moved die AdKnians to bughter; nevenhefess the wttsrtafamwmjkartwwml^liiMu*edA*wI»*mt!Oud Itis^i they could not fail to obtain one — eidker thene wauii he mi end of Oeon, which dbey would have greatly pfffr"H» wA V they were disappointed, he would pnt the Lacedaemonians into duar hands."' The "mad" promise of Oeon i good, for he did return with die pikumaa. m UstJOtf dnffc
But Qeon's success at Sphactnia was to he nil ••• msuohm> He die Ailn'MJJi^ in \"t to send him with an expedition to the r^*&* MM» ^-iti^*. Hk opponent was nimiilss. ami dsej met at Amphkwik, as described above. "Brasidas and Oeon,* OBUS Thncydides, by way of swmmnry, " hml wans one two '•-.'-'..•'. -.~-r. --. •'_::•-.:._; — : " : r.- :•-. .1 --- i: ' -J"'"" ••---:•••> i" 1 *;:_-
.he
xiv American Philological Association.
Ingenious attempts have been made to reverse the verdict of history in the case of one and another arch sinner. The attempt to whitewash Cleon will not succeed. The world has too long believed in the self-restraint and impartiality of Thucydides to be convinced now that his aversion to Cleon was due to a personal grudge. The greatest historian and the greatest satirist of the ancient world have both branded him as the arch-demagegue, and their verdict will stand. Cleon is pilloried forever.
Of all the chief men of the Peloponnesian War, Nicias is perhaps relatively the least important, as far as real ability and force of character are concerned; but we have here a fuller psychological analysis than in any other case. The reason is doubtless, as Bruns thinks, that his is a more complicated nature and in him the most varying motives cross each other. We have seen above the outcome of his first important appearance, the tilt with Cleon on the Sphacterian matter. " He had been," says Thucydides, " the most fortunate general of his day," and but for the Sicilian expedition he would have come down to us, not indeed as a great general and statesman, but as a safe leader who had deserved well of his country. It is the irony of fate that Nicias, who saw so clearly the folly and even the danger of this enterprise, should have been forced by the people's confidence in his integrity and ability to take the chief command in this imperialistic undertaking (vi. 8). The chief cause of the fateful expedition was Alcibiades, but the chief instrument of fate in the disaster was the unhappy Nicias. The simple course of historical events becomes an indirect characteriza- tion of the man." The narration and grouping of events show unmistakably the historian's condemnation of the unfortunate general whom he never blames in word. The one excuse that could have been urged for Nicias was that he was suffering from an incurable disease. But as Thucydides does not accuse, so he does not excuse; he simply mentions the fact.
The cardinal mistakes of Nicias in the Sicilian expedition, as gathered from the historian's narration of facts, may be summarized as follows :
(i) Nicias rejects Lamachus' advice to sail direct to Syracuse and fight as soon as possible under the walls. Formidable at first, he, by wasting the winter at Catana, fell into contempt and allowed time for succor to come from Pelopon- nesus. (2) Learning of Gylippus' approach and despising the small number of his ships, at first he set no watch (vi. 104) ; then, when he did send four ships to intercept him, was too late (vii. i). (3) Lets Gylippus get into Syracuse by way of Euryalus (vii. 2). (4) Allows Gylippus to surprise and take the fort Labdalon (vii. 3). (5) Sends twenty ships to waylay at the Porthmus the Corinthian suc- cors for Syracuse, but too late (vii. 4, 7). (6) Allows Gylippus to build in the night the Syracusan cross-wall past the Athenian wall of circumvallation (vii. 6). (7) Permits Gylippus to surprise and capture Plemmyrium, with the result that the Syracusans were henceforth " masters of the mouth of the harbor on both sides, so that not a single store-ship could enter without a convoy and a battle " (vii. 22, 23). (8) Allows Gylippus and the Syracusans to send to southern Italy and cut off a supply fleet meant for the Athenians (vii. 25). (9) Is deceived by a ruse and drawn into a sea-fight when the men are unprepared and hungry (vii. 39-41). (10) Rejects the proposition of Demosthenes and Eurymedon to leave Sicily immediately after the failure of the attack on Epipolae (vii. 48, 49). ( 1 1 ) Having finally consented, in view of matters getting worse and worse, to lead
Proceedings for July, 1903. xv
off the army, he is frightened by an eclipse of the moon, and gives orders, obey- ing the injunction of the soothsayers, to wait still twenty-seven days (vii. 50). (12) Fooled by the messengers of Hermocrates, on the night after the great sea- fight he postpones immediate departure (vii. 73, 74).
Does this Thucydidean picture, as gathered from the facts narrated, comport with the historian's remark that "Nicias of all the Hellenes of his time least deserved so to perish, on account of the whole course of his life regulated accord- ing to virtue "? Jebb thinks " the fate of Nicias seemed to Thucydides a signal example of unmerited misfortune, since Nicias had been remarkable throughout life for the practice of orthodox virtue." But the facts as narrated make it impos- sible to accept this as the historian's view. It is a statement by the historian of the popular impression of such a life, as Bruns thinks; or it may be, as Professor Shorey puts it, that the famous words " convey quite as much irony or sense of dramatic contrast as moral affirmation "; or it may be an expression of scepticism.
The character of Gylippus, the Spartan commander at Syracuse, is in marked contrast with that of Nicias. Landing at Himera, he began immediately to attract allies, for " the impression got abroad that he had come full of zeal " (vii. i). The herald of his approach found the Athenian circumvallalion all but complete and the Syracusans on the point of surrender. But Gylippus' first proposition to Nicias was that the Athenians might " quit Sicily within five days, taking what belonged to them " (c. 3). The next day Gylippus surprises the fort Labdalon (c. 3). Defeated in the first battle a few days later (c. 5), the next day he is victorious (c. 6). The following night the Syracusan cross-wall gets past the Athenian wall, thus forever preventing the circumvallation. Next, Gylippus is off to various Sicilian cities for reinforcements, while ambassadors go on the same mission to Lacedaemon and Corinth, and the Syracusans man a navy (c. 7). Nicias has presently to confess, in a letter to Athens, " We who are supposed to be the besiegers are really besieged" ^. iv). The next spring Plemmyrium is taken (cc. 22, 23). After Demosthenes' failure in the night- attack on Epipolae, Gylippus goes again into the rest of Sicily to get still more troops, " being now in hopes to carry the Athenian fortifications by storm." In the speeches of the rival commanders, on the eve of the final sea-fight, portraying most effectively, by con- trast, the situation and the mood of the two armies, Nicias' note is that of des- peration ; but the note with which men win battles is that of Gylippus. In the measures taken to block the progress of the Athenians on the fatal retreat, Gylip- pus and Hermocrates are the joint leading spirits; their plans are conceived with skill and executed with merciless precision, until at last the remnants of the whole vast host have been bagged or butchered.
We are accustomed to admire among Thucydides' great qualities as an his- torian his impartiality, trustworthiness, vivid description, sense of contrast, con- ciseness, epigrammatic sententiousness, reserve, austere pathos. Is it too much to claim that also in the drawing of characters like Brasidas and Nicias — not in what he says, rather in what he does not say, but makes facts say — Thucydi- des is a great master ?
This article is published in full in the American Journal of Philol- ogy, Vol. XXIV., No. 4.
At the conclusion of the address an informal reception was held in the Trowbridge Library.
xvi American Philological Association.
THIRD SESSION.
Wednesday morning, July 8.
The Association came to order at 9.45 A.M.
On behalf of the Executive Committee the Secretary made a report with reference to the proposition to change the time of holding the regular annual meetings. The substance of this report is set down in the following communication addressed by the Secretary to the Execu- tive Committee on the conclusion of the postal-card ballot taken in accordance with the recommendation made at the last annual meeting. Copies of the report were distributed.
To the Members of the Executive Committee :
In accordance with the vote instructing the Secretary to that effect I have sent a statement to each member of the Association of the arguments set forth at the meeting held at Union College with reference to the desirableness or undesirable- ness of a change in the date of the regular annual meetings of the Association. The result of the ballots cast by the 307 members who expressed an opinion (24 were undecided) is as follows.
The following (187) members voted in favor of a meeting in July:
Abbott, Alexander, Arrowsmith, Ashmore, Austin, Ball, Bartholomew, F. O Bates, W. N. Bates, Beach, Biddle, Birmingham, C. E. Bishop, Bocock, Bourland
F. W. Brown, Burchard, Burrage, H. E. Burton, Buttz, Bytel, Carpenter, Castle, Franklin Carter, Cheek, Clark, Cole, Collins, Dickerman, B. L. D'Ooge, M. L. D'Ooge, Button, Earle, Ebeling, Eckels, Eckfeldt, G. V. Edwards, Elmer, Elwell. Ely, Emery, Faduma, E. W. Fay, Fitch, Fairbanks, H. B. Foster, F. H. Fowler, Franklin, Gallup, Grant, E. L. Green, Greer, Haight, A. P. Hall, F. A. Hall, Hallett, Hamilton, A. Harkness, Hanna, Harry, Harstrom, Hart, Hawes, Heidel, Hempl, Hewitt, Higley, Hildreth, Hodgman, Hoffman, Hodges, Holmes, E. W. Hopkins, H. M. Hopkins, Houghton, A. A. Howard, Huling, Humphreys, Hunt- ington, Hussey, Ingraham, G. E. Jackson, C. W. L. Johnson, H. C. Johnson, Kieffer, Kirk, Kirtland, Kittredge, Klapp, Knapp, Lawton, Leach, Leacock, Little, Livingstone, Long, Lutz, MacLean, Magoun, March, Mather, McDaniel, McKib- ben, McKinstry, McLain, Michelson, W. Miller, Mecklin, Merchant, F. G. Moore,
G. F. Moore, J. L. Moore, M. H. Morgan, Morris, Newcomer, Newhall, Nicolson, Nitze, W. B. Owen, Packard, E. H. Palmer, Paton, Paxton, Peck, Pel'ett, Penick, Peppier, Perkins, Perrin, Perry, Piper, Plainer, Porter, Post, Potter, Prentice, B. F. Prince, Radford, Rand, Robbins, Robinson, Rockwell, Rogers, Rupp, Ryder, Sawyer, Scarborough, C. P. G. Scott, J. A. Scott, Seely, Seelye, Showerman, Sihler, Smart, C. S. Smith, Sitterly, Spieker, Stacey, Stary, Steele, Stoddard, Sturtevant, Tarbell, Terrell, Thompson, Tilden, Tufts, Wait, Walden, Warner, Waters, Watson, Welles, West, Wescott, J. R. Wheeler, A. C. White, G. A. Williams, M. G. Williams, Woodman, Woodruff, E. D. Wright, C. C. Wright, J. H. Wright, Youngman.
Of these about 15 may be called regular attenders, about 20 come often, about 40 infrequently, and about 1 10 very rarely or never.
Proceedings for filly, 1 903 .
xvu
The following (120) members are in favor of holding the meeting in December :
Adams, Allinson, Amen, Barbour, Barss, Barry, Battle, Baur, C. E. Bennett, Bloomfield, Bowen, Bradley, Brady, Bright, C. N. Brown, D. C. Brown, Brownson, T. C. Burgess, J. M. Burnam, Bushnell, H. F. Burton, Carroll, Caverno, Jesse B. Carter, G. D. Chase, G. H. Chase, Clement, Cooley, Cowles, W. K. Denison, Walter Uennison, Derby, Doane, Drake, Edmiston, K. M. Edwards, A. M. Elliott, Emens, Fessenden, Fiske, Htz-Hugh, Gifford, Given, Gleason, Goodell, C. J. Goodwin, John Greene, Gudeman, Guernsey, Gulick, Hale, Hammond, Harring- ton, Harper, W. A. Harris, Haupt, Hazen, Helm, Hendrickson, Howes, Hubbard, Hirst, Hoeing, Hoppin, von Jagemann, W. H. Johnson, E. Johnson, G. D. Kellogg, Kelsey, Laird, Laing, Lanman, Lease, Lindsay, Lord, Main, Manly, McCrea, C W. E. Miller, C. H. Moore, L. B. Moore, J. H. Morgan, Mott, von Minckwitz, Neville, Olcott, Pease, F. W. Price, J. D. Prince, Riess, Rockwood, Rolfe, Sachs, Sanborn, Sanders, Sanford, Schlicher, Seymour, Sharp, Shaw, Sheldon, Slaughter, C. L. Smith, C. F. Smith, H. deF. Smith, J. R. Smith, Kirby F. Smith, Southworth, Tisdall, Todd, Tomlinson, Turk, Walker, Walton, Minton Warren, Weston, A. L. Wheeler, J. W. White, Wild, Wilson.
Of this number 10 maybe called regular attenders, the same number come often, about 40 come infrequently, and about 60 rarely or never. It will be observed that the members who favor the December meeting present a somewhat better average of attendance in July than those who advocate no change.
It may be of interest to note the place of residence of the members voting :
STATES
Maine
N.H.
Vt.
Mass.
R.I.
Conn.
N.Y.
N.J.
Pa.
Md.
D.C.
Va.
N.C.
S.C.
Ky.
Tenn.
JULY |
DECEMBER |
STATES |
2 6 |
I 3 |
Ga. La. |
2 |
Tex. |
|
18 |
19 |
Ohio |
4 |
I |
Ind. |
10 |
8 |
111. |
36 |
17 |
Mich. |
10 |
3 |
Wis. |
IO |
9 |
Minn. |
I |
8 |
S.D. |
2 |
2 |
Iowa |
3 |
3 |
Neb. |
I • |
i |
Kans. |
2 |
Mo. |
|
2 |
Okla. |
|
4 |
DECEMBER
It is needless to say that every possible reason for and against the proposed change was urged, but in general the reasons adduced were those set forth in the Secretary's circular. Some of the suggestions made may deserve your consideration.
xviii American Philological Association.
Of those who voted in favor of retaining the July meeting, few urged that they could not attend in December, but many believed that Convocation Week was already crowded with meetings ("A Convocation Week for everybody is no place for anybody ") or was not a time for intellectual activity; that our meetings would suffer if held at the same time and place as those of the Archaeological Institute of America; that, because the sessions of the Institute were held in the winter, our sessions should be held in the summer. The summer, it was urged, would suit members in the south. One member suggests that we hold a special biennial meeting in December in addition to our regular July meetings; another, that we move our date of meeting one week earlier.
Of the members who favor the December meeting many state that they will never be able to attend in July by reason of the summer schools; others say that they are frequently in Europe; others, that it is inconvenient and expensive to leave the place at which they have settled for the summer. Several members urge that the experiment of a change be made, and then, if it prove disadvanta- geous, a return be made to our present plan. A considerable number desire that we meet at the same time and place as the Archaeological Institute or the Modern Language Association (or other societies), in support of which plan they call attention to the great saving in expense, especially because it is possible to secure reduced railroad fares during Convocation Week ; whereas in summer it has been found impossible to arrange for such reduction. Two members propose that our Association meet at the same place as the Archaeological Institute, and that the meetings of the two organizations overlap for one or two days. One member favors one meeting in December and another in July in order to stimulate philo- logical activity. Some express the hope that a meeting held during Convocation Week in conjunction with the other societies may ultimately bring about a union of the various learned bodies of America that have interests in common.
It is apparent, from their ballots cast in December, that a majority of the present officers was then in favor of retaining the July meeting. The Association expects a report from the Executive Committee at the New Haven meeting. It is hoped that all the members will attend the meeting of the Committee, which is to be held shortly before the opening session of the Association, and that sug- gestions will then be made and action taken in the light of the above report.
Your obedient servant,
HERBERT WEIR SMYTH,
Secretary.
CAMBRIDGE, MASS., May 29, 1903.
In order to gain more ample information on the subject, and there- with to assist the preparation of its report, the Executive Committee gave notice, through the Secretary, that the question of the change in time of the regular meetings would be thrown open to discussion from 12.30 to i P.M., and that a ballot of the members present would be taken at four o'clock.
The Secretary then presented the following recommendation of the Executive Committee, which was carried :
Proceedings for July, 1903. xix
The Executive Committee recommends,
1. That the Committee to nominate officers be constituted a Standing Com- mittee of the Association, to serve for five years; that it consist of five members, to be appointed at this session by the President of the Association.
2. That one member of said Committee retire at the end of each year, his place to be filled on the nomination of his successor by the President of the Association for the time being.
3. That the members of said committee cast lots to determine the order of their retirement.
4. That the Association determine at the end of five years whether the plan in question has proved effective, and order its continuance or a return to the previous system, as may seem advisable.
The Executive Committee further reported a proposition to create the office of Assistant Secretary, said officer to assist the Secretary during the sessions of the Association, but not to be a member of the Executive Committee. In accordance with Article VI. of the Consti- tution this proposition will be voted on in July, 1904.
8. The Codex Canonidanus Lai. XLI and the Tradition of Juve- nal, by Professor Harry L. Wilson, of Johns Hopkins University.
The object of this paper was to 'show how the thirty-six verses of the sixth satire, discovered in 1899 by Winstedt, may have found their way into the Bodleian Ms. (0), and to support the view of the tradition which was suggested in the writer's recent edition of Juvenal. Mr. S. G. Owen's valuation of the new Ms. (recensio ceteris omnibus antiquior planequqsingularis) was rejected as too high, and his opinion that the verses in question were removed from the text in the Nicaean recension was considered improbable and out of harmony with the facts. It may be supposed that in the archetype of all the Mss. the recently discovered additions had their place on the margin; for the longer fragment seems to be an alternative passage to verses 346-348. This may well point to a double recension of the satires by Juvenal himself, as the writer tried to show in the twenty-first volume of the American Journal of Philology. In the better tradition (/>) the marginal passages were not preserved entire; only two verses were quoted by the scholiast on verse 348, and were formerly supposed to be a metrical note by some early commentator. In a similar way the passages in question dropped out of the inferior tradition.
An Italian Ms. of the inferior class, however, from which 0 was copied, may be supposed to have received corrections and additions, either in the body of the text, on the margin, or, in the case of the longer fragment, on a leaf inserted for the purpose, from the archetype or a Ms. of similar antiquity and value, in all probability also Italian. This theory accounts for the peculiarities of O; namely, the Lombardic hand, the verses and readings which exist in no other known Ms., the general agreement with the inferior class, and at the same time the more frequent coincidence of its readings with those of the better tradition.
Remarks were made by Professor Warren and by the author.
xx American Philological Association.
9. The Fiscal Joke of Pericles, by Professor B. Perrin, of Yale University.
An attempt to defend, as against Busolt and Eduard Meyer, the traditional reference of the efc r6 dtov atrfXtiJcra. of Pericles (Plut. Per. xxiii; Aristoph. Nub. 859) to the year 445 B.C., and the mysterious withdrawal of the Peloponnesian army under King Pleistoanax from its invasion of Attica. In the year when the Clouds of Aristophanes was composed (424-423 B.C.), the events of so remote a year as 445 had been brought freshly to Athenian remembrance by repeated Pelo- ponnesian invasions of Attica (Thucyd. ii. 21), and above all by the spectacular and scandalous restoration of Pleistoanax to the throne of Sparta after a banish- ment of nineteen years. "He had been banished on account of his retreat from Attica, when he was supposed to have been bribed" (Thucyd. v. 16). This tra- ditional reference of the Periclean mot is supported by the oldest and best Aris- tophanic scholia.
10. Danielsson's Assimilation mit nachtr'dglicher Diektasis in Homer : a Criticism by Professor H. C. Tolman, of Vanderbilt University.
In endeavoring to explain the familiar Homeric phenomena of diektasis in dw verbs, Danielsson (Zur metr. Dehnung, p. 64) supports the old view of assimila- tion only where a short syllable is followed by one etymologically long, eg. 6p6w<6pdw. The vowel of such forms as ijpduvrfs he interprets as metrical lengthening, but where an original long vowel is the first component, e.g. fivdaffffai, he sees pure distraction. The anomaly of a short syllable succeeded by a long which would etymologically be short, e.g. 6p6<avres, he explains as assimilation with subsequent diektasis through the process hqrggntes ; horggntes.
As is well known, the early Alexandrians were little concerned with such anomalous vowel resolutions. Aristarchus and Aristophanes passed them by as genuine Homeric forms. The terms applied by the ancient grammarians to this class of phenomena, e.g. fw^Kraffiv Tronr)riK^v (Schol. to S 229), Siaipetriv (Hero- dian, II, 49), wa.pfvOeffiv (Eustath. 20), ir\eova.<Tfj.6v (Et. M.), indicate that they at least believed that contracted forms were metrically resolved again.
It was in 1835 tnat Gottling (Allg. Lehre vom Accent der griech. Spr. p. 97) proposed the theory (now so generally in vogue) of the assimilation of dissimilar vowels as an incident to contraction, i.e. that opdu, before contracting into opw, must pass through the intermediate stage 6p6w. Leo Meyer (A'.Z. X, p. 45) accepted Gottling's view, hut he went so far as to attempt to develop the third plural -owtrt and the fern, partic. -o<a<ra (cf. Kuhner, Griechische Grammatik*, I, p. 252) from the original OVTI (owi) and ovria (owra), forms of which the Homeric dialect could not be expected to take account. On the other hand, he proposed to change all such syllables as -owires, -owirai, -oyev into -oo»res, -OOITCU, -ooiev. We remember how Mangold (Curtius' Studien, VI, p. 141) essayed to classify, in accordance with vowel quantity, the processes of assimilation into (i) progres- sive, f.g. d(rxa\da>'<<l(TxaX<i«i', (2) regressive, e.g. diri6« <dirtdw, (3) recipro- cal, eg. Tf/Jwcjo-a < ^/3dou<ra. So Brugmann (Griechische Grammatik*, p. 62), who favors the assimilation theory, believes that in the contraction of opdw, opde-
Proceedings for July, 1903. xxi
ffOai to Apw, bpaffOai the pronunciation wavered between horoy and horq, haraa- sthai and hordsthai ; yet even he regards the w in ipiwtret <6pdoir« as in correspondence with the contracted opwvrts, and, furthermore, he sees a metrical lengthening of the first of the components in ^/3wot/u, since, according to his view, between ipdoi/u and rjft^fii, there must have been the intermediate rjfiooifju. Meyer {Grieckische Grammatik*, p. 96) derives rjftuoifit from r^doiji, believing that the original a has again entered the present through the influence of such forms as rtjixoVw, trifid&a.
As is well known, neither the assimilation hypothesis nor any modification of that hypothesis is altogether sufficient to cover this class of phenomena, for even its adherents have to resort to metrical lengthening, analogy, or distraction, in case of forms which under their theory are still inexplicable. And, again, Curtius' conjecture {Eriduterungen, p. 96) that the u in ow«r« came by the transfer of quantity of an originally long a is not plausible, since that transfer would not be likely to be limited to a few Epic forms and not extended to others.
That there is diektasis in Homer, it would be difficult to deny. Wackernagel's unique conjecture (5. B. IV, 259) that these forms, uncontracted in the original language of the poem, were subsequently contracted and at last resolved into two syllables to restore the metre, e.g. opdw — opw — 6p6w (cf. Cauer, Grumifr., p. 70 fg.), forces us to the improbable conclusion that genuine uncontracted Homeric forms were, contra melrum, contracted in transmission, while others were left intact, and that later these contracted but unmetrical forms were resolved into forms both uncouth and unfamiliar. Even Munro {Homeric Grammar, p. 53) suggests that the influence of the familiar contracted 6p<2>, oppt caused a partial assimilation 6p6u>, opdas.
Instead of supposing, as Danielsson does, that different processes which baffle analysis were at work in these distracted forms, why not believe that they were really written contracted in the Homeric poems themselves, and that the long vowel vi recitandi was pronounced as two metrical syllables (cf. Valori, De voca- libus apud Homerum non coniractis, p. 12, 1902), which pronunciation, in written- transmission, was represented by the repetition of the vowel ? Illustration o" such distraction to fit the musical accompaniment is abundantly seen in the famil- iar Apollo Hymns discovered at Delphi {Philol. 53, B.C.H. 18), eg. pp&povov, $010 ?/3oi', raoVSe, d^ya/cXuTatets, Aff\<piffuv, (Vp]w<2»>a, /uaarreietoi', <j5adi>. Thus, I believe it may be that the repeated vowel has come into our recension of the poems: aa<d < ae (57 times), ow[wo] < w< aw (188 times), ow[ww] < w < aw (50 times), aafaa] < a < a« (42 times), ow[wo] < w < aou (80 times), aa <a<a7j (3 times), ow<w<aot (15 times). Total, 435 times (cf. Valori, of. cit. p. n).
Sanskrit students are familiar with the frequent occurrence of distraction in the Vedic metres. The Veda shows the phenomenon of the long vowel resolved — very frequently that of d into ad. While a historical explanation may be given in some cases, yet the vast majority are simply distracted to fit the metre. Let us quote a few examples (selected at random) in order to observe the ratio between the single long vowel and the resolved syllable: adhvaranam (10 times) leg. . . . aam (5 times), apam (93 times) leg. . . . aim (20 times), acvanam (5 times) leg. . . . aam (2 times), devanam (46 times) leg. . . . aim (10 times), nrnam (14 times) leg. . . . aim (u times), pitfnam (6 times) leg. . . . aam (3 times),
xxii American Philological Association.
raartyanam (9 times) leg. . . . aam (6 times), vasunam (29 times) leg. . . . aam (n times), rajanam (2 times) leg. . . . aam (8 times). Even a particle, as con- sistently monosyllabic as at (over 100 times) in one case surely and probably in another is to be pronounced aat.
This Vedic resolution of syllables, as well as that in the Apollo Hymns noted above, seems to the writer to have an important bearing on diektasis in Homer.
IT. Notes, by Professor Mortimer Lamson Earle, of Columbia University.
a. On Horace, Carmm. I. 3. 1-8.
If the first two stanzas of this ode mean what most of the editors ha%-e thought they meant, two things follow: first, there is no reason why the first stanza should have been the first and the second stanza the second — indeed, it would be a great improvement if the two stanzas were to change places; secondly, Horace wrote arrant nonsense here; for surely no one that gave thought to what he wrote would, in the days before navigation by steam, have begun a poem addressed to a friend about to sail for England on this wise :
O ship that bear'st my friend away,
If thou shall bring him safe to land, May western gales speed well thy way,
Until thou reachest that far strand.
But these two stanzas do not mean what most of the editors have thought they meant. Among recent editors of the Odes Professor Bennett alone seems to have rightly explained the connection of thought in this passage. The explana- tion amounts to this, that the words finibus atticis reddas incolumen et sen-es animae dimidium meae express — not the condition of a benediction, but — the result of a desired action (regaf). In other words, sic is not = hac lege or hac condicione, but is — hoc inodo. Mr. Bennett writes : " We should naturally expect these words \Sic . . . Vergiliutri] to be followed by an w/'-clause («/ reddas, serves}, instead of which, by a simple anacoluthon, the poet employs jussive [read: precative] subjunctives (reddas, serves}, explanatory of sic, — 'may the goddess guide thee thus [better : may the west wind guide thee thus] ; bring Vergil unharmed to the Attic shores, and save the half of my life.' " This expla- nation of the connection of thought, though it is original with Mr. Bennett, and has also been advocated by Professor Knapp in his teaching, is far from being new. C. W. Nauck's explanation in his edition (i3te Aufl., 1889; I5te Aufl., by Weissenfels, 1899) ought to amount to the same thing, but is not clear either in thought or expression. In the edition of Horace brought out by Anthon in 1830 the same explanation is adopted from the edition of Hunter of 1797. Here, as in many another place, the older students of Horace seem to have been wiser than the iiriyovoi. Anthon himself backslid in his smaller edition.
But I believe that we can and should go farther than Hunter and Mr. Bennett have gone and that we should restore the ut after Vergilium. I base this opinion not so much on the surprising parataxis as on the position of the word precor. Read the two stanzas as Mr. Bennett would have us do, and the precor falls heavily with reddas and serves, the sentence still, by reason of the parataxis,
Proceedings for July \ 1903. xxiii
breaking pretty sharply in the middle. But the precor should surely be brought into connection with the «V-clause. Insert ut after Vergilium, read with proper emphasis and, so far as possible, in one breath, and precor knits up, as it were, the two strands of the sentence, and its force is clearly felt to pervade the whole, the et serves animae dimidium meat falling in as a sort of graceful and emphatic afterthought.
This restoration, as I am convinced that it is, of Horace's text had been suggested before; in Keller's Epilegomena zu Horaz Doederlein is sneered at for advocating the insertion of ut. I can at least rejoice, like Odysseus, oi/*«x' iraipov ivyta. \cfoffw iv d-yum.
b. On Plato, Rep., 423 B.
I propose to read here for &TIJV 5e? rb fi&yeOot r^v ir6\iv voifurOat, which seems to be dubious Greek, oiav Set rb /*£ye0os KT&. The Greek equivalent of tot is ovrttt woXXof (iroXXd) or roffovroi (roffavra*) rb r\ijt)os (unless roaovroi alone is clearly shewn by the context to be = tof). But the resolution of TO<roOrof is either ovrw /x^yos or TOIOVTOS TO ptyedot (cf. Lysias 12. I), or TjjXucoCros rb (ttyeOos (cf. Lysias 26. 23). Similarly the resolution of irfooi or &rot indicating multitude is ir6aoi (&roi) rb irX^tfos (cf. Dem. 29, 51); that of foot indicating magnitude would be ofos TO /z£ye0os. — Incidentally I would emend Hdt. 4. 143 so as to read TOVOVTO {7-6) «-XiJ0os yevfff&at foot {o/) iv rrji. poiiji. KOKKOI, and Isocr. 4. 33 so as to read 8<i>pf{i)&.v roia^mjv TO
Remarks on the first paper were made by Professors C. H. Moore, Elwell, Knapp, Morgan, Harry, and by the author.
12. Rousselot's Phonetic Synthesis, by Professor E. Washburn Hopkins, of Yale University.
The speaker presented an abstract of the SyntKese Phonetique of Meillet and Rousselot, remarking on the great importance of these investigations and the good fruit already gained from them. He criticised adversely only the terminology contained in such phrases as des j, j, forts, medio-soitrds, nasalises, et des nasales a debut sourd, since any one sound at any one instant is either surd or sonant and cannot be half-surd.
Remarks were made by Professors Perry, Tolman, Hempl, and by the author.
1 3. Notes on Greek Grammar, by Professor Milton W. Humphreys, of the University of Virginia.
This paper was not devoted so much to original investigation as to criticism of the prevalent treatment of the following topics :
1. Uapd with Dative and Accusative.
2. ~Li>v in Attic Prose.
3. AOK€IV in the sense of " to seem."
4. A seemingly pleonastic use of *af as in ttre teal . . . efre *al . . .
5. Ka( emphasizing the predication.
xxiv American Philological Association.
6. The Optative (pure) used interrogatively.
7. 'Edv as an indirect interrogative.
8. " And so forth " or " and so on " in Greek.
9. The general ideal condition. 10. The gender of l*c/tijws.
Remarks were made by Dr. Scott.
14. Is the Present Theory of Greek Elision sound? By Professor H. W. Magoun, of Redfield College.
Elision is defined as the " dropping " of a final short vowel (in Greek) before a word beginning with a vowel; Apocope, as the "cutting off" of a final short vowel before a word beginning with a consonant. If each means the loss of a final short vowel, why should apocope give K&T and elision KO.T ? Why should the accent be recessive in one case but not in the other, and why does an apos- trophe mark the omission in one case but not in the other? Is the character of the sound which follows in the next word sufficient to account for the difference in the writing and accent? What is the accent of fcar'? If it is proclitic in effect, what is to be done with an elided enclitic like 7^, as in d\\' 5 y dvat|as, Horn. Oaf. ix. 288? Is the accent enclitic and the 7 proclitic, or is such an idea absurd ? How is the second X in dXX' to be sounded with the following rough breathing? Are the four words to be pronounced as practically one? What of ous ITOT' aw Alvelav, Horn. //. viii. 108? Are these four words to be pronounced in effect as one? How else can present usage be observed ? Is there but one accent in ol 8' etj 6p^r\ar{jv re, Od. i. 421, and do these five words, in pronun- ciation, become practically but one?
Again, if the final vowel is dropped so that the preceding consonant becomes attached, in pronunciation, to the initial vowel of the following word, how can the two aspirations be sounded in such combinations as oC0" erdptav, Od. ix. 278, and ff fi/xa, Od. x. 123? If such a running together of the words is to be the accepted practice, what of the pause after the second comma in Odu.pi)ffcv 8' 'Ax«Xei5s, tier a. 8' fTpd-irer', avriica. 8' eyvw, 11. i. 199? The sense demands an interrup- tion. How can it be observed? Can it be imagined that the comma and the T exchange places? On the same basis, what shall be done with fu/ipC exija, //. i. 40, etc.? Do the two acute accents, on the two short vowels thus run together, agree with the law of dissyllabic enclitics? And, if elision is used here to avoid hiatus, as is elsewhere the case, what has been gained so far as the jux- taposition of two vowel sounds in adjacent words is concerned? If this is called an exception, is it thereby explained? Why is the acute accent retained in /«;;>£'? Why do such words as iva and o6re become Iv and oCr' by elision, but never \v and O&T', although apocope gives K&5 5', etc.? Wrhat do those acute accents mean?
If our present usage in Greek is correct, why should it be so difficult to observe it, in the above cases, and still read the lines metrically? Similar examples occur in prose; but prose has no fixed metrical form. By purposely stretching certain syllables in the lines from which the examples are taken, a metrical result can be obtained; but is such a process natural? Is the result poetry or a "jingle"?
Proceedings for July \ 1903. xxv
Making due allowance for the influence of adjacent vowel sounds in the uncon- tracted forms of Homer, as well as for the presumption involved in modern Greek usage, is there just ground for supposing that Classical and Homeric Greek fol- lowed a French usage, in elision, rather than an English one? We write "th' horse " and "th' apple "; but does any one ever call the first tkbrse or the second thapple? The Irishman, to be sure, closely approaches it at times; but does he, in his pronunciation, ever really lose the identity of either word by combining the two into one, as is done, to all intents and purposes, by the present method of pronouncing such combinations in Greek ? Or, supposing for the sake of the argument that he does, is the result elision? Is it not rather crasis? How can elision mean "dropping," when the verb lacdo means to 'injure by striking'? Does 'bruising out of (shape) ' — e does not mean 'off' — mean "dropping"? The word " apostrophe " stands for dir6o"rpo</>os irpojyoia, 'turned away tone.' Does that mean " dropping " ?
If it is assumed that elision in Greek means a more or less complete ' loss of color' in a final vowel, such as takes place in English "the" (th?), rather than a complete dropping of the vowel sound, as at present taught, is there one of the above difficulties which will not disappear ? May it not even be supposed that some trace of a grave accent survives with the remnant of an elided vowel ? Is it unnatural to suppose that (card becomes tears, or dXXa, aXX-?, or 'iva, lvJ, — written KCIT', dXX', and iV, like English " th' " (tto) ? Is there any difficulty with two aspirations in "th' horse" ? Would there be any, on the basis suggested, in ff &fj.a ? Would there be any trouble with a pause after an elided vowel, or with a case of hiatus in which a vowel precedes an elided syllable ? If the well-known difficulty of reading Homer naturally and at the same time metrically disappears for the most part when a change in the treatment of elided syllables, like the one here suggested, is made, is there nothing q/significance in the fact ? IS there not a strong presumption that elision in Greek did not differ essentially from elision in Latin ? And if, as Cicero and Quintilian plainly imply, Latin elision was merely a natural obscuring of certain final syllables so as to allow them to blend with a following vowel sound when necessary, is it too much to assume that Greek elision was a similar obscuring of a final vowel sound ? What was Greek elision ?
Remarks were made by Professors Radford and Morgan, and by the author.
The President then appointed the following Committees :
Committee on Time and Place of Meeting in 1904: Professors Perry, Goodell, and Pickard.
Standing Committee on Officers: Professors Wright, Humphreys, Hart, Sey- mour, and Hale.
At 12.30 the discussion of the change in the time of holding the regular annual meeting was begun. The discussion was participated in by Professors C. F. Smith, Perry, Elwell, Knapp, Eckels, Hempl, Wright, Harrington, and Dr. Scott.
Adjourned at i P.M.
xxvi American Philological Association.
FOURTH SESSION.
Wednesday afternoon, July 8, 1903. The Association assembled shortly after 3 P.M.
15. The Latin Monosyllables: their Relation to the Accent and to Syllable-Shortening in Early Latin, with especial reference to the Verse of Terence, by Professor Robert S. Radford, of Elmira College.
This paper is printed in full in the TRANSACTIONS. Remarks were made by Dr. Scott.
1 6. The Question of the Coincidence of Word- Accent and Verse- Ictus in the Last Two Feet of the Latin Hexameter, by Dr. H. J. Edmiston, of Bryn Mawr College.
It is now pretty generally agreed that the partial coincidence of word-accent and verse-ictus is a fact observable in a number of Latin verse-forms. Bentley, in his Schediasma de Aletris Terentianis, laid down the principle that the Latin comic poets avoided as far as possible putting the thesis of a verse on the final unaccented syllable of a word ; and that more especially, with certain definite and explicable exceptions, they did not allow the ictus to fall on the final syllable in the second dipody of the iambic senarius. In the first and last dipodies this could not be avoided. Bentley's theory was adopted by G. Hermann and, in a modified form, by Ritschl ; and, although it had been assailed by Ritter, Bockh, and Corrsen, is in its main features generally accepted by contemporary scholars. Likewise, Bentley's observation in his note on Terence, Heaut. 271, that Plautus and Terence in proceleusmatic words (w w w o) \\k-G facilius, mulierem, almost always put the ictus on the first syllable, can be explained on the assumption that in their day the old rule of accentuation had not yet been supplanted by the Paenultema Law (Lindsay, Philologus, LI, pp. 364 ff., Latin Language, pp. 157 ff.). In the fourth volume of Harvard Studies, Greenough showed that in Horatian Sapphics there is a general correspondence between ictus and accent, and it is a well-known fact that before the close of the Hellenizing era of Latin poetry, accent began to assert itself in opposition to quantity in such hexameters as cetera mando focis spernunt quae denies acuti.
In the time of Augustine there was no feeling for quantity left. Indeed, it is probable that in popular verse the accentual principle never entirely disappeared.
The facts in regard to the Latin hexameter may be stated as follows : —
In the poets of the best period, word-accent and verse-ictus usually coincide in the last two feet of this measure. Professor Humphreys (T.A.P.A. 1878) shows that in Ennius this coincidence, occurring in about 75 per cent of his extant verses, is entirely accidental; but that the percentage of conflicts between ictus and accent decrease in the later poets, until in Virgil we find only 4 per cent of them. Horace is an exception. Satires, book I., show 28 per cent of conflicts, but the Epistles, more carefully composed, only 17 per cent. Humphreys's statis- tics are based on Ennius, Lucilius, Lucretius, Virgil, and Horace. Other facts
Proceedings for July, 1903. xxvii
are that in Cicero's hexameters there are only five cases of conflict; in Catullus's only two that cannot be explained away.
Schulze (Zeitschr. f. d. Gymnas. XXIX. pp. 590 ff.), after examining the poets of the strictly classical school, excluding Virgil and Horace, finds that in Tihullus, Lygdamus, Propertius, Ovid, and Statius the cases of conflict are so very few as to be negligible.
Here appears to be a strong case, therefore, for the theory that this agreement of accent and ictus was by design. But this explanation has been vigorously attacked by Wilhelm Meyer (Sitzungsb. der k. b. Akad. der Wissemch. zu Afiin- chen, 1884, pp. 979-1087). He is followed by Lucian M tiller in his De He Metrica, and by Plessis in his J^raite de Mitrique Grecque et Latine.
Plessis states the case as follows: The strict rule is that the hexameter shall end with a dissyllable preceded by at least a trisyllable, or with a trisyllable pre- ceded by at least a dissyllable. Prepositions and monosyllabic conjunctions like sed and et are proclitic or enclitic. Although this rule secures the agreement of accent and ictus, such agreement is also secured by endings like | di genu\erunt and pari\terque ani\matas, which are contraband. Therefore the coincidence of accent and ictus is accidental. The two permitted types, ctilmina \ tecti and caecus a\more, came to prevail because, if the hexameter end otherwise than in a word of two or three syllables, the result must be either that a masculine caesura is produced in the fifth or sixth foot, or in both at once, or that the fifth and sixth feet are contained in one word, like sollicitabant. In the former case the end of the verse bears too close a resemblance to the beginning, in which the masculine caesura is pleasing and often repeated. As to the latter case, that of sollicitabant, it does not of course contain a masculine caesura, but neither does it a feminine. That is, in the last two feet masculine caesura was not only avoided, but feminine caesura was sought. |^
Meyer points out, besides, that the avoidance of caesura after the fifth thesis was in imitation of Alexandrian usage.
It seems to me that Meyer and Plessis prove their positive argument beyond the possibility of a doubt. But proof that the classical poets avoided this mascu- line caesura is not proof that they left the coincidence of accent and ictus entirely out of account. If we can show that the clausulae in which the objectionable caesura is avoided, but in which ictus and accent do not agree, are also shunned by the classical poets, we make it certain that they sought the concord of the two.
An examination of the metrical scheme of the hexameter reveals three ways of closing it, which obtain feminine caesura or diaeresis of the fifth foot, avoiding masculine of the fifth and sixth feet, but in which accent and ictus conflict ; to wit : —
(1) eva\sisse tot \ urbes, Aen. III. 282 — the monosyllable in this type must of course be non-enclitic.
(2) re\spexit. Ibi \ cmnes, Georg. IV. 491 — the dissyllable with final elision must also be non-enclitic.
(3) suppetere \ ipsue, Lucr. I. 1050.
There are no instances of any of these types in Catullus, Propertius, Ovid, or Statius, and of (2) and (3) there are likewise none in Tibullus. In Virgil's Bucolics none of the three kinds is found ; in his Georgia, no cases of (l) and (3). Of (i) there are two instances in Tibullus, I. 8, II, and 23; in the Aeneid six, I. 47, 76, II. 150, III. 282, 480, X. 482. Of (2) there is one example in the
xxviii American Philological Association.
Georgia, IV. 491, and one in the Aeneid, IX. 351. Of (3) there is, according to Professor Humphreys's statistics, only one genuine instance in Virgil, Aen. III. 581, | intremere \ omnem. There are a number of cases in which the final syllable of the quadrisyllable is -que. But it is very doubtful if -que when elided caused the accent to fall on a short syllable immediately preceding. Lindsay has shown that, when -que and -ne are elided in Plautus, the preceding word appears to retain its usual accent (A.J.P. XIV. 313).
Therefore the law of the hexameter-close should read somewhat as follows: The hexameter poets of the classical school, — according to our results we may include Cicero and Catullus, — in dactylic verses generally avoid masculine caesura of the fifth and sixth feet, and pentasyllabic closes ; and they very rarely allow a dissyllable preceded, first, by a short non-enclitic monosyllable; second, by a non-enclitic pyrrhic or iambic word with final elision; and third, by a first paeonic or choriambic word with final elision.
The article, amplified in consequence of a suggestion from Dr. Radford, will appear in full in the Classical Review.
Remarks were made by Professors Magoun and Radford, and by the author.
17. Word-accent in Catullus's Galliambics, by Professor T. D. Goodell, of Yale University.
This article appears in the TRANSACTIONS.
1 8. Studies in the Metrical Art of the Roman Elegists, by Profes- sor Karl P. Harrington, of the University of Maine.
Though the acme of art is reached in the most skilful concealment of its arti- ficial elements, a detailed study of the principles that underlie even such artistic perfection as that which the Roman elegists realized in the matter of poetic form is interesting for its own sake, and valuable for comparison with the works of other Latin poets of about the same period. Certain studies of which the results are here given may be regarded as preliminary to a more complete treatment, to appear in connection with an edition of selections from the Elegiac writers. The studies concern both the hexameter verses and the so-called pentameters.
I. HEXAMETERS
I. Monosyllabic endings: Catullus and Propertius employ them frequently; Tibullus and Ovid, very rarely.
(a) Catullus has 13 examples, including pronouns, forms of esse, and forms of res. Four times his verse ends in two monosyllables.
(£) Of the 31 cases in Propertius, 20 are some form of the first or second personal pronoun in the singular; 5 are forms of qui ; 4, forms of esse; fles occurs once, and iam once.
(<•) Ovid in the Amores (which are used for these tests) has 3 cases, viz., a form of esse, and me twice.
(d) Tibullus (Bks. I. and II., which are the only safe ground for an investi- gation of his usage) has sint once. No instance occurs in the book of Lygdamus.
Proceedings for July, 1903. xxix
2. Polysyllabic endings : these are more rare. They are occasional in Catullus; twice Ovid uses a quadrisyllable proper name; Propertius has similar instances; Tibullus has none.
3. Spondees still play an important part in the hexameters of Catullus, whose taste is like that of Ennius. This appears most strikingly at the end of the verse. He has 13 spondaic verses out of 322; of these one ends in a monosyllable, one in a trisyllable, the other 1 1 in words of not less than four syllables. 68, 87 has 5 spondees; 116, 3 is worthy of Ennius himself, being composed entirely of spondees.
In the other elegists, however, the proportion of dactyls and spondees is not unlike that of the other Augustan writers.
4. Rhyme : A species of middle, or Leonine, rhyme begins to be noted in Catullus, and continues throughout the whole group of writers, being apparently an extension, or an echo, of the very common similar rhyme in the pentameter. In the hexameter this rhyme occurs between the last syllable of the verse and that preceding the verse caesura, i.e. between the endings of the two parts of the verse. Not less than 41 examples of this may be found even in Catullus, eg. (96, l) : Si quicquam mutis \gratutn acceptumve septtlchris.
When this is combined with the common pentameter middle rhyme, and is at the same time an end rhyme, we have a still greater refinement, as in Tibullus I. 9, 25-26:
ipse deus tacito
permisit lingua ministro
ederet ut multo
libera verba mero.
c
cf. Ovid, Am. III. 2, 17-18; Prop. I. 6, 17-18.
In many cases, though the rhyme is imperfect, the similarity of sounds, as of a long vowel to a diphthong, or of one vowel followed by s to another vowel and s, produces a pleasing effect, which was frequently sought by these poets, eg. Tibull. II. 5,69-70:
quasque Aniena sacras Tiburs per Jlumina sortes portarit sicco perluleritque sinu.
The variety of these effects is countless.
5. Verse caesura. This depends, of course, upon the individual taste of the different authors.
(a) Catullus is fairly orthodox, with 267 out of 318 hexameters exhibiting the penthemimeral caesura, 30 the hephthemimeral, 16 the feminine caesura in the third foot, and 5 the so-called " Bucoflc " diaeresis. One or two w. have no verse caesura at all.
(£) But Tibullus, with nearly double the number of w., shows his fondness for the hephthemimeral caesura by using it five times as often, 152 times in all, 32 times without the customary accompanying trithemimeral. A frequent added refinement is a rhyme subsisting between the syllables preceding the two caesuras, e.g. I. i, 47 :
xxx American Philological Association.
out, gelidas hibernus aquas cum fuderit ouster.
In still other cases there is a similar sound, but not a perfect rhyme.
Tibullus employs a still smaller proportion of feminine caesuras, 19 in all, but has also 19 Bucolic diaereses, which looks as if he did not regard these as blemishes.
(f) Lygdamus is so orthodox as to be positively dull, having but 10 of his 145 hexameters that are not of the penthemimeral type. Of these, 7 are perfect tri- themimeral-hephthemimeral cases, I is a feminine, and 3 are bucolics.
*
II. PENTAMETERS
All the elegists show in these rather more care than in the hexameters.
1. Monosyllabic endings: Catullus has one instance; Tibullus, Lygdamus, and Ovid, none; Propertius, with characteristic independence, 4, all being of the same form, viz., Sat est.
2. Verse-endings- longer than a dissyllable : Catullus has 83 trisyllabic endings, Tibullus but 22 out of twice as many verses, Lygdamus but 3. Of polysyllabic endings Catullus has 92 (18 pentasyllable, and I heptasyllabic), Tibullus 23, Lyg- damus but 7. Indeed Lygdamus in such matters of formal comparison usually more than holds his own. In Ovid the law of a uniformly dissyllabic ending is thoroughly established.
3. Endings of first half of pentameter : The tendency toward the dissyllable here is not so completely followed. Catullus has 36 monosyllabic endings, Tibullus 7. Almost as many trisyllables as dissyllables appear in Tibullus; but Ovid holds closely to the dissyllable.
4. The separation of the two halves of the pentameter becomes increasingly careful. In Catullus there are 18 cases where they are run together by elision,
t-g- 67. 44 :
speraret nee linguam esse nee auriculam.
5. The preference for dactyls or spondees in the first half remains to be more carefully worked out. Catullus seems slightly to prefer verses of the form, dactyl, spondee, long syllable; but the form spondee, spondee, long syllable (i.e. 5 successive long syllables) is a close second, which can hardly be true of any of his successors. Next comes the form, spondee, dactyl, long syllable; last, dactyl, dactyl, long syllable.
6. Middle rhyme : 22 per cent of the pentameters of Catullus exhibit this, and 17 per cent have similar endings. In the later writers the proportion fre- quently far exceeds this. Often, too, this rhyme is combined with the same phenomenon in adjacent hexameters, to a noteworthy extent. In Propertius, II. 34 (a poem of 94 vv.) there are 38 instances of the middle rhyme, and the 6 consecutive w. 85-90 have it throughout.
7. End rhyme : There are over 200 examples in Catullus, Tibullus, and Lygdamus, fewest of all in Lygdamus. Propertius has I in every 14 vv. Some- times they occur in triplets. Propertius has one quadruplet rhyme.
Proceedings for July, 1903. xxxi
19. Notes on the Order of Words in Latin, by Dr. C. L. Meader, of the University of Michigan.
The ancient rhetoricians, who differ widely from each other in their views both as to the nature of the hyperbaton and as to the range of particular phe- nomena to be comprehended under the term, regarded it as a rhetorical device employed for securing certain effects, such as smoothness and rhythm. This is also the point of view from which most modern authorities have discussed it, although Volkmann, Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Corner, 1st ed. p. 372, 3d ed. revised by Hammer, p. 42, and Kiihnir, Ausfuhrliche Grammatik der lat. Sprache, II, p. 1077 (cf. Kiihner, Gr. Gram. II, p. noi) state that for the most part the hyperbaton is due to disarrangement of words brought about by emphasis. This last explanation is never more than a partial one and* in many cases is wholly incorrect, while the arbitrary changes in order mentioned by the ancient writers are possible only on the basis of peculiarities of word order already estab- lished by the normal and unconsciously operating psychical processes. It is therefore important that these processes be studied with reference to their bearing upon the hyperbaton. It is well known that the general conditions that make the hyperbaton possible are found in the synthetic unity of apperception. A more particular cause, yet one which manifests itself in many different forms, is implied in the concluding phrases of Wundt's definition of a sentence, Volker- psychologie, I, 2, p. 240, "Der Satz ist der sprachliche Ausdruck fur die willkiir- liche Gliederung einer Gesammtvorstellung in seine in logische Beziehungen zu einander gesetzten Bestandtheile," i.e. the order of words in a sentence will be determined by the logical relations of the concepts they represent, to which relations the succession of the concepts in apperception will normally correspond. (This view is foreshadowed by H. Weil, llfrdre des mots dans Us langues an- ciennes comparees aux langues modernes, passim.} Following up this principle, if we represent any two concepts that ' regularly stand together ' by A and B respectively and any third concept by C, it is apparent that at least two condi- tions are necessary to produce an hyperbaton: («) either A or B must for some reason occupy the first position in the given locution, while (ft) C must be more closely related to A or to B than to any other concept in the sentence, and if more closely related to B, must for some special reason precede B. The result will be the order ACB, which we usually designate as an hyperbaton. The following are some of the simplest special types that fall under this head :
1. Rhet. ad Heren. 1, 8 p. benivolum (A) efficiemus (C) auditorem (B). The close connection between the predicate accusative (loosely so called) and the verbs facio (efficio*), reddo, pulo, appello, nomino, and voco when accompanied by the double accusative, is shown by the fact that in Cicero's orations, Caesar, and the Rhetorica ad Herennium the predicate accusative and the verb stand adjacent to each other in ninety to ninety-seven cases out of a hundred.
2. Caes. B. G. 7, 28 toto (.4) undique (C) muro (B) circumfundi. Cic. Rose. Am. 64 eo {A) potissimum (C) tempore (jff).
3. Cic. Plane. 101 o excubias tuas (A) Gn. Pompei (C) miseras (Z?).
4. Cato Orig. fr. Bk. 5, p. 80 (/>) mons (A) ex sale mero (C) magnus (B). Rarely, if ever, is an hyperbaton adequately accounted for by a single explana- tion. Usually two or three causes are operative in producing it. In the follow-
xxxii American Philological Association.
ing example at least three are to be recognized in addition to the synthetic unity of apperception: Cic. Verr. 5, 113 graviorem (<4) apud sapientis iudices (C) se fore ab inferis testem (#). (A) has the initial position, since it is the dominating concept, (C) immediately follows it because of its close logical relations to it, (jff) is given the final position in order to secure the clausula
w w. An extended paper on the hyperbaton based on these notes and
other material will be published in the University of Michigan Studies, Human- istic Series, Vol. II.
20. The Land of Cocaigne in Attic Comedy, by Professor Edwin L. Gree.n, of South Carolina College.
In a fabliau (Barbazan, Fabliaux et Contes, ed. Meon, iv. 175-181) of the thirteenth century ts the description of a country whose inhabitants had only to wish in order to have all they desired. The name of this country is Cocaigne, and the poem is a satire on the monastic orders and a burlesque of Paradise. In Attic Comedy is a description of a Cocaigne country, which is found mainly in the fragments preserved by Athenaios (267 €-270 a), and is a burlesque of the Golden Age.
Kronos was king. Peace reigned, and there was an abundance of food, which one had but to call for and it came of its own accord. That was not all, for loaves of bread fought around men's mouths, begging to be eaten; cakes jostled each other in their eagerness to get into the mouth ; roasted thrushes flew down the throat. Rivers of soup and of porridge ran along the streets, rolling pieces of meat here and there and tossing up on their banks piles of hot sausages. Raisins dripped from the sky. Ripe apples hung over the head, suspended from nothing. Wine rained from the skies in torrents, which young and fair maidens carried around at the banquets and poure 1 through funnels down the throats of those who wished it. In those days, says the poet, men were fat and giants.
21. Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis: Descriptive Passages, by Pro- fessor F. G. Moore, of Dartmouth College.
This article will be found in the TRANSACTIONS. Remarks were made by Professor Sihler. Adjourned at 5.30 P.M.
FIFTH SESSION.
Wednesday evening, July 8, 1903.
The Association assembled shortly after 8 o'clock in Osborn Hall, and listened to the reading of the following papers.
22. The Prooemium to the Aeneid, by Professor Thomas Fitz- Hugh, of the University of Virginia.
In 29 B.C. Vergil began the Aeneid. By about 26 B.C. Propertius, fresh from the poet's recitation of parts of the poem, is able to write as in III. 34. 59-66. Here qui nunc, etc., seems to be a verbal echo of the qui . . . at nunc of the
Proceedings for July, 1903. xxxiii
Prooemium. In w. 75-76 Propertius alludes to the eclogues with Vergil's expres- sion avena in the Prooemium. Finally, in vv. 77-78 of Propertius, the thought reproduces w. 2-3 of the Prooemium, and the idea and expression ingrata in vv. 81-82 seems to have been suggested by v. 4 of the Prooemium, gratum opus agricolis.
Now Vergil left the Aeneid in an unfinished state, and by command of Augustus, who ordered that it should be put in general good shape, what seemed superfluous being omitted, but no additions being made to it, Varius, the poet's friend, edited it. A respectable oral tradition from the time of Varius to the time of Suetonius declares that Varius dropped the four-lined Prooemium from the first book. The tradition is not open to suspicion on chronological grounds. Moreover, there is good reason why Varius should have felt impelled to drop the verses: they are superflua, their substance being given G. IV.»559~566; they are un-Homeric, and so not in unison with Propertius' prophecy, III. 34. 65-66.
The publication of the archetype would naturally fix the first line as Arma virumque, etc., for all earlier manuscripts, for all subsequent literary reference, and for all inscriptions and Pompeian graffiti; and oral tradition alone must at least for a time have kept alive the memory of the Prooemium (Suet. ap. Donat., 15, 60). On the other hand, it is not surprising that a number of later manu- scripts should find an interest in recording the verses, always apart from the main text and sometimes in second hand.
We conclude, therefore, I. Thai there is no sufficient ground for declaring the Prooemium spurious.
On the other hand, the internal evidence in Vergil's poetry is entirely in unison with the Prooemium's claims to genuineness. In the A. J. A., Vol. VII. I. 88, Professor Tracy Peck outlines very clearly fad forcibly a characteristic trait of all Roman literary expression, namely, its personal and subjective character. This racial self-consciousness assumes a twofold form in the poetry of Vergil : it appears as a self-consciousness of the author, and as a self-consciousness of the reciter; and both are conspicuous in the Prooemium. Eel. I. I and G. IV. 566 taken together tie, as it were, a neat little literary ribbon about the two com- pleted works. In G. I. 1-5 the poet in the first person outlines to Maecenas in the second the whole plan of the Georgics, and the last two verses of the poem (IV. 565-566) couple it explicitly and chronologically with the Eclogues. In G. III. 46-48 Vergil proclaims his epic aspirations and intentions, and finally in the Prooemium after taking once more a formal inventory of his literary property to date he adds thereto his latest task, which is thus labeled as his own along
with the rest :
Ille ego, qui quondam gracili modulatus avena
Carmen et egressus silvis vicina coegi
Ut quamvis avido parerent arva colono,
Gratum opus agricolis, at nunc horrentia Martis
Arma virumque cano . . .
The rhythm and expression are Vergilian; the otherwise unusual present cano, instead of canam, as elsewhere, is accounted for ; and the abrupt hendiadys, arma virumque, with its isolated arma, is smoothly and naturally introduced.
We conclude, therefore, II. That there is sufficient internal evidence for declar- ing the Prooemium authentic.
xxxiv American Philological Association.
23. The Greek Comic Poets as Literary Critics, by Dr. William W. Baker, of Harvard University.
Apart from what may be termed direct criticism, there also exists in Greek comedy a great mass of indirect criticism, including re-use of titles, repetition of verses, both in parody and otherwise, similarity of subject matter, re-editing of plays. All this carries with it conscious or unconscious approval, and claims a part in a complete treatment of the subject.
Of direct criticism, which can alone be considered here, the Doric comedy has little or nothing. Cratinus is really the first name to demand attention : his plays in their complete form must have had many outspoken judgments. His Archilo- choi, the very title of which presents an interesting problem, had a spirited con- test in poetry and forms the first of a numerous class of such " literary comedies." In the other plays there are many other direct criticisms in the field of tragedy, comedy, minor poetry, and oratory, and frequent allusion by the poet to himself, his art, and the literary tastes of the spectators.
Among later poets worthy of note are Eupolis, with his striking praise of Pericles, and Phrynichus with his feeling appreciation of Sophocles. Aristopha- nes, so far as one may judge from the fragments, showed the same well-known propensity for criticism in the lost plays as in those extant. In comedies of the former group he had certainly direct criticism of many writers, among them Aeschylus, Sophocles, Sthenelus. Plato, also, has a number of interesting allusions.
Antiphanes of the so-called Middle Comedy has, among other things, jibes at Euripides and Philoxenus, and one long passage of seeming praise of the latter; a jest about Demosthenes's famous metrical oath, and a discussion of the initial advantage which tragic writers have over comic. Timocles has (extant) lines on the function of tragedy that resemble remarkably Aristotle's great definition; and several critiques of the orators. Xenarchus compares the poets of his day with fish-hucksters, considerably to the disadvantage of the poets. Philemon and Apollodorus treat the matter of the essence of brevity, and use Homer to illustrate their words.
A careful study of the remains of the Greek comic poets leads to the conclu- sion, not merely that they were the first to engage in anything approaching criticism of literature, but that so far as Old Comedy is concerned, — despite the statements to the contrary of not a few modern scholars, — this close attention to literature is practically universal. Aristophanes is admitted to have exhibited in his plays a great interest in things literary, yet any one of four or five different poets has more criticism in proportion than Aristophanes.
In the " Middle Comedy," on the other hand, whose poets are sometimes said to have devoted themselves especially to playing the critic, and in the New Com- edy, criticism drops quickly to a position of minor importance, then almost disappears.
Upon the whole, for all the exaggeration inherent in their art, the Greek comic poets were clear-sighted critics of literature. Their criticisms present not a few close analogies with the judgments of Aristotle and the author of the treatise " On the Sublime."
The article, of which this paper forms a part, will appear in full in the Harvard Sfudies in Classical Philology, Vol. XV.
Proceedings for July ; 1903. xxxv
24. Cicero's Appreciation of Greek Art, by Professor Grant Showerman, of the University of Wisconsin (read by Stephen A. Hurlbut, Esq.).
A superficial knowledge of the life of Cicero might lead to false conclusions regarding the attitude of the great orator toward the products of classical Greek art. During his early years at Rome he was constantly in touch with Greek cul- ture. He was thoroughly trained in the Greek language, and his most intimate teachers were Greeks who represented all the great schools of philosophy; he had constantly before his eyes many of the famous works of Greek art with which the capital was filled after the conquest of Greece; he finished his education by spend- ing two years in the East in study and travel, six months of the time being passed in Athens itself; as quaestor in Sicily he again had the opportunity of becoming familiar with monuments of Greek art ; his orations against Verres, his letters, and his essays all show his familiarity with and admiration for the products of the Greek intellect. All this creates a presumption that Cicero appreciated and enjoyed not only the literary monuments of Greece, but Greek art in all its phases.
A critical examination of Cicero's works, however, does not show him to have had a special predilection for those material monuments of Greek art which had already come to be considered among the crowning glories of civilization.
In the field of painting he makes mention of the following artists: Aglaophon, Polygnotus, Zeuxis, Parrhasius, Timanthes, Nicomachus, Action, Apelles, and Protogenes. Only one of the names is even approximately dated, there is only one item on process, and only one criticism of technique. On the whole, what Cicero has to give us is a number of names oLfamous painters, with very common- place and superficial comment, and with no utterance whatever which has even a tendency to convince the reader that he cared for the art of painting to any degree worthy of the name of enthusiastic admiration.
Among sculptors, Cicero makes mention of Calamis, Canachus, Myron, Alca- menes, Phidias, Polyclitus, Chares, Lysippus, Praxiteles, Scopas, Silanion, Poly- cles, and Myrmecides. As a result of an examination of his mention of sculpture and sculptors, it may be noted: (i) that the names he employs are fairly repre- sentative of the history of sculpture during the fifth and fourth centuries : if we should add the names of Cresilas and Paeonius, we should have before us all of the very famous names employed by the historian of ancient sculpture, and the addi- tion of a half dozen less important names would give us a very complete list of all Greek sculptors who were well known ; (2) that Cicero's knowledge of sculpture seems to be called into play more often than his knowledge of painting, and that he seems to have a greater familiarity with it —a fact, however, which calls for no special comment, considering the relative importance of the two arts in antiquity, and the relative endurance of their monuments ; (3) that there is slightly more critical knowledge of sculpture displayed than of painting. The comparison of the work of Daedalus with the plays of Livius Andronicus, and of early sculpture as represented by Myron with early literature as represented by Naevius ; the mention of Canachus, Calamis, Myron, and Polyclitus, as a series whose works represent the course of the development of sculpture ; the statement that Phid- ias's model was the ideal which was indwelling in the artist's soul — such utter- ances as these betoken some appreciation of the qualities of archaic art. of the
xxxvi American Philological Association.
history of its development, and of the nature of the artist's inspiration. The amount of such criticism, however, in comparison to the total mention of sculp- ture and sculptors, is small, and there is little to indicate more than a very ordi- nary familiarity with or love for the art of sculpture.
References in Cicero's works to architecture and other forms of art, not already mentioned, are a negligible quantity ; practically it is only with sculpture and painting that we are concerned in our study.
With exceedingly few exceptions, Cicero's references to the arts of painting and sculpture betoken nothing more than superficial knowledge and interest. All of them, with the exception of those in the Verrine orations, are introduced for purposes of illustration. They are the writer's stock in trade, commonplaces in art, and afford one more illustration of the manner in which Cicero's interest in rhetoric swallowed up every other interest. A knowledge of art was to him only one item in the catalogue of intellectual accomplishments demanded of the ideal orator. It is significant that the most ornate passages referring to artists and their works are found in his essays, especially in those written on rhetorical sub- jects, and that in the orations and letters, where utterances of a more personal nature might be expected, there is almost a total absence of such reference.
Further, Cicero himself strengthens our conclusions by disclaiming knowl- edge of art ( Verr. IV, 43, 94, where we take him to mean what he says) ; by expressing his contempt for those who allow themselves to be enslaved by a passion for works of art {Pardd. V, 2, 36-38); by ordering as sculptural equip- ment for his Tusculan villa works which were merely for ornament, wrought by artists or workmen of no reputation, and possessing no artistic importance (Att. Bk. I., passim} ; by the sentiment of his letter to Fadius Callus (Fam. VII, 23, 2).
The argumentum ex silentio may also be employed here, because of the ex- ceeding frankness of Cicero in his correspondence, three-fourths of the thousand pages of which are addressed to intimate friends to whom he lays bare all his thoughts. In his letters, which cover the period from 68 to 44, there are but three references to Greek art of the good period, and of these, two are in letters which are not addressed to his most intimate friends, and are as formal and rhetorical as any of his essays (Fam. V, 12, 7; I, 9, 15). The third is a mere illustration (Att. II, 21, 4). Such silence concerning the famous monuments of art known to the world of his time, monuments which he had abundant oppor- tunity to see, and in the very sight of which he sometimes wrote to his most intimate friend Atticus (Att. V, 10, 5; VI, 9, 5), can only mean that Cicero had no enthusiasm for things of that kind. The perusal of his letters leaves in the mind of the reader no doubt as to his enjoyment of life in his villas, his love of books, his passion for public life, his devotion to the rostra and the stilus. If Greek painting, sculpture, and architecture had really reached his heart, his letters would have evidenced the fact.
To sum up : Cicero was keenly appreciative of Greek thought as manifested in Greek literature. As to those products of Greek genius which were manifested in the arts, he has nothing to say of architecture, refers a few times to Corinthian and Delian bronze work and vases, and speaks only of the arts of sculpture and painting as though he were familiar with them. While his equipment of knowl- edge regarding these two arts may have been greater than is apparent in the pages of his works, it is altogether likely that it was very superficial; and it is
Proceedings for July, 1903. xxxvii
certain that his use of it sprang rather from the instinct of the stylist than from the enthusiasm of the lover of art.
[Cicero's attitude toward art has been discussed by Koenig, Diss. De Cicerone in Verrinis artis operum aestimatore et iudice; by Stahr, in an essay in his Torso, II, pp. 209-230, Braunschweig, 1878; byGoehling, Diss. De Cicerone artis aestimatore, Halle, 1877; and by Sandys, introduction to his Orator, pp. Ixxi-lxxiv, Cambridge, 1885. Koenig and Stahr credit Cicero with more knowledge and enthusiasm in matters of art than he possessed. Sandys and Goehling are sub- stantially agreed in denying that Cicero possessed more than a superficial knowl- edge of art. Goehling is the only one of the four who aims to present evidence in full from the whole body of Cicero's works. He lays especial emphasis on Cicero's deficiency in knowledge of art. The conclusions expressed in the above paper were reached independently of the works cited and without reference to them. They emphasize rather Cicero's lack of enthusiasm for art than his deficiency in knowledge of it.]
25. Three Terra Cotta Heads, by Dr. O. S. Tonks, of the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.
The following three heads from Asia Minor, which suggest respectively the styles of Polycleitus, Lysippus, and Scopas, I am able to publish through the courtesy of Mr. Stals of the Athens Museum. They may throw more light on the influence of sculpture upon the art of the coroplast.
The Polycleitan head. There is some variation from the Doryphoros head in Naples. But both have a broad, flat crown, flinging locks parted in the middle of the forehead, a broad nose with parallel sides, heavy lips, and dreamy eyes. In both the lower part of the face tends to flatness, and the jaw is strong. The terra cotta is turned — with some exaggeration — in the manner of the Naples head, and both heads do not look downward, but straight away.
The Lysippan head. From the time of Scopas to the Hellenistic Age only Scopas and Lysippus made statues of Heracles. Scopas represented the hero as beardless. Not so Lysippus. So our head, which is bearded, must have been copied from some Lysippan Heracles. Finally, inasmuch as our head shows a wearied expression we are able to reject of the five representations of Heracles assigned by the ancients to Lysippus all but the statue which stood in the gym- nasium at Sicyon. This may have been its prototype.
The Scopasian head. The eyes are deep-set and have an accented upward look, the frontal bone is very strongly marked, and the outer edge of the brow is brought down so far as almost to hide the eyelid in that quarter. Like those of the Tegean head the locks are curly, and not worked out individually. The head, moreover, is square, and the jaw is heavy. When measured by the Kalk- mann system the head corresponds very closely with the head from Tegea. By elimination we may narrow the possibility of finding its prototype to Ares, Hermes, and Heracles. Beyond this we cannot go.
26. Head of an Ephebos from the Theatre at Corinth, by Dr. Rufus B. Richardson.
xxxviii American Philological Association.
This head of Parian marble, which is well preserved with the exception of the nose, is that of a youth of from fourteen to sixteen years of age. Its chief interest lies in the fact that it serves as a link to bind more firmly together a group of heads which has been considered Myronian, but which has been broken up in recent times from the strong desire to find a Pythagorean group.
The Corinth head has such strong resemblances to the Perinthos head in Dresden on the one hand, and to the Ince Blundell head and the Riccardi head in Florence on the other, that it seems difficult to take away any one of them and assign it to a different sculptor. The form of all four heads, setting aside slight variations, is that of the Massimi Discobolos.
Furthermore, the hair of the Corinth head is strikingly like that of the Idolino, which Kekule and Collignon assign to Myron. The effort to build up a Pythagorean group of sculpture is thus confronted with greater difficulties than ever.
This article will be published in full in the Athenische Miitheil- ungen of the German Archaeological Institute. Adjourned at 10.15 P-M'
SIXTH SESSION.
Thursday, July 9.
The Association was called to order by the President at 9.40 A.M. in the Trowbridge Library.
27. The Gerund and Gerundive in Livy, by Dr. R. B. Steele, of Vanderbilt University (read by Professor Tolman).
Next to the ablative absolute, the gerund in its various forms is the most com- monly occurring construction in Livy. Expressing the oblique case relations of the participle, its different phases are worthy of exhaustive presentation. By the time of Livy the leading features in its use had become fixed, and for that reason we shall leave the question of origins untouched, and shall consider the construc- tion merely as an element in the style of Livy. To give a complete statistical setting-forth would require three sets of figures, — one for the gerund forms, another for the governing expressions, and still another for the dependent nouns and pronouns ; but we shall give the figures for the first only, the numbers being considerably less for the other two.
The use of the gerund with an object, or of the gerundive, is a matter of selection in stylistic presentation, and the two are frequently used side by side. A noun and a gerund are frequently parallel in construction, and the two are sometimes in apposition. As with the ablative absolute, correlative particles are freely used with successive gerunds, and at times a noun must be supplied from the context, as in 29, I, 10: Si cults Romani cquites subslituti . . . doccndorum atquc exercendorum curam Siculi habuerunt. Another feature of some interest is Livy's economy in the use of prepositions, especially of in, which is sometimes found with a noun and gerundive where ad would be expected with the latter, as in I, 6, I : in arcem praesidio armisqtu obtinendam.
GENITIVE. — The entire number of genitives of the gerund is 1127, but the
Proceedings for July, 1903. xxxix
number of containing passages is about 100 less. The gerunds are slightly in excess of the gerundives, 572 to 555, though the latter is the regular form with causa and gratia. In the use of the singular and plural a few points should be noticed: A strong preference is shown for the gerundive singular instead of the gerund with an object (447 to 57). On the other hand, the gerund with the accusative plural is preferred to the gerundive plural (136 to 78). Causa is quite freely used, but gratia (4 times) is confined to the earlier portions of the history. Exclusive of these two, 131 nouns were noticed with gerund forms, and 60 of them but once each. Compared with other writers, Livy uses adjectives freely with the gerund, and has an occasional instance with esse.
In a few passages the gerund dependent on a noun or on esse may be taken as genitive or dative, the nouns, exceptingyfaW, being of the first declension.
DATIVE. — The dative is dependent on adjectives, nouns, and verbs — about a score of each, — aplus, intentus, and opportunus; co»titia&n<\ titles of officers, dare and esse occurring most frequently. The dative is frequently susceptible of a double interpretation indicating either mere fitness or design as we associate the gerund with the noun or with the complex of noun and verb in the statement.
ACCUSATIVE WITH PREPOSITIONS. — According to Fugner's Lexicon, ad occurs with the accusative of the gerund or gerundive 137^ times, 971 times with verbs, 277 with nouns, 103 with adjectives, and 20 with adverbs. The construction is akin to the dative and many words are used with both, and as with the dative the construction can at times be taken as expressing fitness or design according to the interpretation. Design, however, is expressed with most verbs, though with a few, such as excitare and compellere, the result is attained or is so conceived.
The use of other prepositions is limited to View occurrences of //;, inter, and ante, Pref. 6 ante conditam condendamve urbeni.
ABLATIVE. — The ablative occurs with the same frequency as the genitive (1139 to 1127), the gerund in 65% of the occurrences, — 736. With but 16 exceptions the gerunds are used without a preposition, but only 40% of the gerundives. A preference is shown for the gerund with an accusative rather than a gerundive (270 to 160), and this is still more strongly shown in the few occurrences of se. In, de, ab, and pro are the prepositions used, though the last occurs but once.
There are three features in the use of the ablative worthy of special notice : (i) Its use with a pronominal subject, (2) Its equivalence to a present participle, (3) Its use as an ablative absolute.
1. The pronominal subject of the principal verb, usually ipse or quisque, is occasionally accompanied by a gerund. The use of the pronoun is perfectly normal, and the introduction of the gerund into the statement must be considered the abnormal feature, as it is used without apparent case force, as are those con- sidered under 2.
2. In 24, 4, 9, we find dictitans . . . deponendo . . . conrertit, where the gerund is to all intents and purposes the equivalent of the present participle. In some other passages the ablative of the gerund is used parallel with the nomina- tive of the present participle, while elsewhere it is used alone, but generally with a verb that denotes continuance, — a compound with per- or in the imperfect tense. The continuative force of the ablative can be clearly seen, and the gerund has the force of a dum clause.
xl American Philological Association.
3. Is the ablative of gerund used as an ablative absolute? Theoretically this is the most interesting question connected with the ablative, and commentators show abundant evidence of lack of agreement on thii point. The comments in the Weissenlx>rn-Mueller edition on about thirty passages show considerable variety in interpretation, as some occurrences are several times cited as illustrations of slightly varied interpretations, the gerund being mentioned as an actual abla- tive absolute, as the equivalent of a cum or dum clause, as equal to bei or indem, as used without in, or as illustrating passages mentioned under several of the above interpretations. In some of these a noun is used parallel with the gerund; in others the verbs used occur elsewhere with nouns without prepositions, so that in all the passages the construction should be considered as a free, not absolute, use of the ablative, and parallel to a freedom in the use of nouns without prepo- sitions which finds frequent illustration in Lavy.
GERUNDIVE. — The gerundive — future passive participle — expressing design is fairly common after verbs of transferring, but after a few verbs, especially curare, the action expressed by the gerundive is conceived as an accomplished result, as in 3, 51, 9: eundem numerum ab suis creandum curat.
28. The Ablative of Time in Sanskrit, by Professor E. Washburn Hopkins, of Yale University.
This paper will appear in Vol. XXIV of the Journal of the Ameri- can Oriental Society.
29. On some Verb-Forms in the Ramayana^ by Truman Michel- son, Esq., of Harvard University.
a. The following should be added to Whitney's Root-Book as occurring in the Rdmdyana : the pluperfect ababhramafi (i. 43. 9) ; the gerund ydtvd (ii. 50. I ; ii. 105. 36), which is, according to \V., found in B. and S. only; the participle stunvdna (vi. 90, 4), noted previously only in Upanishads; the middle participle harsamdna (vi. 73. IO; vi. 90. 4).
b. The gerund smayitvd occurs at vi. 71. 46; Whitney, I.e., gives it as occurring in compounds only.
c. The following should be added to Whitney's Sanscrit Grammar:
§ 618 end: the imperative brav'ta (vi. 14. 10), which the commentator glosses by brftta.
§ 793 h: the perfects jagrahus (i. 45. 37), for which Peterson has jagrhus, dadarc^atus (iii. 69. 33), and pasparc^atus (vi. 80. 24).
§ 938: the future imperative vatsyantu (vii. 40. 17).
§ 1042 n : the causatives tarjdpayati and bhartsdpayati (both vi. 34. 9).
d. The perfect juttava occurs as a third person singular active at vi. 80. 5.
1 The references in parentheses are to the 1902 Bombay edition of the Ramayana.
* Or possibly an imperfect of the reduplicating class of the present system transferred to the ^-conjugation. That ababhramat is not a reduplicated aorist is shown by its reduplicating vowel -a-, not -i- (as in abibhramaf), (see Whitrey, Skt. Gr. S§ 782, 858, 859, 860). The reduplicated aorist acakamata from the root kam Move' is indeed parallel to ababhramat in that its reduplicating vowel is -a- and not -i-, but the form is nnn quotable, while the normal acikamata, a reduplicated aorist of the same root, is found in the Brahmanas.
Proceedings for July \ 1903. jcli
The scholiast notes the form and says it is Vedic — ' juhava juJidva, vrddhya- bhdva drsaA.' Observe, however, that in the Veda the first a would be short only when the form was a first person singular (Whitney, Gr. § 793 d.). juhava here is metri causa.
e. The only example of a sis aorist in the first two books of the Rdmdyana I have noted is aydsisam,1 ii. 72. 27.
30. Notes on Andocides and the Authorship of the Oration against Alcibiades, by Professor VV. S. Scarborough, of Wilber force University.
The genuineness of the Oration against Alcibiades has long been a matter of dispute. Andocidean authorship is rejected by Dionysius, Harpocration, and in modern times by Taylor, Markland, Grote, Blass, and Jebb. The language of the oration is simple and just what one might expect of a man speaking under great stress of excitement and provocation. Mistakes both of fact and history are likely to follow unless the subject is well in hand.
Considering the subject from the standpoint of internal evidence, and compar- ing the style of this with that of other speeches said to have been delivered by this orator, there is a strong possibility that the author of the Ilepi rwv fj.vffTi)plwi>, Ilepl TTJS KaO&dov, Ilepi TTJS Efpijjojj, and the Kar" 'A\Kifiid5ov was one and the same man.
Transition (Transitio vocatur, quae quum ostendit breviter, quid dictum sit, proponit item brevi, quid sequatur — Cornificius) is common to all the Andocidean orations. To denote it ntv and 5^, ^v oZv and 5^ play an important part.
"Ac primum quidem vocibus ^v otiv indicator ira\t\\oyia vel 6pto>6s turn voce oV significatur irp68e<Tis." — Linder, De rerum dispositione apud Antiphontem et Andocidem oratores. The same scholar says :
" Eodem loquendi modo (fj.ti> ot>v . . 3^), sed non eadem vi et significatione aditus ad /3e/3aio«riv patefactus est."
In § 10 (or IV.), where ii£v oZv ... 5^ occur, the utv otv do not indicate a repetition (ira\iXXo7/a, recapitulation), but rather a premonition (praemunitionem) whereby the orator prepares the minds of his audience for what is to follow.
Cf. Andocides, IV. 7, irepl i^v o5v rotiruv . . . 8^o/j.<u S' iftu>v, K.T.\. This is only one of the many examples that might be mentioned to illustrate the points in question, and to show the common authorship of the four orations.
31. The Meaning of Sfifw. rirpairrai, Euripides, Hippolytus 246, by Professor J. E. Harry, of the University of Cincinnati.
Wilamowitz renders : " die gesichtsfarbe schlagt urn," comparing xP&s r^rpa- irrat N 279. To this I took exception, translating: "my eye has turned." Ellershaw (in a review of my edition, Class. J\'ev. June, 1901) agreed with Wilamowitz. But note the tense (as compared with the preceding) and the constant reference to consciousness and unconsciousness. Phaedra is thinking of the awakening to the terrible reality, as opposed to the previous illusions.
1 -j'naslt, ii. 87. 16 noted by Bohtlink, B. d. phil.-hist. Cl. d. kdn. Sachs. Get. d. Wiss. 1887, p. 222 was overlooked. Bohtlink also overlooked ay&sisam.
xlii American Philological Association.
Cp. 404, 420, 423, 427, 430. She might comment on another's change of color, but not on her own, might say, with Gautier, " Votre pileur nacree en incarnat se change." But rptireffOai here is not se changer. Both alSovfteOa. and aiffx^^" refer to her inward shrinking. She fears the aiVxos *a' ^tryov.
With xpws the verb Tp^reiv can be rendered by the English copula turn. But XPu* is not 6/j.ft.a.. Plato says iravTodaira. r/<piei xpw/xaTa (Lysis 222 B), but not rptireiv fyi/ia. Even in the sense of os fytjta is never used with rptireiv to express an idea similar to N 279; in the sense of oculus fl/t/xa is frequently com- bined with rptirfiv and pd\\eiv: Aesch. Prom. 706 (M ffTptya<ra., the other Mss. rptyaffa, which Herm. adopts), fr. 311 6fi./j.a rptirovffa., Ag. 779 iraXiirpoirotj 6/j.jjMffi (cp. Prom. 882), Fr. 297 TO fficaibv 6fj.fj.cL irpoffftaXtav. Cp. CAo.Sopbi. 99, Ai. 69, Eur. /. T. 68, Hel. 1573, 1147, Rep. Lac. 3. 4. wot fyi/ua Tpttrwv = irot /SX^Trwv (Soph. ^». 1290). The usual prep, is ^jrf: Eur. /. ^.646, Soph. Ai. 772, Ar. Ran. 1025, ./Vw^. 859, Plut. 317, F<w/. 986, Lysias 2. 64, 10. 30, 12. 5, 18. 18, Dem. 9. 14, Hdt. I. 117, 7. 16, 2. In a fragment attributed to Theognis occurs the sentence ijv T' tiri atixftpovvvriv Tpe<p6rj v6os. Cp. Soph. El. 903 ^vxv tyvyOes 6fj.fj.a. The best parallel is Plato 519 A: us dpifiv /j£v /SX^iret r6 \f/vxdpiov Ka.1 <5£^ws Oiopo. TO.VTO. i<p' &, T^TpairTai ws 01) </>a>!>\r)v exov T^1V fy"-v- Cp. 591 c oi>x 6ira>5 TTJ OijpiuiSet KO.I aXoytp rjdovy tiriTptyas ivravffa. rerpa^u^vos ^<ret, dXX' oi>8£ irpos vyieiav flXtirwv. irol pMiruv, like T£ naduv, is a common phrase for 5id ri (Laches 195 A, 197 E, Soph. El. 887 f.). Phaedra says Trpds at'o-x^^" /SX^ira;, hence car' fitrtrwv 5d.Kpv ftoi fiaivfi. She is now ?rp6s r6 K^pSiffTov Tpaireis yvufiTjs (Soph. ^j. 743).
The eye is very frequently expressed by d/*/«x. Aeschylus rarely uses 6<p9a,\tJ.fa of the actual eye ; Sophocles and Euripides not very frequently. It is the 6/j.fi.a. that sees (SeSopKOs dfi.fj.a,'). Aeschylus never uses 6/j./j.a for face. In compounds with a privative Tpiireiv and aTptyeiv are used absolutely to signify respicere.
Shame, pity, fear, love, are chiefly manifested through the eye. Sappho says eu'Sws ict ff' OVK 8.v eixe" 6ftfia.Ta. Cp. Eur. Sufpl. 176 ff. So Tecmessa speaks of looking on one's sufferings as being equivalent to spreading for one's self a bed of woes (Ai. 260) ; like Ajax, Phaedra has just recovered *cai vvv <pp6vi/ju>s v4ov 4X70$ «x«- Cp. 345. So Hippolytus wishes for a mirror that he may weep TO, eavTov irdOi) tffXevffcruv, The ancients regarded the eye as the seat of alduis (Ar. Rhet. 2. 6. 18). Cp. Suidas (s.v. aiSAs), Ctesph. Fr. 18 (Dind.), Ar. Vesp. 446, Athen. 13. 564 b, Theog. 85, Theocr. 27. 69, Eustathius on //. N 923. 1 8 ' ApiffTOT^Xovs yap 0tXoffo<^u>rora irapado^vov oiKijTripiov aidovs elvat TOI)J 6<p6a.\iju»js. Even justice and fear reside in the eyes (Aesch. Pers. 168, Soph. Ai. 139, O. C. 729). Grief is found there (Ai. 7<36).
The fact that the queen begs the nurse twice to cover her face is no proof that iir' a.iffx^trnv ^MM* T^TpairTai means " es farbt meine wangen die rote der scham." The ancients were wont to cover the head (£y*caXityao-0eu, capnt obvol- vere, operire, velare) in case of great affliction: 6 92 'OStxro-eih KO.TO. KPO.TO. Ko.\v^6.pjevo^ yodaffKev, Soph. Ai. 245 f., 1145, Lwv 4. 12, Hor. 5a/. 2. 3.37, Plaut. Afostell. 2. 2. 89, Sueton. Calig. 51.
This paper will be published in full in the Classical Review. Remarks were made by Professors Earle and Miller, and by the author.
Proceedings for July, 1903. xliii
32. Did Cicero write bellum Poenicum in Brutus, § 75? by Pro- fessor Minton Warren, of Harvard University.
Woelfflin has shown in Khein. Mus. 37, p. 87, that it is an anachronism to speak of the bellum Punicum of Naevius, and he adduces evidence from inscrip- tions— Cato, Varro, Nepos, and Gellius — to support the spelling Poenicum. It is probable that Cicero referred to the work of the old poet by its exact title. In Brutus, § 75, the editors read, Tamen illius, quern in vatibus el Founts annu- merat Ennius, bellum Punicum quasi Afyronis opus delectat. But, according to Martha (Brutus, 1892), five Mss., — O. G. B. H. M., — which are derived directly or indirectly from the ancient codex Laudensis, read hello punico eum. This cor- ruption may, perhaps, be explained by supposing that in some early Ms. bellum Punicum was corrected to bellum Poenicum by writing oe above the first u, plinicum. A later copyist carelessly put the oe above the second u, punicifm, and this led to bellum punico eum and, finally, by making bellum conform to punico, to hello punico eum. This would explain the senseless variant. If Cicero wrote Poenicum here, he probably wrote Poenico in Cato, § 50, quant gaudebat bello suo Punico Naevius! as it is still given in the editions.
Remarks were made by Dr. Scott and Professor Earle.
33. The Incongruities in the Speeches of Ancient Historians, from Herodotus to Ammianus Marcellinus, — Introduction, by Professor Alfred Gudeman, of Cornell University (read by Professor Paton).
Among the many significant points ofSihfference between the methods of historiography in ancient and modern times, perhaps none is more characteristic than the habitual practice of the ancient historian to put speeches into the mouths of his dramatis personae. The causes which prompted him to do so; the specific object which these speeches are designed to subserve, no less than the measure of success they achieved; finally, their claims to being considered justifiable as an integral part of historical composition, — all these are subjects of interest and importance. But they have one and all received due attention, and I do not pro- pose, even if the time allotted to me were less limited, to carry coals to New- castle by reiterating what has elsewhere been said on these topics, albeit such a carbonic transaction would possibly not meet with the serious objections it might have encountered at this very time last year.
My somewhat elaborate analysis of the speeches in Greek and Roman histori- ans, begun some years ago and only now completed, aims at something different; but the limits to which I am confined will prevent me from presenting anything more than a kind of introduction to the subject. Given the object which the author aimed at, I endeavored to discover to what extent he succeeded in preserving or failed in maintaining throughout a requisite historical coloring or verisimilitude as regards the time and the occasion of the speech. I, there- upon, proceed to determine the accuracy or inaccuracy of the oration from the point of view of the orator himself; that is, whether the statements or reflec- tions attributed to him are in conformity with his character and his cultural equipment, in a word, his career, so far as this is known to us from trustworthy sources, outside of the information furnished by the speech or speeches under
xliv American Philological Association.
discussion. Finally, it frequently happens that more than one speech is attributed to a single individual in the works of the same author, or that a speech is assigned to the same speaker on the identical occasion in two or more authors. In such cases, questions as to inconsistency of character-drawing, of authenticity or origi- nality arise, and incongruities in details, which by themselves were indeterminable or had escaped detection altogether, are unexpectedly revealed by an analytical comparison or a comparative analysis.
Such is, in brief, the aim and scope of the present investigation. The histori- ans examined under the view-points just outlined are the following:
Greek — Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Polybius, Dionysius, Diodorus, Josephus, Appian, Arrian, Herodian, and Dio Cassius.
Latin — Caesar, Sallust, Livy, Curtius, Tacitus, Justinus, and Ammianus Mar- cellinus. Velleius, Suetonius, and the Scriptores Historiae Augustae were excluded for obvious reasons.
If our results are to rest upon a solid foundation, it is, of course, essential to know what kind of an historian we are dealing with, whether, for example, he was a slave to the canons of rhetoric, like Dionysius, or rose superior to them by utiliz- ing all the resources of his art for definite ends, like Thucydides and Tacitus. Again, where a historian takes the reader into his confidence and tells him how his speeches are to be viewed, or informs him why certain speeches are open to censure, as does Polybius who, in criticising the speeches of Timaeus, indirectly implies what we are to expect in his own, the speeches must, of course, be examined in the light of this knowledge, lest we judge them by criteria which the author would have repudiated. Due circumspection having been thus exercised, we may proceed to a classification of the speeches themselves. Here two methods appear to me possible. We may divide them according to the sub- ject-matter, in which case, three large classes will include all the orations examined by me. (i) Political speeches, (2) Military, (3) Epideictic. This division, though not strictly logical, has the distinct advantage of at once revealing an astonishing family likeness between all the speeches of one type, thus proving, not so much that similar conditions will lead to an accumulation of similar senti- ments, as e.g. in the speeches of generals on the eve of a battle, but rather that a somewhat stereotyped norm for addresses of this character had become canonic and traditional. And if in such instances numerous incongruities appear, as I find that they do, the fault cannot always be imputed to the individual author, but must rather be attributed to the original creator of this particular type.
A far more useful classification for my purpose (and the one which I have adopted) also comprises three broad categories.
I. To Class I. belong all speeches which are known to have been historical or whose actual delivery is, at least, intrinsically probable. These speeches are of five kinds.
(a) It is the author's own : e.g. Cato in the Origines, Caesar.
(£) It was published and accessible to the historian : eg. the speech of Clau- dius in Tacitus.
(c) It was delivered in the author's presence; eg. some speeches in Thucydi- des, Polybius, and Ammianus.
(</) Its contents reached the historian at second hand, either through oral or written channels. Exx. of this type, I recognize in Thucydides, Polybius, pos-
Proceedings for July, 1903. xlv
sibly in Sallust's speeches of Caesar and Cato in the Catiline, and Agricola's in Tacitus's biography. Finally, some of the speeches in Livy which he found in the sources followed by him, such as Polybius, Fabius Pictor, and Cato, may belong here.
(e) The author knew only by tradition of the delivery of a speech, and there- fore inserted an address, the contents of which are wholly his own invention. Possibly the long speech of Calenus in Dio Cassius is a case in point.
II. The delivery of the speech at the time and place alleged is for one reason or another highly improbable. To this class belong :
(a) Certain speeches on the eve of a battle whose contents, even if an address had been delivered, could not well have come to the knowledge of the historian. This type is of very frequent occurrence, battle speeches in general being not only the most common of all in extant historians, but they at the same time exhibit the largest number of constantly recurring ' loci communes.'
(£) E.g. the speech of Mucianus before Vespasian, of Galba on the adoption of Piso in Tacitus, of the Scythians before Alexander in Curtius.
III. Speeches that from their very nature could never have been delivered: eg. the speeches of Romulus in Dionysius, of Calgacus in the Agricola, of Boudicca and Maecenas in Dio Cassius.
IV. A fourth class, though not strictly exclusive, is taken up by the many instances of two set speeches, pitted against each other. In these cases, both are apt to be mere inventions, as the speeches of Scipio and Hannibal in Livy, of Cicero and Philiscus in Dio Cassius, or else one may have a certain historical background, while the other has little or none, thus coming under II. or III.; Exx. are Calgacus and Agricola, some of the* ambassador's speeches in Thucydides, or those of the Syracusans in the sixth book. The nearest approach to both speeches being fairly historical is found in those of Ariovistus and Caesar.
It is in these double speeches that the historians exhibit the largest number of incongruities, in that the various speakers are often made to anticipate points adduced later by opponents, and in Thucydides this even occurs in addresses de- livered at different places and occasions, cross references, as it were, giving the impression of strictly contemporaneous replies. Occasionally, I have found allu- sions to facts with which the reader had just been made acquainted, but which the speaker cannot have known or which must have been unintelligible to his audience, e.g. in the §peeches of Piso and of Civilis in Tacitus.
Still another kind of incongruity is one that might be put under the general head of anachronism. I have noticed no instances of this in the greatest histo- rians such as Thucydides, Polybius, Tacitus, and Ammianus, but one reason for this is doubtless the fact that they to a very large extent dealt with the history of their own times ; not a few examples, however, occur in Dionysius, Sallust, Livy, Cur- tius, and Appian, because these authors unconsciously at times project their own knowledge or feelings into the past. These inconsistencies are of a rather subtle and elusive nature, and I do not pretend that I have detected them all. I have found but little help in existing commentaries and, in fact, I may say, that the exegetical labors of editors have hitherto not been devoted to the discovery of these incongruities, even where they were hidden but little beneath the surface.
The one cardinal incongruity, however, which characterizes every speech in an ancient historian — the only exceptions being found where author and speaker
xlvi American Philological Association,
were identical — and which would alone suffice to stamp these oratorical pro- ductions as unhistorical has not yet been referred to, simply because of its univer- sality and general recognition. I mean, of course, the style in which all these speeches are written. No ancient historian ever ventured to quote an entire speech or a part of one in the original, even where such had been readily accessible. An inexorable law of stylistic uniformity forbade this, the historians, therefore, invari- ably cast original documents into their own stylistic mould, and in the case of speeches spent upon their elaboration all the resources of their rhetorical art. Alcibiades and Pericles and Hermagoras speak the language of Thucydides, Han- nibal and Scipio indulge in the milky richness of Livy, the speakers in Sallust and Tacitus aim at conciseness and epigrammatic expression. It is, indeed, a case of "Tros Tyriusque mihi nullo discrimine agetur."
Of the speeches which we now read in ancient historians many were doubtless delivered by the persons to whom they are attributed, but with one solitary exception, the originals have not come down to us, and hence we are unable to determine what liberties later writers permitted themselves in the reproduction of the contents as distinguished from the stylistic transformation to which these speeches were unmercifully subjected. The extant speech of the Emperor Claudius when compared with what purports to be his address in Tacitus sug- gests the probability that the gist of what was actually said was not materially altered, and Thucydides's famous statement confirms this view; but to assume that the practice of men like Thucydides and Tacitus was representative or typical of the general procedure is a very precarious inference. I, at least, have no doubt that, if the historical originals of the speeches put into the mouth of their heroes even by writers like Polybius, Sallust, and Livy were extant, the number of incon- gruities would be multiplied considerably.
I have in the foregoing, in the briefest possible outline, endeavored to sketch the purpose, scope, and method of treatment of the work here undertaken. The detailed evidence for the results attained will be found in the completed mono- graph. If any one after its perusal should find that the promise here held out was not fulfilled in the performance, I can only plead si desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas, for the subject seems to me one of genuine interest and importance, and it was therefore better to have it treated inadequately than not at all.
The Committee appointed to nominate a Standing Committee on the Nomination of Officers reported, through Professor Wright, as
follows :
To serve for one year, Professor J. H. Wright.
To serve for two years, Professor W. G. Hale. To serve for three years, Professor T. D. Seymour. To serve for four years, Professor Samuel Hart. To serve for Jive years, Professor M. VV. Humphreys.
Professor Wright was requested to serve on the Standing Com- mittee until his successor is appointed at the next annual meeting.
On behalf of the entire Standing Committee the three members present united in reporting the following nominations for the ensuing year:
Proceedings for July, 1903. xlvii
President, Professor George Hempl, University of Michigan.
Vice Presidents, Professor Mortimer Lamson Earle, Columbia University.
Professor Elmer Truesdell Merrill, Wesleyan University.
Secretary and Treasurer, Professor Herbert Weir Smyth, Harvard University. Executive Committee, The above-named officers, and
Professor Charles E. Bennett, Cornell University.
Professor Francis A. March, Lafayette College.
Professor Morris H. Morgan, Harvard University.
Professor Bernadotte Perrin, Yale University.
Dr. Charles P. G. Scott, Radnor, Pa.
The report of the Standing Committee was adopted, and the Secretary was directed to cast the ballot of the Association for the persons nominated.
The Secretary reported that the result of the ballot cast on the question of transferring the time of holding the regular annual meet- ings was 47 in favor of a summer meeting, 19 in favor of a meeting during Convocation Week.
The Executive Committee reported through the Secretary that for the present it was advisable to retain the summer meeting of the Association.
Professor Warren moved the acceptance of the report. Carried.
On behalf of the Committee on T&viie and Place of Meeting in 1904, Professor Perry recommended that the meeting of 1904 be held before July 4, and at St. Louis.
A motion to consider separately the recommendations of the Com- mittee was carried.
Professor Pickard urged the acceptance of the invitation from St. Louis.
Professor Knapp moved to substitute Cornell University for St. Louis. The discussion that ensued was participated in by Messrs. C. H. Moore, Scott, Goodell, Smyth, Harrington, and Perrin.
The amendment was carried by 19 to 15.
Professor Smyth moved to amend the report of the Committee and to the effect that the next meeting should begin July 5, 1904. Carried.
Professor Perry proposed the following motion, which was carried unanimously by a rising vote :
Resolved, That the Secretary be directed to express the hearty thanks of the American Philological Association to the authorities of Yale University for their courtesy in inviting the Association to hold its annual meeting of 1903 in New Haven, and for the generous provision made for the comfort and convenience of the members attending; to the members of the Local Committee of Arrange-
xlviii American Philological Association.
ments, and in particular to its Chairman Professor Perrin and to Professor Reynolds, for the excellent care with which the many details of entertainment have been managed; and to the Classical Club of Yale University for the excur- sion and supper offered to the Association on the evening of Thursday, July 9.
Dr. Scott then offered the following resolution :
Resolved, That the Executive Committee be requested to consider, and to report at a future meeting of the Association, whether it is expedient to change the method of publishing the papers read before the Association; and whether, in particular, it is desirable to publish the papers, or those chosen for the pur- pose, each in a separate monograph with a separate title page, but all bearing the name and sanction of the Association, and a serial number; and whether, if this be done, it is expedient to abolish the TRANSACTIONS as such and to reduce the PROCEEDINGS to a mere official record.
Professor Knapp moved to refer to the Executive Committee, with power to act, the question of the expediency of continuing the sub- scription of the Association to the Platonic Lexicon.
Adjourned.
SEVENTH SESSION.
Thursday Afternoon, July 9. The Association assembled at 3 P.M.
34. Hephaestion and the Resolutions of the Greek Comic Trimeter, by Professor C. VV. E. Miller, of the Johns Hopkins University.
This paper is printed in full in the TRANSACTIONS. It was discussed by Professors Humphreys and Radford.
35. Quintilian's Criticism of the Metres of Terence, by Professor Alfred Gudeman, of Cornell University (read by title).
Since the days of Bentley it has been a conviction generally shared by scholars that the Romans, however delicately attuned their ears were for the harmonies of verse, exhibited a singular obtuseness iu their criticisms of the metres of Latin Comedy.
It was a small matter that Cicero, in a well-known passage of the Orator (55> l84)> spoke of the comic senarius in a way that ought to be a perpetual source of joy to Gitlbauer, so long as unsympathetic publishers refuse to inflict his epoch-making discovery upon a long-suffering, philological public ! For Cicero, we are assured, was but an indifferent versifier and hence no competent judge, albeit the greatest poet whom Rome produced paid him the highest com- pliment that genius can bestow — that of imitation !
That the Muses never reciprocated the (at best) lukewarm affection of Varro will perhaps be readily conceded, and hence we need not be surprised to find him speaking of the numeri innumeri of Plautus, the only really surprising circumstance about this criticism being the fact, that there are still scholars of
Proceedings for July, 1903. xlix
repute who insist on misinterpreting the oxymoron or who fancy that Plautus himself was the author of the epitaph in which his "unrhythmical rhythms" are said to have all fallen aweeping together, and well they might in prophetic antici- pation of the way in which they were destined to be maligned even by Horace, whose melodious verses have not held captive the ears of Ovid alone.
But it is just because Horace was so supreme a metrical artist that I have never been able to convince myself that his famous disparagement of the verse of Plautus (A. P. 270-274) was due to any genuine lack of appreciation of the marvellous versatility and facility displayed by the comic poet in the domain of versification. His criticism is rather to be understood as emphasizing the unde- niable progress and perfection of metrical technique in his day, a consummation to which he himself was conscious of having contributed no despicable share. But goaded by a class of fanatical laudatores temporis acti, who praised the past simply because it was such and who did so at the expense of the present, Horace was in his turn betrayed into an injustice to the old poets which under other cir- cumstances he would, I fain would think, have been most anxious to avoid.
But this depreciation, unwarranted though it was, became traditional and finds its most typical expression in a famous or rather notorious note of Piiscian, who, in relieving his feelings, is nevertheless merely echoing as usually the deliverance of some earlier critics:
" Quosdam vel abnegare esse in Terentii comoediis metra (some ancient ancestors of Gitlbauer are meant, of course!) vel ea quasi arcana quaedam et ab omnibus doctis semota sibi solis esse cognita confirmare."
In the light of so time honored an aberration, it need cause no surprise that the passage of Quintilian, with which we arlt^here more immediately concerned, has been habitually regarded as merely another illustration of that obtuseness in things metrical just noticed.
After stating, it will be recalled, that in the conviction of Aelius Stilo the Muses, if they had occasion to speak Latin, would speak iu the language of Plautus, in which case, let us hope, Stilo was prepared to furnish these iadies with an expurgated edition, Quintilian (X, I, 99) continues as follows:
" Licet Terentii scripta ad Scipionem Africanum referantur quae tamen in hoc genere elegantissima et plus adhuc habitura graliae si intra versus trimetros itetissent. "
This apparently eccentric piece of criticism aroused the anger of Richard Bentley and his pent-up feelings found vent in this characteristic outburst :
" Mirificum sane magni rhetoris iudicium. Optabat scilicet ut Fabulae Teren- tianae quae in primo cuiusque actu et scena a trimetris inchoantur, eodem metro ac tenore per omnes actus scenasque decucurrissent. Crederes profecto hominem numquam scaenam vidisse, numquam comoedum partes suas agentem spectavisse. Quid voluit? quod nee Menander nee ullus Graecorum fecit, Terentius ut faceret ! ut ira, metus, exultatio, dolor, gaudium et quietae res et turbatae eodem metro lente agerentur? ut tibicen paribus tonis perpetuoque cantico spectantium aures vel declarasset vel offenderet? Tantum abest, ut eo pacto plus gratiae habitura esset fabula, ut, quantumvis bene morata, quantumv is belle scripta, gratiam prorsus omnem perdidisset" (Schediasma de metris Terentianis).
"An amazing judgment of the great critic, surely," we may say; and yet so far
1 American Philological Association.
as I know no subsequent scholar has come to the rescue of Quintilian against this flagrant interpretation.
In the first place it must be observed that when Quintilian opines that the charm of Terence's plays would be enhanced if only trimeters had been employed, he thereby conclusively proves that he, unlike Cicero, Horace, Varro, and Pris- cian, had a very high opinion of the old comic poet's iambic verses.
But the real difficulty of the passage under notice is not whether Quintilian is wrong — and, indeed, we moderns will scarcely agree with him — but rather how he ever came to pronounce this judgment. The question has hitherto not even been asked, much less answered. To do so is the object of this paper and inci- dentally to solve still another problem intimately connected with the other, namely, this: If the exclusive use of the senarius would have added to the enjoyment of Terence's plays, few as are his metrical types, what can Quintilian's attitude have been toward the marvellous metrical variety in Plautns? Why did ha not make a similar demand in the case of one whose language was a fit ver- nacular for the Muses?
The simple solution of the first crux is furnished by a passage of Ps. Demetrius, de elocutione (c. 204), hitherto overlooked.
In discussing the prerequisites of the plain style to which Comedy preeminently belongs, the author lays down the following rule :
<f>ei/yet>' 5£ kv rrj yvvdlffti rov xapafCTTjaos TOVTOV (i.e. the plain style) irpwrov H^v TO. fi.T)Kij r!av K<j)\<av fjLfya\oirp€TT^ yap irdv ftTJKos, ojjTrep icai firl ruv /j.4rp<i)v rb e^dfierpov ripuiKbv KaXeirat vwb TOV /j.ey£9ovs Kal Trptvov tfpwviv, i] K<i}(j.(p8ia, de <rvvtffTa\Tai els rb rplperpov 17 vta.
It is a commonplace that the rhetorical and, to a large extent, the stylistic canons as well, which Quintilian and the Romans generally followed more or less slavishly, were one and all of Greek origin. The various types of style are discussed at length by Cicero, Quintilian, and others, and they do not fail to give the Greek terminology together with their Latin equivalents.
Now when Ps. Demetrius tells us that the New Comedy, in strict conformity with the dictates of the plain style to which it belonged, confined itself to the iambic trimeter, his statement based upon an acquaintance with the plays them- selves must be given greater weight, I take it, than Bentley's undemonstrable assertion to the contrary. But if so, it was all but inevitable, certainly very natural, that Quintilian, following as he did almost exclusively Greek teachers, should reach the conviction that Terence, the dimidiatus Afenander, had some- how violated established canons by his indulgence in other than the specially prescribed metrical types, and it grieved him owing to his admiration for Terence's plays which were otherwise in hoc genere elegantissima. No Roman before or after him had ventured to emancipate himself from the thraldom of the inexora- ble laws of Rhetoric. So why should he do so? You may call him a slave to Greek theory or a pedant, if you will, but we now for the first time can clearly see how, granting, as we must, his point of view, he came to make the remark which he did. We may add in conclusion, that the very use of the word gratia, the exact equivalent of the Greek x<*P1*, seems to imply that some such Greek canon was in his mind when he penned the paragraph under discussion, for x^P's is preeminently the special characteristic of the tenue genus dicendi or the flain style.
Proceedings for July, 1903. li
, There remains the question why Plautus is exempted from Quintilian's censure, for as a writer of comedies the older poet certainly was guilty of a far more flagrant violation of the rule of Fs. Demetrius than Terence. The answer was suggested to me by a perusal of H. Reich's great work, entitled Der Mimus, in particular, hy the brilliant chapter on the Canon of Volcacius Sedigitus (Vol. I. pp. 337 ft-)- Reich has there triumphantly demonstrated that this much maligned critical estimate of ten Roman comedians is far from being the capricious and eccentric vagary that it had been pronounced to be.
In this canon, it will be remembered* the first rank is assigned to Caecilius, the second to I'lautus, while Terence is relegated to sixth place, the critic taking as his standard the power to excite laughter. Caecilius and I'lautus, in other words, were, in the conviction of Volcacius, true types of the Mimus,1 while the polished Terence, the/«/-* sermonis aviator, was preeminently the Roman representative of the refined classical society-drama of Menander.
Now it was precisely to this classical type that a rhetorician like Quintilian was naturally attracted. His entire survey of Roman Literature in Bk. X. is not given for its own sake, but aims rather, as he tells us himself repeatedly, to serve as a practical guide, and hence only those authors are singled out for special commendation the study of whose works would be of real use to the young orator. It is, therefore, evident that the writers of the burlesque Mimus, whose sole ambition was to excite the risus mimicus, could no more be pitted against the classical polish, refinement, and grace of Terence when considered as oratorical models, than Aristophanes's comedy of caricature could, from the same point of view, be put on a level ^ith the rhetorical finish and stylistic perfection of Menander. That is the reason why Quintilian could with impunity ignore Plautus and Caecilius and he had no hesitation in doing so.
The ultimate aim of all scientific research, says Spinoza, is neither to ridicule nor to condemn, neither to censure nor to praise, but simply to endeavor to understand. If I have succeeded in showing that Quintilian's criticism of the versification of Terence, contrary to the prevailing opinion, is perfectly intelligible, consistent, and rational, even if we cannot accept it as true, the object of this paper will have been attained.
36. The Dactylic, Heroic, and KO.T tvorrXiov Forms of the Hexame- ter, and their relation to the Elegiac Pentameter and the Prosodiac Tetrameter, by Professor H. W. Magoun, of Redfield College.
Plato (quoting Damon) mentions three forms of the hexameter. He says (Rep. 400 b) : o'1/j.at 5^ fie dicTjKotvai ov cra(/>uis ivbir\ibv rt TLVO. 6vo/j.d£ovTos at/roG tyvOerov /cai 5d.KTV\ov Kai ijptfdv 7e, oiiK olda dirwj diaKOfffwvvros *cal tvov Hvw KO.I K&TW Tt0^»Toj, els ftpa-xy re KOLI /xa«cp6p yiyvfifjievov, Kal, w$ tytpfjiai, tapfiov ical TIV S.\\ov rpoxaiov wv6na£e, /X^KT? 5£ »cal f3pax<jTtiTa.s irpo<rijirTf. The same variations are referred to elsewhere. Aristophanes speaks of the Dactylic and tear tvinc\iov forms. He represents Socrates {Clouds, 649 ff.) as saying: irpCrrov ntv clvai KOfj.-j/bv tv ffvvovfflq. || tiratovff oiroifa tffri ruv pv&fiav || /COT" ivbir\iov, xwirotos a5 icard S6.KTv\ov. But if the knowledge in question would enable a man to shine in society, he implies by what follows that these two forms of the hexameter, in hi?
1 For the detailed proof, see Reich, / c .
lii American Philological Association.
opinion, are as much alike as a cock and a hen. Marius Victorinus says of the third, the Heroic form (Keil, Grammatici Latini, Vol. VI. p. 70) : Dijfert enitn a dactylico heroum eo, quod et dactylicum et spondiacum est, et in duas caeditur partes . . . penthemimeren et hephthemimeren. dactylicum enim, licet isdem sub- sistat pedibus, non tamen isdem divisionibus ut herous caeditur versus. A scholion of Hephaestion is quoted by Goodell {Chapters on Greek Metric, p. 185), as follows: KO.T' fv6ir\iov ft£v o$v (sc. KJTOS) fort rb %xov 5i5o SajcriiXous »cai tva ffirovSeTov, olov
d5i <f>dro SaKpvx^uv TOV d' <eic\ve forvia /xijrijp.
But if this line from Homer (77. I. 357) is a KO.T iv(nr\iov measure, does it offer any help in solving the riddle which the above quotations present ? The Heroic and KO.T tv6ir\i.oi> lines referred to, are plainly variations of some sort from the regular form, or movement of the Dactylic hexameter. Their peculiarities, more- over, whatever they are, must apparently be of such a nature that only a trained ear can distinguish them. There can be no question concerning their existence. In what do they consist? The solution must be of a simple and natural character.
The line quoted as KO.T tvowXiov has the divisions of the Heroic verse. Can it also be, as Marius requires, in part spondaic? The first section cannot be spon- daic. Can the second ? As the line is usually read, a strong caesura occurs in the third foot. According to all the authorities, this caesura must be an integral part of the bar. Do we make it so? In the Elegiac pentameter a caesura is recognized as a means of completing, or of helping to complete, a bar. Cf. Goodell, I.e. pp. 30 ff.; and see Keil, I.e. p. 638, Fragmenta Sangallensia : Pentameter verstts isdem pedibus et syllaba catalectica. ponuntur enim duo pedes out spondii aut dactyli el una syllaba longa, quae complet parlem orationis, deinde duo dactyli et syllaba in fine, quae dicitur semipes. quae est autem in media et quae {est') in fine, faciunt unum pedem, et erunt quinque, et est hie versus qui elegiacus dicitur. See also ibid. p. 639 : Hie {pentameter) sine ulla dubitatione heroi hexametri suboles est. . . . ab hoc scilicet (Archilochus) coepit detrahens unum pedem, ut illi subiceret hunc, qui nascitur ex heroo hexametro, clausulam haben- tem semipedem. ... in hac parlicula heroi hexametri dactyli duo sunt et semipes, qui repetiti pentametrum faciunt. Cf. Marius (Keil, I.e. p. 107) : Minor itaque hexametro vel tribus vel duabus syllabis est, tribus, quotiens tertius in hexametro dactylus invenitur, duabus vero, quotiens spondeus, optimus autem est, quotiens duos novissimos anapaestos habet, qui fiunt ita, si duo ante ultimum hexametri •versus pedem dactyli sunt, ut est ille, — Mars pater, haec poteris, quae nos quoque posse negamus, item, — barbarico pastes auro spoliisque superbi. pentameter, — barbarico pastes aur spoliisque super.
But if the Elegiac pentameter was derived from the Heroic hexameter in the way here described, is it possible to avoid the conclusion (note the end of the next to the last citation) that the caesura in each case was the same? And if the caesura was the same and took the place of a half-foot in each case, as is clearly implied, is it possible to avoid the conclusion that the movement of the hephthemimeral division of the line was reversed in reading, so that it consisted, not of dactyls and spondees, but of spondees and anapaests, — so that it was in fact spondaic? Marius definitely states in connection with his description of the Heroic line (Keil, l.c. p. 70), that the anapaest is made from a spondee by reso-
Proceedings for July, 1903. liii
lution. See below. The word spondiacum in this connection must therefore include anapaests as well as spondees. Cf. the scholion to Hephaestion, which is cited by Goodell (/^. p. 198) as dividing the last part of the line rottri 8' dwtf-rd/ifKoj ftfrt<)n) v68as ti/tih 'Ax'XXti'J (//• I. 58) so as to produce the feet
\_, |v>vy |ww | t instead of those ordinarily used. It is possibly this
difference in the arrangement of the bars to which Marius refers by the word divisionibus (see above, first Latin citation, end), and, if so, there is no contra- diction involved in that statement and the one last cited from him. The feet in question must be dactylas&Jlong as the Heroic lines are regarded simply as hexameters; and the related reet of the corresponding pentameters, taken in the same way, as the eye sees them, must be anapaests. The words paries, pedibus, and divisionibus (first Latin citation) are to be carefully distinguished.
The Elegiac pentameter, then, is to be read as w w 1 v^w| ~R \
v^ vy | \j \j\ A; and the corresponding Heroic line as w w !
w^] A~ | ] \j \j | \j \j | ~R , with six and seven bars respec- tively. This arrangement plainly meets all the requirements of the grammarians. A true Dactylic hexameter, having the same feet, would take some such form
as w w | t \^j | 1 v_/vy| v-» w | » with six bars. The pause
at the caesura is sufficiently short in this case to be balanced by Correption. The Heroic line must have other variations, however. For example, tfd/a/Sijffep <5' 'AxiXffa, ncrb. 5* frpdirer', avrtKa 5' Zyvu (//. I. 199), when read, contains a second marked pause, due to the sense, as well as a difference in the arrange- ment of the feet. The connection with the following line is very close, and a
pause at the end is out of place. The scheme is | ww| X | w w |
^ w'/\ | v^ v^ | ,with the usual seven bars. A pyr.hic appears to serve
as a bar; and the following one, the sixth (fifth foot), is necessarily a dactyl. Cf. Marius (Keil, I.e. p. 70) : quintus enim frequenter, hero um decet, dactylus debet, eadem cognatione etiam anapaestus, qui [<?] spondei prima in duas breves divisa efficitur, heroo posset adnecti metro, nisi incipience dactylo et subiuncto anapaesto mediae breves numero qualluor heroum versum deformarent.
But the line first cited is KOLT' iv&irXtov rather than Heroic. As I read it aloud, intent upon its meaning, it suddenly assumed a ' martial ' character. The time was still 2/4 ; but the effect was different. The line had claimed its natural di- visions: ' Thus he spake — as he^wept, — and she heard him — his stately mother?
The scheme had become v^w|X |ww I A" I wv-/|A~ |
^, ^j | ~R, with four pauses in all, each less than a second in length, and
with eight bars. As the ear fails to note pauses in dealing with feet, the shifting anapaests and dactyls escaped notice, until the time beats made them appear. The reason for the 'martial' sound then became apparent; for the anapaest is the marching foot. Can a more simple or natural explanation for the KO.T' ivbr\iov line be found? Variations must occur. For example, a line like f*.TJ»iv &eiSt, fled IlijXijidSew 'Ax'X^os is still ' martial,' although its scheme becomes in reading _^W|_V^A|A^ — |A_l_ww|'^A"|ww_| _7\, with a pause divided between two bars. These two schemes seem sufficiently complicated for Plato's tyvdfTov. The first, taken by sections, can be described as a dactyl, a trochee and an iambus, a spondee and a pyrrhic, and a dactyl and a spondee. The second would be even more 'complex.' The metrical character of each, however, must be determined by the time beats, and the bars must be equal.
liv American Philological Association.
The pauses are merely what the sense demands; and Plato distinctly says, in connection with the remark cited above, that words set to music do not differ from those not set to music, and (this statement is repeated) that the metre must conform to the language, not the language to the metre {Rep. 398 d-e) : OVKOVV Sffov 7e airrov \6yos effrlv, ovdev d^irov 5ia<j>£pei TOV fj.r) adofj^vov \6yov. . . . Kai firjv TTJV ye apfiovlav Kal pvdfd>v a.Ko\ovOeii> Set ry \6ytjt. . . . (400 a-d) rbv tr&8a rtf roiotirov \6yif) avayKafciv i-irfffffai Kal rb ^Xos, a\\a fj.r] \6yov iroSl re Kai jitAet. . . . etirep pv0fj.6s ye Kai apfwvia X67V, . . . a\\a /J.TJ \byos TOI/TOIS. 'AXXd HJv, . . . ravrd ye Xdyy a,Ko\ov6t}Teov. With the iambic and trochaic bars of the last scheme, cf. the end of Plato's statement cited at the beginning of this paper. On the basis here suggested, the Elegiac pentameter, when read or recited, had a true dactylic movement; the Heroic line became spondaic (wholly or in part) after the main caesura; and the /car" fv6ir\iov line became alternately dactylic and spondaic by sections. The word " spondaic " includes the anapaest.
Experimenting still further with the /car' evt>ir\iov verse, I shortened the pauses by using Protraction. The line no longer conformed to the two-time beats; but it did conform to the four-time ones, two down and two up, the ancient method. Cf. Goodell, I.e. pp. 134 and 140. The bars had doubled in length;
for the scheme had become wwAi I wwi A I w w A i |
^ w i A> a Prosodiac tetrameter in 4/4 time. This might seem to be going
too far; but there are other things to be considered. Protraction is a rhythmical element; and, on the authority of the ancients themselves, the more intricate metres (the Prosodiac tetrameter is of this sort) contained rhythmical elements. Cf. ibid. pp. 7-10 and 42-54. Furthermore, while this rendering does not seem to be the one best adapted to this particular line, or indeed a proper one for it, in the connection in which it occurs, it might be the proper rendering and the best, for a series of apparently similar lines in a different connection. Again, the passage from Plato first cited is confessedly a partial report of a conversation imperfectly understood; and there may be a difference between KO.T ev(nr\iov and true e'v6ir\tov forms. The ancients testify (cf. ibid. pp. 184-186) that the feet of Prosodiac or evtnrXiov measures are choriambi and ionics; and the feet of the scheme are choriambi and ionics. By lengthening the third an-1 fifth syllables of half the scheme (4/4 bars lend themselves easily to such a process), the form
^,1 | ^ i may be produced ; and the ancients postulate this and
other similar changes for deriving one metrical form from another. Cf. ibid.
pp. 187-188. Another form is i l\\j \j\ wwi A; and i ^ |
i \j may be made from it. The pauses used in all the above schemes are
plainly justified by the ancients themselves. See" ibid. pp. 10 and 49. There is no fixed place for a rest in a 4/4 bar in music; and there need be none for a pause in a 4/4 bar in poetry. Finally, as already implied, the metrici, in
practice, made no distinction between syllables having the values i and , and
they also disregarded pauses in dealing with feet (not to be confused with bars).
Did the Greeks drift, in some such way as this, from the Dactylic hexameter into the Heroic, from the Heroic into the KO.T tvdirXiov, and from the KO.T' ev6ir\tov into the Prosodiac tetrameter, with its strange and complex feet ? What are the facts ? A simple and natural means seems to be provided by the above suggestion, for the natural development, or evolution, not merely of the tetrameter but of the dimeter and trimeter as well. Even the requirements of
Proceedings for July, 1903. Iv
modern schemes seem to be fairly well provided for, since the combination
w | > may be nothing more than \j i misunderstood. There are
other suggestive parallels; but they must be omitted for lack of space.
37. Afterthoughts, by Professor John C. Rolfe, of the University of Pennsylvania (read by title).
a. Ad BEFORE PROPER NAMES BEGINNING WITH A CONSONANT.
It is well known that after the rule of using ab before vowels, and a before all consonants became well established, the use of ab before consonants persisted in certain stereotyped formulas. With one exception these formulas have been explained as due to conservatism in certain styles, religious, legal, etc. ; and making due allowance for analogy and for the influence of sources, the latter especially in the case of the historical writers, most of the delations from the rule can be accounted for.
The exception referred to is the use of ab with personal and geographical names beginning with a consonant. That this use is a c mmon one is shown in A;L.L. x. p. 468, and more fully in H.S.C.P. xii. pp. 253 and 254.
In H.S.C.P. xii. p. 253, I said that this usage is less easy to explain than that in religious and legal formulas, but I have since come to the conclusion that the explanation is the same, i.e. that it is an archaism due to conservatism.
Examples of a similar tendency in the case of proper names are abundant : e.g. the retention of o in Volcanus, etc., after vo- had elsewhere changed to vu-\ Hecuba, with « before a labial after a clear vowel; see Sommer, Handb. der lat. Laut- und Formenlehre, p. 119, ah Archaismus bleibt « nach hellem Vukal, z. B. in Eigennamen ; the retention of r in th-j genitive singular of ?0-stems after the form -ii had otherwise become general; see Sturtevant, Contraction in the Case Forms of Latin to- and nt-stews, diss. Chicago, 1902; the impulse to preserve the group net in Quinctnts, etc., namely, "the conservative spelling of proper names"; see Fay, A.J.P. xxiv. p. 73; and Bujk, Oscan-Umbrian Grammar, § 72 a (in press) : " if Vuv£is is ' Lucius,' as seems probable, it is an example of the archaisti: spelling often found in proper names."
Since the preposition with its noun formed a single word-group, this seems a reasonable explanation of an otherwise difficult usage.
b. De tenero ungui, HOR. Carm. iii. 6. 24.
In P.A.P.A. xxxiii. Ixii, I discusse-1 the meaning of de tenero ungui, and showed that the meaning of ' to her fing r-tips,' or ' with all her soul,' is impos- sible. Another interesting passage in this connection is found in Prop. i. 20. 39, quae modo decerpens tenero pueriliter ungui, proposito florem praetulit officio. Here tenero clearly means ' youthful ' and Postgate, in his Selections from Proper- tius, comments on the juxtaposition t>f pueriliter and tenero. We seem to have here a variation of the more common expression tenui ungui : See Catull. 62. 43; Odd, Htroid. 4. 30. Riese's comment on the former passage, 'ungui = digito, nicht haufig,' seems to be incorrect, since u-igui is evidently to be taken literally : cf. Ovid, Fasti, iv. 438, ilia papavereas subsecat ungue comas. That is, the stems were cut with the nail, not broken off with the fingers; this method is commo'i
Ivi American Philological Association.
nowadays with tough stems, when one is not provided with a knife or another cutting instrument.
Furthermore unguis and digitus are frequently used in parallel passages : cf. Juv. x. 53, cum medium ostenderet unguem, with Mart. ii. 28. I, rideto multum . . . et digitum porrigito medium; and Cic. ad Att. xiii. 20. 4, a recta conscientia transversum unguem non oportet discedere, with Qc. Acad. ii. 18. 58 non licet transversum, ut aiunt, digitum discedere; etc., etc.
I began the investigation of the meaning of de tenero ungtii in the belief that the phrase meant ' from early youth,' but abandoned it because iant nunc is not found, and cannot logically stand, with temporal expressions of that kind, and because de with the ablative does not occur in the sense of from a given period of time (Germ, von ... an). I still believe that these reasons make it impos- sible to take de tenero ungui in the sense of 'from early youth,' as most editors do who do not adopt the interpretation of ' from (to) the finger-tips.'
It is possible, however, that the phrase may mean ' in early youth,' in which case it may be joined with iam mine without difficulty.
De with the ablative in temporal expressions means in most cases ' at ' or 'in.' More rarely it means 'after.' It never, I believe, means 'from . . . on.' The earlier meaning, contrary to Drager, Hist. Syntax, i.2 p. 629, who says 'in temporalem Sinne heisst de: unmittelbar nach,' must have been 'in' or 'at,' more exactly 'from.' It is used of comparatively extensive periods of time, which are regarded as not yet completed : see Hand, Tursellinus, ii. p. 204 and his quotation from Gesner, ' de cum nominibus temporis significat illud tempusnondum plane effluxisse ' ; cf. Kuhner, Ausf. lat. Gram ii. p. 363: Schanz in his treatment of the preposition in Hist. Synt? p. 271 strangely ignores the temporal use of de.
The meaning 'after' arises from the original local meaning of de in certain situations, and is never common. We may trace the development of this signifi- cation in the following examples: Virg. Aen. ii. 662 iamque aderit multo Priami de sanguine Pyrrhus, when the temporal force is slight; Cic. dd Att. xii. 3. 1, velim scire, hodiene statim de auctione et quo die venias, where statim gives a stronger temporal force, but venias points to the original meaning of de; Plaut. Most. 697 non bonust somnus de prandio, when the meaning is eis qui de prandio veniunt, or something similar, whence by ellipsis 'after dinner.'
The same development is seen in the temporal meaning of ab, which originally meant from a given time. Then in such cases as Hor. Serin, i. 6. 93 si natura iuberet, a certis annis aevum remeare peractum, and the like, the meaning ' after ' ; arose from the situation. In the case of ab this meaning became common (see A.L.L. x. 503), while with de it does not seem to have done so. On the other hand, ab seems never to have the meaning ' at ' or ' in,' except perhaps rarely by confusion with de : see Pronto, p. 69 N. ab hora sexta domum redimus. We thus have three temporal relations expressed by these two prepositions : 'from ' a given time, ab ; 'at' a given time, more exactly 'from within,' de ; 'after'1 a given time, ab and rarely de.
De with the ablative in temporal expressions is confined for the most part to die and nocte and their divisions and to synonyms of these words. We occasionally have mense with the name of a month: Cic. a<i Quint. Fr. ii. i. 3 fac, si me ainas, ut considerate dihgenterque naviges de mense Decembri. In
Proceedings for July ', 1903. Ivii
Colum. ii. 4. 9 deinde de Aprili medio usque in solstit ium iterandi, the ms. authority is in favor of ab Aprili. In Bell. Afr. 33. 4 we have de tempore cenare = tempore. Ab with such expressions is comparatively rare, and when the meaning is' after ' we may suspect confusion with de : see the passage from Fronto quoted above.
The difference between ab and de in similar expressions may be seen by com- paring Juv. vii. 222 dummodo nun pereat mediae quod noctis ab hora sedisti, 'you have been at your desk from midnight on,' and Juv. xiv. 190 post finem autumni media de nocte supinum clamosus iuvenem pater excitat, 'rouses the youth at midnight.' See Mayor's note on the latter passage, and his quotation from Censorinus 24. 2 tempus quod huic (mediae nocti) proximum est vocatur de media nocte. I agree with Hand, I.e. in thinking that media nox does not designate a point of time, as with us, but a period of some little duration, from midnight to galliciniuin, for example.
In a few cases de with the abl. might seem to have made some progress in the direction of the meaning ' from . . . on ' : eg. Suet. Calig. 26 inquietatus fre- mitu gratuita in circo loca de media nocte occupantium. The meaning ' at mid- night ' is, however, preferable in my opinion. There seem to be no cases in which the meaning ' from ... on ' is necessary. Even if we admit the possibility of such a signification, it is excluded in the Horatian passage by iatn nunc.
In favor of the meaning ' in early youth,' for de tenero ungui, it may be men- tioned that Horace is fond of temporal expressions with de: see Serm. ii. 3. 238 unde uxor media currit de nocte vocata; Epist. i. 2. 32 ut iugulent hominem, surgunt de nocte latrones; Epist. i. 7. 88 offensus damnis media de nocte cabal- lum arripit. In all these examples the meaning is clearly 'at.' The following are parallel with the passage from Suet. Calig. cited above : Serm. ii. 8. 3 nam mihi quaerenti convivam dictus here illic de medio potare die; Epist. i. 14. 34 quem bibulum liquidi media de luce Falerni.
If taken in a temporal sense, the passage must mean : ' and even now in early youth she riieditates unlawful loves.'
De tenero ungui is, however, unique as a temporal expression. As has been said above, de with the abl. is confined to a limited range of expressions. In the case of a teneris unguiculis, ' from early youth,' Cic. ad Fam. i. 6, we have an abundance of parallels : a pueritia, ab ineunte aetate, teneris ab annis, and many others (see A. L. L. x. p. 502), but we never apparently find de pueritia, de adu- lescentia, and the like. In the case of so conservative a stylist as Horace, this seems to me a strong argument against taking the phrase in a purely temporal sense.
A teneris unguiculis is taken in the sense of 'from early youth ' even by some editors who regard de tenero ungui as meaning ' to the finger-tips.' That inter- pretation, while unobjectionable, as has been shown, from the syntactical point of view, and at first sight less difficult than de tenero ungui, really presents a diffi- culty which is not found in the Horatian passage. Kiessling evidently has this in mind when he says in his note on Hor. Carm. iii. 6. 24 'so Cicero von dem nur 6 Jahre jungeren P. Lentulus Spinther.'
But Spinther's age at the time of writing is absolutely immaterial. The sen- tence means : ' Show yourself the sort of man I have known you to be from your early youth.' Tener does not imply infancy, but may be used of a well-grown boy. See Suet. Claud. 43 cum impubi teneroque adhuc (Britannico), quando statura permitteret, togam dare destinasset
Iviii American Philological Association.
I have not been able to find out when Cicero's acquaintance with Lentulus began, but their correspondence implies an intimacy of lo; g standing. Note ad Fam. \. 7. 9 (to Lentulus) te vero emoneo, cum beneficiis tuis, turn amore inci- 'tatus meo, ut omnem gloriam, ad quam a pneritia inflammatus fuisti, omni cura atque industria consequare. Also ad Fam. \. 7. 8 quod eo liberius ad te scribo, quia non solum temporibus his, quae per te sum adeptus, sed iani olim nascenli prope nostrae laudi dignitatique favisti.
These passages imply a long acquaintance, and whether Cicero's words are taken literally or regarded as friendly exaggeration, a pueritia and a teneris un- guiculis are parallel expressions and are used in the same way; i.e. Cicero assumes knowledge of Spinther's character from childhood.
I therefore have no hesitation in agreeing with those who take a teneris un* guiculis as meaning ' from early youth.'
De tenero ungui is in either sense a very unusual expression, and it is remark- able that it is apparently omitted in the articles on de of Hand, Drager, Runner; and Schmalz, and that the editors of Horace compare it with a teneris unguiculis and similar expressions, without commenting on its novelty.
Before going farther, it seems worth while. to examine some of the special uses of unguis and unguiculus. It may be noted in advance that such expressions are more numerous in Latin than in Greek, and that the diminutive, which does not occur in Greek, is relatively rare in Latin. We have itnguis used :
1) Of measurements, with the general meaning of 'from head to foot.' Here we commonly have corresponding phrases with ab and ad : e.g. Cic. Rose. Com. 7. 20 non ab imis unguibus usque ad verticem summum . . . mendaciis totus constare videtur? Apul. Met. iii. 21 ab imis unguibus sese totam adusque sum- mos capillos perlinit ; Petr. 102 mutemus colores a capillis usque ad ungues.
The diminutive occurs in Plaut. Epid. 623 usque ab unguiculo ad capillum summumst festivissima. It may well be the diminutive of affection, 'from her dear little finger-tip.' Anth. Pal. ix. 709 £K KopvfiTJs et's fijcpovs 6vvxas.
2) Of measurements, with the general meaning of ' a nail's breadth,' Eng. ' a hair's breadth.' Here digitus and unguis are both used : see above, p. Iv. The two are combined in Plaut. Aid. 56 si hercle tu ex istoc loco digitum transvorsum aut unguem latum excesseris. The diminutive is apparently not found, though we might have expected the smallness of the distance to be emphasized in that way. Cf. Plaut. Poen. 566 vix quidem hercle — ita pauxillast — digitulis primoribus (teneo rem). This is apparently not found in Greek.
3) As a sign of contempt : see above, p. Iv. The diminutive is apparently not found, nor does the expression seem to occur in Greek.
4) Of time: Claud, de vi cons. Hon. 79 tenero conceptus ab ungui amor; Cic. ad Fam. i. 6 a teneris unguiculis. Gk. ^£ airaXwv 6vv\<av.
5) Of smoothness and evenness of surface or alinement: Hor. Serm. \. 5. 32 ad unguem factus homo ; A. P. 294; Virg. Georg. ii. 277 nee setius omnis in unguera arboribus positis secto via limite quadret. The diminutive is appar- ently not found. Common in Greek and Latin. Plut. A/or. vi. 636 c tv 6w\i 6 irijX6s, ytvyrai Philo, Bel. 66 e ^TT' 5wxa ffvnfte^\rnj.^vai ywvlat.
6) In comparisons of value : Petr. 57 cuius pluris erat unguis quam tu totus es. Here, as in 2, we might expect the diminutive, but it is apparently not found, nor does the usage seem to be found in Greek.
Proceedings for July, 1903. lix
7) Biting the nails, as a sign of perplexity, anger, etc. Hor. Serm. i. 10. 71 vivos et roderet unguis; Pers. i. 106 nee demorsos sapit unguis; Prop. ii. 4. 13; etc. The diminutive does not seem to occur. Not found in Greek.
8) ' From the finger-tips,' ' thoroughly,' ' with all one's soul,' used of the emo- tions or feelings: Plaut, Stick. 761 ubi perpuriscamus usque ex unguiculis; Apul. Met. x. 22 quamquam ex unguiculis perpuriscens. Here the diminutive only seems to be found. In Greek we have Eur. Cycl. 159 els Anpovs TOI)S 6rvxa* d<plKfro (6 offos) ; Anth. Pal. 5. 14 ipLaaaa TO ffTOfia, ryv ^vx^" ^ 6vj>\wv dvdyei.
9) Miscellaneous: of plucking flowers, see above, p. Iv, apparently not cited in the lexicons. Fronto, p. 253. 6 N. me Caesaris oratio uncis unguibus attinet, to which I have found no parallels with the diminutive. Luc. Dial. Mort. n. 4 6Sovffi Kal 6vv£i Kal vdffri /J.TJXOLVJJ : somewhat parallel is Quint, xii. 9. 18 omni, ut agricolae dicunt, pede standum est, and the opposite stans pede in uno, Hor. Serm. i. 4. 10. A still closer parallel occurs in Cic. Tusc. Disp. ii. 24. 56 toto corpore atque omnibus ungulis, ut dicitur, contentioni vocis adserviunt. In this passage ungulis means ' hoofs,' used metaphorically with reference to horses, and the same is doubtless true of 6w^. in the passage from Lucian. Ungula is of course not the diminutive of unguis. Sophron, Com. Grace. Frag. Kaibel, 1 10 tic TOV 6vvxos TOV \fovra (jpa\f/ev, whence £!• 6v\>x<av \tovra, Paroemiogr. I have not betn able to find ex uttgi leonem, which is cited in L. & S., in Latin, nor the parallel ex pede Herculem.
The expressions in Latin which undoubtedly mean ' to the finger-tips,' used of emotion or feeling, reduce themselves to two, which are so strikingly alike in phraseology as to suggest that Apuleius followed Plautus. Both have ex. 'To the finger-tips' of measurements is expressed by al>, and unguis (unguiculus) is used alune or is modified l>y an adjective like imus, primus, or the like; to the examples already cited may be added : Plaut. Poen. 566 digitulis primoribus; Val. Flacc. vii. 621 levantis primas ec matre manus; Eurip. Iph. in Taur. 283 wXlpas rptpuv djcpas, 'quivering to his finger-tips' (Flagg). The expressions with tener can be explained as temporal in accordance with good syntactical usage, and without any difficulty so far as the sense of the passages in which they occur is concerned.
After a careful consideration of all these points, I am convinced that my inter- pretation of de tenero ungui as 'with all her youthful soul' is the most reasonable one; i.e. that it is a combination of ex unguiculis and a tenero ungui (unguiculis). De was evidently deliberately chosen by Horace, since a (ab) or e (ex) offers no metrical difficulty, and we have no variant reading except delero in Rj, which points to de. This is to my mind an additional point in favor of my rendering. Ab, de, and ex form a group of prepositions of very similar meanings, de and ex especially being often interchanged; in combining the phrases ex unguiculis and a tener is unguiculis (a tenero ungiti), Horace chose a new preposition, namely de. I really see no more reasonable way of accounting for Horace's use of the very unusual phrase, de tenero ungui. De ungui = ex unguiculis would certainly be a less startling novelty than de tenero ungui = de fueritia, while tenero must add the idea of youthfulness, as has been shown before.
c. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON canicula.
Some additional passages showing that canicula is not used of Procyon but of Sirius, and testifying to the redness of the latter in ancient times. Of these the
lx American Philological Association,
most interesting are in Schol. Bern, in Germ. Arat. 337 (p. 237, 6 Breysig) canicula, quae oritur post Orionem, habet stellam splendidum in lingua I, quam Sirium et canem vocant, rutilantem multum et per colores inmutantem ; and p. 167. 14 Sirium autem illam vocatam putant propter flammae candorem. Latini autem illam caniculam vocant. Attention was called to an article on the redness of Sirius in ancient times by T. J. J. See in Astronomy and Astro- Physics, published by the Goodsell Observatory, Northfield, Minn., vol. xi. (1902), which was brought to the writer's notice by Professor Doolittle of the University of Pennsylvania; and to the remark of Mr. Garrett P. Serviss quoted in Harper's Weekly for May 9, 1903.
The gender of canicula has no bearing on the question of its meaning. Canicula is applied to a man by Gell. iv. 20. 3 and by Tert. adv. Marc. i. I, and to a woman by Plaut. Cure. 598. It is evidently of common gender like its primitive.
38. Diaeresis after the Second Foot of the Hexameter in Lucre- tius, by Dr. H. J. Edmiston, of Bryn Mawr College (read by title).
This investigation began with a reading of Munro's Introduction to the second volume of his Lucretius. On page 13 he observes that Lucretius, neglecting a rule carefully observed by Catullus and Virgil, very often separates the first two (eet of the hexameter from the others by diaeresis, the cadence sometimes being
CTO | ^> w | , less often oo | | • Munro says that in the latter case a
monosyllable must follow, and that to this rule there is only one exception, III. 527, et mem\bratim \ vitalem deperdere sensum. This is a most astonishing mis- statement. In the first book alone, besides numerous cases like 173, quod cer\tis in | rebus inest secreta facultas, which might be denied as an exception because the in is proclitic to rebus, there are thirteen violations of Munro's rule; namely, 79, 218, 243, 365,404, 414, 516, 546, 649, 766, 787, 1022, and 1070; and counting all cases like 173, there are thirty-four. Moreover, of the forty-eight instances in the first book in which the rule appears to be observed, forty-seven are lines in which either the monosyllable following the diaeresis is proclitic as in 353, per truncos ac \ per ramos diffunditur omnis, or enclitic as in 430, praeterea nil \ est quod possis dicere ab omni ; or the word immediately preceding the diaeresis is proclitic as in 662, corpiis nil ab \ se quod possit milter e raptini. The one excep- tion is line 833, sed tamen ipsam \ rem facile est exponere verbis. My investiga- tion of the second book yields similar results.
For convenience let us call these types 353,-43O, and 662 respectively. Now of course the reason why Virgil, and the more careful Roman poets generally, avoided diaeresis after the second foot was that, to secure in such cases the pre- vailing masculine caesura of the third foot, they would have had to make it follow a monosyllable, and caesurae after monosyllables were considered imperfect. On this point see Plessis, Traite de Metrique Grecque et Latine, §§ 30 and 93. So verses like Aeneid IV. 385, et cum frigida \ mors || anima seduxerit arlus, are rare in Virgil and the later poets ; and it is easy to see why a cadence in which a diaeresis is followed by the main caesura, or indeed a secondary caesura, with but a single syllable intervening, should have offended a refined ear. But Munro's canon that in Lucretius the initial cadence in which diaeresis comes after a
Proceedings for July, 1903. Ixi
spondee in the second foot is with but one exception followed by a monosyllable, most erroneously implies that his author was indifferent to this juxtaposition of diaeresis and caesura. Our statistics show that in forty-seven out of forty-eight cases in the first book, this monosyllable is a monosyllable only in name. In other words, it is a graphic rather than a phonetic monosyllable. In case 353 the per belongs phonetically to the following word ; in case 430 the est belongs phonetically to the preceding word ; while in case 662 the ab belongs to the following word ; and it is important to observe that in all of the forty-eight lines above mentioned, not a single instance of a possible fourth type occurs in which the word immediately preceding the diaeresis would be enclitic. In the three types I have cited either the diaeresis or the caesura is mitigated by proclisis or enclisis ; in 353 it is the caesura, in 430 and 662 the diaeresis. Whereas, in the hypothetical case, of which there is not one example, both diaeresis and caesura would be unmitigated.
It may be objected to the above statistics that, inasmuch as the commonly employed monosyllables are usually proclitic or enclitic, if a monosyllable is used at all after the diaeresis in question, it is likely to be enclitic or proclitic without design on the part of the author. It is a sufficient reply that twenty-nine of the aforesaid forty-seven instances are of the type 662 (the expressions inter \ se and per | se being several times repeated), in which neither proclitic or enclitic can follow, though it would make little difference if they did.
I have not space to state my results in regard to the initial cadence,
<&z> I w v; II, the symbol || marking diaeresis. Suffice it to say that they do
not differ materially from the conclusions I have given in regard to the begin- ning GO I II- And contrary to the implication of Munro's rule, mono- syllables seem to follow the diaeresis quite as frequently in the former type as in the latter; which might indeed be expected from the overwhelming predominance of penthemimeral caesura in the Latin hexameter.
To sum up, diaeresis or caesura preceded by proclisis or followed by enclisis is only partially done away with. Such caesurae and diaereses were imperfect. There was doubtless a difference in Latin between the pronunciations of perlata and per lata, for example, just as there is a difference between the French enfer and en fer (Plessis, op. cit. § 29). Therefore, while Virgil, and the poets gener- ally of what may be called the classical school, rarely allow diaeresis after the second foot of the hexameter, Lucretius admits it, and more often than not follows it with a monosyllable, thus making a penthemimeral caesura ; but in this case he softens the diaeresis or caesura by proclisis before the caesura and by proclisis before or enclisis after the diaeresis.
39. The Ablative Absolute in the Epistles of Cicero, Seneca, Pliny, and Pronto, by Dr. R. B. Steele, of Vanderbilt University (read by title).
In this study we have followed the same lines as in the discussion of the Ablative Absolute in Livy. The latter differs widely from the writers here con- sidered in the rhetorical elaboration of his sentences, and for this reason there are marked differences in the use of ablative absolute. Many of the letters in these collections were written with a view to publication, but in those written
Ixii American Philological Association.
on the spur of the moment the writer did not take time for introductory elabora- tion, and had little need for the ablative absolute.
Compared with Livy these writers do not use the construction freely, the number being approximately 85 for Fronto, 200 for Seneca, 275 for Pliny, and 750 for Cicero. As all the writers were considering, to a great extent, facts falling immediately under their notice, a large proportion of present participles in the ablative absolute is not surprising, Seneca showing the largest per cent, though there is but one noticeable feature in any of the writers — the occurrence of dis volentibus in letters written to Fronto.
In its general aspects the ablative absolute in these writers may be charac- terized as isolated, unextended, and undivided. There are some exceptions to this characterization, but most of the examples occur singly, are composed of one noun and one participle or equivalent, and do not ha\e the parts separated. There are differences in the individual writers, Seneca repeating noun or pronoun more freely than does Cicero, and in Pliny adjectives and present participles are the elements which are usually doubled. There is little of interest in the separation of the parts of the ablative absolute by intervening words.
The ablative absolute follows the main statement relatively much more fre- quently than it does in Livy, but it is not a prominent factor in correlative and contrasted statements. A number of particles as nisi, quamquam, quasi, and •velut occur in connection with the ablative, but in this respect Livy is very different, especially in the use of velut. Owing to the prominence of the personal element the ablative is not uncommonly represented in the main statement by a pronoun.
The article will be published in full elsewhere.
40. The Optative Mood in Diodorus Siculus, by Professor Edwin L. Green, of South Carolina College (read by title).
The optative mood had almost disappeared from the Koivri SidXeicros of the time of Diodorus Siculus (Hatzidakis, Einleitung i. d. neugr. Grammatik, p. 218). Diodorus is himself in keeping with his times in the matter of the optative. But the few optatives which appear in the fifteen books of his Bt/JXtotf^Ki; are of interest for the history of the mood; and they show also that however sorry an excerptor he may have been, he made the excerpts his own, at least to the extent of putting them into the language of his day.
The following forms of the optative are noteworthy. — e:e is, for the most part, the ending of the 1st aorist 3d sing, act.; the corresponding person of the plural ends only in -eiav. The few perfects that occur are periphrastic : 7r«retKo>s fit] xiii. 41, 4: cf. xiv. 21, 3; 47, 2; xix. 24, 4. One future, /j.fTaireiro'iTo, xvi. 92, 2, is doubtful. The only contract verbs showing optative forms are those in -ew : diriffTotiTo, iii. II, 2; irpoaipoiro, xiv. 26, 3; HHTOITO, xiv. 66, 3; irapevox^-oiro, xix. 24, 6; evdoKLfjioiev, xx. I, 2.
A pet expression with Diodorus is Oav/j.dcrai TIS &v, i. i, 4; 37, 8, 9; 65, 3, 5; 77, 10, et passim ; and likewise its negatives owe Av TIS 0au/xci<reie, i. 2, 5; 39, 13; 51, 7; ii. 14, 4; v. 38, 2. He has also a liking for the potential optative with &v in questions introduced by T(S: rls &v ijy^ffaiTo,\. 39, II; xi. 13, 3; xvi. 9, 2 : by
\
Proceedings for July, 1903. Ixiii
T/J oi>: ri-s OVK &t> ftyrijffat, i. 51, 6; xi. n, I; xv. i, 3: by rwi: irCn &v ytvoiro, i. 95, 2; iv. 6l, i ; xi. 38, 3; xvi. 94, I : and for efij 4i» and a predicate adjective: naKp&v &v fly, i. 44, 5; 89, 4; ii. 2, 4; 36, 3; KaOyicov Av efi?, ii. 38, 3; cf. ii. 51, 2; lii. 49, I; 58, I ; 63, 5. The potential optative with &v furnishes the larger part of the optatives found in Diodorus; hut apart from these favored expressions it is found in barely more than a score of passages.
Optatives in oratio obliqua have almost gone out of use. They occur in the following passages after \£yw (elirov), iii. 73, I ; xiii. 91, 4; xvi. 56, 7; xx. 58, 5 : dwo<paii>ofj.a.i, iv. 33, 8: O.KOUW, xiii. 41, 4; 88, 2: ypd.<j>u, xiv. 47, 2: virovoiu, xvii. 48, 8: dira-yyAXw, xix. 24, 4: SOK£U, v. 72, I: nv0o\oytw, xx. 41, 5: and after 0iJ/xij, xiii. 6l, 2: <f>wva.l, xix. 41, 3: dirdicpiffiv, xvii. 54, 5: yvwuifv, xiii.
19.4-
There are few optatives in conditions, and those that are so found occur mainly in oratio obliqua: i. 75, 2; ii. 33, 5; iii. 53, 3; iv. 32, 3; xii. 17, 4; xx. 6, I. Optatives in both protasis and apodosis are rare : i. 3, 6; ii. 5, 5; xv. 88, 3.
Indirect Questions yield half a dozen optatives, most of them representing sub- junctives of the oratio recta : ii. 25, 4; xiii. 16, 4; xiv. 116, 3; xvi. 45, 2; xviii. 64, 3: xix. 64, i.
In Final Sentences the optative appears once with tva, xx. 50, I ; once with ws, xiv. 48, 2; four times with 5irws, xiii. 75, 4; xiv. II, 2; xix. 24, 6; i. 58, 4 (complementary final).
Optatives are found in Relative and Temporal Sentences in the following pas- sages with 8s, ii. 6, 6; xix. 6, I ; n, 6; 15, 5; xx. 41, 5; 57, 4: Arcs, xiv. 26, 5; 44, 2: faoi, xvi. 59, 3: 5re, i. 43, 3; v. 55, 3; xiii. 16, 7; xiv. 43, i; xx. 41, 5 : birttre, i. 58, 2; 72, 2; ii. 4, 4; xiii. 40, I; 46, I; xviii. 67, 2: ^e£, i. 75, 4: ^retSi), i. 75, 5 : ?ws, xix. 17, 7: ^XP'» xix- 86» 5 : irp^epo" • • • ff, xx. IO2, I.
Though Diodorus makes scant use of the optative mood, he has not so far lost his feeling for it as to fall into the error of the Atticist who wrote it with the wrong sequence (A.J. P. iv. 428).
41. Attraction in English (fourth paper), by Dr. C. P. G. Scott, of Radnor, Pa. (read by title).
This paper will be published later, as also a paper, presented by the same author, entitled West Indian Words in East Indian Languages.
Professor March reported on behalf of the Committee on Spelling Reform.
The report is presented in full in the TRANSACTIONS.
The Committee to Audit the Treasurer's Report reported that the report was correct.
Adjourned at 4.23 P.M.
The next meeting of the Association will be held at Cornell Uni- versity, July 5-7, 1904.
Ixiv Association of the Pacific Coast.
PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST.
The Fourth Annual Meeting was held at the Mark Hopkins Insti- tute of Art in San Francisco on December 29, 30, and 31, 1902.
SAN FRANCISCO, December 29, 1902.
The Association was called to order at 10 A.M. by the President, Professor C. M. Gayley, of the University of California.
The Secretary of the Association, Professor John E. Matzke, of Leland Stanford Jr. University, presented the following report :
i. The Executive Committee has elected the following new members of the Association :
Prof. R. M. Alden, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
Miss M. G. Allen, 240 I3th Street, San Francisco, Cal.
Dr. E. P. Anderson, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Palo Alto, Cal.
Prof. M. B. Anderson, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Mento Park, Cal.
Prof. William D. Armes, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Dr. J. W. Basore, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Mr. G. C. Cook, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
Prof. W. A. Cooper, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
Prof. J. Flagg, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Mr. Pliny E. Goddard, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Prof. A. S. Haggett, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
Mr. V. B. Henderson, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Prof. E. W. Hillgard, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Mr. Chas. R. Keyes, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Dr. A. L. Kroeber, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Prof. R. L. Lloyd, Pacific Theological Seminary, Berkeley, Cal.
Prof. A. G. Newcomer, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
Dr. George R. Noyes, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Prof. F. M. Padelford, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
Mr. E. K. Putnam, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
Prof. C. C. Rice, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
Prof. H. W. Rolfe, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
Prof. H. K. Schilling, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Prof. C. Searles, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
Mr. S. S. Seward, Jr., Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
Dr. Stanley Simonds, University of California, Berkeley, Cal.
Prof. David Thomson, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash.
Rabbi Jacob Voorsanger, 1249 Franklin Street, San Francisco, Cal.
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixv
Through transfer from the American Philological Association there has been added :
Prof. Mark Bailey, Jr., Whitworth College, Tacoma, Wash.
Professor Matzke then presented his report as Treasurer of the Association for the year 1901-1902 :
RECEIPTS.
Balance on hand, Dec. 24, 1901 $6.67
51 Annual dues $153.00
18 Initiation fees 90.00
Total receipts for the year t 243.00
$249.67
EXPENDITURES.
Sent to Prof. H. W. Smyth, June 14, 1902 $179.22
Postage and Printing '4-55
Incidentals 4.00
Total , $197.77
Balance on hand, Dec. 29, 1902 51*90
$249.67
The President appointed the following committees : On Nomination of Officers for 1902-1903 : Professors Richard- son, Johnston, and Elmore.
To Audit the Treasurer's Report: Dr. J. T. Allen and Professor Rolfe.
On Time and Place of Meeting in looj : Professors Murray, Church, and Randall.
The reading and discussion of papers was then begun.
i. The Apocope of s in Lucretius, by Professor Samuel B. Randall, of California College.
The Latin language presents an interesting field for study in the varying force of final s. Cicero (De Oratore 48, 161) comments on the frequent dropping of final s by the older writers, the change which had since occurred, and the fact that the novi poetae of his own day insisted on giving s its full sound value.
The scope of this paper is limited to the usage of Lucretius concerning the apocope of s.
I. Frequency of the occurrence of apocope. De Rerum A'atura contains 7415 lines. In these Bouterweck notes seventy-two instances of the apocope of s, Jessen seventy-seven, Maurenbrecher eighty. A large proportion of these re- sult from emendation, making it needful first of all to go back to the MS. read- ings. The critical apparatus of Lachmann in his commentary and textual notes is for the most part used, and codex Leidensis 30 (the Oblongus) is taken as the standard.
Ixvi Association of the Pacific Coast.
Book I. contains six instances of apocope in the MS. readings; Book II. seven; Book III. five; Book IV. twelve; Book V. eight; Book VI. seven; giv- ing a total of forty-five. In I. 412 fontibus magnis, and in I. 591 immutabilis materiae are accepted as the true readings. In II. 918 animalibus mortalibus, and in III. 257 retinemus valemus of the MS. appear to contain easily accounted for errors of the copyist, and are omitted from the following classification. This would leave forty-three accepted cases of apocope.
II. Classification of the MS. instances. First, as to terminations: The ending -ibus is found twenty-seven times; of these twenty-three are in nouns, adjectives and participles of the third declension, four in those of the fourth declension. The ending -bus occurs three times, in the fifth declension noun rebus. The ter- mination -is is found four times in genitives of the third declension, twice in the nominative of adjectives (pmnis and communis) . The ending -us occurs four times in nouns, adjectives and passive participles of the second declension; twice in comparative adverbs (tninus and prius) ; if opus be considered the true reading in IV. 1268, as it seems it must be, this would give one instance of the nomina- tive of a third declension noun in -us.
Second, as to the position of the shortened syllable in the verse and in the foot : In thirty-one cases the apocope is in the fifth foot, three times in the fourth foot, three times in the third, four times in the second, twice in the first. The apocope occurs thirty-four times in the last syllable of a dactyl, nine times in the second syllable.
Naming the letters before which s is apocopated in order of frequency, before s this occurs thirteen times; before/ and r five times each; before /;/, q, and v three times ; before d, f, I, and » twice; before c, g, and t once.
III. The basis is now laid for a consideration of the cases of apocope which result from emendation. In Lachmann's text there are thirty-five passages in which apocope does not occur in the MS. reading but is the result of emendation. In four of these (II. 623, V. 53, 949, 1410) the MS. reading seems to contain simple errors of the copyist ; the proposed emendations are in harmony with the classification given above, and are almost, universally adopted. In five or six others the emendation seems probable ; but most of the alterations which introduce the apocope seem wholly unjustifiable. In some cases a standard of correct Latinity or of proper versification or rhythm is set up and passages are altered to conform to this. The introduction of emendations amounting to more than seventy-seven per cent, of the MS. readings gives a very high ratio. The emen- dations proposed for VI. 550 by Lachmann and Bockemiiller introduce apocope in the nominative singular of a third declension noun ending in -is, a precedent for which has not been found in any of the accepted passages. Construction and sense also render these emendations doubtful,
While Lucretius wrote in a period of transition and had the choice of the older or the newer prosody, while sometimes he employs archaic forms such as the genitive in ai, his tendency is to side with the newer poets. So infrequently has he employed apocope that emendations which introduce this device need to be accepted with great caution.
Remarks were made on this paper by Professors Richardson and Matzke.
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixvii
2. The Modes of Conditional Thought, by Dr. H. C. Nutting of the University of California.
A conditional thought-period, in the lowest terms, consists of two concept- groups — one conditioning, the other conditioned — and the act of intellection that binds them together. The variation in this act of intellection produces the different modes of conditional thought.
This paper tries to show that the act of intellection that binds together the groups of conditional thought-periods is not peculiar to conditional thinking, but common in other classes of thought; that the real peculiarity of the conditional thought-period lies in the quality of the concept groups themselves, *>., in the fact that they are colored by the speaker's doubt about realization in fact ; and that these facts explain the often noted interchange in speech of the conditional and other subordinating particles.
At least three modes of conditional thought maybe distinguished, according as the act of intellection that binds the groups together is the apprehension of (a) a cause and effect relation, (6) a relation of ground and inference, or (*•) a relation of equivalence.
The paper appears in fall in the American Journal of Philology for 1903. It was discussed by Professors Johnston and Goebel.
3. Livy's Account of the Dramatic Satura, by Professor J. Elmore, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
Livy's statements (vii. 2) concerning the dramatic satura, which he repre- sents as being the stage immediately preceding the artistic comedy of Livius Andronicus, must be regarded as unhistorical. Whatever may have been Livy's source, there can have been no trustworthy records for the history of comedy before 240 B.C. Moreover, Diomedes (i. 487 K) in his discussion of the etymol- ogy of the word satira as a designation of the literary satire, though he gives several examples of things that were called salura, makes no mention of a kind of play that was so named. As it is recognized that these etymologies were taken ultimately from Varro it is reasonable to infer that Varro himself knew nothing of the dramatic satura. Otherwise he would not have omitted so per- tinent an illustration.
If Livy's statements lack historical foundation, it remains to show how his somewhat circumstantial account arose. According to Leo {Hermes, XXIV, 67) and Hendrickson (Amer. Jour. Phil, XV, I and XIX, 283) it was originally the invention of some grammarian outlining the history of the drama for the period before the production of the first play at Rome by Livius Andronicus. Being ignorant of the facts he based his sketch on what Aristotle in the Poetics says of the satyr drama and of Greek comedy. Thus Livy's dramatic satura is the stage in the development of Roman comedy invented by the grammarian to corre- spond to the Old Comedy at Athens. But this theory, interesting and sugges- tive as it is, presents several difficulties. It involves a subtle interpretation of Aristotle's relation to the Old Comedy, and of this in turn to the literary satire
Ixviii Association of the Pacific Coast.
at Rome, which a grammarian of the second century B.C. would hardly have been able to make, especially when the actual works of Aristotle were not acces- sible. Then, too, Livy's description of the satttrae should, in a general way at least, fit the Old Comedy, but except in a single instance there is hardly a trace of such a correspondence. The theory of parallelism also requires that the state- ment of Aristotle in the Poetics (1449 l>), TUIV 8£ ' AO-f/vrjiriv Kpdrrjs irpuros TIP&V a<f>£i*evoi rrjs iafj.piKrjs iStas Ka66\ov iroitlv \6yovs KCLI utiffovs, should refer to the transition from the OKI Comedy to the New, but it is very probable that such is not the case.
The solution of the problem is to be found not in the principle of parallelism, but in that of duplication, the dramatic satura of Livy being a mere reproduc- tion with slight changes of the artistic comedy. It was through the working of this principle, as Pais has recently shown in his Storia di Roma, that much of early Roman history grew up, historical events being duplicated with more or less important changes and assigned to earlier periods. It is natural that this same method should appear in literary history. In this particular case the char- acteristics which are assigned to the saturae belong also to the artistic comedy. The metres are different from the old Saturnian; there are cantica, accompani- ment on the flute, and carefully prepared spoken parts, while the whole perform- ance is in the hands of professional actors. A comprehensive plot is lacking, but otherwise Livy's description of the saturae would fit precisely the regular drama. It is to be supposed that some grammarian having the fabula palliata before him, but not knowing what had gone before, invented the preceding stage by a virtual duplication of the fabula palliata itself, and this account Livy has uncritically incorporated into his history.
It is possible also that the stage preceding the satura — the rude improvised farce performed by the Roman youths — may be accounted for in the same way as being a reflection of the fabulae Atellanae. In the passage as a whole there are certain supplementary statements which are aetiological.
This paper was discussed by Professors Murray, Matzke, and Goebel.
4. The So-called Mutation in Indo-European Compounds, by President Benj. Ide Wheeler, of the University of California.
The aim of this inquiry is to determine the purport of the original differentiation in signification between the two types of Indo-European compounds named by Justi, niedere and hohere, by Miklosich, primar and secundar, by Leopold Schroeder ( Uber die formelle Unterscheidung der Redetheile (1874), p. 203), immutata and mutata. Schroeder's classification followed a superficial external test in noting whether the compound remained of the same part of speech as the second com- ponent appeared to be; thus, fiporoXotyfa, which, under the system of the Hindoo grammarians would be a Tatpurusha (immutatuni), is classed by him as mutatum (p. 396), because, forsooth, of the existence of \oiybs as a noun. He seems, there- fore, to have chosen the term mutata to describe and characterize those com- pounds which are in general grouped under the Hindoo term, Bahuvrihi, rather than to explain them. Brugmann, however, takes the term more seriously : " Es handelt sich hier in der Hauptsache immer um die Verwandlung eines Substantivs
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixix
in ein Adjectiv; von der Bedeutung eines Substanz wurde abgesehen, so dass nur die der Substanz anhaftenden Qualitaten als Begriffsinhalt ubrig bleiben " (GrunJriss, II, 87). This, however, after all only explains the term. The Bahuvrihi type is, as Schroeder saw (p. 198), quite as old as its counterpart, and differentiation or parallelism is demanded by the facts as the method of explana- tion rather than a mutation arbitrary and unmotived. The real inquiry must be: how did it come about that there should exist side by side the two types of signi- fication represented by /top&ratj, * only child,' vs. noibirovs, 'having one foot'; Skr. yajnakamd-, ' desire of sacrifice,' vs. yajt'uikcima-, ' having desire of sacri- fice'? Whitney, in defining the Bahuvrihis puts it frankly: " which take on an adjective meaning of a kind which is most conveniently and accurately denned by adding ' having ' or ' possessing ' to the meaning of the determinative." Whence comes the idea of 'having'? What in the mechanics of the form acquired the power to express this idea, and how did it acquire it?
I find the problem approached in this sense nowhere except in Jacobi's Com- positum und Nebcnsatz (1897). After having competently explained the Tatpurushas of the type Xo7ojroi6s, artifex, as relative participles filling essen- tially the place occupied in the modern sentence by the relative clause, he attempts in Chapter VIII to subject the Bahuvrihis to analogous treatment, but •with unsatisfactory result; po5o5d*cruXos yields only a relative clause in which the verb is suppressed and in which the relative would be supplied by an oblique case instead of by the nominative as in the Tatpurushas, i.e. ' [to whom are] rose-like fingers.'
Jacobi was, however, upon the right track and would have reached his goal if, taking the Greek rather than the Hindoo Bahuvrihis as his guide, he had (i) recognized the existence of the verb in the verbals of the second component and (2) attended to what even the dull Greek grammarians report concerning the passive value of these verbals in what we now call the Bahuvrihis.
(i) Following the customary method of expJaining and translating the Hindoo Bahuvrihis we have explained Otbyovos and irpwrbyovos by aid of ybvot as ' having god-birth,' ' having first birth,' but in so doing have with violence separated them from reKvoybvos, dvdpoybvos, Trvpiybvos, tcapiroybvos in which the second component is plainly a verbal, i.e. a participle, cf. statements such as Anec. Gr. Ox. 1, 286, 14: Kdi rb olKov6fU>s 5e owe effrtv 82 avb rov v6/xcs, d\Xd irapa. rb ve,uw, rb StoiKU • ut ical Trapa rb \tyu, <uVx/>oX67os, KT\. But worse than that, we have separated them from tyyovos, 6\f/iyovos, KT\., which all class as mutata, and which surely contain verbals rather than nouns; €6 jroXtfTpon-oj leans on rpfirta, not TpAros, and is to be felt as 'much turned' rather than 'having many turns,' cf. vaXlvrpo- a-os; so <Jp06/JoXos and TaXfyc/3oXos; KOU^TO/COJ (from rlicru not riicos) and cCroKos; 6pf<rlTpo<t>os and Stforpo^of, etc.
No place has hitherto been found nor explanation of the internal syntax given for these compounds in which adverb or particle appears to modify a noun : d«r/0eo7, AwSos, dir6ir«pa, 8ly\u<rffos, eCrtKifot, ftfavos, djetws, ffvvStffiios; inter- rex, exanimis, biformis. They represent an Indo-European type formed in a period before verb and noun, verbal and noun had been clearly differentiated, and tGrtKvos bears down with it into a later stage of the language the sense for *TCKVOS as a verbal ; ' blest with children ' is its value, rather than ' having good children '; eCfwws is 'well girt,' rather than 'having a good girdle.'
Ixx Association of the Pacific Coast.
In the Hindoo Bahuvrlhis the noun has prevailed in the second component and determined the type, and hence we have, through the prevailing interpreta- tion of these compounds in terms of the noun, the prevailing formula of transla- tion by help of ' having.'
(2) The Greek verbals or quasi-participles represented in the second com- ponent of compounds appear sometimes in a passive, sometimes in an active signification. The Greek grammarians who recognized their value as verbals could not fail also to note this variation of voice. In reporting it they were evidently reporting a plain fact of the speech consciousness; thus, Etym. Magn. 775- 47 : &a"lreP y&P rb i>dpo<f>6pos, irapoi-vrbvus fi.ti> <rr)/j.aii>ei tvtpyeiav • irpoirapoi-u- T&VUS 5£ irdOos. Thus, dicp6/3o\os 'pelted from afar' {Aesch.}, when explained from /36Xos would be rendered ' having, i^. receiving a throw from afar,' but com- parison with ^AC7j/36Xos, ' far pelting,' ^7re<r/36Xos, 'word pelting,' shows that a varia- tion of voice in the verbal is what is really involved. Cf. /Sotfvo/tos, ' grazed by cattle,' vs. {SovvbfjLos in dyt\ai f3ovv6/jjoi (Soph.) 'grazing.'
To impose upon the primitive verb of the period of which these composition types are fragmentary survivals the distinctions of passive vs. active borrowed from the formal differentiations of a later period is an inaccuracy excused by the lack of other terms. The real distinction is one merely of the attitude of the verbal action, — is it turned toward the noun commonly appearing as subject (active), or toward the noun commonly appearing as object (passive) ? It is this uncertainty of attitude that conditions, e.g. the indifference of 0ctu/xa Ideiv, TO.VTO. fxfdid fan fj.a.6eiv, fi£tos davfj-dffai; cf. Gildersleeve, AJP. XXIII, 125. Traces of an early differentiation in the meaning of verbals attending a differentiation of accent were noted in Der griechische Nominalaccent, pp. 70 ff. e.g. rpox&s, 'the wheel,' rp6xos, 'the course'; bhard-, ' carrying,' bhdra-, <p6pos, 'the thing carried'; cf. also the quasi-passive Skt. paroxytones contained in such com- pounds as : ajdra-, ' unconsumed,' adrija-, ' not to be restrained,' suydma-, ' easily led,' in contrast with suydmd-, 'easily leading.' (Cf. Griech. Nominal-accent, pp. 81, 87 f.)
Herein lies, I am convinced, the basis of differentiation between the Bahuvrihi compounds and their counterparts; 6e6yovos (dvijp), 'god-born,' represents the action as set forth in what is commonly known as the object (dKiJp), instead of in the subject (0e6s); reKvoybvos (yvirf}, ' childbearing,' on the other hand, represents the action as set forth in the subject (yvv-f)), rather than the object (T^KVOV).
Use of the verb-noun of the second component in a passive sense is the origi- nal characteristic of the Bahuvrlhis. The idea of * having' (so far as really existent in the speech-consciousness) is historical successor to this passivity, representing and interpreting it wherever in the later developed type the fully differentiated noun takes the place of verb-noun; ve6ro/«)j means 'new cut,' aKp6/3oXo?, 'far pelted,' (5p«<r£rpo0os, 'mountain-nurtured,' iraXlirpoiros, 'turned back,' and likewise, etffwwj, ' well belted,' eKariyLtiri/Xos, ' hundred-gated,' podo- SdKTvXos, 'rose-fingered.'
The paper was discussed by Professors Noyes, Margolis, and Goebel.
Adjourned at 12.30 P.M.
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixxi
SECOND SESSION.
The second session was called to order by the President at 2.20 P.M. The reading and discussion of papers was continued.
5. Some Notes on Athenian Constitutional History, by Dr. W. S. Ferguson, of the University of California.
The paper will appear in full under the title " The Oligarchic Revo- lution of 103-102 B.C. at Athens," in Lehraann's Beitrage zur alten Geschichte, Vol. iv, p. i f.
6. The Siamese Vowels and Diphthongs, by Professor C. B. Brad- ley, of the University of California.
The Siamese is the central member of the group of languages in Farther India known as the T*ai languages. Its monosyllabism, its differentiation of words by intonation and by aspiration of consonants, the utter absence of inflection, and the consequent imperfect emergence of parts of speech, ally it to the Chinese, of which it was doubtless once an outlying dialect. Unlike the Chinese, however, it has a nearly perfect system of phonetic spelling, using to this end an alphabet adapted from the Pali.
The Siamese vowels are eighteen in number, forming a surprisingly full and symmetrical group. In Professor Sweet's notation they may be represented thus:
FRONT. BACK. BACK-ROUND.
$ low-wide a low-wide i; low-wide
ZB low-narrow v low-narrow o low-narrow
MIXED.
e mid-wide &h low-wide o mid-wide
6 mid-narrow sen low-narrow 6 mid-narrow
I high-wide ih high-wide tt high-wide
I high-narrow ih high-narrow u high-narrow
Each of these vowels has its separate symbol in writing ; their enunciation is much more strict than in English usage, without obscure breakings or glides; and when initial they are regularly preceded by the glottal catch, which is repre- sented by its symbol in writing. They stand, as will be noticed, in pairs, — long and short in quantity, and at the same time close and open in quality, — so that the two distinctions reenforce each other.
The diphthongs are twenty-three, all stressed on the initial element. They are of two groups, closed and open; and in case of the closed, the consonantal vanish appears in writing.
Ixxii Association of the Pacific Coast.
CLOSED. CLOSED. CLOSED. OPEN.
1— Q* Uw — Ij Ih — y 5 — 3
j_uw M» — y ih — y jj —3
g_uw 5 — y sieh — 1' ih — 6
e — flw 5 — ij ih — 3
je — uw 5 — y uw — 5
«w — 3
This paper was discussed by Professor Fryer.
7. Herder and Goethe, by Professor J. Goebel, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
With the approach of the centenary of Herder's death, we recall before our mind with gratitude the man to whose powerful influence is due the phenomenal growth of the historical sciences during the last century. The magnitude of Herder's world of ideas, the stimulating and regeneratory force emanating from Herder's mind, can be studied best in his relation to Goethe.
Far more important than the new conception of poetry which Goethe claims to have received from Herder is, in my opinion, the change which Goethe's very nature underwent through the contact with Herder. It is a change which reaches into the very roots of his mental activity.
Having long and ardent inner struggles, into which his Reisejournal gives us an insight, Herder had won for himself a new Weltanschauung which he was to convey to Goethe. No man before him, not even Lessing, had felt as keenly as he did the shallowness and emptiness of abstract thinking and of mere word knowledge, the result of the overrating of the intellect which dated back to the seventeenth century. Filled with an unquenchable thirst for reality and penetrated by a Lebensgefuhl of the highest degree, Herder advocates in place of abstract knowledge a knowledge which embraces the external objects. This process of identifying the Ego with the external world is essentially an act of the feeling, hence he lays the greatest stress upon the latter. And because he is not satisfied with abstract knowledge, the shadow of reality, but strives to embrace the totality of the external world, he is the declared enemy of the analyzing pro- cesses of the intellect. Thus he becomes the antagonist of Kant, the great repre- sentative of the latter mode of acquiring knowledge.
We can still see, from Goethe's earliest letters to Herder, how the latter's thoughts came to him as a revelation, changing his entire mental attitude.
The present paper will be published in full in the Goethe-Jahrbuch for 1904.
This paper was discussed by Professor Gayley.
8. Herder's Attitude toward the French Stage, by Professor C. Searles, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
Herder, as well as Lessing, was very bitter in his criticism of the French stage. In the introductory paragraphs to the Essay on Shakespeare, he declares : " Das
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixxiii
Ganze ihrer (dramatischen) Kunst ist ohne Natur, ist abenteuerlich, ist eckel" (Suphen's Edition, Vol. V, p. 214). There is no life in the dramas of the French dramatists — nothing but declamation, show, and conventionality. Herder was probably influenced in the formation and expression of this extreme opinion by his desire to see established a national theatre and a national art. He was bitter in his denunciation of those who preferred French literary ideals to those of the fatherland, and who imitated slavishly the works of foreign nations. His attitude is to be characterized in general as that of a reformer rather than that of a critic.
This paper was discussed by Professors Goebel, Matzke, Murray, Chambers, and Faucheux.
As a result of the interesting discussion on this paper, it was moved by Professor Goebel and seconded by Mr. Keyes that one session of the annual meeting in 1903 be given up to a Herder memorial pro- gramme, in commemoration of the hundredth anniversary of this author's death. The motion was carried.
9. Sepultura = Sepulcrum, by Professor J. E. Church, Jr., of the University of Nevada.
The belief expressed by Forcellini {Lexicon totius latinitatis v. sepultura — 3) that sepultura was employed by the Romans in the sense of sepulcruin is sub- stantiated by the following Christian inscriptions : Corpus inscriptionum latina- runi V, 2305 . . . Rogo et peto omnem clerum et cuncta fraternitatem ut nullus de genere vel aliquis in hoc sepullura ponatur ; V, 8738, and 8748, which are similar to the preceding ; and VI, 8401, which belongs to the end of the sixth century A.D.
The extension in meaning of sepultura to include 'tomb' is an extreme stage of development, attained probably by its use in the phrase locus sepulturae, which was often employed as a synonym for sepulcruin and locus sepulcri, all of which phrases are found in numerous inscriptions and are well attested. An intermedi- ate stage of the development of sepultura, viz. ' lying in the tomb,' is found in Isaiah 57. 2 (Itala) : erit in pace sepultura eius. A somewhat analogous develop- ment is that of quies and requies, ' rest,' whose meaning was extended not only to include 'death' (Prop. 2. 21. 27; Biicheler, Carmina latina epigraphica 128?, v. i ), but also ' burial ' (Biich. 553, v. 4), and probably ' resting place ' or ' ton.b ' (CIL. X, 8247).
How early sepultura began to be employed in its secondary or concrete sense is uncertain. None of the pagan examples cited by Forcellini are acceptable, for in every case sepultura can be interpreted as meaning ' burial,' and not ' burial place ' or ' tomb.' The evidence in favor of a pagan origin rests, therefore, upon two inscriptions, which may with considerable probability be assigned to the period preceding the establishment of Christianity as the Roman state religion. These are CIL. VIII, 9798 (Africa) and VI, 13061 (Rome). The first of these inscriptions, which contains several ligatures, may be assigned to the third cen- tury A.D., when ligatures abounded in African inscriptions, and the second, con- taining two examples of tall | to denote the long vowel, to a period not later than the end of the second century A.D., when this I appears to have passed out of use;
Ixxiv Association of the Pacific Coast.
while the presence of the formulae D(is) M(anibus) and heredem non sequetur furnish strong evidence of the pagan character of both. Furthermore, examples of abstract nouns employed by way of metonymy in place of cognate concrete forms are found both in prose and in poetry early in the classical period, as hospi- tium, 'Guest friends' (Cornif. ad Her. I. 5. 8), 'Guest land' (Verg. Aen. 3. 61), and coniugium, 'husband' (Aen. 2. 579), 'wife' (Aen. 3. 296, 7. 433, II. 270).
This usage of sepultura = sepulcrum continued into the Christian period of Rome, and probably gained a foothold in the Romanic tongues, but appears to have been restricted, being found but once in the Vulgate, viz. Tobit. 4. 18 (quoted by Forcellini), and also being subordinated in the late inscription CIL. VI, 8401 (577, 78 A.D.) to the older and much employed sepulcrnm, for which it serves as a synonym. This same subordination appears also in F. sepulture, ' vault,' and until perhaps a century ago in E. sepulture, ' burial place,' when this meaning became obsolete.
This paper appears in full in Archivfiir Lateinische Lexicographic, vol. xiii, Heft 3.
Adjourned at 5.45 P.M.
THIRD SESSION.
At 8 P.M. the members of the Association assembled to listen to the address of the President, Professor C. M. Gayley, of the University of California, on the subject, " What is Comparative Literature? " The following is an abstract of the address, which has appeared in full in the Atlantic Monthly for July, 1903.
Some ten years ago, I made bold to publish a plea for the formation of a So- ciety of Comparative Literature ; and to call attention to the fact that the work which such a society might perform had not been undertaken by any English or American organization, or by any periodical or series of publications in the Eng- lish language. I was then of the opinion, which I still hold, that the principles of literature and of criticism are not to be discovered in aesthetic theory alone, but in a theory which both impels and is corrected by scientific inquiry. No individual can gather from our many literatures the materials necessary for an induction to the characteristic of even one literary type; but an association, each member of which should devote himself to the study of a given type, species, movement, or theme, with which he was specially and at first hand familiar, might with some degree of adequacy prosecute a comparative investigation into the nature of literature, part by part. Thus, gradually, wherever the type or movement had existed, its quality and history might be observed. And in time, by systematization of results, scholarship might attain to the common, and prob- ably some of the essential, characteristics of classified phenomena, to some of the laws actually governing the origin, growth, and differentiation of one and another of the component literary factors and kinds. A basis would correspondingly be laid for criticism not in the practice of one nationality or school, nor in aesthetics of sporadic theory, otherwise interesting and profitable enough, but in the common qualities of literature, scientifically determined.
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixxv
That dream seems now in a fair way to be realized. The society is yet to he founded ; but the periodical is on its feet. And it was in prospect of its first appearance that I asked myself some months ago, what this term " Comparative Literature " might now mean to me. Of the name itself, I must say that I know of no occurrence in English earlier than 1886, when we find it used for the com- parative study of literature, in the title of an interesting and suggestive volume by Professor H. M. Posnett. The designation had apparently been coined in emulation of such nomenclature as the vergleichende Grammatik of Bopp, or Comparative Anatomy, Comparative Physiology, Comparative Politics. If it had been so constructed as to convey the idea of a discipline or method, there would have been no fault to find. Before Posnett's book appeared, Carriere and others in Germany had spoken properly enough of vergleichende Litteraturge- schichte ; and the French and Italians, not only of the comparative method or discipline, Vkistoire comparative, but also of the materials compared, r/tisloire comparee des literatures, la storia comparata, or, from the literary avenue of approach, la literature comparee, letteralura comparata. At Turin and Genoa, the study had been listed under such captions long before the English misnomer was coined. Misnomer it, of course, is; for to speak of a comparative object is absurd. But since the name has some show of asserting itself, we may as well postpone consideration of a better, till we have more fully determined what the study involved, no matter how called, is ordinarily understood to be.
It is, in the first place, understood of a field of investigation, — the literary relations existing between distinct nationalities : the study of international bor- rowings, imitations, adaptations. And to recognize such relations as incidental to national growth is of the utmost importance — social as well as literary. [Gaston Paris, Texte, Arnold, Goethe.] This attention to literary relations is, of course, the consequent of the study of literatures as national : first the history of each literature; then the historic relations between literatures. That in turn is naturally followed by the synthesis in literature as a unit. " The nineteenth century," says M. Texte, " has seen the national history of literatures develop and establish itself: the task of the twentieth century will undoubtedly be to write the comparative history of those literatures." " The scientific view of literature," says Brandes, " provides us with a telescope of which the one end magnifies, and the other diminishes; it must be so focussed as to remedy the illusions of unassisted eyesight. The different nations have hitherto held themselves so dis- tinct, as far as literature is concerned, that each has only to a very limited extent been able to benefit by the productions of the rest." Here, again, the way had been marked out by Arnold, when he advocated the comparison of literary classics in one language, or in many, with a view to determining their relative excellence, that is, to displacing personal or judicial criticism by a method more scientific. I am aware that this conception of the study concerns its method and purpose rather than its field. But I mention it here because it implies a more compre- hensive and deeper conception underlying all these statements of the material of comparative study: the solidarity of literature. And that is the working premise of the student of Comparative Literature to-day : literature as a distinct and integral medium of thought, a common institutional expression of humanity; differentiated, to be sure, by the social conditions of the individual, by racial, historical, cultural, and linguistic influences, opportunities, and restrictions, but
Ixxvi Association of the Pacific Coast,
(irrespective of age or guise), prompted by the common needs and aspirations of man, sprung from common faculties, psychological and physiological, and obeying common laws of material and mode, of the individual, and of social humanity.
From this conception of the material as a unit, scholars naturally advance to the consideration of its development, the construction of a theory. If a unity, and an existence approximately contemporaneous with that of society, why not a life, a growth ? " We no longer have to examine solely the relations of one nation with another," says one, " but to unfold the simultaneous development of all literatures, or, at least, of an important group of literatures." It is the task of Comparative Literature, according to another, to find whether the same laws of literary development prevail among all peoples or not. The internal and external aspects of literary growth, Mr. Posnett announces to be the objects of comparative inquiry; and, accepting as the principle of literary growth the progressive deepen- ing and widening of personality, — in other words, the contraction and expansion of Arnold andTexte, — with the development of the social unit in which the indi- vidual is placed, this author finds a corresponding differentiation of the literary medium from the primitive homogeneity of communal art, a gradual individilaliz- ing of the literary occasion and an evolution of literary forms. Mr. Posnett's method is perhaps impaired by the fact that he regards the relation of literary history to the political rather than to the broader social development of a people, but he certainly elaborates a theory; and it is the more instructive because he does not treat literature as organic, developing by reason of a life within itself to a deter- mined end, but as secondary and still developing with the evolution of the organ- ism from which it springs. In this theory of institutional growth result also the methods of Buckle and Ernst Grosse, which may be termed physiological and physiographical ; and the physio-psychological of Schiller, Spencer, and Karl Groos ; and the method of Irjo Hirn, which combines the social and psychologi- cal in the inquiry into the art impulse and its history; and that of Schlegel and Carriere, who, emphasizing one side of Hegel's theory, rest literary development largely upon the development of religious thought. In M. Brunetiere, on the other hand, we have one who boldly announces his intention to trace the evolu- tion of literary species, — not as dependent upon the life of an organism such as society, but in themselves. He frankly proposes to discover the laws of literary development by applying the theory of evolution to the study of literature. When he details the signs of youth, maturity, and decay which the type may exhibit, and the transformation of one type into another — as, for instance, the French pulpit oration into the ode — according to principles analogous in their operation to the Darwinian struggle for existence, survival of the fittest, and natural selection, we become apprehensive lest the parallel be overworked. If Brunetiere would only complete the national portion of his history, or, at least, try to substantiate his theory, we should be grateful. He has, however, enunciated one of the problems with which Comparative Literature must grapple, and is grappling. Does the biological principle apply to literature ? If not, in how far may the parallel be scientifically drawn?
That leads us to still a third conception of the term under consideration. Comparative Literature, say some, is not a subject-matter nor a theory, but a method of study. With the ancients it was the habit of roughly matching authors. The method has existed ever since there were two pieces of literature
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixxvii
known to the same man, it has persisted through the Middle Ages and the Renais- sance, and it is alive to-day. Its merits and defects are those of the man who uses it. To others the comparative method means the attempt to obtain by induction from a sufficient variety of specimens the characteristics, distinguishing marks, principles, even laws of the form, movement, type, or literature under dis- cussion. [Carriere, Freytag, Aristotle.] In the discipline under consideration historical sequence is just as important as comparison by cross sections. The science is called "comparative literary history" rather than "literature com- pared " by French, German, and Italian scholars, not for nothing. The historian who searches for origins or stages of development in a single literature may employ the comparative method as much as he who zigzags from literature to literature ; and so the student whose aim is to establish relations between literary move- ment and literary movement, between author and author, period and period, type and type, movement and movement, theme and theme, contemporaneous or successive in any language, nationality, clime, or time. The comparison is not alone between diverse national literatures, but between any elements involved in the history of literature, or any stages in the history of any element. There have been, within my own knowledge, those who would confine the word literature to the written productions of civilized peoples, and consequently would exclude from consideration aboriginal attempts at verbal art. But students nowadays increasingly recognize that the cradle of literary science is anthropology. The comparative method therefore sets civilized literatures side by side with the popular, traces folklore to folklore, and these so far as possible to the matrix in the undifferentiated art of human expression. Such is " Comparative Literature " when used of the work of the Grimms, Steinthal, Comparetti, Donovan, Talvj, or Ernst Grosse. The term is also properly used of the method of Taine, which in turn derives from that recommended by Hegel in the first volume of his yEsthetik (the appraisement of the literary work in relation to Zeit, Volk, und Umgebung), and of the method of Brunetiere so far as he has applied it, for it is in theory the same, save that it purports to emphasize the consideration of the element of individuality. But that the method is susceptible of widely varying interpreta- tions is illustrated by the practice of still another advocate thereof, Professor Wetz, who, in his Shakespeare front the Point of View of Comparative Literary History, of 1890, and in his essay on the history of literature, insists that Com- parative Literature is neither the literary history of one people, nor investigations in international literary history; neither the study of literary beginnings, nor even the attempt to obtain by induction the characteristics of Weltlitteratur, its movements and types. While he accepts the analytical critical method of Taine in combination with the historical and psychological of Herder, Goethe, and Schiller, he insists that the function of Comparative Literature is to determine the peculiarities of an author by comparison with those of some other author sufficiently analogous.
A survey of courses offered in European and American universities and of the practice of our American philological journals and associations shows that the aca- demic conception is as I have stated it : Comparative Literature works in the history of national as well as of international conditions, it employs, more or less promi- nently, the comparative method, logical and historical, it presupposes, and results in, a conception of literature as a solidarity, and it seeks to formulate and sub-
Ixxviii Association of the Pacific Coast.
stantiate a theory of literary development whether by evolution or permutation, in movements, types, and themes. With these main considerations it is but natural that scholars should associate the attempt to verify and systematize the charac- teristics common to literature in its various manifestations wherever found ; to come by induction, for instance, at the eidographic or generic qualities of poetry, — the characteristics of the drama, epic, or lyric ; at the dynamic qualities, those which characterize and differentiate the main literary movements, such as the classical and romantic ; and at the thematic, the causes of persistence and modi- fication in the history of vital subjects, situations, and plots. As to the growth, or development, of literature our survey shows that two distinct doctrines contend for acceptance : one, by evolution, which is an attempt to interpret literary pro- cesses in accordance with biological laws ; the other, by what I prefer to call permutation. Since literature, like its material, language, is not an organism, but a resultant medium, both product and expression of the society whence it springs, the former theory must be still in doubt. It can certainly not be available other- wise than metaphorically unless it be substantiated by just such methods — com- parative and scientific — as those of which we have spoken.
How much of this is new, of the nineteenth century, for instance ? Very little in theory; much, and that important, in discipline and fact. The solidarity of literature was long ago announced by Bacon. And he was not the only fore- runner of the present movement. In one way or another the solidarity of litera- ture, the theories of permutation or of evolution, sometimes crudely, sometimes with keen scientific insight, were anticipated by Englishmen, Germans, French- men, Italians of note all the way from Dante, Scaliger, and Sidney down. [A list of such writers and their main contributions to the science.] This cloud of witnesses is not produced, however, to discredit, but to confirm the scope and hope of the so-called Comparative Literature of to-day. They testify to the need of a science in the nature of things. They perform their service by anticipations in detail of a discipline that could not be designated a science until the sciences propaedeutic thereto had been developed. Advances in historical method, in psychological, sociological, linguistic, and ethnological research have, now, fur- nished the discipline with an instrument unknown to its forbears in critical pro- cedure; and with fresh and rich materials for illumination from without. The conception of literature as a unit is no longer hypothetical; the comparison of national histories has proved it. The idea of a process by evolution may be unproved; but that some process, as by permutation, must obtain is recognized. \Ve no longer look upon the poet as inspired. Literature develops with the entity which produces it, — the common social need and faculty of expression; and it varies according to differentia of racial, physiographic, and social condi- tions, and of the inherited or acquired characteristics of which the individual author is constituted. The science of its production must analyze its component factors and determine the laws by which they operate. By a constant factor are fixed the only possible moulds or channels of expression, and, therefore, the integral and primary types, as, for instance, within the realm of poetry, the lyric, narrative, and dramatic. By the presence of other factors, both inconstant, these types are themselves liable to modification. I refer, of course, to environment, that is to say, to the antecedent and contemporary condition of thought, social tendency, and artistic fashion ; and to the associational congeries called the
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixxix
author. So far as physiological and psychological modes of expression may be submitted to objective and historical analysis, so far as the surrounding conditions which directly or indirectly affect the art in which the author works, and the work of the author in that art, may be inductively studied, and their nature interpreted and registered in relation to other products of society, such as language, religion, and government, so far is the discipline of which we speak legitimately scientific. And as rapidly as experimental psychology, anthropology, ethnology, or the history of art in general, prove their right to scientific recognition, they become instru- ments for the comparative investigation of the social phenomenon called litera- ture. It is thus that the literary science, just now called Comparative Literature, improves upon the efforts of the former stylistic or poetics, largely traditional or speculative, and displaces the capricious matching of authors, the static or pro- vincial view of history, and the appraisement lacking atmosphere.
While this science must exclude from the object under consideration the purely subjective element, and the speculative or so-called "judicial" (tne judice) method from criticism and history, it need not ignore or disregard the unex- plained, quantity, — the imaginative. Its aim will be to explore the hitherto unexplained in the light of historical sequence and scientific cause and effect, physical, biological, psychological, or anthropological, to reduce the apparently unreasonable or magical element, and so to leave continually less to be treated in the old-fashioned inspirational and ecstatic manner. We shall simply cease to confound the science with the art. The more immediate advantages of the prosecution of literary research in such a way as this are an ever-increasing knowledge of the factors that enter into world-literature and determine its growth, — its reasons, conditions, movements, and tendencies, in short, its laws ; and a poetics capable not only of detecting the historical, but of appreciating the social accent in what is foreign and too often despised, or contemporary and too often overpraised if not ignored. The new science of literature will in turn /throw light upon that which gave it birth ; it will prove an index to the evo- lution of soul in the individual and in society; it will interpret that sphinx, national consciousness or the spirit of the race, or, mayhap, destroy it. It will in one case and in all assist a science of comparative ethics.
What shall this science of literature be called, since the name which it has is malformed and misleading ? If it were not for traditional prejudice, the term stylistic should be recognized as of scientific quality, and it should cover the his- tory as well as the theory of all kinds of writing. . . . The old stylistic is limited by tradition, by its speculative quality, and by that well-worn and slippery dictum of Buffon, — style is of the individual. What is called Comparative Literature has, on the other hand, brought to the study of all kinds of writing a scientific objectivity and the historical method. It has taken up into itself what is objec- tive and historical of the older stylistic : it aims to reject or confirm former theo- ries, but on purely scientific grounds. It is the transition from stylistic to a science of literature which shall still find room for aesthetics, but for aesthetics properly so called, developed, checked, and corrected by scientific procedure and by history.
Without our modern psychology, anthropology, linguistics, and the compara- tive sciences of society, religion, and art, literature could be studied neither in relation to its antecedents nor to its components. Otherwise our study would
Ixxx Association of the Pacific Coast.
long ago have been known as comparative philology, a name improperly usurped by a younger branch of the philological discipline. Such indeed is the name by which Professor Whitney would have called the comparative study of the literatures of different countries had the discipline been prosecuted as a science when he wrote. Comparative Literature is a reamrmation of that aspect of philology — the literary — which, both because it was eclipsed by, and dependent upon, the development of linguistics, has long ceased to be regarded as philology at all ; save in Germany, where philological seminars have dealt not only with the phonology and history of language as they asserted themselves, but also as of old with whatever concerns the literary side of language as an expression of the national, or more broadly human spirit. Since all study of origins and growth, whether of one phenomenon or more than one, must be comparative if scientifically conducted, it is not necessary to characterize the literary science, of which we speak, by that particular adjective. More methods than the com- parative enter into it, and it is more than a method ; it is a theory of relativity and of growth; and its material is vertically as well as horizontally disposed. The Comparative Literature of to-day, based upon the sciences of which I have spoken and conducted in the scientific method, is literary philology — nothing more nor less ; it stands over against linguistic philology or glottology, and it deals genetically, historically, and comparatively with literature as a solidarity and as a product of the social individual, whether the point of view be national or universal. The new discipline is already the property and method of all scientific research in all literatures, ancient or modern, not only in their com- mon but in their individual relations to the social spirit in which they live and move and have their being. The more we develop what now is called Compara- tive Literature, the more rapidly will each literature in turn seek its explanation in Literary Philology.
FOURTH SESSION
SAN FRANCISCO, Dec. 20, 1902.
The Fourth Session was called to order at 9.45 A.M. and the reading of papers was continued.
10. The Poetica of Ram6n de Campoamor; Is the Dolora a new Literary Type ? By Mr. Samuel A. Chambers, of the University of California.
Campoamor (1817-1901) followed politics as a career, for literature is not such in Spain at the present time. He called himself a Conservative and as such held all the important government offices except that of Prime Minister.
He called himself also catolico invariable, though the tendency of his whole work is to undermine the foundations of religious faith. He really had no pro- found political or religious belief. One could scarcely expect it in the man. to whom the world was suefio and ilusidn and who could write : — "Y es que en el mundo traidor Nada hay Verdad ni Mentira. Todo es segun el color Del cristal con que se mira."
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixxxi
He was fundamentally a lyric poet, and the tendency to look below the surface of things is the distinguishing feature of his mind. This Conservative and Cath- olic was a Revolutionary in literature.
His works consist of some twelve volumes of political speeches, metaphysics, and poetry. Those which concern us here are his Poetica, in which he defends his theory of poetry, and the Doloras, Pequenos Poemas, and Humoradas, in which he exemplifies it.
According to the Poetica the originality of a poet consists only in the moral or intellectual purpose which his poem suggests. It is not the business of the poet to produce new ideas. Leave that to the scholars. He must simply produce a conjunto artistico, no matter whence come the pensamientos aislados ; they are his property, and he takes them wherever he finds them, as did Moliere.
A poem, then, must
1. Be founded on some ruling or generating idea, idea de relleno, which must attempt to solve some problem of the day.
2. Be in dramatic or, at least, colloquial form.
3. Be written in language as nearly like the prose of conversation as is con- sistent with rhyme and rhythm.
4. Suggest some general transcendental truth.
Poetry is not an arte docente like Metaphysics and Didactics, which are syste- matic; it is an arte- transcendents which is merely suggestive. This suggestiveness is the essence of true poetry.
The difficulty of Campoamor's art consists in making evident an order of ab- stract ideas under tangible and animate forms. This he attempted first in the Fabulas, which date from 1842. This type he soon abandoned for the Dolora as being less artificial.
A Dolora, according to Revilla, is " Una composicion poetica de forma epica 6 dramatica, y de fondo h'rico, que, en tono a la vez ligero y melancolico, exprese un pensamiento transcendental." The term is subjective and is taken from the dolor that one must feel if he examine profoundly any human thing. The Humo- radas are generally couplets or quatrains and lack the colloquial character necessary to the Doloras. The Pequenos Poemas are more ample and consist often of four or five cantos. Campoamor's claim is that he renewed Spanish poetry both in content and in form; the content in the Dolora by giving a meaning to a poem; the form in the Pequeno Poema by substituting for the stilted culto style, the easy, natural language of everyday life.
Campoamor's classification is not exhaustive. He himself admits that there is a school of poetry which deals with the mds acd de las cosas, whose adherents have written many fine descriptive and narrative poems, but which are merely de- scriptive and narrative. His claim is that the Dolora in its three forms is suffi- cient for the true poet to express himself fully regarding the mds alld de las cosas.
But, after all, Campoamor has not faun-led a new literary type. Numberless poets have written Humoradas under the names of epitaphs, epigrams, couplets, and quatrains. Many others have written Pequenos Poemas — poems with an underlying idea. De Vigny's La Bouteille a la mer is not different from La Lira Rota even to the drawing of the conclusion at the end. If the expression of dolor is the test, De Vigny's and Heine's and Leopardi's work is full of it. If sug- gestion is the test, the Symbolists have written volumes of these poems, and these
Ixxxii Association of the Pacific Coast.
same symbolists show all the freedom of the style of the Pequeiios Poemas. What is original in Campoamor is his manner. The Pequefios Poemas are in a sense unique, and it is just for this reason that they are not types. His genius takes the form of this philosophic poetry just as did De Vigny's. This statement is borne out by the fact that his Coldn, a so-called epic, is as much a Dolora as anything he wrote, and his so-called dramas are really Doloras as well.
The Doloras are not a new type any more than were Lamartine's Meditations, Hugo's Contemplations, or De Vigny's Destinees. It is a new and subjective nomenclature which has supplanted the old objective names such as ballad, ode, sonnet, satire — one which betrays the lyric character of the work. This lyric character indicates a reaction against the schools of " art for art's sake," Parnas- sianism in France, Culteranism in Spain. Campoamor has much in common with his fellow-reactionists the Symbolists in France, though he preceded them, and certainly was not influenced by them in any^ way even in his later years.
This paper was discussed by Professors Goebel and Gayley.
ii. The Citizenship of Aristophanes, by Professor A. T. Murray, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
The sources at our command for treating of the life of Aristophanes are neither many nor satisfactory. There are two anonymous Greek lives of some length but of little critical value, being, in fact, but a longer and a shorter ver- sion of the same; a third brief life is found in the Bodleian scholia on Plato (Apology, 19 c); a fourth in one of the anonymous writers, irepl Kta/jupdlas (III. I, 47 ff., Diibner); another comes from Thomas Magister; and there is a brief notice in Suidas. To these we must add scattered notices in the Aristophanic scholia and the hypotheses prefixed to the various plays, the possible allusions to the poet or to his works in the fragments of the other comedians, and, as our ultimate authority, the plays themselves.
Among the most interesting questions which are involved in such a study are those concerning the poet's citizenship and the charge of £cvla said to have been brought against him by Kleon.
The statements in the sources are as follows: the vita (both versions), the Anonymus, and Thomas Magister state explicitly that the poet was an Athenian, adding the name of his father, the tribe, and the deme (the last two are omitted by the Anonymus, and the shorter vita omits the tribe. This is, however, of no importance, as the deme is given). Suidas gives Rhodes (Lindos or Kameiros) or Egypt as the poet's birthplace, and the latter statement is echoed by the scholiast on Nub. 272 and by Athenaios, VI. 229 e, quoting Heliodoros. The statement that Kleon lodged against the poet a ypa<f>i) j-evlas is made in both versions of the vita, and, in connection with it, we are told that some held him to be a Rhodian. In the longer version the tradition that either Aristophanes or his father was an Aiginetan is mentioned in the same connection. The ypa<j>i] feWai is mentioned also in the scholiast on Acharn. 378.
No weight is, of course, to be attached to the wild guesses given above, but that they were ever made raises a question which may not be disregarded. The
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixxxiii
most natural explanation is afforded by the tradition regarding the charge of £eWa brought against the poet by Kleon. If the charge was really preferred, whatever we assume its outcome to have been, it was but natural that all sorts of statements and guesses regarding the poet's birthplace should be made. Most of the places mentioned are known as centres of phallic worship; it is hard to see any other connection between Aristophanes and any of them, with the exception of Aigina.
Of the documents bearing upon the life of Aristophanes the vita, unsatisfactory as it is, is unquestionably the most important; and, of the two versions, the longer seems to be the more deserving of credence. Now the vita contains these explicit statements: Aristophanes was an Athenian citizen; he was charged by Kleon with being an alien; and this charge, in the opinion of some, at least, was based upon a real, or imagined, connection on the part of the poet, or his father, with Aigina. These statements are entirely compatible with one another, nor does there seem to be valid ground for discrediting any one of them. True, Kleon's ypa.<t>rj i-evlas is regarded as a myth by Miiller-Striibing and Briel, and we may grant that the charge was a very common one, flung by the comedians at one another, at cotemporary tragic or dithyrambic poets, or at men in public life (Theramenes, Kleophon, Kleon himself), and it may, often enough, have had no basis in fact. But, in the case of Aristophanes, we are not dealing with an isolated passage in comedy or with what may be a guess on the part of the scholiast. We have the explicit statement in the vita, — a statement in entire harmony with what we know from other sources of the relations subsisting between the poet and Kleon, and one that is repeated in the scholium on Acharn. 378 ; we have apparent allusions to this suit in the comic fragments ; and we have the Aigina passage in the parabasis of the Acharnenses. Moreover, it is far more reasonable to assume that the tradition of the charge of i-evta gave rise to the vague guesses as to the poet's birthplace, than that it was itself an outgrowth from them.
The passages in the comic fragments which have been assumed, with more or less plausibility, to refer to this question, must now be examined, (i) Eupolis fr. 357 K. This, despite M tiller- Striibing and Zielinski, seems clearly to be aimed at Aristophanes. It does not prove the poet an alien, but it makes it probable that there was something in his antecedents which made it easy for a bitter, per- sonal foe to harp upon the theme — that is, it strongly corroborates the tradition regarding the ypa.</>^ %evlas. (2) Plato fr. 100 K; Aristonymos fr. 4 K; Arheipsias fr. 28 K; Sannyrio fr. 5 K. All of these (see the sources, Diibner, XI. 13; XII. II; XIII. 9) applied to Aristophanes the proverb, rer/wlSi yeyovds, as to one born on the natal day of Herakles, and so forced, like him, to labor, while others enjoyed the fruits of his labor. This, of course, has reference to the poet's practice of bringing out his plays under the names of others, and need have no reference to the question of his citizenship. (3) Plato fr. 99 K. This, while of doubtful interpretation, leads to the same conclusions as the passages just men- tioned. (4) Kratinos fr. 324 c K. Here it seems not unlikely that Aristophanes is alluded to under the name 3<^ioj. (5) Telekleides fr. 43 K. Here there is no ground for the assumption (van Leeuwen) that Aristophanes is alluded to.
According to the vita, Aristophanes was triumphantly acquitted, but the lan- guage seems plainly exaggerated. To me it is clear that he won the suit (there
Ixxxiv Association of the Pacific Coast.
is no hint of the contrary, and certainly the passages cited above do not prove it), but it may well have been by a small margin, since his rivals were so unwill- ing to let the matter drop.
It is in the highest degree important to date, if possible, the preferment of the charge. Following the statements of the longer vita and of. the scholiast on Acharn. 378, we should, without hesitation, place it between the production of the Babylonii and that of the Acharnenses. It is, in both, brought into connec- tion with the suit which resulted from the production of the former play. The shorter vita, however, seems to put the charge after the production of the Equites ; and this is the opinion of many scholars. This view sees in the ypa<f>i) £evias a counter attack by the angry demagogue, and is not in itself unlikely; it must, however, be given up if the suit is alluded to in the Acharnenses. That this is the case I hold most strongly, and the evidence for it must new be exam- ined. This involves a study of the passages in the Acharnenses in which the preceding play and the troubles growing out of its presentation are alluded to, and also of the relations subsisting between Aristophanes and the men in whose names most of his plays were brought out. The results alone can be given in this abstract, and these with the greatest brevity.
That Kallistratos, as the official SiSdtricaXos of the Babylonii, could alone be haled into court appears certain. None the less I hold it equally certain that Aristophanes was known to be the author, and hence that allusions to his own work, or to his own experiences, may not only be accepted, but are actually to be looked for. Briel's conclusions, while perhaps logical, are impossible ; and those who maintain that Aristophanes alone was attacked disregard entirely Kallistratos's official position and the important scholium on Vesp. 1284. That suit was brought against any one was due, not to a law restricting the license of comedy, but to the special circumstances in this case. Aristophanes had dared, in 426 B.C., the year after the reduction and punishment of Mytilene, to produce (5i& KaXXwrpdTou) at the City Dionysia, and so vap6vrwv T&V j-tvwv, a play representing the allies as ground down by Athens. This savored of high treason; it could not be allowed to pass unnoticed; and the assumption is an easy one that, failing to convict on the elvayyeXia, or perhaps failing to reach the poet, Kleon had recourse, also, to the ypa<pi) £evlas. Objections to the view that Kleon would prefer a second charge seem to me to lack cogency.
An examination of the passages in which Aristophanes refers to his own early activity as a poet (Eq. 512 ff., 541 ff.; Nub. 530 ff.; Vesp. 1015 ff.; Pac. 748 ff.) leads to the view that, beginning while very young, the poet felt himself, at the outset, unequal to the task of training his chorus, and therefore sought the help of an older and more practised hand. Whether or not the name of the poet was known from the start cannot be proved. Three years later, full of hatred against Kleon, smarting, in my opinion, from the -ypa^T) £evfas and the taunts which this may have called forth from his rivals, elated, too, by the success of the Acharnen- ses, he brought out the Equites in his own name, and, after that, it is inconceiv- able that any one doubted the authorship of the succeeding plays. This, however, does not help us in regard to the Acharnenses. Yet the wdXat of Eq. 513 is apt only if the poet was known to have produced plays before; and it is not easy to see how the trouble growing out of the production of the Babylonii could have failed to make clear the relationship between the two men. There remains the
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixxxv
a priori difficulty, not to say impossibility, of assuming that Aristophanes would write such a play, referring throughout to another than himself.
Of especial interest are the following passages: Acharn. 377 ff.; 496 ff.; 300 f.; H5off.; 628-664. (0 377 ^ Knowing that the el<rayyf\ta was, in all probability, directed against Kallistratos, we should naturally refer this pas- sage to him in its entirety. That the poet speaks thus in trimeters is, of course, unusual; yet cf. Kratinos fr. 307 K, Pkto fr. 107 K. The difficulty is lessened if we assume that Kallistratos was not only 5i5da/caXos, but also protagonist (von Ranke, Schrader). Then we should have a case where the actor tears off the mask and speaks in propria persona. The opposite view, that Aristophanes, not Kallistratos, was the speaker, has also found defenders; but. when we come to the parabasis, we shall see good reasons for the assumption that Aristophanes was coryphaeus, not protagonist. (2) 496 ff. This plainly refers only to the clffayytXla. It therefore concerns Kallistratos, whether or not we assume that he was the actual speaker, rpvyydlav iroiuv is not to be pushed. It means little more than tv Kupudiq., and there is no insuperable difficulty in assuming that it was said by one who was not the poet. (3) 300 f. Here is plainly an announce- ment of the poet's intention of attacking Kleon in a forthcoming play, and that in reliance on the aristocratic iiririjs. The reference to Aristophanes himself is undeniable (Schrader's objections have little force) and must have been clear to a large portion Of the audience. As the chorus is the poet's proper mouth- piece, we need not from this passage conclude that Aristophanes was coryphaeus, although that is not unlikely. (4) 1150 ft This passage would be an important one if the old interpretation were tenable; see, however, Cobet, O6s. Crit. p. 34 f. (5) 628-664. Here we have, at the outset, language which can refer only to Kallistratos. Aristophanes had produced but two (possibly three) plays, and those under the name of another (others?), and moreover was not, and could not be called o St5d(r»caXos T)fj.u>v. The irdXeu of Eq. 513 is a partial answer to the first objection ; to the second there is no answer. rpvytfSlav troiuv might be said of actor who was not -poet, but Si3d<r/caXos is a terminus technicus. In what follows the reference seems equally clear: it is to the elffayyeXia in which Kallis- tratos was defendant, not Aristophanes. Yet note the answer : <f>i)fflv d' eivau TroXXiDj' dya.6Qv dfios vfuv 6 ironjrijs. Then follows a rehearsal of the benefits conferred upon the state by the poet, as seen in the attitude of the allies, the great king, and the Lakedaimonians. The last are even offering peace and demanding Aigina, not that they care for the island, but with a view to depriving Athens of the poet. " But do not you give him up," says the chorus; and then follows the pnigos : irpot ravra KXtwv KT\.
The whole passage is beset with difficulties. It begins with St8d<r»caXos, changes to iroojTifc, and culminates in the first person. Does this refer only to Kallistratos? only to Aristophanes? or is it to be divided between the two? The language of other parabases does not help us. Most nearly parallel is that of the Pax, where we begin with the third person (6 SiSda/coXos i)/j.uv) and after- wards have the first. Aristophanes alone is, however, referred to, and he was the 3t5d<r/caXos (despite van Leeuwen). Light is, however, thrown upon the problem by the Aigina passage (652 ff.). This, with its astonishing statement that the Lakedaimonians are making overtures of peace (in 425 B.C.!), deserves special consideration. To see in this merely a reference to the actual demands for the
Ixxxvi Association of the Pacific Coast.
surrender of Aigina, made by the Lakedaimonians before the outbreak of hostili- ties and again in 430 B.C. (Ribbeck, A. Mu'ller, Miiller-Striibing), is far from sat- isfactory. Moreover, we must ask ourselves what the connection between the person referred to and Aigina was. Certainly it was more than a simple K\i)pov- X^a, as Miiller-Striibing has shown. The scholiasts, with a single noteworthy exception, think only of Aristophanes, and Schrader (Kleon und Aristophanes' Babylonier) has argued with much force, though perhaps over-subtly, that this view is alone tenable, and that the poet is actually referring to the charge that he was an Aiginetan, i.e. to Kleon's 7pa07) £ei>/as.
Thus interpreted the parabasis becomes an ordered whole. It begins with a reference to the official 3i5d<7/caXos and to the charge brought against him — a charge of ddiicla. et's TOI>S TroXfraj. Now, this consisted in his having served as 5t5d<TKdXos at the City Dionysia for a play such as the Babylonii. Therefore, in his defence he must needs justify, not his own part only in the production of the play, but also the character of the play itself — that is, he must defend the poet for having written it; and so we have a natural transition to the iroiijriys and to the benefits he has conferred upon the state. But more than this : the poet, too, has been involved in a serious charge, growing out of the production of the same play, and is still in danger. Hence the fiction regarding the overtures of peace and the demand for Aigina. "The Lakedaimonians," says the poet, in effect, " are willing to forego their advantage in the war; they offer you peace, for they want Aigina, — they want me, whom Kleon calls an Aiginetan. Do not give me up; stand by me ; I am worth much to you. In view of this let Kleon do what he will," etc. The pnigos, we may add, with its use of the first person and its implication of persistent persecution, gains immensely in force, if Aristophanes was himself the speaker, i.e. was coryphaeus.
We may consider, then, that the preferment of the charge of £evla by Kleon antedated the production of the Acharnenses, and if this is so, van Leeuwen's theory that Aristophanes was, in fact, an alien falls to the ground. His view is based primarily on the assumption that the poet, conscious that he had not the right to produce in his own name, had recourse to the help of Kallistratos and Philonides. Elated by the success of the Acharnenses, he had, however, flung prudence to the winds and dared to produce the Equites Katf eavrbv. Kleon then promptly brought suit, the poet was proved an alien, and dared thereafter produce no play in his own name (with the possible exception of the second Ploutos}.
Even if the charge of £evla is accepted as following upon the production of the Equites, this theory will not hold. Against it stands the tradition (which van Leeuwen, of course, discards) that the Pax was produced in the poet's own name. So, too, what we know of the revised Nubes. Van Leeuwen dismisses this with the remark that it was never produced. This is true; but the fact remains that the poet purposed bringing it out himself. On van Leeuwen's own view he sought a chorus, which was naturally refused him; and the " alien " then speaks as if a great injustice had been done him !
One might go further. It is in the highest degree unlikely that any alien could have written as Aristophanes wrote (the case of Lysias is not a parallel one), and, if one weighs carefully the attitude of the poet toward those whose citizenship was dubious (and the list is a long one), the conviction is irresistible
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixxxvii
that, though brought to the test, he had proved his right to be unsparing in his denunciations.
1 2. Rhythm as concerned in Poetry, by Professor Leon J. Richard- son, of the University of California.
What are the principal means by which poetic rhythm is produced ? The devices are as a rule the following. Not all are present in every language, nor is it the poet's way to employ many at once. They appear in constantly varying combinations.
1. The length, number, and order of tlie syllables. — The successive time divi- sions of the rhythm are made sensible to the ear through a succession of syllables so arranged by the poet, as regards length, number, and order, that one naturally perceives them, or at least may perceive them, in groups, occupying more or less exactly each a certain amount of time. Rhythm is here and there reenforced by certain other sound effects; that is to say, certain conspicuous turns of sound &tt introduced in such a manner and at such points as to emphasize the limits of the rhythmical divisions. These auxiliary effects are introduced, sometimes singly, sometimes in combination, at the will of the poet. They make up the remainder of this list (the headings in some cases being those of Saran).
2. Stress and pitch. — It is convenient to put the two together, because both enter in some degree into every syllable. If either or both of these qualities be emphasized regularly with reference to the divisions of a rhythmical series, an auxiliary force is thereby added to the rhythm.
3. Pauses. — The pauses observed in the delivery of a poem are mainly of two kinds, rhythmical and rhetorical. Rhythmical pauses may be subdivided into two classes: (l) Indefinite, that is, moments of silence indefinite in length occurring between certain rhythmical intervals. The length of these pauses de- pends in a measure on the interpretation of the reader or singer. Pauses of this character if observed with a certain degree of regularity between cola, verses, or stanzas, play a part in the rhythm. (2) Definite, that is, brief pauses or ' rests ' of determined length occurring within certain rhythmical intervals. The poet now and then arranges to have a pause of this character fill out the time of a rhythmical division, in order that it may be uniform in length with its companion divisions.
Rhetorical pauses help to give expression to the content of the language. In poetry of the highest order they fall now coincidentally, now non-coincidentally, with the rhythmical pauses. This is a good example of the way a nice balance is maintained in poetry between form and content.
4. Sound parallelism. — Unrler this hea'l are included rime, alliteration, and assonance. These effects are so arranged by the poet that, among other things, they may help define for the hearer the rhythmical intervals. A sonnet, for example, with its ' run-over ' lines could hardly give a fair impression of its rhythm without the aid of rime. The hearer would not be sure where the lines end; the musical effect would be obscured. Devices of this sort are most frequently employed in those languages where the rhythmical accent tends to fall coinciden- tally with the word-accent.
5. Tempo. — The term denotes the relative rapidity of the rhythm, which
Ixxxviii Association of the Pacific Coast.
varies of course with individuals and circumstances. This variation, however, cannot transgress certain limits, determined on the one hand by the powers of a reader or singer, and on the other hand by what is agreeable to a hearer. Tempo, then, is a rhythmical factor in this sense that only rhythms of certain tempo are admitted into the domain of art.
6. Permissible variations in speech sounds. — Sounds subject to some variation in ordinary speech, when introduced into a poem, are theoretically uttered in the particular form that is suited to the place in the verse where they occur. All these variations are generally introduced by the poet only when something of the kind becomes absolutely necessary to make the sounds suggest adequately the rhythmical divisions. He is not justified in any variations that are so violent as to obscure the identity of the words, nor in any without basis and warrant in the actual usages of speech.
7. Sound articulation. — As syllables are sounded in ordinary speech, some are crowded closely together, others are sharply distinct. The former mode of utterance may be called legato ; the other, staccato. As a matter of fact our speech represents many gradations between these two extremes. These effects contribute to the rhythm, though in ways that are extremely subtle and seldom consciously apprehended apart from the larger results to which they contribute. They play through the succession of sounds in such a manner that the rhythmical divisions, as the need arises, are thereby emphasized and thrown into relief. The poet indicates them to some extent in his text, but a great deal has to be left to the feeling and interpretation of the individual reader or singer. For an ex- ample, take Tennyson's lines : —
" Thou read the book, my pretty Vivien ! O ay, it is but twenty pages long."
A sort of balance or parallelism is here brought about, staccato effects (indicated by dots) prevailing within the first, legato effects within the second colon. Such a device serves to mark and reenforce the rhythm of the verses.
8. Word-order. — Words or parts of words may be so coordinated in sense by the poet that rhythmical intervals are thereby thrown into relief.
9. Man's innate rhythmical sense. — When one reads a poem from the printed page, the rhythm is produced by the aid of mechanical devices, such as have been described, but all these would avail nothing without the reader's instinct to rhythmize. The rhythm is something more than the rhythmizomenon. So deeply is a feeling for rhythm grounded in human nature, that when the reader catches the suggestion of the poem's rhythm, he is somehow impelled in no small measure from within to carry it forward in its ideal form, himself making good shortcomings and irregularities that may be inherent in the language of the poem.
This paper was discussed by Professors Goebel, Merrill, Murray, Goddard, Chambers, and Gayley.
13. The Relationship of the Indian Languages of California, by Dr. A. L. Kroeber, of the University of California.
This paper has appeared in full as a joint article by R. B. Dixon and A. L. Kroeber, in the American Anthropologist, Vol. V, pp. 1-26.
Proceedings for December, 1902. Ixxxix
It was discussed by Professors Matzke, Kelley, Murray, Seward, and Goddard.
14. The Use of clla, lei, and la as Polite Forms of Address in Ital- ian, by Professor O. M. Johnston, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
The sixteenth century is usually given as the date when ella began to be used as a form of address in Italian. An example of le (dative of ella), used in address- ing the pope, occurs in Giovanni Fiorentino's // Pecorone (X. i), written in 1378. Le here refers to santita and means ' to you.' The use of ella for voi began in constructions like this, where the noun to which it referred stood immediately be- fore it. In the sixteenth century the object forms lei and la began to be used as nominatives in polite address.
From the time that ella, lei, and la were first used in address until the eigh- teenth century adjectives and past participles modifying them were always femi- nine. In the eighteenth century the participle still retains its feminine form in such constructions, while the adjective is masculine or feminine according to the gender of the person addressed.. Goldoni, writing about the middle of the cen- tury, uses the feminine participle and the masculine adjective when the person addressed is masculine. In / Promessi Sposi, which was completed in 1822, Manzoni uses a masculine and a feminine participle in the same sentence, modify- ing lei and la used in address. On the other hand, he always writes the mascu- line form of adjectives when the person addressed is masculine. Since Manzoni I have found only the masculine form of both adjectives and past participle modi- fying ella, etc., used in address to men. The reason for this change of gender in the adjective and participle is clear. When Sua Eccellenza, etc., ceased to be expressed, the pronouns ella, lei, and la were looked upon as referring directly to persons and not to the abstract substantive, and, hence, the modifiers began to agree logically, taking the gender of the person addressed as in the case of tu and voi.
A similar tendency is seen in the use of words like persona und bestia. In old Italian, adjectives and past participles modifying bestia and persona were some- times masculine when these forms were used in the sense of uomo (cf. Boccaccio, // Decamerone, 7. 4).
Adjourned at 12.15 P-M<
FIFTH SESSION.
The Fifth Session was called to order at 2.30 P.M. by the second Vice-president, Professor W. A. Merrill of the University of Cali- fornia.
The Committee on Time and Place of the next meeting reported through the Chairman, Professor Murray, a recommendation that the fifth annual meeting be held at the Mark Hopkins Institute of Art in San Francisco on December 28, 29, and 30, 1903. The report was adopted.
xc Association of the Pacific Coast.
15. Dryden's Quarrel with Settle, by Professor George R. Noyes, of the University of California.
The story of Dryden's quarrel with Elkanah Settle has been well told by Scott.1 Beljame further points out the influence of the controversy on Dryden's dramatic works.2 But the bearing of the quarrel upon Dryden's critical writings has ap- parently not yet been noticed.
The success of The Conquest of Granada in 1670 established Dryden's reputation as the leading English dramatist. But in 1673 Dryden was deserted by his patron Rochester, who, to spite him, secured the revival at court of The Empress of Morocco, a play by the young dramatist Elkanah Settle, published originally in 1671. Dryden thereupon joined with Shadwell and Crowne in the composition of an anonymous pamphlet, Notes and Observations on The Em- press of Morocco, published in i674-8 Here he assails Settle with coarse abuse and ridicules his play, which he terms " a confused heap of false grammar, im- proper English, strained hyperboles, and downright bulls." Settle detected the authorship of the attack upon him and replied in the same year with a pamphlet " contumaciously entitled " : * Notes and Observations on the Empress of Morocco revised, with some few erratas ; to be printed instead of the Postscript with the next Edition of The Conquest of Granada. Here he has no trouble in ridicul- ing Dryden's play quite as effectively as Dryden had satirized The Emprus of Morocco. So Settle remained an apparent victor in the contest of abuse. Dry- den certainly made no further direct reference to Settle until 1682, when, in the Second Part of Absalom and Achitopkel he conferred on him an unpleasant immortality under the name of Doeg.
But at the close of 1674 Dryden published his opera The State of fnnocence, based upon Milton's Paradise Lost. To this he prefixed a critical preface, The Author's Apology for Heroic Poetry and Poetic License. In this he makes a dignified, high-minded lament that " we are fallen into an age of illiterate, cen- sorious, and detracting people, who, thus qualified, set up for critics."5 These " mistake the nature of criticism," which, " as it was first instituted by Aristotle, was meant a standard of judging well." Dryden then makes a plea in favor of "sublime genius that sometimes errs," against "the middling or indifferent one, which makes few faults, but seldom or never rises to any excellence." 6 He de- fends the use of " the boldest strokes of poetry," " the hardest metaphors," " the strongest hyperboles." 7 Dryden continually fortifies his statements by references to Boileau's translation of Longinus On the Sublime and Rapin's Reflexions sur la Poetique d' 'Aristote, up-to-date critical works published in France in that same year, 1674. With these authorities few Englishmen would dare disagree. Finally, in this essay Dryden says little of his own writings; he prefers to speak in general terms, defending the reputation of great poets against small critics.
1 See Life in Dryden's Works, Scott-Saintsbury ed , vol. I. pp. 152-161.
1 Le Public et Us ffommes de Lettrei en Angleterre au Dix-kuitiime Slide, Paris, 1883: pp. 92-113.
* See Malone, Prose Works of John Dryden, vol. II. p. 271-274. 4 Scott's Life, p. 161.
* Dryden's Works, Scott-Saintsbury ed , vol. V. p. ixa. 8 The idea, as Dryden says, is from Longinus.
i Ibid. p. 116.
Proceedings for December, 1902. xci
To such an essay, reply was impossible. Defeated in a would-be anonymous contest of abuse, Dryden assumes the tone of a dignified gentleman. Though he did not mention the names of his antagonists, he knew that Settle and his patron Rochester would be distinguished as chief among the " illiterate, censorious, and detracting people " alluded to. Thus, if the theory of its origin here suggested be correct — and there seems to be no argument against it — Dryden's Apology for Heroic 1'oetry and Poetic License must be regarded not as a perfunctory preface, but as a masterpiece of controversial criticism, worthy to take a place beside his satires in verse.
1 6. The Scalacronica version of Havelok, by Mr. Edward K. Put- nam, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
An examination of the unique Ms. of Thomas Gray's fourteenth century French prose chronicle, the Scalacronica (Parker Collection, 133, Corpus Christi College, Cambridge), reveals a Havelok episode of about thirteen hundred words, hitherto known only by the "translation" of John Leland, the sixteenth century antiqua- rian, reprinted by Sir Frederick Madden in the introduction to his edition of Havelok. Leland's careless and confused reading notes are unjust to Gray, the soldier chronicler, whose Havelok story is the most complete found in the chron- icles. An analysis follows : —
Two petty kings under Constantine, Athelbright, king of Northfolk and South- folk, and Edelsy, king of Nichol and Lindesey, make peace, Athelbright marrying Orewen, Edelsy's sister, by whom he has a daughter called Argentile in British and Goldesburgh in Saxon. After Athelbright's death, Edelsy marries her to Cuaran, a kitchen boy who has performed feats of strength and who says he is a son of Gryme, a poor fisher no longer able to support him. Edelsy thinks he will thus keep his oath to Athelbright to marry her to the strongest man he can find, but his real purpose is to secure the land. He is deceived, for in truth the boy is Havelok, son of Birkebayn, king of Denmark. After the king's death, Gryme, who had been given the boy to drown, escaped to England and founded Grimsby. When Havelok and his bride return to Grimsby, they find that he is heir to the Danish throne and repair to Denmark. The first night, they are attacked by young men who are beaten off by Havelok. The captain of the castle of the city investigates and takes them home with him. That night he sees a flame issuing out of Havelok's mouth. The most powerful men of the city decide that Havelok is heir to the throne and help him reconquer Denmark. He returns to England, recovers his wife's heritage, and kills Edelsy. During the battle he fixes the dead men to stakes, making his army seem larger, and causing the enemy to flee. Havelok returns to Denmark. Up to this time tribute had been demanded of Denmark from the time of Belyn Bren (Brennius and Belinus, Geoffrey of Monmouth, III. i-iv). Some say that Havelok was the cause of the first coming of Swain, the father of Knut. As Havelok did not remain after his conquest, the Saxon chroniclers do not mention him. Yet the great history of Havelok says that the father of his wife was king of England, and that Havelok conquered it, but this is apocryphal.
From this analysis it becomes evident that Gray has not copied the Brute, as Madden asserts, but has used as sources both the French and English versions
xcii Association of the Pacific Coast.
of the romance. This is shown by the names, the incidents, and the direct refer- ence. Of the French versions there is no evidence that he knew the Lay. There are many points in common with Gaimar, and others which seem to show that he was familiar with the Lost French Version, which was used by Gaimar as a source. Gray's attempt was to reconcile the French form of the story, as found in Gaimar or the Lost Version, with the English, and with history. The allusion to Swain and Knut shows that Gray appreciated the close relationship between Havelok and the epic material of the Scandinavian invaders.
1 7. On the Relation of Old Fortunatus to the Volksbuch, by Pro- fessor A. F. Lange of the University of California.
This paper is printed in full in Modern Language Notes, Vol. XVIII, No. 5.
1. The Pleasant Comedie of Old Fortunatus is based on both versions of the Volksbuch. This fact confirms Herford's conclusion (a) that Dekker recast and enlarged an older play, and (U) that the older play ended with the death of Fortunatus.
2. Dekker's predecessor followed the Frankfort text; Dekker himself made liberal use of the Augsburg version.
3. It is probable that an early edition of one of the extant translations of F — namely E = " 1650?" — constituted the direct source of the original play.
4. Dekker's share in Old Fortunatus rests neither on the Dutch translation, nor on an earlier edition of the English translation by T. C., 1676, both of which follow F. J. P. Collier's conjecture that T. C. stands for Thomas Churchyard is, perhaps, not an impossible one, but his additional surmise that T. C.'s translation supplied the foundation of the play receives no support from a comparison of the two. Whether Dekker had the German original before him or a translation in Dutch or English cannot be determined in the present state of our knowledge concerning Dekker and the translations of the Volksbuch.
1 8. The Literary Relations of Edgar Allan Poe and Thomas Holley Chivers, by Professor A. G. Newcomer, of the Leland Stan- ford Jr. University.
The purpose of this paper is to determine, chiefly from internal evidence, the nature of the literary relations and the probable mutual influence of Edgar Allan Poe and the somewhat obscure Georgia poet, Dr. Thomas Holley Chivers. A charge of plagiarism originated with Chivers's claim, publicly made several years after Poe's death, that Poe, in constructing The Raven, had stolen from his poem To Allegra in Heaven, and that Poe was otherwise indebted to him. This charge, or intimation, has been more than once revived, and supported by the citation of certain poems of Chivers, such as Lily Adair — the "beautiful, dutiful Lily Adair" — undeniably written in the Poe manner (see Forum, May, 1897). Critics have generally been disposed to ignore the controversy. My examination covers six of Chivers's volumes: Nacoochee, or the Beautiful Star, N.Y. 1837 ; The Lost Pleiad, N.Y. 1845 ; Eonchs of Ruby, N.Y. 1851 ; Memoralia, or Phials of Amber, Phils.., 1853 (entered 1850); Virginalia, Phila., 1853; Atlanta,
Proceedings for December, 1902. xciii
Macon, Ga., 1853. The last two are in the British Museum, and, contrary to the general opinion, they are the only volumes of Chivers there; the last is unques- tionably a " Paul Epic," whatever that may mean, and not, as Professor Harrison has conjectured, a " Prose Epic," for it is in blank verse, and the Museum copy contains corrections in the author's hand. Several earlier volumes with Byronic titles, later, however, than Poe's early volumes, have not been examined.
The Southern Literary Messenger for March, 1835, advised one 1'- H- C., M.D., to cease submitting his prolific verse and stick to his lancet and pill-box. In 1836 Poe was on the staff of the Messenger, republishing Israfel, etc., from his 1831 volume. In 1837 appeared Chivers's Nacoochee, or the Beautiful Star.- The title suggests Al Aaraaf, but the story is an Indian tale. The volume further contains a curious jumble of religious hymns, Byronic blank verse, and Shelleyan lyrics. 7 he Lost Pleiad (July, 1845 — six months later than the publi- cation of Poe's Raven) more distinctly suggests Al Aaraaf. This volume was reviewed favorably by Poe (who had already been in correspondence with Chivers) in The Broadway Journal. In the leading poem appears the angel Israfel, to become thereafter one of Chivers's regular poetic properties. There are other interesting evidences of indebtedness to Poe. On the other hand, one poem, dated 1839, contains the refrain, "No, nevermore." And with the date of December 12, 1842, there is the poem To Allegro in Heaven.
" Holy angels now are bending to receive thy soul ascending Up to heaven to joys unending, and to bliss which is divine."
True, Poe had used this movement in his Bridal Ballad, in the Messenger for January, 1837. But again, Chivers in 1836 had published his Ellen .4Lyrc with such lines as,
" Whitest, brightest of all cities, saintly angel, Ellen /Eyre."
Eonchs of Ruby (1851), published after Poe's death, contains Lily Adair and many other poems in the manner of Poe. Memoralia (1853) was made by tak- ing Eonchs of Ruly, withdrawing the first poem ( The Vigil in Aidenn, a long poem, combining in a kind of pendant to 7'/ie Raven a tribute to the genius of Poe, and an elegy upon his death), substituting six weak poems, and renaming the volume. Virginalia (1853) contains many poems dated from 1832 onward. Those resembling Poe are dated either later than 1841 or not at all.
These conclusions may be drawn. After Poe's fame was established, Chivers, a versifier with a remarkable gift of melody, and already an admirer and occa- sional imitator of Poe, came strongly under the spell of Poe's poetry, producing then, and after Poe's death collecting for final publication, nearly all of his poems that so manifestly resemble Poe's. This was done out of genuine admiration, and, moreover, some of the poems are such self-confessed parodies as to make a charge of plagiarism against Chivers futile. But before Poe's death some cool- ness arose between the two poets which finally led to Chivers's uncharitable charges. On the other hand, these charges rest upon undeniable resemblances, and however much Chivers both initially and finally owed to Poe, the conclusion is scarcely avoidable that Poe also owed something initially to Chivers, and the latter's Ellen &yre and To Allegro in Heaven must be taken along with Pike's Isadore, Tennyson's May Queen and Locksley Hall, Mrs. Browning's Lady
xciv Association of the Pacific Coast.
Geraldine's Courtship, and what not besides, as having played their little part in the genesis of The Raven.
[Since this paper was prepared, the Virginia edition of Poe has appeared; and since it was read, the Poe-Chivers papers, edited by Professor Woodberry, have appeared in the Century Magazine. Professor Harrison refuses to find any- thing supportable in the claim of Chivers. Professor Woodberry 's conclusion virtually coincides with my own. As he expresses it, Chivers " was in parallelism with Poe, so to speak, and was attracted to him till he coalesced."]
This paper was discussed by Mr. Sevvard and Professor Noyes.
The Committee to audit the Treasurer's account now reported through the Chairman, Dr. Allen, that the books had been examined and found correct. The Report was adopted.
The Secretary brought up the question whether this Association should join with the Modern Language Association of America in an appeal to the Trustees of the Carnegie Institution to aid advanced research in Language and Literature. On motion of Professor L. J. Richardson, the matter was referred to the Executive Committee with power to act.
19. Inscription 2719 (Orelli) treated paleographically, by Dr. Clifton Price, of the University of California.
Adjourned at 5.20 P.M.
SIXTH SESSION.
SAN FRANCISCO, December 31, 1902.
The Sixth Session was called to order by the President at 9.30 A.M. The reading of papers was continued.
20. A Middle English Anecdoton, by Professor E. Fliigel, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
Professor Ewald Fliigel gave part of his introduction to an edition of the M.E. translation of Claudian's poem, De consulatu Stilichonis, to be published by the Early English Text Society. This M.E. translation is contained in Additional Ms. 11814, which was acquired by the Brit. Mus. in 1841, but has hitherto escaped the notice of historians and philologists (although a page of it was photographed for the old Paleographical Society).
In Claudian's poem, published according to Birt in February, 400 A.D., Stilicho is requested to come to Rome and accept the dignity of the consulate, and an anonymous English translator has used the Latin poem to draw a parallel between Stilicho and Richard, Duke of York, whose aspirations to the crown are plainly (and treacherously) encouraged in the Prologue, the Epilogue, and in a marginal note to the text itself. The Ms., which, by the way, contains also a Latin text (of most inferior quality) not noticed in Birt's monumental edition, is dated as
Proceedings for December, 1902. xcv
" translat and wrete at Clare [in Suffolk] 1445." It consists first of a prologue of three seven-line stanzas (a b ab bcc), secondly of the translation proper (458 verses corresponding to 413 of the original), and finally of an epilogue of seven stanzas, each containing seven rimed septenarii (ab ab bcc}. What makes this translation extremely interesting is its metre : a long line of seven stresses, with- out alliteration and without rime; a rimeless septenarius, of which M.E. literature has no other example to offer than the Orrmulumm ; a verse which seems to have been intended as a parallel, an imitation of the rimeless hexameter of the original lines. The verses are anything but smooth, and the Latin scholarship of the translator is not beyond suspicion. The dialect of the translation is that of Suffolk, its vocabulary, which furnishes early and earliest examples for a number of words, is, on the whole, the same as that of Osbern Bokenam. As a specimen of the metre, the style, and the scholastic shortcomings of the translator, the following passage is added [v. 269 et seq. corresponding to v. 247 et seq. of the original] : —
Engelonde preiseth stilico.
Aftir her Engelonde araied in clooth '. wroujte oute of shepis wulle Which be clepid in Calcedonye '. mowstrys of grete mervaile Whose chekis be coveryd with Jron harde '. whos fete )>e watur hideth Her clothyng feyneth the occian wawys '. and seith ofte me hath defendyd Nobil stilico. frow myn nere enemyes ! which by my marchis duelle Whan scottis had moevid ayens my pees i al wilde Jrisshe londe. And the watir brode bigan to foome ' viith the core of aduersaryes Thurgh his helpe soone it was doone '. ] shulde not fere bataile Of scotlonde ne of picardy '. ne fro my see banke J sholde nevir see me for to noye '. the saxon saile with wyndes.
v. 270 translates: calcidonio velata Britannia monstro; v. 277: ne Pictum timeam (merely to mention two of the grossest mistakes, for which the poor Latin text of the translator cannot be made responsible).
21. The Omission of the Auxiliary Verb in German, by Mr. Charles R. Keyes, of the University of California.
The Old High German and the Middle High German writers seem never to omit the auxiliary verb. It may be expressed only once with two or more perfect or pluperfect tenses in the same construction and understood with the other or others, but even such examples are none too common, and they belong, moreover, to Germanic syntax in general. German does not begin to separate itself from the other Germanic languages in the more or less frequent entire suppression of the auxiliary until about the end of the fifteenth century. It is not easy to tell just when the practice of omission begins. The irregular use of ge as the sign of the past participle, its common occurrence as a prefix in the present and preterit tenses, and the frequent omission of e in the preterit singular of the weak verb, complicate matters somewhat and make identification of examples doubtful in many cases. Still any considerable practice of omission could of course be readily observed. Several examples apparently beyond suspicion occur in Die- bold Schilling's Btsckreibung der Burgundischen fCriege, Bern, about 1480. No
xcvi Association of the Pacific Coast.
undoubted ones have thus far been noticed in the writings of Brant or Murner. The construction is foreign to the spirit of the Volksbuch Till Eulenspiegel, 1515. Two examples occur, but in the one case the auxiliary is carefully replaced in the next edition of 1519, and the other looks like a similar oversight or error. Luther is the first writer, apparently, who offers examples in considerable num- bers. These are rare or uncommon in his earlier works, and may be said in general to be numerous in his later ones.
The construction, having once come into use, soon became very common, so that the German grammarians of the eighth decade of the sixteenth century regarded the omission of the auxiliary verb as a common feature of the lan- guage. Das Volksbuch voin Doktor Faust teems with examples, and in the popu- lar book Der Schildburger abenteuerliche Geschichten finiteless predication of this kind is already the rule. Coming to the seventeenth century, we find the liberty to omit the finite verb in the perfect tenses of the dependent clause so constantly made use of as to clearly affect style. It might almost be said that the auxiliary is omitted to excess. This condition continues until approximately 1775, though Lessing has already begun to use much discretion. With Herder, Goethe, and Schiller the tide of finiteless predication begins to recede noticeably and, although examples are still common, yet the rule is to find the auxiliary in place. Since Goethe's time the tide has apparently continued to recede gradually. Heine, Grillparzer, Gutzkow, Hauff, Riehl, and others still omit the auxiliary often, but more recently examples of such omission are more difficult to find, particularly with the most careful writers. Instances are not common in Wilhelm Scherer's Geschichte der deutschen Litteratur, and the examples noted in several of the works of Sudermann and Hauptmann could be counted on one's ten fingers.
No attempt is made as yet to account for the origin of the omitted auxiliary construction, the theories that most readily suggest themselves having proven on further investigation untenable.
This paper was discussed by Professors Gayley, Matzke, and others.
22. The Sources of the Paris Promptuarium Exemplorum, by Professor P. J. Frein, of the University of Washington.
In the introduction to his edition of the fables of Marie de France, Mr. Warnke mentions three collections of fables which he believes to have been derived from the fables of Marie. The second collection (see p. LX) is entitled " Das Pariser Promptuarium Exemplorum " It is found in Ms. 1718 {Nouv. acq. lot.) of the French National Library, and is dated 1322. The collection consists of thirty- three Latin fables, of which twenty-six were found by Mr. Warnke to have been derived from the fables of Marie de France. Those not so derived are the first, second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh, and thirty-third.
The object of this study was to try to find the sources of the fables not bor- rowed from Marie de France.
Exemplum i was not discussed.
Exemplum 2 tells of a lion meeting several different animals whose bodies had been injured by a man. The lion sets out in search of the guilty man and
Proceedings for December, 1902. xcvii
finds him splitting wood. The lion is inveigled into placing his paws in the cleft of the log, from which the man immediately withdraws the wedge ; the lion is so securely held that he escapes only by leaving his skin and claws in the wood.
In the appendix to the Romulus of Munich (cf. Hervieux, Les Fabulistes Latins, II. 297) there is an extremely long fable entitled De Homuntione, Leone et Ejus Filio, the motifs of which are similar to those of Exemplum 2. It is also found as fable Number 16 of the Fabulae Extravagantes, published by Heinrich Steinhowel in his Aesop, which appeared at Ulm in the early days of printing, and from which Mr. Hervieux copied it. This fable could not have been com- posed by Steinhowel, because the version of the same fable in the Promptuarium Exemplorum antedates by many years the work of Steinhowel. It is probable that Exemplum 2 was based upon the manuscript (or a similar version of it) from which Steinhowel took fable 1 6 of the Fabulae Extravagantes of his Ulm edition. Steinhowel used for his sources some version of the Ordinary Romulus ; but as not one of the six known manuscripts of the Ordinary Romulus contains this fable, it is probable that the author of the Promptuarium had access to a manu- script not now known of the Ordinary Romulus.
The supposition that the Promptuarium itself was the source of the fable in Steinhowel's edition is hardly tenable, because of the insignificance of this small collection of only thirty-three fables and the consequent improbability of its hav- ing been made a model by Steinhowel, and because this fable is the only one of the Ulm collection that could, as the contents show, have been taken from the Promptuarium Exemplorum.
It is this fable 16 of the Fabulae Extravagantes that Robert {Fables Inedites des XII. XIII. et XIV. Siecles, I, ci) translated into French, and that Caxton translated into English from Macho's French translation of Steinhowel.
Exemplum 3 is the fable of the Lion, Wolf, Fox, and Ass, or, as given by Hervieux, the ' Lion Confessor.' The lion has the other beasts confess their sins. Those of the wolf and of the fox, though grievous, are readily forgiven, while those of the ass, which are insignificant, are severely punished.
The same fable is found in the Mixed Romulus of Berne (cf. Hervieux, II. 313), in Eudes de Cheriton (cf. Hervieux, IV. 255), and in Nicole Bozon (cf. Hervieux, IV. 256-257). The writer argued that Exemplum j could not have descended from the Bozon collection because the dates oppose such a theory, nor exclusively from the Berne nor Eudes de Cheriton collections, because the contents do not favor the supposition ; but there are enough points of resemblance in these four collections to warrant us in maintaining either that all four had a common source, and therefore that Exemplum 3 had for its source a version not now known of the Ordinary Romulus, or that Exemplum j was derived principally from the Mixed Romulus of Berne with the Eudes collection as a minor source. The latter view is the one upheld by the writer. Mr. Her- vieux has shown (I 469) that the Berne Romulus betrays some influence of the fables of Eudes, though the main source of the Berne collection is the Ordinary Romulus, and its important minor sources are the complete Anglo-Latin Romu- lus and the Romulus of Munich. Favoring the writer's view is the fact that forty-seven of the ninety-five fables of the extant manuscript of Berne are the fables of Eudes de Cheriton.
Exemplum 4 was shown to be derived directly from fable XL. of the Mixed
xcviii Association of the Pacific Coast.
Berne Romulus, where it follows immediately after the fable which was shown to be the probable source of Exemplum j.
Exemplum 6, the fable of the Bald Man and the Ram, was shown to have been derived from fable XXXI. of the Mixed Berne Romulus, which is the only known mediaeval Latin collection of fables offering a parallel to this fable.
Exemplum 33 %vas shown to have had for its source fable XXXII. of the Mixed Berne Romulus, where it follows immediately after the fable which was shown to be the source of Exemplum 6.
Exemplum 7 is not a fable and was not discussed.
This paper was discussed by Professors Richardson, Cooper, Searles, and Goddard.
23. Structure of the Verb in Hupa (a Californian language), by Mr. Pliny E. Goddard, of the University of California.
The Hupa is a member of the widely distributed Athapascan stock of Ameri- can languages. The verbs studied were taken from a collection of texts of myths and medicine formulas recorded by the author. When the meanings of these verbs had been determined by means of the context and the aid of the best available interpreters, they were arranged in alphabetical order. It became evi- dent at once that the majority of the verbs have adverbial elements for the first syllable, for example: xa-is-yai,1 'he went up'; xa-is-lai, 'he brought them up"; xa-is-xan, 'he brought up water'; xa-is-ten, 'he brought up a salmon.' Here it appears that xa in verbs of motion means ' up.' A number of similar adverbial prefixes indicating direction and position were readily obtained.
The same verbs were afterward classified according to their final syllables. These syllables were found to express the kind of motion. They may be con- sidered the root syllables. In many cases these roots differ according to the class of objects affected, e.g. -ten is used to express the transferring from place to place of a person, animal, or animal product; -an is similarly used of stones or other round objects; -xan refers to the movement of water or any liquid; -tan is employed when long objects are spoken of, and -lai serves for a number of objects of any one of these classes or of several of them. All intransitive verbs with an inanimate subject have a different root when the subject is plural. All verbs denoting a movement of the body as a whole, such as to walk, to run, to sit down, etc., have a distinct root for the plural and dual.
When the conjugation of each verb was written out the change which indi- cated person and number was found to be generally confined to the middle syllable : na-is-tsu, ' he was rolling about.'
SINGULAR. PLURAL.
1st per. na-se-tsu nas-dit-tsu
2d per. na-sin-tsu na-so-tsu
3d per. na-is-tsu na-ya-is-tsu
Neuter nas-tsu na-yas-tsu
1 L stands for a breath / like that found in Welsh. » is the palatial nasal ng in English, x is like Spanish jota. Vowels have their Continental sounds.
Proceedings for December, 1902. xcix
The occurrence of special forms for the neuter is noteworthy. More than twenty paradigms like the above are necessary to accommodate the Hupa verbs and then many remain unassigned. This great irregularity in most cases is evidently due to contractions and other phonetic changes.
The consonant in the middle syllable which remains unchanged (in this case j) seems to have some modal power. The variations of the middle syllable which indicate the person and number, with one exception, seem to have no relation to the independent pronouns of the language. The object of the action, however, is indicated by a form of the pronoun either prefixed to or infixed in the verb : tciL-tsan, 'he found it'; tcu-hwiL-tsan, ' he found me '; nit-tciL-tsan, ' he found thee'; tco-xoL-tsan, 'he found him'; no-tciL-tsan, 'he found us'; (n5'n) no- tciL-tsan, 'he found you'; ya-xoL-tsan, 'he found them.' With these incorpo- rated syllables compare hwe, ' I ' or ' me '; nin, ' thou ' or ' thee '; xon, ' he ' or 'him'; ne-he, ' we ' or ' us ' ; n5'n, 'you'; and ya-xwen, 'they ' or 'them.'
When the different tense forms of the verbs are brought together, the difference between past and present definite action is seen to be indicated by a modification of the root: xa-wil-la, 'he is bringing up'; xa-wil-lai, 'he brought up'; is-da, ' it is melting'; is-dau, 'it melted'; na-is-tse, 'he is crawling about '; na-is-tsu, ' he crawled about '; n5-nin-un, ' he is putting down '; no-nin-an, ' he put down '; tcin-nes-tin, 'he is in the act of lying down'; tcin-nes-ten, 'he lay down'; ta- des-la, 'he is floating ashore'; ta-des-lat, 'he floated ashore'; tcit-teL-qoL, 'he is crawling along'; tcit-teL-qol, ' he crawled along.' These changes seem to be due to accent and may prove to be not unlike ' ablaut.'
The forms which indicate repeated past action, and repeated or uncompleted present action and dependent forms, are differently inflected and show a peculiar form of the root which may be due to contraction with a suffix. The future, future condition, past condition, etc., are all indicated by suffixes : tsis-da, ' he is staying there'; tsis-da-te, 'he will stay there'; tsis-da-teL, 'he will stay there (nearer future) '; tsis-da-de, 'if he shall stay there'; tsis-da-te-ta, 'if he stayed there'; tsis-da-ne-en, 'he used to stay there but now does not'; tsis-da-hwun, 'he must stay there'; tsis-da-win-te, 'he always stayed there'; tsis-da-x, 'he stayed for a stated time.'
This paper was discussed by Professors Gayley, Johnston, and Flein.
24. Saint George as an Active Figure in Mediaeval Tradition, by Professor John E. Matzke, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.
The paper is printed in full in Publications of the Modern Lan- guage Association, Vol. XVIII. pp. 147-158. It was discussed by Professors Rice, Johnston, Searles, Gayley, and Mr. Keyes.
Adjourned at 12.15 P«M-
Association of the Pacific Coast.
SEVENTH SESSION.
The Seventh Session was called to order by the President at 2.30 P.M.
25. The Chinese Normal Essay, by Professor John Fryer, of the University of California.
The Chinese Normal Essay, or Wen-chang, represents the highest ideal of literary excellence that our friends on the other side of the Pacific have attained to. I call it the Normal essay to distinguish it from the Lun, or Free essay, which is now gradually taking its place.
(l) Its Importance in China. — No one is considered eligible for official posi- tion in China who has not memorized and studied the Sacred Classics till he has thoroughly grasped the views of the ancient Rulers and Sages respecting the dif- ferent branches of political science. He must further have learned to express his thoughts on these subjects in elegant and forceful writing ; so as to be able to conduct the diplomatic correspondence and the other literary work of an official. The test of his knowledge has consisted in writing essays on themes selected entirely from the classics, which have had to be written in conformity with certain fixed rules. To write a good essay necessarily requires a thoroughly well-informed, well-balanced, and orderly mind. It is only such a mind that is supposed able to deal with the questions arising in the administration of the different government functions. It is the writing of such essays, under the closest possible surveillance, that has constituted the chief feature of the Chinese system of competitive government examinations — a well-devised scheme that was in use in China many centuries before it was even dreamed of in the Western world.
The object of all education in China being official position, the art of essay- writing becomes the one central feature — the flower and fruit — of the whole of the laborious educational system of the Chinese. The schoolboy begins to write his easy form of essay, or part of an essay, as soon as he is able to under- stand the classics ; while the gray-haired competitor for the Doctor's degree is still found working away at the same dreary task that has occupied his whole life. When we see candidates patiently keeping in touch with these studies year after year, from youth to old age, each failure in essay-writing only stimulat- ing to renewed exertions, the vast importance of the essay, from the Chinese point of view, is self-evident. Three to eight essays have to be produced during one examination. The bookshops of all Chinese cities are flooded with collec- tions of essays by famous authors of all ages, which have to be carefully studied by intending competitors in the hope of borrowing therefrom something of their vigor of style and refinement of diction. By writing one or more essays every day of his life, to be severely criticised by his teachers or friends, the student becomes so proficient that elegant and well-turned phrases, on any subject within his range, flow easily and almost mechanically from his pen. Unless luck is against him, he feels confident that success will crown his efforts. Yet only from one to five per cent succeed at ordinary examinations.
Proceedings for December, 1902. ci
(2) Its History. — The farther we go back in the history of the Chinese essays the more the similarity to those of our Western nations is manifest. Plu- tarch and Seneca, as well as Plato and Cicero, wrote their essays with perfect freedom from the constraint of fixed rules or methods. In the same way the art of writing essays, which has existed in China from time immemorial, was not at first placed under restriction as to method. It was not till the Sung dynasty, or about a thousand years ago, that the present elaborate system, which we call the Normal essay, arranged under eight divisions,' was fully and permanently fixed, by the great reformer, Wang-an-shih, in the year 1060. Chinese literature was then at its zenith. The prose and poetical writings of that era are even now regarded as the consummation of excellence, while its caligraphy is so much prized that some of the best scholars of the present day use it as their model. The conservative Chinese carefully retain every feature of that highly developed system for writing essays which obtained in those palmy days. Their love of order, symmetry, settled formulae, fixed laws and rules, leads them to abhor the very idea of change in literary as well as in other things.
(3) Method of Construction. — Ever since the Sung dynasty the Normal essayist must introduce his subject in so many well-balanced sentences, develop- ing it in so many more, summing up his arguments, and, finally, reaching the conclusion — all exactly according to those old-fashioned principles and methods of composition. To express his own thoughts in his own way would be fatal to his purpose. It is here that the exercise of the most wonderful ingenuity comes in, for of all the kinds of prose-writing that have ever been invented the Wen- chang is undoubtedly the most difficult, exacting, and artificial. History and geography must be studied, but only those of China — and not at all for their lessons of wisdom, but for the sake of the allusions with which they enable the writer to embellish his composition. The great facts and the great thoughts that vibrate through the rest of the civilized world he has no use for.
The length of the Normal essay is limited to between three hundred to six or eight hundred words. In our own literature it answers thus, in some respects, to the short papers found in the Spectator and Rambler, which were so much in vogue during the eighteenth century. Bacon's essays resemble, in some respects, the best class of Chinese essays ; but our modern British essayists are so far removed from the Chinese Normal essay, in the freedom and elasticity of their style and mode of treatment, that comparison is out of the question.
The great aim of the Chinese essayist being the exposition of the theme, nothing further must be attempted ; on the principle that the germs of all wisdom are contained in the classics and people of modern times can do nothing beyond unfolding the vast inner meaning of these germs. Originality is not to be thought of. The essay which obtains the highest favor is composed of a great number of parts, skilfully and deftly arranged and joined together like the mosaic pictures of the West, or like the inlaid wares of China and Japan. It is thus of no prac- tical utility except as a feat of intellectual gymnastics or a cleverly solved literary puzzle.
A translation can never begin to do justice to the subtle qualities that are to be found in a first-class Normal essay. The delicate play of words, the covert allusions, the connecting words that carry the sense over from one sentence to the next, or from one division to another, together with the links which blend
cii Association of the Pacific Coast.
the various elements into one symmetrical and harmonious whole — these are features that it is impossible to translate, for they almost entirely disappear, directly the essay is cast into a foreign mould.
The Chinese Normal essay has been compared to those dwarfed trees which the Chinese and Japanese gardeners are at such pains to produce by artificial treatment. Yet it cannot be denied that each essay is complete in itself. The Chinese proverb says that " the fly though a small insect has all its viscera per- fect." In like manner the Chinese essay, although limited to a few hundred words, is a finished production. The human body is the model on which it is constructed. The human body is supposed to have eight principal parts, or divisions, and in the same way the Normal essay must have its head, neck, shoulders, arms, viscera, sides, legs, and feet. In fact, its argument must be literally an " argumentum ad homineni" These parts in the essay must be symmetrical and well proportioned. If the legs are too long, it is said to resemble a stork ; if the middle portions are too bulky, it is said to be like a turtle ; if the head and feet are too large in proportion to the middle, it is said to resemble a wasp ; and so on. In any such case the essay would be rejected. The limits of this abstract of the paper will not admit of the translation of a short essay by \vay of illustration.
(4) Beneficial and Injurious Results. — A thousand years of Normal essay- writing has not been without its benefits to the Chinese people, as well as to their rulers. The brainy people, who might otherwise have caused trouble, have been busily and harmlessly engaged, while at the same time they have been kept in close touch with, and under the complete control of, the government. The classics are the embodiment of elegant and correct style ; and thus the writing of Wen-chang, which depends upon them, has been a great means for cultivating and keeping up a high degree of scholarly excellence, causing the Chinese to deserve well the name of a literary nation. The classics, furthermore, contain the principles of government ; and hence their careful study, which the Wen- chang involves, has tended to produce a body of men well versed in the princi- ples of law and justice. Again, the writing of Wen-chang is a great training in the art of diplomacy. It teaches ths best way of presenting a subject to another person : approaching him gradually, hinting at what is meant, — at first vaguely, — and noting the result ; then, if it seems advisable, more light is let in. If the result still seems satisfactory, the full idea may be broached without fear of offence or refusal. In all this sort of diplomacy the Chinese excel, and doubtless this is owing, in a considerable degree, to the long training of the best minds in the writing of Wen-chang.
On the other hand, the injurious effects on the nation are almost self-evident. The writing of the Normal essay checks all progress. It only reproduces the past, while it visits novelty and originality with heavy penalties. Again, it tends to pervert the moral sense by making what amounts to nothing appear to be something of paramount importance. The highest triumph of the art is to extract from a text what is really not in it. Hence, the Wen-chang has been well described as an " artistic lie." After so many generations of this kind of training it would not be surprising to find the literary classes notorious for deceit and duplicity.
(5) The Future of the Normal Essay. — It is satisfying to know that after suf-
Proceedings for December, 1902. ciii
fering from this incubus for a millennium of years, China has recently abolished its absolute necessity for purposes of examinations for literary degrees, by an imperial edict. For the future the Lun, or free essay, may be written, and will be accepted instead. The change will not be difficult to make, for it only involves the giving up of the stereotyped form of the arrangement and expression of the ideas. The essayist may now express his sentiments in his own way, with perfect freedom from all constraint, while he still maintains all the elegance and style of the Wen-thang. Instead of being restricted to the books and authors before the Han dynasty, the whole realm of history, as well as of science and art, are now open to him. It is all the difference between a man obliged to do his work in heavy shackles and in being allowed the absolute freedom of his whole body. A few years will show the advantage of the change, and will cause the literary part of the nation to look back with wonder at the chains which their predecessors were contented to be bound with for so many ages. For this change they are indebted to the compulsory intercourse of foreign nations ; for if the Chinese had been left alone in their seclusion, things would have gone on in the old rut, practically forever.
26. The Scholia on Gesture in the Commentary of Donatus, by Dr. J. W. Basore, of the University of California.
The scenic import of the scholia on gesture, in the commentary of Donatus (flor. 4th cy. A.D.) on the plays of Terence, received appreciative comment from Lessing in the Hamburg Dramaturgic, and by more formal exposition of their value, notably at the hands of Schopen, Hoflfer, and Leo, these have since ranked as a source of information concerning the manners of the Roman stage. The com- mentary is an uncritical compilation from at least two other commentaries which were themselves dependent upon older works of a similar nature, and this depen- dence has seemed especially obvious in the case of those scholia which have been interpreted as stage-directions, since in the fourth century the plays of Plaulus and Terence had ceased to subsist upon the stage and the incorporation of such in the mass of otherwise exegetical, grammatical, and rhetorical comment, could have been with no purpose of serving the practices of the period. The ultimate sources of such scenic matter may well have been the actors' copies of the plays and the records of magistrates regarding their production, made accessible through the works of the earlier Roman scholars. Sittl, however, in the only formal treatise on ancient gesture {Die Gebarden der Griechen u. Romer, Lpz. 1890), rejecting the estimate which places upon these scholia a value for the older period of stage representation, refers the group to the category of mere directions for the mimic declaimer of the later period {I.e. p. 203), and thus eliminates from consideration what has seemed especially copious and direct testimony to the nature of comic action. In opposition to the view of Sittl, by a review of the commentary, emphasis was laid upon the many elements, — dependent, presum- ably, upon older accessible sources of information, which, apart from the supposed directions for scenic action, have an unmistakable scenic import. It was thus shown that the compiler aimed distinctly to incorporate lore concerning the objective representation of plays though they had passed from the stage, and that the scholia on gesture might with equal reason be referred to the same or similar
civ Association of the Pacific Coast.
sources. Note, for example, the references to the " scaena " and " proscaenium " in the adjustment of parts {Ad. 2. 2. 2; Eun. 3. I. I, et saepe) to the presence of the spectator (e.g. And. 2. 6. 25; 3. 2. 15); the allusions to the entrance or departure of actors (e.g. And. 5. 4. I; Eun. 3\ I. 4; on Eun. 5. 4. 45 cf. Wein- berger, Wien. Stud. 14, p. 123). The introductory treatise of the commentary, De Comoedia supplies varied information upon the presentation of plays in point of costume, the wearing of masks, and other technical matters of stage equipment (cf. ed. of Wessner, p. 28 ff.). Further, in the narrower limits of the group of scholia under consideration, certain directions appear which not only may be shown from other sources to be in accord with the customs of the stage, but cannot with any degree of probability be referred to the uses of the declaimer, since, though the "actio " of the stage was regarded in a measure as the model of oratorical delivery, those extravagances of bearing which verged on the side of "imitatio" were strongly condemned for the purposes of the more dignified speaker (Auct. ad Her. III. 26; Quint. XI. 3. 124). Thus the "gestus exeuntis vel abituri" (Ad. I. 2. 47; Eun. 3. 5. i), "gestus offerentis" (Ph. I. 2. 2), "gestus cogitantis " (And. i. i. 83; cf. Plaut. Mil. Glor. 201-207), " gestus com- minantis" (Ad. 3. 4. 8; 4. 4. 14), etc., the violent movements of tossing or shaking the head (Eun. 4. 7. I ; And. I. 2. 12), comic capers of joy (Ad. 2. 4. I, et al.), the drunken reel (e.g. Eun. 4. 5. i), all satisfy purely dramatic situations. A scenic value is to be recognized in the characterizations of the role of the " servus currens " in conformity with the stock type of comedy (Quint. XI. 3. 112; Donat. De Com. p. 29, Wessner). Of obvious significance for scenic action are the comments specif;, ing attitudes, as types of which may be cited Ph. 5. 6. 20 (conversus), Hec. 4. I. 8 (aversus), the direction of the eyes (Eun. 5. 5. 17 et saepe), and contact by touch (e.g. Eun. I. 2. 43). The foundation of the "gestus servilis" (And. I. 2. 12; I. 2. 13; Ad. 4. 2. 28), is found in Quint. XI. 3. 83 to be a shrugging or contraction of the shoulders, and the censure attached to it there (raro decens) points to its distinctively comic, character. The attitude further is clearly depicted in the miniatures of the illustrated Mss. of Terence, where it is shown to be characteristic of a slave upon entering the stage. So the assigned gesture of threatening with the staff (baculum), Ad. 4. 2. 32; 5. 2. 7, points to an attested custom of stage equipment for old men and rustics (cf. Suet- Nero, 24; Daremb-Sagl. Diet. Antiq. sub baculum). Finally evidence was gained for the scenic value of the scholia by citing specified cases of coincidence of testimony with the representations of the illustrated Mss. of Terence, and from this fact of mutual support was drawn an argument for the reliability of the tradition there portrayed.
This paper was discussed by Professors Richardson and Gayley.
27. Magister Curiae in the Aulularia of Plautus, by Dr. H. W. Prescott, of the University of California.
This paper appears in full in the TRANSACTIONS.
The Committee on Nomination of Officers then reported the fol- lowing nominations for the year 1902-03 through the Chairman, Professor L. J. Richardson.
Proceedings for December, 1902. cv
President, A. T. Murray, Leland Stanford Jr. University. Vice- Presidents, W. A. Merrill, University of California.
J. Goebel, Leland Stanford Jr. University.
Secretary-Treasurer, J. E. Matzke, Leland Stanford Jr. University. Executive Committee, The above-named officers and
E. B. Clapp, University of California.
H. R. Fairclough, Leland Stanford Jr. University.
A. F. Lange, University of California.
J. E. Church, Jr., University of Nevada.
The report was accepted, and on motion of Professor Richardson the Secretary was instructed to cast the ballot of the Association for the gentlemen as nominated.
On motion of Professor Merrill the Secretary was instructed to convey to the Regents of the University of California the thanks of the Association for the use of the rooms in which the meetings were held.
28. Lucretius' Attitude towards Children, by Dr. Andrew Oliver, of San Mateo, California (read by title).
29. The Source of Sheridan's Rivals, by Professor W. D. Armes, of the University of California.
Though Sheridan stated in the preface to The Rivals that it was his first wish to avoid all appearance of plagiarism, he has not escaped the charge. Especially has his indebtedness to Humphry Clinker for characters and incidents been asserted, Mr. Thomas Arnold even referring to the novel as " the mine out of which Sheridan dug The Rivals."
Professor Brander Matthews enumerates the charges only to deny them. He quotes Mr. Arnold's statement, and says, "The accusation that The Rivals is indebted to Humphry ( 'linker is absurd. ... In all Smollett's novel . . . there is nothing which recalls Sheridan's play, save possibly Mistress Tabitha Bramble."
These two statements are irreconcilable. Which is correct? A detailed com- parison of the two works will show.
First, as to plot. The principal of the two stories in Humphry Clinker is as follows : Mr. Wilson and Miss Lydia Melford, who have previously met in Glouces- tershire and fallen in love, carry on a clandestine correspondence in Bath through a servant. She betrays Lydia, who is commanded to give up a lover so far beneath her. But the discovery that Wilson is the assumed name of the son of an old friend of Lydia's uncle removes all obstacles to the marriage. Substitute Beverly for Wilson, Languish for Melford, and aunt for uncle, and this is the plot of The Rivals.
Next, as to characters. Miss Bramble, Lydia's aunt, is " a maiden of forty- five, exceedingly starched, vain, and ridiculous," on the lookout for a husband. Though a gentlewoman, she blunders in her diction, confusing words that sound alike. Change maiden to widow, and this describes Mrs. Malaprop.
cvi Association of the Pacific Coast.
Matthew Bramble, in his college days a gay blade, is in the novel an irascible and opinionated old man, " always on the fret, and . . . unpleasant in his manner," who beneath his rough exterior conceals a warm, tender heart. Broadly tolerant and full of charity, he thinks himself a crusty cynic and confirmed misanthrope. Mutatis mutandis, this is a description of Sir Anthony Absolute, "in his youth a bold intriguer and gay companion," but shown in the play as an irascible, head- strong old man. Though hot-headed and intolerant, he considers himself a marvel of coolness and moderation.
In both works are a sentimental miss of seventeen and her confidante, and two young gentlemen of fortune and position who are their lovers. Miss Lydia Melford " has got a languishing eye and reads romances." Miss Lydia Languish is intro- duced looking over a number of novels, among them Humphry Clinker. Dennison, urged by his parents to make a distasteful marriage, quits college, and under the name of Wilson becomes a strolling player. As such he wins the love of Miss Melford, who, unknown to him, is the niece of his father's college chum. Captain Absolute refuses to give his hand to the lady that his father has selected for him, but whom he himself has never seen. Charmed by the appearance of Miss Languish, and knowing that with the sentimental girl he would succeed better as a penniless ensign than as a captain, heir to a fortune and a baronetcy, he assumes the name Beverly, and unwittingly becomes his own rival, Lydia being the niece of an old friend of his father, and the very lady that Sir Anthony had selected for him.
In the novel there is barely a suggestion that in Miss Willis, his sister's con- fidante, Jery Melford " meets his fate." Sheridan developed this secondary pair of lovers in the style of the sentimental comedy, and the scenes between them were highly applauded by his contemporaries.
Sir Lucius O'Trigger has a shadowy prototype in Sir Ulic Mackilligut, with perhaps a few traits from Lismahago.
Third, as to the incidents that do not form a part of the plot. Miss Bramble carries on a flirtatious correspondence with Sir Ulic, whom she met in Bath when he was about to open a ball with Lady Macmanus. Mrs. Malaprop has a similar correspondence with Sir Lucius, whom she met in Bath at the rout at Lady Macshuffle's. As does Miss Bramble so does Mrs. Malaprop mistake a proposal for her niece's hand for one for her own.
The similarity of these incidents has been noted before, but that the duel inci- dents in the play have originals in the novel, so far as I know, has not. Mr. Bramble runs after his nephew to keep him from fighting Wilson. Failing to catch him, he calls out the mayor and the constables and reaches the field with them in time to prevent the duel. So David runs after Captain Absolute to pre- vent his meeting Sir Lucius, and failing to catch him, vows to call out the mayor and the constables to stop the duel. The arrival of Sir Anthony and the ladies on the field, however, brings the play to a close before their appearance.
Seeing Wilson in an unnamed town, Jery Melford, desirous of continuing the interrupted duel, left a challenge at the hotel at which he learned a Mr. Wilson was staying. Without question, an utter stranger appeared at the rendezvous, explaining that " having had the honour to serve his Majesty, he thought he could not decently decline any invitation of this kind from what quarter soever it might come." So Captain Absolute accepts Sir Lucius' challenge without
Proceedings for December, 1902. cvii
question, and gives his father the same explanation : " 'Twas he called me out, and you know, sir, I serve his Majesty. . . . That gentleman called me out with- out explaining his reasons."
In Humphry Clinker, a squire, who has broken his promise to a clergyman, makes him the butt of his ridicule. Eastgate replies in kind, and Frankly forth- with challenges him. To his amazement the challenge is accepted. As his bluster has no effect, Frankly takes position, but his hand trembles so that he cannot prime his pistol. Alleging that he has not arranged his affairs, he begs a postponement, to which Eastgate consents. After presenting the clergyman the living that had caused their quarrel, the squire asserts his readiness to pro- ceed, but Eastgate declines to lift his hand against his benefactor. So Bob Acres, spite of his bluster, is in a " blue funk " when in position, and is immensely re- lieved to find that " Beverly " is his friend Absolute, with whom, according to his code, it is impossible for him to fight.
The plot, then, most of the important characters, and the principal incidents in The Rivals, were developed by Sheridan from suggestions in Humphry Clinker. Mr. Arnold's metaphor may be expanded : in Humphry Clinker is a mass of valuable ore mixed with dross and impurities; in The Rivals we have the refined metal stamped with the hall-mark of Sheridan's brilliant wit.
Adjourned at 5 P.M.
INDEX.
Arabic numerals indicate the pages of the Transactions ; Roman numerals indicate the pages
of the Proceedings.
ab before proper names beginning with
a consonant : Iv. Ablative absolute in the epistles of
Cicero, Seneca, Pliny, and Fronto :
Ixi. Accent, early Latin, recessive: 71-76,
93-96, 101. Alcibiades's return to Athens, date of:
40.
s, meaning of, in Hephaestion, p. 21 W: 49 f. Anaclasis, in galliambics : 29 f. Anacrustic scansion of iambic trimeter :
5° f- 53» 59- Analogy, effect of, upon Latin accent:
74 f. Anapaest in the Aristophanic trimeter :
49-59 ; table of frequency of: 53 ;
preponderance of in even feet : 52
ff.; not a resolution of irrational
spondee : 54 ; in Middle and New
Comedy : 54.
Andocides against Alcibiades : xli. Apocope of s in Lucretius : Ixv. Aristophanes, the citizenship of: Ixxxii. Aristophanic trimeter, anapaest in : 49-
59- Art, Greek, appreciation of, in Cicero :
xxxv. Beloch's theory of the succession of
Spartan nauarchs: 33 ff. Campoamor, Poetica : Ixxx. canicula : lix.
Catullus, galliambics in : 27 ff. Chinese normal essay : c. Chivers, literary relations of, to Poe :
xcii.
Cicero, appreciation of Greek art : xxxv. Cicero, Brut. 75 (bellum Poenicum} :
xliii.
Cicero, ellipsis in: 8-9, n.
Cicero's epistles, ablative absolute in :
Ixi. Claudian's De consulate Stilichonis,
M.E. translation of: xciv. Cocaigne, land of, in Attic comedy:
xxxii. Comedy, Middle and New, frequency of
anapaest in trimeter of: 54, Comic poets, Greek, as literary critics :
xxxiv.
Comparative literature, what is? Ixxiv. Compounds, Indo-European, so-called
mutation in: Ixviii ; Latin: 84 f.,
97-101.
Conditional thought, modes of: Ixvii. conlegia : 44 f.
Copula, omission of, in Greek : viii. Cratesippidas, Spartan nauarch : 33-35,
37, 40.
curiae : 43 f. Dactyl in anacrustic scansion of iambic
trimeter, table of frequency of: 53. Dactylic form of hexameter : li. Dactylic words, accentuation of, in Latin
verse : 67 f.
Danielsson on diektasis in Homer : xx. Dekker's share in Old Fortunatus : xcii. de tenero ungui : Iv. Diaeresis after the second foot of the
hexameter in Lucretius : Ix. Diektasis in Homer : xx. Diodorus Siculus, optative in : Ixii. Dolora in Campoamor : Ixxx. Donatus, scholia on gesture in the com- mentary of: ciii.
Dryden's quarrel with Settle : xc. egosum : 88.
Elegists, Roman, metrical art of: xxviii. Elision in Greek, theory of: xxiv.
Proceedings for July, 1 903 .
cix
ella as a polite form of address in Italian : Loads.
Ellipsis, in Tacitus's descriptions : 5-26.
Enclitics in Latin : 73, 87-90.
Epistoleus, successsion of, to the Spar- tan nauarchia : 36, 40.
?ro(/io?, omission of copula with : viii.
etquidem : 86.
ettamen : 86.
Euripides, Hippol. 246 : xli.
Fronto's epistles, ablative absolute in : IxL
Galliambics, anaclasis in : 29 f. ; in Catullus: 27 ff.
German auxiliary verb, omission of, xcv.
Gerund in Livy : xxxviii.
Gerundive in Livy : xxxviii. •
Gesture, scholia on, in the commentary of Donatus : ciii.
Gleditsch's view of the anapaest in iam- bic trimeter : 57.
Goethe and Herder : bcxii.
Grammarians, citations from, upon Latin accent : 64, 97 ; upon Latin word- division: 98.
Greek art ; three terra-cotta heads : xxxvii ; head of an ephebos from Corinth : xxxvii ; Cicero's apprecia- tion of: xxxv.
Havelok, the Scalacronica version of: xci.
Hephaestion and the anapaest in the Aristophanic trimeter : 49-59 ; his erroneous notion that anapaest is reso- lution of irrational spondee : 54, 57 ff.
Herder and Goethe : Ixxii.
Herder's attitude toward the French stage : Ixxii.
Hermann's view of the anapaest in iambic trimeter : 54 f.
Heroic form of hexameter : li.
Hexameter, Greek forms of: li.
Hexameter, Latin, coincidence of word- accent and verse-ictus in the last two feet of: xxvi.
Hexameter, Latin, diaeresis after the second foot of, in Lucretius : be.
Historians, ancient, incongruities in the speeches of: xliii.
Homer, diektasis in : xx.
Horace, C. 1.3. 1-8 : xxii ; 3. 6. 24 : Iv ; 3- 12: 27.
Hupa, a Californian language, structure
of the verb in : xcviii. Iambic trimeter, anapaest in : 49-59. Iambic words, in galliambic rhythm:
28 ff.
idagit : 8l, 98 ; idego : 98. Idiot as a possessive in Polybius : iv. Infinitive, historical, in Tacitus: 6-7,
13, 22, 26.
Initial intensity, theory of: 95 f. Ionic verse, in I lorace : 27. Italian, ella, lei, la, as polite forms of
address: Ixxxix. Juvenal, cod. Canonicianus Lat. XLI :
xix.
KOT' tvtnr\iov form of dactylic hexame- ter: li. Klotz's view of the anapaest in iambic
trimeter : 56 f. la as a polite form of address in Italian :
Ixxxix.
Latin, order of words in : xxxi. lei as a polite form of address in Italian :
Ixxxix. Literary criticism in Greek comic poets :
xxxiv. Livy's account of the dramatic satura :
Ixvii.
Livy, ellipsis in : 9.
Livy, gerund and gerundive in : xxxviii. Lucretius, apocope of s in : Ixv. Lucretius, diaeresis after the second
foot of the hexameter in : Ix. Magister curiae in Plaut. Aul. : 107,
41-48. Metrical art of the Roman elegists:
xxviii.
Mindarus, Spartan nauarch : 33-36, 40. Monosyllables, Latin, their relation to
accent and quantity : 60-103 ; com- monly proclitic: 71 ff. ; commonly
atonic: 63 f.; sometimes tonic: 71 ff. Mutation in Indo-European compounds :
Ixviii. Nauarchs, Spartan, succession of, in
Hellenica 1 : 33 ff. Nymphs, cult of, as water-deities among
the Romans : vi. Old Fortunatus, relation of, to the
Volksbufh : xcii. 6/j.fj.a T tr pa.tr T a.i, Eurip. Hippol. 246 :
xli.
ex
American Philological Association.
Optative in Diodorus Siculus : Ixii. Order of words in Latin : xxxi. Pasippidas, Spartan nauarch : 33 ff. Pentameter, elegiac : li. Pericles, fiscal joke of: xx. Perschinka's table of frequency of ana- paest in iambic trimeter : 54. Plato, Rep. 423 B : xxiii. Plautus, Aul. 107 : 41-48; Stick. 193 ff. :
v.
Pliny's epistles, ablative absolute in : Ixi. Poe, literary relations of, to Chivers:
xcii.
Poenicum = Punicum : xliii. Poetica of Campoamar : Ixxx. Polybius, fSios as a possessive in : iv. Proceleusmaticus, accentuation of: 76-
78.
Proclitics in Latin : 71 ff. Promptuarium Exemplorum, sources
of the Paris : xcvi. Prosodiac tetrameter: li. quidego: 84 f.; quidenim : 97; quidita:
97 ; quidni : 84. Quintilian's criticism of the metres of
Terence : xlviii.
Ramayana, some verb-forms in : xl. Rhythm as concerned in poetry : Ixxxvii. Rhythm, marked by word-accent in
Latin : 27, 32. Rossbach and WestphaFs view of the
anapaest in iambic trimeter : 55 f. Rousselot's phonetic synthesis, xxiii. RumpePs statistics of anapaest in iambic
trimeter: 51 ff., 58. s apocopated in Lucretius : Ixv. Sallust, ellipsis in : 8-9. Satura, dramatic, Livy's account of:
Ixvii. Scalacronica version of Havelok : xci.
Seasickness, references to, in ancient writers: v.
sedego : 85 ; sedenim : 97.
Seneca's epistles, ablative absolute in: Ixi.
Sepultura = stpulcrum : Ixxiii.
Settle, Dryden's quarrel with : xc.
Sheridan's Rivals, source of: cv.
Siamese vowels and diphthongs : Ixxi.
Spartan lethargy : 36.
Speeches of ancient historians, incon- gruities in : xliii.
Syllable-shortening in early Latin, due to word-accent : 61 ; due to analogy :
75-
Tacitus, ellipsis in : 5-26. Tacitus, impressionism in: 7, 12, 19,
21-25.
Tacitus, subjectivity of: 7, 24. Terence, accent and quantity of mono- syllables in : 60 ff. Terence's metres, Quintilian's criticism
of: xlviii.
Thasos, revolutions in : 35, 37, 38. Thucydides, character-drawing in : x. Tribrach words, accentuation of, in
Latin verse: 64-67. ungui, de tenero : Iv. Verb, auxiliary, omission of, in German :
xcv. Verb, structure of, in Hupa, a Califor-
nian language : xcviii. Vergil, Aeneid, proaemium to : xxxii. Vergil, ellipsis in: 10-11. Verse-ictus in Latin hexameter : xxvi. Word-accent in Latin hexameter : xxvi. Word-division in Latin : 97-100. Word-order in Latin: 71, 73 f., 90. Xenophon, Hellenica /., chronology of:
33 ff.; topical method in : 35,37.
Proceedings for July, 1903.
cxi
BIBLIOGRAPHICAL RECORD. JULY i, 1902, TO JULY i, 1903.
The Bibliographical Record is designed to contain not only publications dis- tinctly philological in character, but also such as deal with the educational aspects of the study of language and literature. It has been compiled from information furnished, at the request of the Executive Committee, by the members themselves. The Record is intended to include only such publications as have appeared within the above-mentioned year.
ABBREVIATIONS: A HR = American Historical Review; A JA = American Journal of Archaeology; A JP = American Journal of Philology; A JSL = American Journal of Semitic Languages; AJT= American Journal of Theology; Arckiv = Archivfur latein. Lexicographic; Bookm. =The Bookman; CR = Classical Review; CSCP= Cornell Studies in Classical Phi- lology; ER = Educational Review; HSCP= Harvard Studies in Classical Philology; HSPL=> Harvard Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature; IF= Indogermanische Forschungen; JA OS = Journal of the American Oriental Society; JBL = Journal of Biblical Literature; yGP = Journal of Germanic Philology; JHUC = Johns Hopkins University Circulars; MLA = Publications of the Modern Language Association; MLN= Modern Language Notes; Jv*/K=The New World; PAPA = Proceedings of the American Philological Association ; Nat. = The Nation; SK = School Review ; TA PA = Transactions of the American Philological Association ; UPB = University of Pennsylvania Bulletin; WRUB = Western Reserve University Bulletin.
FRANK FROST ABBOTT.
Rev. of Ball's Apocolocyntosis of Seneca; CR., xvii. (1903), 218- 220.
JAMES TURNEY ALLEN.
On the so-called iterative optative in Greek; TAPA., xxxiii., 101-126.
Louis F. ANDERSON.
A Day in Athens; in the Whitman College Pioneer, Walla Walla, Wash., April, 1902.
Address — Ancient and Modern Del- phi; brief report in the Pioneer, April 2, 1902.
Address — What the church owes to Greek and its present duty; de- livered before the Pacific Coast Congregational Congress, May 8— 17, 1903, and partially printed in Seattle Times, May 9, 1903.
ALFRED WILLIAMS ANTHONY.
Rev. of Pearson's The carpenter prophet; AJT., vi. (July, 1902),
573-574-
Rev. of Heinrici's Das Urchristen- tum, and Dobschutz's Die urchrist-
lichen Gemeinden; AJT., vii. (January, 1903), 149-15°- FRANCIS KINGSLEY BALL (and A. F. BLAISDELL).
Hero stories from American history, pp. xii + 259; Boston: Ginn & Co., 1903.
WILLIAM N. BATES.
Etruscan horseshoes from Corneto; AJA.. vi., 398-403.
PAUL BAUR.
Eileithyia ; University of Missouri Studies, i., No. 4 (Nov., 1902), pp. vi., 90 (208-297).
EDWARD A. BECHTEL.
Sanctae Silviae Peregrinatio, text and a study of the Latinity, pp. 160; The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1902.
ALLEN ROGERS BENNER.
Selections from Homer's Iliad, with an introduction, notes, a short Homeric grammar, and a vocabu- lary, pp. xxx vi +522; New York: D. Appleton &Co., 1903. (Twen- tieth century text-books.)
CX11
American Philological Association.
CHARLES E. BENNETT.
The characters of Theophrastus, translated with introduction by Charles E. Bennett and William A. Hammond; Longmans, Green & Co., 1902.
The foundations of Latin, revised edition; Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1903.
Caesar's Gallic war, books i-iv, edited with introduction and notes; Bos- ton: Allyn & Bacon, 1903.
(As general editor) Pike's Suetonius, selections; Boston: Allyn & Bacon, 1903.
GEORGE RICKER BERRY.
Some textual notes on Proverbs;
AJSL., xix. (1902), 53-54- The ethical teaching of the Old
Testament; Biblical World, xxi.
(1903), 108-114, i97-2°5- Waw consecutive with the perfect in
Hebrew; JBL., xx., 60-69.
Louis BEVIER, JR.
The vowel Ie (as in ///) ; Physical Review, vol. xv., No. i, July, 1902,
PP- 44-5°-
The vowel I (as in pique) ; Physical Review, vol. xv., No. 5, November, 1902, pp. 271-275.
Brief Greek syntax, pp. 108; Ameri- can Book Co , 1903.
In Greek series for colleges and schools, edited under the super- vision of Herbert Weir Smyth, Ph.D.
CHARLES EDWARD BISHOP.
Critique of Babbitt's Grammar of Attic and Ionic Greek (American Book Co.) ; Baltimore Sun.
MAURICE BLOOMFIELD.
On the initial sound of the Sanskrit words for ' door ' ; Melanges Kern, pp. 193-194-
Alfred William Stratton (Necrology); AJP., xxiii., 351-353.
The god Indra and the Sama-Veda; Wiener Zeitschrift zur Kunde des Aforgenlandes, xvii., 156-164.
GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING.
KAITOI with the participle; AJP.,
xxiii., 319-321. Beginning of the Greek day; AfP.,
xxiii., 428-435. The relation of the Vedic forms of
the dual; JAOS., xxiii., 318-324. Review of Happel, Die religiosen und
philosophischen grundanschau-
ungen der Inder; AJT., vii., 118-
120.
JAMES W. BRIGHT.
Notes on the Caedmonian Exodus;
MLN., xvii., 212-213. Notelets on the Canterbury Tales;
MLN., xvii., 239. Jottings on the Caedmonian Christ
and Satan ; MLN., xviii., 1 29- 131.
ISAAC B. BURGESS.
Some essentials of student self-gov- ernment ; The Academy News, Morgan Park, 111., May 27, 1903.
CURTIS C. BUSHNELL.
A parallel between Lucan and
Wordsworth; JGP., iv., I (Nov.,
1902). A note upon Seneca, Medea 378-
382; PAPA., xxxiii. (1902), vii,
viii. The first four feet of the hexameter
of Horace's Satires; Ib., Ivi-lviii. Brief mention of books; Journal of
Pedagogy, xv., 3 (March, 1903),
and 4 (June, 1903). Verse-translation of the Puer natus,
etc.; Syracuse: R. N. Perry, 1902. Id. of the Tandem audite me, etc.;
Syracuse Univ. Herald, xxxi., 6
(March, 1903).
MITCHELL CARROLL.
Rev. of George Horton's In Argolis,
in Baltimore Sun, Nov. 27, 1902. Rev. of Fowler's History of ancient
Greek literature ; Ib., Jan. 15, 1903. Rev. of Butler's Story of Athens; Ib.,
April 2, 1903. Rev. of Gulick's Life of the ancient
Greeks; Ib., May 7, 1903.
Proceedings for July, 1 903 .
cxin
JESSE BENEDICT CARTER.
Epitheta deorum quae apud poetas Latinos leguntur; pp. 153; I.eip- sic : Teubner, 1902. (Supplement- Band to Roscher's Lexikon der griech. und rom. mythulogie.)
The portrait of Virgil; Princeton University Bulletin, xiv , No. 2, March, 1903, pp. 48-56.
Rev. of Wissowa's Religion und Kul- tus der Romer; Deutsche Littera- turzeitung, 1902, No. 26, pp. 1645- 1648.
HERMANN COLLITZ.
Waldeckisches WSrterbuch nebst Dialektproben, gesammelt von Karl Bauer, herausgegeben von H. C. (= Worterbiicher, hrsg. vom Verein fur niederdeutsche Sprach- forshung, Bd. IV), pp. xxvi + 106 + 320; Norden & Leipzig: D. Soltau, 1902.
ARTHUR STODDARD COOLEY.
Progress in Greece; Boston Evening Transcript, Wed., Jan. 28, 1903.
Holy week in a Greek village; The Congregationalist, April 4, 1903.
Nature aspects of Zeus ; PAPA., xxxiii., Ixv-lxvii.
WALTER DENNISON.
An unpublished bust of the Scipio
type; abstract in SR., xi. (May,
1903), 407. Rev. of Mau-Kelsey's Pompeii: its
life and art ; Bibliotheca Sacra,
Ix. (April, 1903), 395. Rev. of Lowrie's Monuments of the
early church ; Ib., 396.
BENJAMIN L. D'OoGE.
The teaching of first year Latin ; SR. (Sept., 1902), pp. 532-549.
MORTIMER LAMSON EARLE.
Ad Horatii Serm. I., I, 15 sqq.; Mne- mosyne, xxx., 347.
On the first ode of Horace ; CR., xvi., 398-401.
Ad Vergilii Aen. I., 39 sqq. ; Mne- mosyne, xxxi., 46. Studies in Sophocles's Trachinians;
TAPA., xxxiii., 5-29. Notes on Cicero, De natura deorum ;
PAPA., xxxiii., Ixx-lxxi. Notes on Sophocles's Antigone ; CR.,
xvii., 5-6. Of the prologue of the Agamemnon;
CR., xvii., 102-105. Ad Caesaris Comm. de Bello Gallico
initium ; Revue de philologie,
xxvii., 52. On Sophocles's Electra ; CR., xvii.,
209. Sophocle, Oedipe-Roi, v., IO-II;
Revue de philologie, xxvii., 151-153.
HOMER EDMISTON.
Rev. of Gummere's Beginnings of poetry; Nat., Ixxvi., 116-117.
JAMES C. EGBERT, JR.
Rev. of Dean Spence's Christianity and Paganism ; Nat. (Feb. 12,
I903). P- '35- Rev. of Van Santvoord's The house
of Caesar; Bookm. (Aug., 1902),
p. 564. Rev. of Villari's Invasions of Italy;
Ib. (June, 1903), p. 402. Recent excavations in the Roman
Forum; The Forum (July, 1903),
p. 101.
ARTHUR FAIRBANKS.
The mourning Athena relief; AJA.,
vi., 410-416. Aristophanes as a student of society;
American Journal of Sociology,
viii., 655-666.
Recent excavations in Aegina; The World To-day, iv., 178-179.
EDWIN W. FAY.
T. Macci Plauti Mostellaria; pp. xlvii
+ 157; Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
1902. Rev. of Lexicon Plautinum, conscrip-
sit G. Lodge, I, i, a-alius ; A jr.,
xxiii., 211-215. Latin etymologies; Ib., xxiv., 62-74.
CX1V
American Philological Association.
EDWARD FITCH.
The proprieties of epic speech in the Argonautica of Apollonius Rho- dius; PAPA., xxxiii. (1902), lix-lxi.
Rev. of Sidgwick's Eumenides of Aeschylus, third edition ; AJP., xxiv., 200-203.
EWALD FLUGEL.
Chaucer's Kleinere Gedichte II, An-
merkungen ; Anglia, xxiii., 195-
224.
Zu Chaucer's Prolog; Ib., 225-241. Gower's Mirour de I'Omme und
Chaucer's Prolog; Ib., xxiv., 437-
508. Oration at the unveiling of the
Goethe-Schiller monument, San
Francisco ; Californische Staats-
Zeitung, Aug. II, 1901. Liedersammlungen des XVI. Jahr-
hunderts III. (Balliol Ms. 354);
Anglia, xxvi., 94-285. Roger Bacon's Stellung in der Ge-
schichte der Philologie; Wundt's
Philosophische Studien, xix., 164-
191. References to the English language
in the German literature of the
first half of the sixteenth century;
Modern Philology, i., 5-16.
HAROLD NORTH FOWLER.
A history of Roman literature; pp.
vii-f3il; D. Appleton & Co., 1903.
(Twentieth century series.) Editorial work in AJA.
WILMER CAVE FRANCE.
Forty-five reviews of classical and other publications; Nat., 1902-3.
CHARLES MILLS GAYLEY.
Representative English comedies from the beginnings to Shake- speare; first edition, 680 pp.; New York: The Macmillan Co., 1903.
What is comparative literature ? (President's address before the American Philological Association of the Pacific Coast, Dec., 1902); Atlantic Monthly, xcii., 1903.
BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE.
Contributions to the AJP.
Reprint of problems of Greek syntax ; The Johns Hopkins Press, Balti- more.
THOMAS D. GOODELL.
A school grammar of Attic Greek, pp. xvi + 344 ; New York : D. Appleton & Co., July, 1902.
EDWIN L. GREEN.
Verbs compounded with prepositions in Aeschylus ; PAPA., xxxiii., xxxviii-xl.
Self-support in Southern colleges ; ATat., March 19, 1903.
ALFRED GUDEMAN.
Sallust's Catiline, with revised text, introduction, notes, and vocabulary, pp. 220; New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1903. (Twentieth century series.)
CHARLES BURTON GULICK.
The life of the ancient Greeks, text- book; D. Appleton & Co., Dec. 31, 1902.
WILLIAM ALEXANDER HAMMOND.
The characters of Theophrastus, translated into English with an introduction (in collaboration with C. E. Bennett), pp. xliii, 85; Long- mans, Green & Co., 1902.
Aristotle's Psychology ; The De Anima and Parva Naluralia, translated into English with an introduction, pp. Ixxxvi, 339; The Macmillan Co., 1902.
Rev. of Dunning's History of ancient and mediaeval politics ; Philo- sophical Review, xii., 2 (March, 1902), 199-207.
KARL P. HARRINGTON.
Cicero's Puteolanum; PAPA.,xxxiii. (1902), lii-liii.
Proceedings for July, 1 903 .
cxv
J. E. HARRY.
The use of K^Xij/iai, and the mean- ing of Euripides' Hippolylus 1-2; PAPA., xxxiii. (1903), xl-xliii.
The same in full ; University of Cin- cinatti Bulletin, No. 15, second series, vol. ii.
The upward way ; Educational Science (March, 1903), pp. 21-38.
W. A. HEIDEL.
Epicurea; AJP., xxiii., 2, No. 90,
185-194. Plato's Euthyphro, with introduction
and notes; American Book Co.,
1902.
OTTO HELLER.
Schiller, Uhland u. Hauff in ihren beziehungen zur gegenwart {Pada- gogische Monatshefte, Jahrg. iv., Heft 5), pp. 130-138.
The German woman writer in the nineteenth century ; Bulletin of the Washington University Asso- ciation, i., 46-87.
Die drei Freier, by Levin Schiicking. Edited with introduction and notes; Boston: Ginn & Co., 1903.
GERTRUDE HIRST.
The cults of Olbia; Journal of Hel- lenic Studies, pt. i. in vol. xxii., pt. ii. (Nov., 1902); pt. ii. in vol. xxiii., pt. i. (June, 1903).
Rev. of Papers of the British School at Rome, vol. i.; Speaker (Lon- don), Nov. 8, 1902.
ARCHIBALD L. HODGES.
Four notes on Livius Andronicus; The New York Latin Leaflet, vol. iii., No. 57.
ARTHUR WINFRED HODGMAN.
Noun declension in Plautus; CR., xvi., 294-305 (July, 1902).
Adjectival forms in Plautus ; CR., xvi., 446-452 (Dec., 1902).
DAVID H. HOLMES, PH.D.
The philosophy of the composition of verbs with prepositions in Greek, as illustrated by the Greek of Thucydides ; Reprint No. I from The New York Latin Leaflet, 1903.
Greek at Johns Hopkins ; Ib., vol. iii., No. 54, p. i, 1903.
EDWARD WASH BURN HOPKINS.
Remarks on the form of numbers, the method of using them, and the numerical categories found in the Mahabharata ; JAOS., xxiii., I, Aug., 1902.
Phrases of time and age in the Sans- krit epic; JAOS., xxiii., 2, Feb.- 1903.
Two notes on the Mahabharata ; Melanges h'ern, April, 1903.
Limitation of time by means of cases in epic Sanskrit ; AJP., xxiv., I (No. 93).
Several book reviews and reports of American Oriental Society meet- ing; Nat., Jan. 29, 1903; May i, etc.
Twenty-two articles in The New In- ternational Encyclopaedia.
A. V. WILLIAMS JACKSON.
The thirteenth international congress of Orientalists at Hamburg; East and West (Bombay),)., 1375-1378.
Rev. of L. H. Mills's Gathas of Zara- thushtra (Zoroaster) in meter and rhythm; AJT., vi., 768-769.
Articles on Indo-Iranian subjects in The New International Encyclo- paedia ; New York : Dodd, Mead & Co., 1902-1903.
GEORGE D WIGHT * KELLOGG.
Reports of Philologus 1. (1900) and Ix. (1901), in AJP., xxiv., I, 90- 96; xxiv., 2, 216-221.
WILLIAM HAMILTON KIRK.
Notes on Velleius, 2. 42. 2; PAPA., xxxiii. (1902), x.
CXV1
American Philological Association.
JOHN C. KIRTLAND, JR.
Marcus Tullius Cicero, ten orations, with the letters to his wife, edited by R. A. Minckwitz, in Macmillan's Latin Series, edited by J. C. Kirt- land, Jr.; New York : The Mac- millan Co., 1903.
Ritchie's Fabulae Faciles, authorized American edition, edited with notes and a vocabulary ; New York : Longmans, Green, and Co., 1903.
CHARLES KNAPP.
The Aeneid of Vergil, in the Inter- collegiate Classical Series, pp. 588 + 175; Chicago : Scott, Fores- man & Co., 1902.
Notes on the Medea of Seneca ; PAPA., xxxiii., viii-x.
Notes on Tacitus, Agricola 31, 5 ; PAPA., xxiii., xlix-li.
Notes on Seneca's Medea (different from paper above); CR., xvii.,
44-47-
On Horace, Odes, III., 30, 10-14; CR., xvii., 156-158.
C. R. LANMAN.
Midwinter loafing in Jamaica; Nat., March 5 and 12, 1903.
Atharva-Veda : critical notes ; with some account of Whitney's com- mentary ; in Opstellen geschreven ter eere van Dr. H. Kern . . . op zijn zeventigstein verjaardag, pp. 301-307; Leiden, 1903, 4°.
WILLIAM CRANSTON LAWTON.
The Greek view of athletics, and Pindar ; Sewanee Review, Jan., 1903, pp. 15.
Hoti redivivus; Latin Leaflet, Feb., 1903.
An old harp; Ib., May n, 1903.
Introduction to classical Greek litera- ture, pp. 360; Charles Scribner's Sons, June 27, 1903.
D. O. S. LOWELL.
A new method of admission to col- lege; ER., Nov., 1902, pp. 338-345.
The setting of a college admission paper in English, with practical illustrations; SR., Dec., 1902, pp. 755-764. Also in the Addresses and Proceedings of the seventeenth. annual meeting of the New Eng- land Association of Colleges and Preparatory Schools (1902), pp. 52-62.
The sports of the amphitheater; A/unsey's Magazine, Jan., 1903, pp. 522-530.
HERBERT WILLIAM MAGOUN.
Some problems in prosody ; Bibl. Sacra, lx., Jan., 1903, pp. 33-60.
WILLIAM GWATHMEY MANLY.
Leucas or Ithaca: A discussion of the relative claims of Ithaca and Leucas to be the Ithaca of Homer; University of Missouri Studies, vol. xi., No. i.
JOHN E. MATZKE.
Contributions to the history of the legend of Saint George ; MLA., xvii. (i902),464-535; xviii. (1903), 99-171.
Corneille's Cinna, edited with intro- duction and notes, pp. xvi +128; Boston : D. C. Heath & Co., 1903.
Rev. of A. Thomas, Melanges d'ety- mologie Franchise ; in MLN., xvii., 373-379-
Rev. of Meyer-Liibke, Einfiihrung in das studium der romanischen sprachwissenschaft ; in MLN., xvii., 518-523.
NELSON G. McCREA.
Rev. of West's Latin grammar ; ER., xxiv. (Dec., 1902), 526-531.
Articles on epic poetry; New Inter- national Encyclopaedia, vi., 792-
795- Erasmus (as Humanist) ; Ib.t vi.,
826-827. Horace; Ib., ix., 551-554.
Proceedings for July, 1 903 .
CXVH
C. W. E. MILLER.
The vocative in Apollonios Rhodios;
AJP., xxiv. (1903), 198 f. Note on the rhythmical structure of
the first of the Tebtunis fragments;
Ib., xxiv. (1903), 236-238.
CLIFFORD HERSCHEL MOORE.
Horace, the Odes, Epodes, and Car- men Saeculare, with introduction and commentary, pp. 484; Ameri- can Book Co., 1902.
Miscellaneous articles on Greek his- tory, language, and literature in The New International Encyclo- paedia, Dodd, Mead & Co., 1902.
FRANK G. MOORE.
Notes on the Cato Maior ; AJP.t xxiii. (1902), 436-442.
GEORGE F. MOORE.
Articles : Queen of Heaven, Sacrifice, Teraphim, Tithes, Urim and Thum- mim, Vows and Votive Offerings, in Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. iv.
M. H. MORGAN.
Remarks on the water supply of ancient Rome ; TAPA., xxxiii.,
30-37.
Miscelliones; New York Latin Leaf- let, Nos. 61, 62, 64, 65, and re- printed separately.
H. C. NUTTING.
On the early history of conditional speaking; PAPA., xxxiii. (1902), cv-cvi.
The order of conditional thought; first paper, AfP., xxiv. (1903), 25- 39; second paper, Ib,, 149-162.
GEORGE N. OLCOTT.
Numismatic notes : I. A hoard of Roman coins from Tarquinii; A/A., vi. (1902), 404-409.
FREDERICK MORGAN PADELFORD.
Essays on the study and use of poetry by Plutarch and Basil the Great,
translated from the Greek with introduction and notes; Yale Stud- ies in English, xv.
JAMES MORTON PATON.
Article on Archaeology ; Interna- tional Year- Book for 1902 ; New York : Dodd, Mead & Co., 1903.
Articles in the fields of Greek and Roman Archaeology, Antiquities, and Mythology ; New Interna- tional Encyclopaedia ; New York : Dodd, Mead & Co., 1902, 1903.
Acting editor of news, discussions, and bibliography in AJA.
TRACY PECK.
The personal address in Roman epi- taphs; AJA., vil (1903), 88-89.
As editor-in-chief of College Series of Latin Authors; see under ROCK- WOOD.
CHARLES W. PEPPLER.
Comic terminations in Aristophanes and the comic fragments; pt. i. : Diminutives, character names, patronymics (J. H. U. Diss.) ; Bal- timore: John Murphy Co. (1902), PP-53-
WILLIAM K. PRENTICE.
Fragments of an early Christian lit- urgy in Syrian inscriptions; TAPA., xxxiii , 81-100.
The so-called ' tomb of Diogenes ' in Hiss; Princeton University Bulle- tin, xiv., 74-78.
HENRY W. PRESCOTT.
Two German parallels to the Daphins- myth; PAPA., xxxiii. (1902), cv.
Notes on the scholia and the text of Theocritus ; CR., xvii. (1903), 107-112.
ROBERT S. RADFORD.
The Latin monosyllables in their rela- tion to the accent and to Plautine prosody; abstract in JHUC., xxii. (1903), 163.
CXV111
American Philological Association.
LEON JOSIAH RICHARDSON.
On certain sound properties of the Sapphic strophe as employed by Horace; 7'APA., xxxiii. (1902),
38-44- The University of California and the
accrediting of secondary schools; SJf., vol. x., No. 8, pp. 615-619.
F. E. ROCKWOOD.
M. Tulli Ciceronis Tusculanarum Disputationum Liber primus et Somnium Scipionis, edited with introduction and notes, pp. xliv + 109, xiii -f 22. Text edition, pp. 67. (In College Series of Latin Au- thors.) Ginn & Co., 1903.
JOHN C. ROLFE.
Varia : de tenero ungui, Hor. Carm. iii. 6. 24; on the meaning of cani- cula ; onVarro, L.L.,\.^ ; PAPA. xxxiii. (1902), Ixii-lxiv.
Rev. of L. Apulei Fabula de Psyche et Cupidine, by J. W. Beck; CK., xvi. (1902), 423.
As editor : —
Plautus, Mostellaria, by E. W. Fay; Boston : Allyn & Bacon, 1 902.
Suetonius, Tiberius, Caligula, Clau- dius, and Nero, by J. B. Pike; Boston : Allyn £ Bacon, 1903.
HENRY A. SANDERS.
The grave of Tarpeia and the origin of the name of the Tarpeian rock; PAPA., xxxiii. (1902), Iviii-lix.
JOHN J. SCHLICHER.
Word-accent in early Latin verse, second paper ; AJP.y xxiii., 142- 150.
First year Latin — a working knowl- edge of forms and vocabulary; SK., xi., 396-405-
E. S. SHELDON.
The fable referred to in Aliscans ; MLA., xviii. (1903), 335-340.
F. W. SHIPLEY.
Numeral corruptions in a ninth cen- tury Ms. of Livy; TAPA., 1902.
Certain sources of corruption in Latin manuscripts; AJA., second series, voL vii., No. I.
GRANT SHOWERMAN.
Rev. of Wissowa's Religion und Kul- tus der Romer; AJP., xxiv. (1903), 75-85-
E. G. SlHLER.
GETIKftTEPOX, Cicero adQuintum
Fratrem III., 3, 4; AJP., xxiii.,
283-294. Klassische Studien und klassischer
Unterricht in den Vereinigten
Staaten; Neue Jahrbiicher (B. G.
Teubner, Leipzig, 1902), § II.,
458, 503, 548. The Roman spirit; Latin Leaflet, iii.,
Nos. 73-74. Ancient history in secondary schools;
lb., iii., Nos. 55-56. Studies in Hesiod; PAPA., xxxiii.,
xxvi-xxxii.
JOSIAH RENICK SMITH.
Xenophon's Memorabilia, edited by J. R. S. on the basis of the Breiten- bach-Miicke edition, pp. xix + 270. Text edition, pp. 140; Ginn & Co., 1903.
HERBERT WEIR SMYTH.
As general editor : — Plato's Euthyphro, by W. A. Heidel ; - American Book Co., pp. 115. Brief Greek syntax, by Louis Bevier, Jr. ; American Book Co., pp. 108.
R. B. STEELE.
The ablative absolute in Livy; AJP., xxiii., 295-312, 413-427.
Some forms of complemental state- ments in Livy ; TAPA., xxxiii., 55-8o.
The pestilences mentioned by Livy; PAPA., xxxiii., Ixiv.
Proceedings for July, 1 903 .
cxix
CHARLES WILLIAM SUPER.
Wisdom and will in education, pp. 285 ; Harrisburg, Pa. : Robert L. Myers & Co., 1902. Contains papers on Greek education, on Greek ethics and civilization, on Greek literature, etc.
HERBERT GUSHING TOLMAN.
Urbs Beata, a vision of the perfect life (thirty brief addresses to col- lege students), pp. 87; Milwaukee: The Young Churchman Co., 1902.
Weissenborn's Homeric life, trans- lated and adapted to the needs of American students by G. C. Scog- gin and C. G. Burkitt, edited in the Vanderbilt Oriental Series (vol. iv.) by Herbert Gushing Tolman and James Henry Stevenson, pp. 150; New York : American Book Co., 1903.
The Persian /3o(7iXi)iot ffeoi of He- rodotus III. 65, v. 106 ; PAPA., xxxiii., Ixvii.
An incident in the Greek revolution (translated from the modern Greek novel of D. Vikelas) ; The Olym- pian, Jan., Feb., March, April, 1903.
MINTON WARREN.
Rev. of Robert Ogilvie's Horae Latinae, studies in synonyms and syntax, London, 1901; Nat., Ixxv., 37 f-
RAYMOND WEEKS.
Aimer le Chetif ; MLA^ new series, x., 411-434.
MARY GILMORE WILLIAMS.
The empress Julia Domna ; AJA., vi. (1902), 259-305. '
HARRY LANGFORD WILSON.
Rev. of D. lunii luvenalis Saturae con note di Enrico Cesareo, I. and II., Messina, 1900, in AJP., xxiii. (1902), 331.
D. luni luvenalis Saturarum LibriV., edited with introduction, commen- tary on thirteen satires, and index, I2mo, cloth, pp. 370; New York: University Publishing Co.
JOHN D. WOLCOTT.
Early parallelisms in Roman histori- ography; AJP., xxiii., 313-316.
OFFICERS OF THE ASSOCIATION. 1903-1904.
PRESIDENT.
GEORGE HEMPL.
VICE-PRESIDENTS.
MORTIMER LAMSON EARLE. ELMER TRUESDELL MERRILL.
SECRETARY AND TREASURER.
HERBERT WEIR SMYTH.
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE.
The above-named Officers, and —
CHARLES E. BENNETT. FRANCIS A. MARCH. MORRIS H. MORGAN. BERNADOTTE PERRIN. CHARLES P. G. SCOTT.
MEMBERS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.1
1903-1904.
William F. Abbot, High School, Worcester, Mass. (38 William St.). 1893.
Prof. F. F. Abbott, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1886.
Prof. Charles D. Adams, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H. 1892.
Dr. Cyrus Adler, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C. (1706 S St.). 1883.
Prof. Hamilton Ford Allen, Washington and Jefferson College, Washington, Pa.
1903.
Miss Katharine Allen, 228 I^angdon SL, Madison, Wis. 1899. Prof. Francis G. Allinson, Brown University, Providence, R. I. (434 Brook St.).
1893.
Principal Harlan P. Amen, Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N. H. (Life mem- ber). 1897.
Prof. Alfred Williams Anthony, Cobb Divinity School, Lewiston, Me. 1890. Prof. W. Muss-Arnolt, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1890. Dr. R. Arrow-smith, American Book Company, Washington Square, New York,
N. Y. 1898.
Prof. Sidney G. Ashmore, Union University, Schenectady, N. Y. 1885. Prof. Francis M. Austin, Illinois Wesleyan University, Bloomington, III 1902. Prof. C. C. Ayer, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo. 1902. Prof. Frank Cole Babbitt, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn. (65 Vernon St.). 1897. Herbert L. Baker, 47 Moffat Building, Detroit, Mich. 1889. Dr. William W. Baker, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (1657 Cambridge
St.). 1902. Dr. Francis K. Ball, Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N. H. (Life member).
1894.
Dr. Floyd G. Ballentine, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa. 1903. Cecil K. Bancroft, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (213 Durfee). 1898. Prof. Grove E. Barber, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb. (1230 L St.).
1902.
Miss Amy L. Barbour, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 1902. Phillips Barry, 33 Ball Street, Roxbury Crossing, Boston, Mass. 1901. J. Edmund Barss, Hotchkiss School, Lakeville, Conn. 1897.
1 This list has been corrected up to December i, 1903; permanent addresses are given, as far as may be. Where the residence is left blank, the members in question are in Europe. The Secretary and the Publishers beg to be kept informed of all changes of address.
cxxi
cxxii American Philological Association.
George K. Bartholomew, Evanswood, Clifton, Cincinnati, O. 1893.
Dr. Samuel E. Bassett, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 1903.
Dr. F. O. Bates, 77 Reed Place, Detroit, Mich. 1900.
Prof. William N. Bates, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Penn. (220 St.
Mark's Square). 1894.
Prof. William J. Battle, University of Texas, Austin, Tex. 1893. Dr. Paul V. C. Baur, Yale University, New Haven, Conn, (i 173 Chapel St.). 1902. John W. Beach, Mount Morris, 111. 1902.
Dr. Edward A. Bechtel, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1900. Prof. Isbon T. Beckwith, General Theological Seminary, Chelsea Square, New
York, N.Y. 1884.
Charles H. Beeson, 6020 Ingleside Avenue, Chicago, 111. 1897. Prof. A. J. Bell, Victoria University, Toronto, Can. (17 Avenue Road). 1887. Prof. Allen R. Benner, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass. 1901. Prof. Charles E. Bennett, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. (7 South Ave.). 1882. Prof. John I. Bennett, Union University, Schenectady, N. Y. 1897. Prof. George R. Berry, Colgate University, Hamilton, N. Y. 1902. Prof. Louis Bevier, Jr., Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N. J. 1884. William F. Biddle, 4305 Spruce St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1894. Dr. C. P. Bill, Adelbert College of Western Reserve University, Cleveland, O.
(853 Logan Ave.). 1894. Rev. Dr. Daniel Moschel Birmingham, Walden University, Nashville, Tenn.
(addr. : Park Row Building, New York, N. Y.). 1898. Prof. Charles Edward Bishop, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va.
1890. Prof. Robert W7. Blake, Lehigh University, So. Bethlehem, Pa. (440 Seneca St.).
1894.
Prof. M. Bloomfield, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1882. Prof. Willis H. Bocock, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 1890. Prof. C. W. E. Body, General Theological Seminary, New York, N. Y. (4 Chel- sea Sq.). 1887.
Dr. George M. Boiling, Catholic University of America, Brookland, D. C. 1897. Prof. D. Bonbright, Northwestern University, Evanston, 111. 1892. Prof. A. L. Bondurant, University of Mississippi, University, Miss. 1892. Prof. Campbell Bonner, University of Nashville, Nashville, Tenn. (1500 Hawkins
St.). 1899.
Dr. George Willis Botsford, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1894. Prof. Benjamin Parsons Bourland, Adelbert College of Western Reserve University,
Cleveland, O. 1900.
Prof. B. L. Bowen, Ohio State University, Columbus, O. 1895. Prof. Charles F. Bradley, Garrett Biblical Institute, Evanston, 111. 1886. Prof. J. Everett Brady, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 1891. Prof. H. C. G. Brandt, Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y. 1876. Prof. Walter R. Bridgman, Lake Forest University, Lake Forest, 111. 1890. Prof. James W. Bright, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1887. Prof. John A. van Broekhoven, Fairview Avenue, Hyde Park, Cincinnati, O. 1902. Miss Caroline G. Brombacher, Erasmus Hall High School, Brooklyn, N. Y. (399
Clennont Ave.). 1897.
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxxiii
Dr. Carroll N. Brown, Asheville School, Asheville, N. C. 1899.
Prof. Demarchus C. Brown, Butler College, Irvington, Ind. (120 Downey Avenue,
Indianapolis, Ind.). 1893.
Prof. F. W. Brown, Franklin College, Franklin, Ind. 1893. Prof. Carleton L. Brovvnson, College of the City of New York, N. Y. (17 Lexington
Ave.)- 1892.
Principal C. F. Brusie, Mount Pleasant Academy, Ossining, N. Y. 1894. Prof. Carl D. Buck, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1890. Miss Mary II. Buckingham, Wellesley Hills, Mass. 1897. Walter II. Buell, Hotchkiss School, Lakevillc, Conn. 1887. H. J. Burchell, Jr., 669 Lexington Ave., New York, N. Y. 1895. Isaac B. Burgess, Morgan Park Academy, Morgan Park, 111. 1892. Dr. Theodore C. Burgess, Bradley Polytechnic Institute, Peoria, 111. 1900. Prof. John M. Burnam, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, O. 1899. Prof. Sylvester Burnham, Colgate University, Hamilton, N. Y. 1885. Dr. William S. Burrage, Middlebury, Vt. 1898. Prof. Harry E. Burton, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H. 1899. Prof. Henry F. Burton, University of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y. 1878. Prof. Curtis C. Bushnell, Syracuse University, Syracuse, N. Y. (201 Dell St.). 1900. Pres. Henry A. Buttz, Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J. 1869. Miss Miriam A. Bytel, Oilman School, Cambridge, Mass. (10 Avon St.). 1901. Prof. Edward Capps, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1889. Prof. Mitchell Carroll, Columbian University, Washington, D. C. 1894. Dr. Franklin Carter, 324 Prospect St., New Haven, Conn. 1871. Prof. Jesse Benedict Carter, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 1898. Prof. Mary Emily Case, Wells College, Aurora, N. Y. 1895. Prof. Clarence F. Castle, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1888. Dr. William Van Allen Catron, West Side High School, Milwaukee, Wis. 1896. Prof. Julia H. Caverno, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 1902. Miss Eva Channing, Exeter Chambers, Boston, Mass. 1883. Prof. A. C. Chapin, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. 1888. Prof. Henry Ltland Chapman, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me. 1892. Prof. George Davis Chase, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. 1900. Dr. George H. Chase, Harvard -University, Cambridge, Mass. (24 Grays Hall).
1899.
Prof. S. R. Cheek, Centre College of Kentucky, Danville, Ky. 1890. Prof. Clarence G. Child, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. (2312 De
Lancey Place). 1897.
Miss Emma Kirkland Clark, 545 A Quincy St., Brooklyn, N. Y. 1896. Dr. Frank Lowry Clark, Washburn College, Topeka, Kan. (1511 West St.). 1902. Dr. Willard K. Clement, Evanston, 111. 1892. Prof. Charles Nelson Cole, Oberlin College, Oberlin, O. 1902. Prof. George Stuart Collins, Polytechnic Institute, Brooklyn, N. Y. 1897. Prof. Hermann Collitz, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 1887. William T. Colville, Carbondale, Pa. 1884. D. Y. Comstock, St. Johnsbury, Vt. 1 888. Prof. Elisha Conover, Delaware College, Newark, Del. 1897. Dr. Arthur Stoddard Cooley, 387 Central St., Auburndale, Mass. 1896.
cxxiv American Philological Association.
J. Randolph Coolidge, Jr., Chestnut Hill, Mass. 1884.
Prof. William L. Cowles, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. 1888.
Principal Edward G. Coy, Hotchkiss School, Lakeville, Conn. 1888.
Prof. W. H. Crogman, Clark University, South Atlanta, Ga. 1898.
W. L. Gushing, Westminster School, Simsbury, Conn. 1888.
Prof. William K. Denison, Tufts College, College Hill, Mass. 1899.
Prof. Walter Dennison, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1899.
Prof. Samuel C. Derby, Ohio State University, Columbus, O. 1895.
Sherwood Owen Dickerman, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (267 Lawrance Hall). 1902.
Prof. Howard Freeman Doane, 252 West lO4th St., New York, N. Y. 1897.
Prof. B. L. D'Ooge, State Normal College, Ypsilanti, Mich. 1895.
Prof. Martin L. D'Ooge, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1873.
Prof. Louis H. Dow, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H. 1895.
Prof. Joseph H. Drake, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1897.
Prof. Frederic Stanley Dunn, University of Oregon, Eugene, Ore. 1899.
Miss Emily Helen Dutton, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 1898.
Prof. Mortimer Lamson Earle, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1890.
Prof. William Wells Eaton, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. 1882.
Dr. Herman L. Ebeling, Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y. 1892.
Prof. William S. Ebersole, Cornell College, Mt. Vernon, la. 1893.
Prof. W. A. Eckels, Miami University, Oxford, O. 1894.
Thomas H. Eckfeldt, Concord School, Concord, Mass. 1883.
Dr. Homer J. Edmiston, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 1894.
Prof. George V. Edwards, State Normal College, Ypsilanti, Mich. (121 Normal St.). 1901.
Prof. Katharine M. Edwards, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. 1893.
Prof. James C. Egbert, Jr., American School of Classical Studies, Rome, Italy (5 Via Vicenza). 1889.
Prof. Wallace Stedman Elden, Ohio State University, Columbus, O. (1462 Neil Ave.). 1900.
Prof. A. Marshall Elliott, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1884.
Prof. W. A. Elliott, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pa. 1897.
Prof. Herbert C. Elmer, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 1887.
Prof. L. H. Elwell, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. 1883.
Miss E. Antoinette Ely, The Clifton School, Cincinnati, O. 1893.
Prof. O. F. Emerson, Adelbert College of Western Reserve University, Cleve- land, O. 1903.
Prof. Annie Crosby Emery, Brown University, Providence, R. I. 1896.
Prof. George Taylor Ettinger, Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pa. 1896.
Rev. Orishatukeh Faduma, Troy, N. C. 1900.
Prof. Arthur Fairbanks, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, la. 1886.
Prof. Charles E. Fay, Tufts College, Mass. 1885.
Prof. Edwin W. Fay, University of Texas, Austin, Tex. 1889.
Pres. Thomas Fell, St. John's College, Annapolis, Md. 1 888.
Principal F. J. Fessenden, Fessenden School, West Newton, Mass. 1890.
Dr. George Converse Fiske, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. (609 Lake St.). 1900.
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxxv
Prof. Edward Fitch, Hamilton College, Clinton, N. Y. 1890. Prof. Thomas Fitz-Hugh, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. (Life mem- ber). 1902.
Miss Helen C. Flint, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass. 1897. Prof. Herbert B. Foster, University of South Dakota, Vermilion, S. D. 1900. Prof. Frank H. Fowler, Lombard College, Galesburg, 111. 1893. Prof. Harold N. Fowler, American School of Classical Studies, Athens, Greece.
1885.
Prof. D. E. Foyle, Georgetown College, Georgetown, Ky. 1901. Dr. Wilmer Cave France, Radnor, Pa. 1900. Dr. Susan B. Franklin, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 1890. Dr. I. F. Frisbee, 187 W. Canton St., Boston, Mass. 1898. Prof. Charles Kelsey Gaines, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N. Y. 1890. Dr. William Gallagher, Thayer Academy, South Braintree, Mass. 1886. Frank A. Gallup, Packer Collegiate Institute, Brooklyn, N. Y. (320 Ginton
Avenue). 1898. Prof. Henry Gibbons, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. (405 South
4ist St.). 1890.
Prof. Seth K. Gifford, Haverford College, Haverford, Pa. 1891. Prof. John W. Gilbert, Paine College, Augusta, Ga. (1620 Magnolia St.). 1897. Prof. Basil L. Giklersleeve, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1876. E. W. Given, Newark Academy, Newark, N. J. 1902. Clarence Willard Gleason, Roxbury Latin School, Roxbury, Mass. (6 Copeland St.) .
1901. Prof. Thomas D. Goodell, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (35 Edgehill Road).
1883.
Prof. Charles J. Goodwin, Lehigh University, South Bethlehem, Pa. 1891. Prof. William W. Goodwin, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (5 Follen St).
1870. Dr. William Elford Gould, Academy of Notre Dame, Charles St., Baltimore, Md.
1902.
Prof. Roscoe Allan Grant, Fisk University, Nashville, Tenn. 1902. Prof. E. L. Green, South Carolina College, Columbia, S. C. 1898. Prof. Herbert Eveleth Greene, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1890. Prof. John Greene, Colgate University, Hamilton, N. Y. 1902. Prof. Wilber J. Greer, Miami University, Oxford, O. 1892. Prof. Alfred Gudeman, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 1889. Dr. Roscoe Guernsey, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1902, Prof. Charles Burton Gulick, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (18 Walker
St.). 1894.
Miss Elizabeth Hazelton Haight, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 1902. Prof. William Gardner Hale, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1882. Prof. Arthur P. Hall, Drury College, Springfield, Mo. 1886. Prof. F. A. Hall, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. (531 Spring Ave.). 1896. Frank T. Hallett, Brown University, Providence, R. I. (283 George St.). 1902. Prof. T. F. Hamblin, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa. 1895. Prof. Adelbert Hamilton, Elmira College, Elmira, N. Y. 1895. Miss Clemence Hamilton, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 1901.
cxxvi American Philological Association.
Prof. William A. Hammond, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. (29 East Ave.).
1897. Principal John Calvin Hanna, High School, Oak Park, 111. (209 South East Ave.).
1896.
Prof. Albert Harkness, Brown University, Providence, R. I. 1869. Prof. Albert Granger Harkness, Brown University, Providence, R. I. 1896. Pres. William R. Harper, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1887. Prof. Karl P. Harrington, University of Maine, Orono, Me. 1892. Miss Mary B. Harris, 2252 Calumet Ave., Chicago, 111. 1902. Prof. W. A. Harris, Richmond College, Richmond, Va. (403 Lombardy St.).
1895. Prof. William Fenwick Harris, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (8 Mercer
Circle). 1901.
Prof. J. E. Harry, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, O. 1896. Dr. Carl A. Harstrom, The Folly, Norwalk, Conn. 1900. Prof. Samuel Hart, Berkeley Divinity School, Middletown, Conn. 1871. Eugene W. Harter, Erasmus Hall High School, Brooklyn, N. Y. (121 Marlborough
Road). 1901.
Prof. Paul Haupt, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1884. Prof. Adeline Belle Hawes, Wellesley College, \Vellesley, Mass. 1902. Dr. Edward South worth Hawes, Polytechnic Institute, Brooklyn, N. Y. 1888. Rev. Dr. Henry H. Haynes, 6 Ellery St., Cambridge, Mass. 1900. Prof. F. M. Hazen, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass. 1896. Dr. Theodore Woolsey Heermance, American School of Classical Studies, Athens,
Greece. 1897.
Prof. W. A. Heidel, Iowa College, Grinnell, la. 1900. Prof. F. B. R. Hellems, State University of Colorado, Boulder, Col. 1900. Prof. Otto Heller, \Vashington University, St. Louis, Mo. 1896. N. Wilbur Helm, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 1900. Prof. George Hempl, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. (1027 East Uni- versity Ave.). 1895.
Prof. G. L. Hendrickson, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1892. Prof. John H. Hewitt, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass. 1886. Edwin H. Higley, Groton School, Groton, Mass. 1899. Prof. Henry T. Hildreth, Roanoke College, Salem, Va. 1896. Prof. James M. Hill, Central High School, Philadelphia, Pa. 1900. Dr. Gertrude Hirst, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, N. Y.
1902.
Harwood Hoadley, 140 West I3th St., New York, N. Y. 1903. Archibald L. Hodges, Wadleigh High School, I I4th St., near 7th Ave., New York
City. 1899. Prof. Arthur W. Hodgman, Ohio State University, Columbus, O. (164 West Ninth
Ave.). 1896.
Charles Hoeing, University of Rochester, Rochester, N. Y. 1899. Prof. Horace A. Hoffman, University of Indiana, Bloomington, Ind. 1893. Dr. D. H. Holmes, Eastern District High School, Brooklyn, N. Y. (878 Driggs
Ave.). 1900. Prof. W. D. Hooper, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 1894.
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxxvii
Prof. E. Washburn Hopkins, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (235 Bishop
St.). 1883. Prof. Herbert Muller Hopkins, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn. (4 Trinity St.).
1898.
Prof. Joseph Clark Hoppin, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 1900. Prof. William A. Houghton, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me. 1892. Prof. Albert A. Howard, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (12 Walker St.).
1892.
Prof. George E. Howes, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt. 1896. Prof. Frank G. Hubbard, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 1896. Prof. J. H. Huddilston, University of Maine, Orono, Me. 1898. Prof. Laurence Cameron Hull, Michigan Military Academy, Orchard Lake, Mich.
1889.
Prof. Milton W. Humphreys, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. 1871. Stephen A. Hurlbut, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1903. Dr. George B. Hussey, East Orange, N. J. 1887. Frederick L. Hutson, 5727 Monroe Ave., Chicago, 111. 1902. Dr. Walter Woodburn Hyde, Northampton, Mass. 1902.
Prof. Henry Hyvernat, Catholic University of America, Brookland, D. C. 1897. Prof. J. W. D. Ingersoll, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (311 Crown St.).
1897.
Andrew Ingraham, Francis Ave., Cambridge, Mass. 1 888. Prof. A. V. Williams Jackson, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1884. Prof. George E. Jackson, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. (4400 Morgan
St.). 1890. Prof. M. W. Jacobus, Hartford Theological Seminary, Hartford, Conn. (14
Marshall St.). 1893. Prof. Hans C. G. von Jagemann, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (113
Walker St.). 1882.
Miss Anna S. Jenkins, Girls' High School, Brooklyn, N. Y. 1899. Dr. Charles W. L. Johnson, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. (156 Nassau
St.). 1897.
Henry C. Johnson, 35 Nassau St., New York, N. Y. 1885. Prof. William H. Johnson, Denison University, Granville, O. 1895. Prof. Eva Johnston, University of the State of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 1902. Dr. George W. Johnston, University of Toronto, Toronto, Can. 1895. Principal Augustine Jones, Friends' School, Providence, R. I. 1896. Prof. J. C. Jones, University of the State of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 1902. Dr. Robert P. Keep, Farmington, Conn. 1872.
Winthrop Leicester Keep, 10 Appian Way, Cambridge, Mass. 1900. Prof. George Dwight Kellogg, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass. 1897. Prof. Francis W. Kelsey, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1890. Dr. Roland G. Kent, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. (1411 Van
Buren St., Wilmington, Del.). 1903.
Prof. Charles R. Keyes, Cornell College, Mt. Vernon, la. 1901. Prof. John B. Kieffer, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pa. 1889. Prof. William Hamilton Kirk, Rutgers College, New Brunswick, N. J. 1898. Chancellor J. H. Kirkland, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 1887.
cxxviii American Philological Association.
Prof. J. C. Kirtland, Jr., Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N. H. 1895.
Prof. George Lyman Kittredge, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (9 Hilliard
St.). 1884. Dr. William H. Klapp, Academy of the Protestant Episcopal Church, 1324 Locust
St., Philadelphia, Pa. 1894. Prof. Charles Knapp, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. ( 1 773
Sedgwick Ave.). 1892.
Charles S. Knox, St. Paul's School, Concord, N. H. 1889. Prof. Gordon J. Laing, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1902. Prof. A. G. Laird, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 1890. Prof. William A. Lamberton, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 1 888. Prof. W. B. Langsdorf, Miami University, Oxford, O. 1895. Prof. Charles R. Lanman, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (9 Farrar St.).
1877.
Lewis H. Lapham, 8 Bridge St., New York, N. Y. 1880. Prof. H. B. Lathrop, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 1900. Prof. William Cranston Lawton, Adelphi College, Brooklyn, N. Y. (224 Willoughby
Ave.). 1888.
Prof. Abby Leach, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 1888. Dr. Arthur G. Leacock, Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N. H. 1899. Dr. Emory B. Lease, College of the City of New York, N. Y. (1603 Amsterdam
Ave.). 1895.
Dr. J. T. Lees, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb. 1888. Prof. Thomas B. Lindsay, Boston University, Boston, Mass. 1 880. Prof. Charles Edgar Little, University of Nashville, Nashville, Tenn. 1902. Miss Dale Livingstone, nor Harmon Place, Minneapolis, Minn. 1902. Prof. Gonzalez Lodge, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, N. Y.
1888. . ' ^ ..
Prof. O. F. Long, Northwestern University, Evanston, 111. 1900. Prof. George D. Lord, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H. 1887. D. O. S. Lowell, Roxbury Latin School, Boston, Mass. 1894. Prof. Frederick Lutz, Albion College, Albion, Mich. 1883. Prof. A. St. Clair Mackenzie, State College of Kentucky, Lexington, Ky. 1901. Pres. George E. MacLean, State University of Iowa, Iowa City, la. (603 College
St.). 1891.
Prof. Grace H. Macurdy, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 1894. David Magie, Jr., Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. (33 Prospect Ave.). 1901. Prof. H. W. Magoun, Redfield College, Redfield, S. D. 1891. Prof. J. H. T. Main, Iowa College, Grinnell, la. 1891.
Prof. J. Irving Manatt, Brown University, Providence, R. I. (15 Keene St.). 1875. Prof. John M. Manly, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1896. Prof. W. G. Manly, University of the State of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 1902. Prof. F. A. March, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa. 1869. Prof. Allan Marquand, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 1891. Prof. Winfred R. Martin, Trinity College, Hartford, Conn. 1879. Miss Ellen F. Mason, I Walnut St., Boston, Mass. 1885. Dr. Maurice W. Mather, 13 Mt. Auburn St., Cambridge, Mass. 1894. Prof. Nelson G. McCrea, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1 890.
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxxix
Prof. Walton Brooks McDaniel, College Hall, University of Pennsylvania, Phila- delphia, Pa. 1901.
Prof. J. H. McDaniels, Hobart College, Geneva, N. Y. 1871. Prof. George F. McKibben, Oenison University, Granville, O. 1885. Miss Harriet E. McKinstry, Lake Erie College, Painesville, O. 1881. Prof. H. Z. McLain, Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Ind. 1884. Prof. W. J. McMurtry, Yankton College, Yankton, S. D. 1893. Dr. Clarence Lincoln Meader, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1902. Prof. John Moffatt Mecklin, Washington and Jefferson College, Washington, Pa.
1900. Prof. Frank Ivan Merchant, University of South Dakota, Vermilion, S. D.
1898.
Ernest Loren Meritt, 435 Elm St., New Haven, Conn. 1903. Prof. Elmer T. Merrill, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. 1883. Truman Michelson, 69 Walker St., Cambridge, Mass. 1900. Dr. Alfred W. Milden, Emory and Henry College, Emory, Va. 1903. Prof. C. W. E. Miller, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1892. Prof. Walter Miller, Tulane University, New Orleans, La. 1900. Prof. Clara Millerd, Iowa College, Grinnell, la. 1902. Dr. Richard A. v. Minckwitz, De Witt Clinton High School, Manhattan, New York,
N. Y. (Amsterdam Ave. and iO2nd St.). 1895. Charles A. Mitchell, Asheville School, Asheville, N. C. 1893. Prof. Clifford Herschel Moore, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (34 Shep-
ard St.). 1889.
Prof. Frank G. Moore, Dartmouth College, Hanover, N. H. 1888. Prof. George F. Moore, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (Divinity Ave.).
1885.
Prof. J. Leverett Moore, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 1887. Prof. Lewis B. Moore, Howard University, Washington, D. C. 1896. Paul E. More, 265 Springdale Ave., East Oranre, N. J. 1896. Prof. James H. Morgan, Dickinson College, Carlisle, Pa. 1897. Prof. Morris H. Morgan, Harvard University,. Cambridge, Mass. (45 Garden St.).
1887. Prof. Edward P. Morris, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (53 Edgehill Road).
1886.
Frederick S. Morrison, Public High School, Hartford, Conn. 1890. Prof. Lewis F. Mott, College of the City of New York, N. Y. (17 Lexington Ave.).
1898.
Prof. George F. Mull, Franklin and Marshall College, Lancaster, Pa. 1896. Prof. Wilfred P. Mustard, Haverford College, Haverford, Pa. 1892. Prof. Francis Philip Nash, Hobart College, Geneva, N. Y. 1872. Dr. K. P. Neville, University of Illinois, Champaign, 111. (904 S. Busey Ave.,
Urbana, 111.). 1902.
Dr. Charles B. Newcomer, Drury College, Springfield, Mo. 1900. Prof. Barker Newhall, Kenyon College, Gambier, O. 1891. Prof. Frank W. Nicolson, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. 1 888. Dr. William A. Nitze, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1902. Miss Emily Norcross, Smith College, Northampton, Mass. 1902.
cxxx American Philological Association.
Prof. Richard Norton, American School of Classical Studies, Rome, Italy (Via Vicenza 5). 1897.
Dr. George N. Olcott, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. (438 W. Il6th St.). 1899.
Prof. Edward T. Owen, University of Wisconsin, Madison, \Vis. 1896.
Prof. W. B. Owen, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa. 1875.
Prof. William A. Packard, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 1872.
Miss Elisabeth H. Palmer, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 1902.
Prof. Charles P. Parker, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (1075 Massa- chusetts Ave.). 1884.
Prof. James M. Paton, Wesleyan University, Middletown, Conn. 1887.
John Patterson, Louisville High School, Louisville, Ky. (1117 Fourth St.). 1900.
Dr. Charles Peabody, Phillips Academy, Andover, Mass. (197 Brattle Street, Cam- bridge, Mass.). 1894.
Prof. E. M. Pease, 1423 Chapin Street, Washington, D. C. 1887.
Prof. Tracy Peck, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 1871.
Miss Frances Pellett, Kelly Hall, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1893.
Dr. Daniel A. Penick, University of Texas, Austin, Tex. 1902.
Prof. Charles W. Peppier, Emory College, Oxford, Ga. 1899.
Prof. Emma M. Perkins, Western Reserve University (College for Women), Cleve- land, O. 1892.
Prof. Bernadotte Perrin, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (136 Farnam Hall). 1879.
Prof. Edward D. Perry, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. (542 West Il4th St.). 1882.
Prof. John Pickard, University of the State of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 1893.
Dr. William Taggard Piper, 179 Brattle St., Cambridge, Mass. 1885.
Prof. Samuel Ball Plainer, Adelbert College of Western Reserve University, Cleveland, O. (24 Cornell St.). 1885.
Prof. William Carey Poland, Brown University, Providence, R. I. (53 Lloyd St.). 1872.
Prof. William Porter, Beloit College, Beloit, Wis. 1888.
Prof. Edwin Post, De Pauw University, Greencastle, Ind. 1886.
Prof. Franklin H. Potter, University of Iowa, Iowa City, la. 1898.
Henry Preble, 42 Stuyvesant Place, New Brighton, Staten Island, N. Y. 1882.
Prof. William K. Prentice, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. (12 Nassau St.). 1895.
Prof. Ferris W. Price, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pa. 1895.
Prof. Benjamin F. Prince, Wittenberg College, Springfield, O. 1893.
Prof. John Dyneley Prince, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1899.
Prof. Robert S. Radford, Elmira College, Elmira, N. Y. (710 Park Place). 1900.
M. M. Ramsey, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1894.
Dr. Edward Kennard Rand, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (104 Lake View Ave.). 1902.
Prof. John W. Redd, Centre College, Danville, Ky. 1885.
Prof. A. G. Rembert, Woford College, Spartansburg, S. C. 1902.
Prof. Horatio M. Reynolds, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (213 Durfee Hall). 1884.
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxxxi
Dr. Rufus B. Richardson, The Independent, 1 30 Fulton St., New York, N. Y. 1882. Dr. Ernst Riess, De Witt Clinton High School, Manhattan, N. Y. 1895. Prof. Edmund Y. Robbins, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 1895. Dr. Arthur W. Roberts, Brookline High School, Brookline, Mass. 1884. Prof. James J. Robinson, Yale University, New Haven, Conn, (i Dayton St.).
1902.
Prof. W. A. Robinson, Lawrenceville School, Lawrenceville, N. J. 1888. Prof. Joseph C. Rockwell, Buchtel College, Akron, O. 1896. Prof. F. E. Rockwood, Bucknell University, Lewisburg, Pa. 1885. Prof. Cornelia H. C. Rogers, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 1903. George B. Rogers, Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N. H. 1902. Prof. John C. Rolfe, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. (4408 Locust
St.). 1890.
C. A. Rosegrant, Potsdam State Normal School, Potsdam, N. Y. 1902. Prof. Clarence F. Ross, Allegheny College, Meadville, Pa. 1902. Prof. August Rupp, College of the City of New York, New York, N. Y. 1902. Dr. Arthur W. Ryder, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (72 Perkins Hall).
1902.
Dr. Julius Sachs, Classical School, 38 West Fifty-ninth St., New York, N. Y. 1875. Benjamin H. Sanborn. Wellesley, Mass. 1890. Dr. Henry A. Sanders, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. (213 South
Thayer St.). 1899.
Prof. Myron R. Sanford, Middlebury College, Middlebury, Vt. 1894. Miss Catharine Saunders, Vassar College, Poughkeepsie, N. Y. 1900. Joseph H. Sawyer, Williston Seminary, Easthampton, Mass. 1897. Prof. W. S. Scarborough, Wilberforce University, Wilberforce, O. 1882. Prof. J. J. Schlicher, State Normal School, Terre Haute, Ind. igor. Prof. H. Schmidt- Wartenberg, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1894. Edmund F. Schreiner, 486 N. Clark St., Chicago, 111. 1900. Dr. Charles P. G. Scott, Radnor, Pa. 1880. Prof. John Adams Scott, Northwestern University, Evanston, 111. (2110 Orrington
Ave.). 1898.
Miss Annie N. Scribner, 1823 Orrington Ave., Evanston, 111. 1900. Prof. Henry S. Scribner, Western University of Pennsylvania, Allegheny City, Pa.
1889.
Dr. Helen M. Searles, Mount Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass. 1893. Charles D. Seely, State Normal School, Brockport, N. Y. 1 888. Prof. William J. Seelye, Wooster University, Wooster, O. 1 888. J. B. Sewall, 17 Blagden St., Boston, Mass. 1871. Prof. T. D. Seymour, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (34 Hillhouse Ave.).
1873-
Prof. Charles H. Shannon, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tenn. 1900. Prof. R. H. Sharp, Jr., Randolph-Macon Woman's College, Lynchburg, Va. (College
Park P.O.). 1897.
Prof. J. A. Shaw, Highland Military Academy, Worcester, Mass. 1876. Prof. Edward S. Sheldon, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass, (il Francis Ave.).
1881. Prof. F. W. Shipley, Washington University, St. Louis, Mo. 1900.
cxxxii American Philological Association.
Prof. Paul Shorey, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1887.
Prof. Grant Showerman, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 1900.
Dr. Edgar S. Shumway, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa. 1885.
Prof. E. G. Sihler, New York University, University Heights, New York, N. Y. 1876.
Prof. Charles F. Sitterly, Drew Theological Seminary, Madison, N. J. 1902.
Prof. M. S. Slaughter, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 1887.
Principal M. C. Smart, Claremont, N. H. 1900.
Prof. Charles Forster Smith, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wis. 1883.
Prof. Charles S. Smith, Columbian University, Washington, D. C. (2122 H St.).
1895. Prof. Clement L. Smith, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (64 Sparks St.).
1882.
Prof. Harry de Forest Smith, Amherst College, Amherst, Mass. 1 899. Prof. Josiah R. Smith, Ohio State University, Columbus, O. (257 E. Broad St.).
1885.
Prof. Kirby F. Smith, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1897. Prof. Herbert Weir Smyth, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (91 Walker St.).
1886.
Dr. George C. S. South worth, Gambier, O. 1883. Prof. Edward H. Spieker, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. (915 Ed-
mondson Ave.). 1884. Dr. Sidney G. Stacey, Erasmus Hall High School, Brooklyn, N. Y. (119 Montague
St.). 1901.
Prof. Jonathan Y. Stanton, Bates College, Lewiston, Me. 1888. Miss Josephine Stary, 31 West Sixty-first St., New York, N. Y. 1899. Prof. R. B. Steele, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. (2401 West End).
1893.
Prof. J. R. S. Sterrett, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. (2 South Ave.). 1885. Prof. F. H. Stoddard, New York University, University Heights, New York, N. Y.
1890.
Dr. Duane Reed Stuart, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1901. Dr. E. H. Sturtevant, University of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 1901. Dr. Charles W. Super, Ohio University, Athens, O. 1881. Dr. Marguerite Sweet, 13 Ten Bronck St., Albany, N. Y. 1892. Prof. Frank B. Tarbell, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1882. Prof. Joseph R. Taylor, Boston University, Boston, Mass. 1902. Prof. Julian D. Taylor, Colby University, Waterville, Me. 1890. Prof. Glanville Terrell, Georgetown College, Georgetown, Ky. 1 898. Prof. William E. Thompson, Hamline University, Hamline, Minn. 1877. Dr. Charles H. Thurber, 29 Beacon St., Boston, Mass. 1901. Prof. F. W. Tilden, Indiana University, Bloomington, Ind. 1902. Prof. Fitz Gerald Tisdall, College of the City of New York, N. Y. (80 Convent Ave.).
1889.
Prof. Henry A. Todd, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1887. Prof. H. C. Tolman, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tenn. 1889. Prof. Edward M. Tomlinson, Alfred University, Alfred, N. Y. 1885. Dr. O. S. Tonks, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt. 1903. Prof. J. A. Tufts, Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N. H. 1898.
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxxxiii
Prof. Milton H. Turk, Hobart College, Geneva, N. Y. 1896.
Prof. Esther Van Deman, The Woman's College, Baltimore, Md. 1899.
Addison Van Name, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (121 High St.). 1869.
N. P. Vlachos, Yeadon, Pa. 1903.
Dr. W. H. Wait, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 1893.
Dr. John H. Walden, 13 Mt. Auburn St., Cambridge, Mass. 1889.
Prof. Arthur T. Walker, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan. 1895.
Dr. Alice Walton, Wellesley College, Wellesley, Mass. 1894.
Dr. Edwin G. Warner, Polytechnic Institute, Brooklyn, N. Y. 1897.
Andrew McCorrie Warren, care of Brown, Shipley & Co., Founders' Court, London.
1892. Prof. Minton Warren, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (105 Irving St.).
1874. Prof. William E. Waters, New York University, University Heights, N. Y. (604
West 1 1 5th St.). 1885.
Dr. John C. Watson, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. 1902. Dr. Helen L. Webster, Wilkesbarre Institute, Wilkesbarre, Pa. 1890. Prof. Raymond Weeks, University of the State of Missouri, Columbia, Mo. 1902. Charles Heald Weller, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (392 Orange St.).
1903.
Prof. Andrew F. West, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 1886. Prof. J. H. Westcott, Princeton University, Princeton, N. J. 1891. Prof. J. B. Weston, Christian Biblical Institute, Stanfordville, N. Y. 1869. Prof. L. B. Wharton, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va. 1888. Albert S. Wheeler, Sheffield Scientific School, New Haven, Conn. (P.O. Box 1298).
1871.
Prof. Arthur L. Wheeler, Bryn Mawr College, Bryn Mawr, Pa. 1899. Prof. James R. Wheeler, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. 1885. Prof. G. M. Whicher, Normal College, New York, N. Y. 1891. Dr. Andrew C. White, Cornell University, Ithaca, N. Y. (424 Dryden Road).
1886. Prof. John Williams White, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (18 Concord
Ave.). 1874. Vice-Chancellor B. Lawton Wiggins, University of the South, Sewanee, Tenn.
1892.
Prof. Alexander M. Wilcox, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kan. 1884. Prof. Henry D. Wild, Williams College, Williamstown, Mass. 1898. Charles R. Williams, Indianapolis, Ind. 1887. Prof. George A. Williams, Kalamazoo College, Kalamazoo, Mich. (136 Thompson
St.). 1891.
Prof. Mary G. Williams, Mt. Holyoke College, South Hadley, Mass. 1899. Prof. Harry Langford Wilson, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1898. Miss Julia E. Winslow, 31 Sidney Place, Brooklyn, N. Y. 1903. Dr. J. D. Wolcott, University of Chicago, Chicago, 111. 1898. Prof. E. L. Wood, Manual Training High School, Providence, R. I. (271 Alabama
Ave.). 1888.
Prof. Henry Wood, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Md. 1884. Dr. Willis Patten Woodman, 6 Greenough Ave., Jamaica Plain, Mass. 1901.
cxxxiv American Philological Association.
Prof. Frank E. Woodruff, Bowdoin College, Brunswick, Me. 1887.
Prof. B. D. Woodward, Barnard College, Columbia University, New York, N. Y.
1891.
C C. Wright, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Va. 1902. Prof. Ellsworth D. Wright, Lawrence University, Appleton, Wis. 1898. Dr. Henry B. Wright, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. 1903. Prof. Henry P. \Vright, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (128 York St.). 1883. Prof. John Henry Wright, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. (38 Quincy St.) .
1874. Prof. Clarence H. Young, Columbia University, New York, N. Y. (3 1 2 West 88th St.) .
1890.
Prof. R. B. Youngman, Lafayette College, Easton, Pa. 1901. [Number of Members, 501.]
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxxxv
WESTERN BRANCH.
MEMBERS OF THE PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST.
(ESTABLISHED 1899.)
Membership in the American Philological Association prior to the organization of the Philological Association of the Pacific Coast is indicated by a date earlier than 1900.
Albert H. Allen, Visalia, Cal. 1900.
Prof. James T. Allen, University of California, Berkeley. Cal. (2243 College Ave.).
1898.
Miss Mary G. Allen, 240 Thirteenth St., San Francisco, Cal. 1901. Prof. Louis F. Anderson, Whitman College, Walla Walla, Wash. 1887. Prof. M. B. Anderson, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
1901.
Prof. H. T. Archibald, Occidental College, Los Angeles, Cal. 1901. Prof. William D. Armes, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1902. Prof. Mark Bailey, Jr., Whitvvorth College, Tacoma, Wash. 1901. Dr. J. W. Basore, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1902. Prof. C. B. Bradley, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. (2639 Durant Ave.).
1900.
Rev. William A. Brewer, San Mateo, Cal. 1900. Valentine Buehner, High School, San Jose, Cal. 1900. Elvyn F. Burrill, 2536 Bancroft Way, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. Prof. Luella Clay Carson, University of Oregon, Eugene, Ore. 1900. Samuel Chambers, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. Prof. J. E. Church, Jr., State University of Nevada, Reno, Nev. 1901. Prof. Edward B. Clapp, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. (i Bushnell Place).
1886.
Miss Mary Bird Clayes, 2420 Dwight Way, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. A. Horatio Cogswell, 2135 Santa Clara Ave., Alameda, Cal. 190x3. Prof. W. A. Cooper, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal. 1901. Mrs. P'rank A. Cressey, Modesto, Cal. 1900.
Prof. L. W. Cushman, Nevada State University, Reno, Nev. 1900. J. Allen De Cou, Red Bluff, Cal. 1900.
Prof. J. Elmore, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal. 1900. Prof. H. Rushton Fairclough, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University,
Cal. 1887.
G. E. Faucheux, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. Dr. W. S. Ferguson, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1899. Prof. Ewald Fliigel, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal. 1900. Dr. B. O. Foster, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal. 1899. Prof. P. J. Frein, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 1900. Prof. John Fryer, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. Prof. Charles Mills Gayley, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1895.
cxxxvi American Philological Association.
Charles Bertie Gleason, High School, San Jose, Cal. 1900.
Mr. Pliny E. Goddard, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1902.
Prof. Julius Goebel, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal. 1900.
Walter H. Graves, 1428 Seventh Ave., Oakland, Cal. 1900.
Miss Rebecca T. Greene, Palo Alto, Cal. 1900.
Prof. James O. Griffin, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
1896.
Prof. A. S. Haggett, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 1901. V. H. Henderson, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1901. M. C. James, High School, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. Prof. Oliver M. Johnston, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
1900.
Tracy R. Kelley, 2214 Jones St., San Francisco, Cal. 1900. Dr. A. L Kroeber, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1902. Prof. A. F. Lange, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. Miss Alice Marchebout, Girls' High School, San Francisco, Cal. 1900. Prof. Max L. Margolis, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. Prof. John E. Matzke, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
1900.
Prof. William A. Merrill, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1 886. Francis O. Mower, Napa High School, Napa, Cal. 1900. Edward J. Murphy, Cabias, Nueva Ecija, Philippine Islands. 1 900. Prof. Augustus T. Murray, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
1887.
Prof. A. G. Newcomer, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Palo Alto, Cal. 1902. Carl H. Nielsen, Vacaville, Cal. 1900.
Rabbi Jacob Nieto, 1719 Bush St., San Francisco, Cal. 1900. Prof. George R. Noyes, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1901. Dr. H. C. Nutting, University of California, Berkeley, CaL,( 1425 Walnut St.). 1900. Dr. Andrew Oliver, San Mateo, Cal. 1900.
Prof. F. M. Padelford, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 1901. Prof. F. V. Paget, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. Prof. Henry W. Prescott, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1899. Prof. Clifton Price, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1899. E. K. Putnam, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal. 1901. Prof. A. Putzker, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. Prof. S. B. Randall, California College, Oakland, Cal. 1900. Miss Cecilia L. Raymond, 2407 S. Atherton St., Berkeley, Cal. 1900. Prof. Karl G. Rendtorff, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
1900.
Prof. C. C. Rice, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal. 1902. Prof. Leon J. Richardson, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1895. Prof. H. W. Rolfe, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
1901.
Prof. H. K. Schilling, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1901. Prof. F. G. G. Schmidt, University of Oregon, Eugene, Ore. 1900. Prof. Colbert Searles, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal.
1901.
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxxxvii
Prof. Henry Senger, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1900. S. S. Seward, Leland Stanford Jr. University, Stanford University, Cal. 1902. Prof. David Thomson, University of Washington, Seattle, Wash. 1902. Rabbi Jacob Voorsanger, 1249 Franklin St., San Francisco, Cal. 1901. President Benjamin I. Wheeler, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. 1879. Miss Catherine E. Wilson, 3043 California St., San Francisco, Cal. 1900. [Number of Members, 80. Total, 501 + 80 = 581.]
cxxxviii American Philological Association.
THE FOLLOWING LIBRARIES AND INSTITUTIONS (ALPHABETIZED BY TOWNS) SUBSCRIBE FOR THE ANNUAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
Albany, N. Y. : New York State Library. Amherst, Mass. : Amherst College Library. Ann Arbor, Mich. : Michigan University Library. Auburn, N. Y.: Theological Seminary. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Library. Baltimore, Md. : Johns Hopkins University Library. Baltimore, Md. : Peabody Institute. Berkeley, Cal. : University of California Library. Boston, Mass. : Boston Public Library. Brooklyn, N. Y. : The Brooklyn Library. Brunswick, Me. : Bowdoin College Library. Bryn Mawr, Pa. : Bryn Mawr College Library. Buffalo, N. Y. : The Buffalo Library. Burlington, Vt. : Library of the University of Vermont. Cambridge, Mass. : Harvard College Library. Champaign, 111. : University of Illinois Library. Chicago, 111.: The Newberry Library. Chicago, 111. : Public Library. Chicago, 111. : University of Chicago Library. Clermont Ferrand, France : Bibliotheque Universitaire. Cleveland, O. : Library of Adelbert College of Western Reserve University. College Hill, Mass. : Tufts College Library. Columbus, O. : Ohio State University Library. Crawfordsville, Ind. : Wabash College Library. Detroit, Mich. : Public Library. Easton, Pa. : Lafayette College Library. Evanston, 111. : Northwestern University Library. Gambier, O. : Kenyon College Library. Greencastle, Ind. : Library of De Pauw University. Hanover, N. H. : Dartmouth College Library. Iowa City, la. : Library of State University. Ithaca, N. Y. : Cornell University Library. Lincoln, Neb. : Library of State University of Nebraska. Madison, Wis. : Library of the University of Wisconsin. Marietta, O. : Marietta College Library. Middletown, Conn. : Wesleyan University Library. Milwaukee, Wis. : Public Library. Minneapolis, Minn. : Athenaeum Library. Minneapolis, Minn. : Library of the University of Minnesota. Nashville, Tenn. : Vanderbilt University Library. Newton Centre, Mass. : Library of Newton Theological Institution. New York, N. Y. : Astor Library. New York, N. Y. : Library of Columbia University.
New York, N. Y. : Library of the College of the City of New York (Lexington Ave. and Twenty-third St.).
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxxxix
New York, N. Y. : Union Theological Seminary Library (700 Park Ave.).
Olivet, Eaton Co., Mich. : Olivet College Library.
Philadelphia, Pa. : American Philosophical Society.
Philadelphia, Pa. : The Library Company of Philadelphia.
Philadelphia, Pa. : The Mercantile Library.
Philadelphia, Pa. : University of Pennsylvania Library.
Pittsburg, Pa. : Carnegie Library.
Poughkeepsie, N. V. : Yassar College Library.
Princeton, N. J. : Library of Princeton University.
Providence, R. I. : Brown University Library.
Rochester, N. Y. : Rochester University Library.
Springfield, Mass. : City Library.
Tokio, Japan : Library of Imperial University.
Toronto, Can. : University of Toronto Library.
University of Virginia, Albemarle Co., Va. : University Library.
Vermilion, South Dakota: Library of University of South Dakota.
Washington, D. C. : Library of the Catholic University of America.
Washington, D. C. : United States Bureau of Education.
Wellesley, Mass. : Wellesley College Library.
Worcester, Mass. : Free Public Library.
[Number of subscribing institutions, 64. ]
To THE FOLLOWING LIBRARIES AND INSTITUTIONS THE TRANSACTIONS ARE
ANNUALLY SENT, GRATIS.
American School of Classical Studies, Athens.
American School of Classical Studies, Rome (Via Vicenza 5).
British Museum, London.
Royal Asiatic Society, London.
Philological Society, London.
Society of Biblical Archaeology, London.
Indian Office Library, London.
Bodleian Library, Oxford.
University Library, Cambridge, England.
Advocates' Library, Edinburgh, Scotland.
Trinity College Library, Dublin, Ireland.
Asiatic Society of Bengal, Calcutta.
Bombay Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society.
North-China Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society, Shanghai.
Japan Asiatic Society, Yokohama.
Public Library of Victoria, Melbourne, Australia.
Sir George Grey's Library, Cape Town, Africa.
Reykjavik College Library, Iceland.
University of Christiania, Norway.
University of Upsala, Sweden.
Stadsbiblioteket, Goteborg, Sweden.
cxl American Philological Association.
Russian Imperial Academy, St. Petersburg.
Austrian Imperial Academy, Vienna.
Anthropologische Gesellschaft, Vienna.
Biblioteca Nazionale, Florence, Italy.
Reale Accademia delle Scienze, Turin.
Societe Asiatique, Paris, France.
Athenee Oriental, Louvain, Belgium.
Curatorium of the University, Leyden, Holland.
Bataviaasch Genootschap van Kunsten en Wetenschappen, Batavia, Java.
Royal Prussian Academy of Sciences, Berlin, Germany.
Royal Saxon Academy of Sciences, Leipsic.
Royal Bavarian Academy of Sciences, Munich.
Deutsche Morgenlandische Gesellschaft, Halle.
Library of the University of Bonn.
Library of the University of Freiburg in Baden.
Library of the University of Giessen.
Library of the University of Jena.
Library of the University of Konigsberg.
Library of the University of Leipsic.
Library of the University of Toulouse.
Library of the University of Tubingen.
Imperial Ottoman Museum, Constantinople.
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D. C.
[Number of foreign institutions, 43.]
To THE FOLLOWING FOREIGN JOURNALS THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ANNUALLY
SENT, GRATIS.
Athenaeum, London.
Classical Review, London.
Revue Critique, Paris.
Revue de Philologie (Adrien Krebs, n Rue de Lille, Paris).
Societe de Linguistique, & la Sorbonne, Paris.
Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, Berlin.
Deutsche Litteraturzeitung, Berlin.
Indogermanische Forschungen (K. J. Trubner, Strassburg).
Literarisches Centralblatt, Leipsic.
Musee Beige (Prof. Waltzing, 9 Rue du Pare, Liege, Belgium).
Neue Philologische Rundschau, Gotha (F. A. Perthes).
Wochenschrift fur klassische Philologie, Berlin.
Rivista di Filologia, Turin (Ermanno Loescher).
Direzione del Bolletino di Filologia Classica, Via Vittorio Amadeo ii, Turin.
Zeitschrift fur die osterr. Gymnasien (Prof. J. Golling, Maximilians Gymnasium
Vienna). L'Universite Catholique (Prof. A. Lepitre, 10 Avenue de Noailles, Lyons).
[Total (581 + 64 + 43 + I + 1 6) = 705.]
CONSTITUTION
OF THE
AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.
ARTICLE I. — NAME AND OBJECT.
1. This Society shall be known as "The American Philological Associa- tion."
2. Its object shall be the advancement and diffusion of philological knowl- edge.
ARTICLE II. — OFFICERS.
1. The officers shall be a President, two Vice-Presidents, a Secretary and Curator, and a Treasurer.
2. There shall be an Executive Committee of ten, composed of the above officers and five other members of the Association.
3. All the above officers shall be elected at the last session of each annual meeting.
ARTICLE III. — MEETINGS.
1. There shall be an annual meeting of the Association in the city of New York, or at such other place as at a preceding annual meeting shall be deter- mined upon.
2. At the annual meeting, the Executive Committee shall present an annual report of the progress of the Association.
3. The general arrangements of the proceedings of the annual meeting shall be directed by the Executive Committee.
4. Special meetings may be held at the call of the.Executive Committee, when and where they may decide.
cxli
cxlii American Philological Association.
ARTICLE IV. — MEMBERS.
1. Any lover of philological studies may become a member of the Association by a vote of the Executive Committee and the payment of five dollars as initiation fee, which initiation fee shall be considered the first regular annual fee.
2. There shall be an annual fee of three dollars from each member, failure in payment of which for two years shall ipso facto cause the membership to cease.
3. Any person may become a life member of the Association by the payment of fifty dollars to its treasury, and by vote of the Executive Committee.
ARTICLE V. — SUNDRIES.
1. All papers intended to be read before the Association must be submitted to the Executive Committee before reading, and their decision regarding such papers shall be final.
2. Publications of the Association, of whatever kind, shall be made only under the authorization of the Executive Committee.
ARTICLE VI. — AMENDMENTS.
Amendments to this Constitution may be made by a vote of two-thirds of those present at any regular meeting subsequent to that in which they have been proposed.
PUBLICATIONS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
THE annually published " Proceedings " of the American Philo- logical Association contain an account of the doings at the annual meeting, brief abstracts of the papers read, reports upon the progress of the Association, and lists of its officers and members.
The annually published "Transactions" give the full text of such articles as the Executive Committee decides to publish. The Pro- ceedings are bound with them as an Appendix.
The following tables show the authors and contents of the volumes of Transactions thus far published : —
1869-1870. —Volume L
Hadley, J. : On the nature and theory of the Greek accent.
Whitney, W. D. : On the nature and designation of the accent in Sanskrit.
Goodwin, W. W. : On the aorist subjunctive and future indicative with oirais and
OV fjLT}.
Trumbull, J. Hammond : On the best method of studying the North American
languages.
Haldeman, S. S. : On the German vernacular of Pennsylvania. Whitney, W. D. : On the present condition of the question as to the origin of
language. Lounsbury, T. R. : On certain forms of the English verb which were used in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. Trumbull, J. Hammond : On some mistaken notions of Algonkin grammar, and
on mistranslations of words from Eliot's Bible, etc. Van Name, A. : Contributions to Creole Grammar. Proceedings of the preliminary meeting (New York, 1868), of the first annual
session (Poughkeepsie, 1869), and of the second annual session (Rochester,
1870).
1871. — Volume n.
Evans, E. W. : Studies in Cymric philology.
Allen, F. D. : On the so-called Attic second declension.
Whitney, W. D. : Strictures on the views of August Schleicher respecting the nature of language and kindred subjects.
Hadley, J. : On English vowel quantity in the thirteenth century and in the nine- teenth.
March, F. A. : Anglo-Saxon and Early English pronunciation.
Bristed, C. A. : Some notes on Ellis's Early English Pronunciation.
cxliii
cxliv American Philological Association.
frumbull, J. Hammond : On Algonkin names for man.
Greenough, J. B. : On some forms of conditional sentences in Latin, Greek and Sanskrit. ",
Proceedings of the third annual session, New Haven, 1871.
1872. — Volume m.
Evans, E. W. : Studies in Cymric philology.
Frumbull, J. Hammond: Words derived from Indian languages of North America.
Hadley, J. : On the Byzantine Greek pronunciation of the tenth century, as illus- trated by a manuscript in the Bodleian L'brary.
Stevens, W. A. : On the substantive use of the Greek participle.
Bristed, C. A. : Erroneous and doubtful uses of the word such.
Hartt, C. F. : Notes on the Lingoa Geral, or Modern Tupf of the Amazonas.
Whitney, W. D. : On material and form in language.
March, F. A. : Is there an Anglo-Saxon language?
March, F. A. : On some irregular verbs in Anglo-Saxon.
Trumbull, J. Hammond : Notes on forty versions of the Lord's Prayer in Algon* kin languages.
Proceedings of the fourth annual session, Providence, 1872.
1873. — Volume IV.
Allen, F. D. : The Epic forms of verbs in aw.
Evans, E. W. : Studies in Cymric philology.
Hadley, J. : On Koch's treatment of the Celtic element in English.
Haldeman, S. S. : On the pronunciation of Latin, as presented in several recent grammars.
Packard, L. R. : On some points in the life of Thucydides.
Goodwin, W. W. : On the classification of conditional sentences in Greek syntax.
March, F. A. : Recent discussions of Grimm's law.
Lull, E. P. : Vocabulary of the language of the Indians of San Bias and Cale- donia Bay, Darien.
Proceedings of the fifth annual session, Easton, 1873.
1874. — Volume V.
Tyler, W. S. : On the prepositions in the Homeric poems.
Harkness, A. : On the formation of the tenses for completed action in the Latin
finite verb.
Haldeman, S. S. : On an English vowel-mutation, present in cagt keg. Packard, L. R. : On a passage in Homer's Odyssey (A. 81-86). Trumbull, J. Hammond : On numerals in American Indian languages, and the
Indian mode of counting. Bewail, J. B. : On the distinction between the subjunctive and optatives modes in
Greek conditional sentences.
Morris, C. D. : On the age of Xenophon at the time of the Anabasis. Whitney, W. D. : *iWt or Otyti — natural or conventional? Proceedings of the sixth annual session, Hartford, 1874.
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxlv
1875. —Volume VL
Harkness, A. : On the formation of the tenses for completed action in the Latin
finite verb.
Haldeman, S. S. : On an English consonant-mutation, present in proof, prove. Carter, F. : On Begemann's views as to the weak preterit of the Germanic verbs. Morris, C. D. : On some forms of Greek conditional sentences. Williams, A. : On verb-reduplication as a means of expressing completed action. Sherman, L. A. : A grammatical analysis of the Old English poem " The Owl
and the Nightingale." Proceedings of the seventh annual session, Newport, 1875.
1876. — Volume VII.
Gildersleeve, B. L. : On ««' with the future indicative and &b» with the subjunctive
in the tragic poets.
Packard, L. R. : On Grote's theory of the structure of the Iliad. Humphreys, M. W. : On negative commands in Greek. Toy, C. H. : On Hebrew verb-etymology. Whitney, W. D. : A botanico-philological problem.
Goodwin, W. W. : On shall and should in protasis, and their Greek equivalents. Humphreys, M. W. : On certain influences of accent in Latin iambic trimeters. Trumbull, J. Hammond : On the Algonkin verb. Haldeman, S. S. : On a supposed mutation between / and u. Proceedings of the eighth annual session, New York, 1876.
1877. — Volume VHI.
Packard, L. R. : Notes on certain passages in the Phaedo and the Gorgias of
Plato.
Toy, C. H. t On the nominal basis on the Hebrew verb. Allen, F. D. : On a certain apparently pleonastic use of us. Whitney, W. D. : On the relation of surd and sonant. Holden, E. S. : On the vocabularies of children under two years of age. Goodwin, W. W. : On the text and interpretation of certain passages in the
Agamemnon of Aeschylus.
Stickney, A. : On the single case-form in Italian.
Carter, F. : On Willmann's theory of the authorship of the Nibelungenlied. Sihler, E. G. : On Herodotus's and Aeschylus's accounts of the battle of Salamis. Whitney, W. D. : On the principle of economy as a phonetic force. Carter, F. : On the Kiirenberg hypothesis. March, F. A. : On dissimilated gemination. Proceedings of the ninth annual session, Baltimore, 1877.
1878. — Volume IX.
Gildersleeve, B. L. : Contributions to the history of the articular infinitive. Toy, C. H. : The Yoruban language.
Humphreys, M. W. : Influence of accent in Latin dactylic hexameters. Sachs, J. : Observations on Plato's Cratylus.
cxlvi American Pliilological Association.
Seymour, T. D. : On the composition of the Cynegeticus of Xenophon. Humphreys, M. W. : Elision, especially in Greek. Proceedings of the tenth annual session, Saratoga, 1878.
1879. — Volume X.
Toy, C. H. : Modal development of the Semitic verb.
Humphreys, M. W. : On the nature of caesura.
Humphreys, M. W. : On certain effects of elision.
Cook, A. S. : Studies in Heliand.
Harkness, A. : On the development of the Latin subjunctive in principal clauses,
D'Ooge, M. L. : The original recension of the De Corona.
Peck, T. : The authorship of the Dialogus de Oratoribus.
Seymour, T. D. : On the date of the Prometheus of Aeschylus.
Proceedings of the eleventh annual session, Newport, 1879.
1880. — Volume XI.
Humphreys, M. W. : A contribution to infantile linguistic.
Toy, C. H. : The Hebrew verb-termination un.
Packard, L. R. : The beginning of a written literature in Greece.
Hall, I. H. : The declension of the definite article in the Cypriote inscriptions.
Sachs, J. : Observations on Lucian.
Sihler, E. G. : Virgil and Plato.
Allen, W. F. : The battle of Mons Graupius.
Whitney, W. D. : On inconsistency in views of language.
Edgren, A. H. : The kindred Germanic words of German and English, exhibited
with reference to their consonant relations. Proceedings of the twelfth annual session, Philadelphia, 1880.
1881. —Volume XII.
Whitney, W. D. : On Mixture in Language.
Toy, C. H. : The home of the primitive Semitic race.
March, F. A. : Report of the committee on the reform of English spelling.
Wells, B. W. : History of the rt-vowel, from Old Germanic to Modern English.
Seymour, T. D. : The use of the aorist participle in Greek.
Sihler, E. G. : The use of abstract verbal nouns in -<ns in Thucydides.
Proceedings of the thirteenth annual session, Cleveland, 1881.
1882. —Volume XIII.
Hall, I. H. : The Greek New Testament as published in America.
Merriam, A. C. : Alien intrusion between article and noun in Greek.
Peck, T. : Notes on Latin quantity.
Owen, W. B. : Influence of the Latin syntax in the Anglo-Saxon Gospels.
Wells, B. W. : The Ablaut in English.
Whitney, W. D. : General considerations on the Indo-European case-system.
Proceedings of the fourteenth annual session, Cambridge, 1882.
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxlvii
1883. — Volume XIV.
Merriam, A. C. : The Caesareum and the worship of Augustus at Alexandria.
Whitney, W. D. : The varieties of predication.
Smith, C. F. : On Southernisms.
Weils, B. W. : The development of the Ablaut in Germanic.
Proceedings of the fifteenth annual session, Middletown, 1883.
1884. — Volume XV.
Goodell, T. D. : On the use of the Genitive in Sophokles.
Tarbell, F. B. : Greek ideas as to the effect of burial on the future life of the soul Perrin, B. : The Crastinus episode at Palaepharsalus. Peck, T. : Alliteration in Latin.
Von Jagemann, H. C. G. : Norman words in English. Wells, B. W. : The Ablaut in High German.
Whitney, W. D. : Primary and Secondary Suffixes of Derivation and their ex- changes.
Warren, M.: On Latin Glossaries. Codex Sangallensis, No. 912. Proceedings of the sixteenth annual session, Hanover, 1884.
1885. — Volume XVL
Easton, M. W. : The genealogy of words.
Goodell, T. D. : Quantity in English verse.
Goodwin, W. W. : Value of the Attic talent in modern money.
Goodwin, W. W. : Relation of the np6eSpot to the Upvravtis in the Attic BouMj.
Perrin, B. : Equestrianism in the Doloneia.
Richardson, R. B. : The appeal to sight in Greek tragedy.
Seymour, T. D. : The feminine caesura in Homer.
Sihler, E. G. : A study of Dinarchus.
Wells, B. W. : The vowels <? and i in English.
Whitney, W. D. : The roots of the Sanskrit language.
Proceedings of the seventeenth annual session, New Haven, 1885.
1886. —Volume XVIL
Tarbell, F. B. : Phonetic law. Sachs, J. : Notes on Homeric Zoology. Fowler, H. N. : The sources of Seneca de Beneficiis. Smith, C. F. : On Southernisms. Wells, B. W. : The sounds o and « in English. Fairbanks, A. : The Dative case in Sophokles.
The Philological Society, of England, and The American Philological Associa- tion : Joint List of Amended Spellings. Proceedings of the eighteenth annual session, Ithaca, 1886.
cxlviii American Philological Association.
1887. — Volume XVHL
Allen, W. F. : The monetary crisis in Rome, A.D. 33.
Sihler, E. G. : The tradition of Caesar's Gallic Wars, from Cicero to Orosius.
Clapp, E. i-. : Conditional sentences in Aischylos.
Pease, E. M. : On the relative value of the manuscripts of Terence
Smyth, H. W. : The Arcado-Cyprian dialect.
Wells, B. W. : The sounds o and u in English.
Smyth, H. W. : The Arcado-Cyprian dialect. — Addenda.
Proceedings of the nineteenth annual session, Burlington, 1887.
1888. — Volume XIX.
Allen, W. F. : The Lex Cunata de Imperio.
Goebel, J. : On the impersonal verbs.
Bridge, J. : On the authorship of the Cynicus of Lucian.
Whitney, J. E. : The " Continued Allegory " in the first book of the Fairy Queene
March, F. A. : Standard English : its pronunciation, how learned.
Brewer, F. P. : Register of new words.
Proceedings of the twentieth annual session, Amherst, 1888.
1889. — Volume XX
Smyth, H. W. : The vowel system of the Ionic dialect
Gudeman, A. : A new source in Plutarch's Life of Cicero.
Gatschet, A. S. : Sex-denoting nouns in American languages.
Cook, A. S. : Metrical observations on a Northumbrianized version of the Old
English Judith.
Cook, A. S. : Stressed vowels in ^Elfric's Homilies. Proceedings of the twenty-first annual session, Easton, 1889. Index of authors, and index of subjects, Vols. I.— XX.
1890. — Volume XXT.
Goodell, T. D. : The order of words in Greek.
Hunt, W. I. : Homeric wit and humor.
Leighton, R. F. : The Medicean Mss. of Cicero's letters.
Whitney, W. D. : Translation of the Katha Upanishad.
Proceedings of the twenty-second annual session, Norwich, 1890.
1891. — Volume XXIL
Capps, Edw. : The Greek Stage according to the Extant Dramas.
Clapp, Edw. B. : Conditional Sentences in the Greek Tragedians.
West, A. F. : Lexicographical Gleanings from the Philobiblon of Richard de Bury
Hale, W. G. : The Mode in the phrases quod sciam, etc.
Proceedings of the twenty-third annual session, Princeton, 1891.
Proceedings for July, 1903. cxlix
1892. — Volume XXIH.
Whitney, W. D. : On the narrative use of imperfect and perfect in the Brahmanas Muss-Arnolt, W. : On Semitic wunls in Greek and Latin. Humphreys, M. W. : On the equivalence of rhythmical bars and metrical feet. Scott, Charles P. G. : English words which hav gaind or lost an initial con- sonant by attraction. Proceedings of the twenty-fourth annual session, Charlottes ville, 1892.
1893. —Volume XXIV.
Sonnenschein, E. A. : The scientific emendation of classical texts.
Breal, M. : The canons of etymological investigation.
Streitberg, W. : Ein Ablautproblem der Ursprache.
Osthoff, H.: Dunkles und helles / im Lateinischen.
Shorey, Paul : The implicit ethics and psychology of Thucydides.
Scott, C. P. G. : English words which hav gaind or lost an initial consonant by
attraction (second paper).
Hale, W. G. : " Extended " and " remote " deliberatives in Greek. Proceedings of the twenty-fifth annual session, Chicago, 1893.
1894. — Volume XXV.
Knapp, Charles : Notes on the prepositions in Gellius.
Moore, F. G. : On urbs aeterna and urbs sacra.
Smith, Charles Forster : Some poetical constructions in Thucydides.
Scott, C. P. G. : English words which hav gaind or lost an initial consonant by
attraction (third paper).
Gudeman, Alfred : Literary forgeries among the Romans. Proceedings of the twenty-sixth annual session, Williamstown, 1894.
1895. — Volume XXVI.
Bloomfield, M. : On Professor Streitberg's theory as to the origin of certain Indo- European long vowels.
Warren, M. : On the contribution of the Latin inscriptions to the study of the Latin language and literature.
Paton, James M. : Some Spartan families under the Empire.
Riess, Ernst : On ancient superstition.
Perrin, B. : Genesis and growth of an Alexander-myth.
Slaughter, M. S. : The Acta Ludorum and the Carmen Saeculare.
Scott, C. P. G. : The Devil and his imps : an etymological inquisition.
March, F. A. : The fluency of Shakespeare.
Proceedings of the special session, Philadelphia, 1894,
Proceedings of the twenty-seventh annual session, Cleveland, 1895.
1896. — Volume XXVII.
Riess, E. : Superstition and popular beliefs in Greek tragedy.
Harkness, Albert Granger : Age at marriage and at death in the Roman Empire.
cl American Philological Association.
Allinson, F. G. : On the accent of certain enclitic combinations in Greek.
Wright, John H. : The origin of sigma lunatum.
Proceedings of the twenty-eighth annual session, Providence, 1896.
1897. — Volume XXVIII.
Brownson, C. L. : Reasons for Plato's hostility to the poets.
Sihler, E. G. : Lucretius and Cicero.
Bloomtield, M. : Indo-European notes.
Peck, Tracy : Cicero's hexameters.
Fairbanks, Arthur : On Plutarch's quotations from the early Greek philosophers.
March, F. A. : The enlargement of the English dictionary.
Collitz, H. : Traces of Indo-European accentuation in Latin.
Smyth, H. W. : Mute and liquid in Greek melic poetry.
Proceedings of the twenty-ninth annual session, Bryn Mawr, 1897.
1898. — Volume XXIX.
Fay, E. W. : The origin of the gerundive.
Hempl, G. : Language-rivalry and speech-differentiation in the case of race-mixture.
Harry, J. E. : The omission of the article with substantives after ovros, 55e, ^/cetwj
in prose. Ebeling, H. L. : The Admetus of Euripides viewed in relation to the Admetus of
tradition.
Smyth, H. W. : Mute and liquid in Greek melic poetry (II.). March, F. A. : Orthography of English preterits. Wolcott, J. D. : New words in Thucydides. Proceedings of the thirtieth annual session, Hartford, 1898.
1899. — Volume XXX. -
Fairclough, H. R. : The text of the Andria of Terence.
Wheeler, A. L. : The uses of the Imperfect Indicative in Plautus and Terence.
Hempl, G. : The origin of the Latin letters G and Z, with Appendix, on the coceulod
orieso of the Salian hymn.
Johnson, C. W. L. : The motion of the voice in the theory of ancient music. Harkness, A. G. : The scepticism and fatalism of the common people of Rome as
illustrated by the sepulchral inscriptions.
Bates, W. N. : The Lenaea, the Anthesteria, and the temple 4v \ifj.vais. Bates, F. O. : The Deme Kolonos.
Ferguson, W. S. : Some notes on the Archons of the third century. Proceedings of the thirty-first annual session, New York, 1899.
1900. —Volume XXXI.
Rolfe, J. C. : The formation of substantives from Latin geographical adjectives
by ellipsis.
Bonner, Campbell : The Danaid-myth.
Fowler, H. N. : Pliny, Pausanias, and the Hermes of Praxiteles. Showerman, Grant: Was Attis at Rome under the Republic?
Proceedings for July, 1903. cli
Carter, J. B. : The cognomina of the goddess Fortuna.
Smith, C. F. : Traces of epic usage in Thucydides.
Seymour, T. D. : Notes on Homeric war.
Gudeman, A. : The sources of the Germania of Tacitus.
Capps, E. : Studies in Greek agonistic inscriptions.
Hale, W. G. : Is there still a Latin potential?
Heidel, W. A. : On Plato's Euthyphro.
Hempl, G. : The Salian hymn to Janus.
Chase, G. D. : Sun myths in Lithuanian folksongs.
Wilson, H. L. : The use of the simple for the compound verb in JuvenaL
Bennett, C. E. : The stipulative subjunctive in Latin.
Proceedings of the thirty-second annual session, Madison, 1900.
1901. — Volume XXXII.
Wheeler, B. I. : The causes of uniformity in phonetic change.
Clapp, E. B. : Pindar's accusative constructions.
Merrill, E. T. : Some observations on the Arch of Trajan at Beneventum.
Harry, J. E. : A misunderstood passage in Aeschylus {Prom. 119).
Franklin, S. B. : Public appropriations for individual offerings and sacrifices in
Greece.
Morgan, M. H.: Rain-gods and rain-charms. Warren, M. : Some ancient and modern etymologies. Adams, C. D. : The Harpalos case. Steele, R. B. : Anaphora and chiasmus in Livy. Hempl, G. : The variant runes on the Franks casket. Bill, C. P. : Notes on the Greek 6eo>p<5s and Qewpia. Elmer, H. C. : On the subjunctive with Forsitan. Proceedings of the special session, Philadelphia, 1900. Proceedings of the Philological Association of the Pacific Coast, San Francisco,
1900. Proceedings of the thirty-third annual session, Cambridge, 1901.
1902. — Volume XXXIII.
Earle, M. L. : Studies in Sophocles's Trachinians.
Morgan, M. H. : Remarks on the water supply of ancient Rome.
Richardson, L. J. : On certain sound properties of the Sapphic strophe as employed
by Horace.
Shipley, F. W. : Numeral corruptions in a ninth century Ms. of Livy. Steele, R. B. : Some forms of complemental sentences in Livy. Prentice, W. K. : Fragments of an early Christian liturgy in Syrian inscriptions. Allen, J. T. : On the so-called iterative optative in Greek. Wheeler, B. I. : Herodotus's account of the battle of Salamis. Perrin, B. : The Nikias of Pasiphon an 1 Plutarch. Hempl, G. : The Duenos inscription.
Proceedings of the thirty-fourth annual session, Schenectady, 1902. Proceedings of the Philological Association of the Pacific Coast, San Francisco,
1901.
clii
American Philological Association.
1903. — Volume XXXIV.
Moore, F. G. : Studies in Tacitean Ellipsis: descriptive passages.
Goodell, T. D. : Word-accent in Catullus's galliambics.
Brownson, C. L. : The succession of Spartan nauarchs in Hellenica I.
Prescott, H. W. : Magister curiae in Plautus's Aulularia 107.
Miller, C. W. E. : Hephaestion and the anapaest in the Aristophanic trimeter.
Radford, R. S. : The Latin monosyllables in their relation to accent and quantity.
A study in the verse of Terence. March, F. A, : Three new types.
Proceedings of the thirty-fifth annual meeting, New Haven, 1903. Proceedings of the fourth annual meeting of the Philological Association of the
Pacific Coast, San Francisco, 1902.
The Proceedings of the American Philological Association are distributed gratis upon application to the Secretary or to the Pub- lishers until they are out of print.
Fifty separate copies of articles printed in the Transactions, ten of articles printed in the Proceedings, are given to the authors for dis- tribution. Additional copies will be furnished at cost.
The " Transactions for " any given year are not always published in that year. To avoid mistakes in ordering back volumes, please state — not the year of publication, but rather — the year for which the Transactions are desired, adding also the volume-number, accord- ing to the following table : —
The Transactions for 1869 and |
||
1870 form |
Vol. I. |
|
The Trans, for |
1871 " |
" II. |
K « |
1872 " |
" III. |
« <« |
1873 " |
" IV. |
u u |
1874 " |
« V. |
" « |
1875 " |
" VI. |
« « |
1876 " |
" VII. |
" " |
1877 «• |
" VIII. |
u « |
1878 « |
" IX. |
U « |
1879 " |
" X. |
II II |
1880 " |
" XL |
« U |
1881 " |
" XII. |
«« « |
1882 " |
" XIII. |
" " |
1883 " |
" XIV. |
II II |
1884 " |
" XV. |
l< It |
1885 " |
" XVI. |
U U |
1886 " |
" XVII. |
The Trans, for 1887 form Vol. XVIII.
1888 " |
" XIX. |
1889 " |
" XX. |
1890 " |
" XXI. |
1891 " |
" XXII. |
1892 " |
" XXIII. |
1893 " |
" XXIV. |
1894 " |
« XXV. |
1895 " |
" XXVI. |
1896 " |
" XXVII. |
1897 " |
" XXVIII. |
1898 " |
" XXIX. |
1899 " |
" XXX. |
1900 " |
" XXXI. |
1901 " |
" XXXII. |
1902 " |
" XXXIII. |
1903 « |
« XXXIV. |
Proceedings for July, 1903. cliii
The price of these volumes is $2.00 apiece, except Volumes XV., XX., XXIIL, and XXXII., for which $2.50 is charged. The first two volumes will not be sold separately. A charge of fifty cents each is made for the Index of Authors and Index of Subjects to Vols. I.-XX. and to Vols. XXI.-XXX.
BINDING.
Back volumes will be bound in the style of this volume for twenty- five cents each by F. J. Barnard & Co., 1 7 Province St., Boston, Mass., provided at least twelve volumes are sent at a time, and the cost of transportation both ways is paid by the owner. All parcels should be plainly marked with the name and address of the sender, and the binders should be notified at the time the unbound volumes are sent in order that the sender may be identified.
Libraries may obtain bound copies of the annual volumes at twenty- five cents per volume in addition to the regular price.
REDUCTION IN THE PRICE OF COMPLETE SETS.
Single COMPLETE SETS of the Transactions and Proceedings will be sold, until further notice, at a reduction of 20%.
It is especially appropriate that American Libraries should exert themselves to procure this series while it may be had. It is the work of American scholars, and contains many valuable articles not elsewhere accessible ; and, apart from these facts, as the first collection of essays in general philology made in this country, it is sure to be permanently valuable for the history of American scholarship.
GINN & COMPANY'S PUBLICATIONS
The International Modern Language Series
In the New Series Binding. i6mo. Semi-flexible Cloth A few recent additions to the Series : —
LIST PRICK LIST PRICE
Aldrich and Foster's French Reader $050 Merimee's Colomba 40
Daudet's La Belle Nivernaise ... .35 Heine's Harzreise 40
Gerstacker's Germelshausen nearly ready Rostand's Les Romanesques . . .35
Boileau-Despreaux's Les Heros de Schucking's Die Drei Freier . . .30
Roman 75 Sand's La Mare au Diable . . .35
Allen and Greenough's New Latin Grammar
By J. B. GREBNOUGH, late Professor of Latin in Harvard University; Prof. GEORGE I.VMAN KITTREDGE, and Prof. A. A. HOWARD, of Harvard University; and BENJAMIN L. D'OoGE, Professor of Latin in the Michigan State Normal College. List price, $1.20. This well-known Latin Grammar, although in a new form, still remains the Allen and Greenough Grammar in scope and in general plan, and retains the characteristic qualities that have given the book a world-wide distinction. But the work has been revised in every detail to bring it into harmony with the latest results of scholarship the world over, and has been rearranged where necessary to make it as convenient for use as is possible.
Hale and Buck's Latin Grammar
By WILLIAM GARDNER HALE, Professor and Head of the Department of Latin, and CARL DARLING BUCK, Professor of Sanskrit and Indo-European Comparative Philology in the University of Chicago. List price, $i oo.
Hale and Buck's Latin Grammar is the work of specialists, and embodies the results of many years of independent study. In general, the authors have aimed to give only such explanations as are certain, reasonable, simple, and deal with the relations between existing Latin forms. Nevertheless, care has been taken to present the true historical development of the language in a way that will best appeal to the intelligence of the young student, that will be most helpful to his memory, and that will give him a sound foundation for possible further study.
Barnum's Grammar of the Innuit Language
By the Rev. FRANCIS BARNUM, S.J. Price, $5.00 net.
The first complete treatise on the Eskimo tongue that has ever been published in America.
Studies and Notes in Philology and Literature
VOL. VIII. — - 1. Iwain : A Study in the History of Arthurian Romance.
By ARTHUR C. L. BROWN. 2 Arthur and Gorlagon : An Unpublished Text with a Study of its Literary Relations.
By GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE, Professor of English in Harvard University.
8vo. Paper. 275 pages. List price, $1.50.
University of Pennsylvania Publications Series in Philology and Literature
VOL. VIII. — No. I. The Faire Maide of Bristow. (A Comedy.) By ARTHUR H. QUINN. $1.00.
No. II. The Sources of Plutarch's Life of Cicero. By ALFRED GUDEMAN. $1.25.
VOL. IX. — No. II. Friedrich Schlegel's Relations with Reichardt and his Contribu- tions to ••Deutschland." By SAMUEL PAUL CAPEN. 50 cents.
GINN & COMPANY Publishers
Boston New York Chicago London
San Francisco Atlanta Dallas Columbus
American Philological Associ- ation
A5 Transactions and proceed- v.34 ings
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE SLIPS FROM THIS POCKET
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO LIBRARY