This is a digital copy of a book that was preserved for generations on library shelves before it was carefully scanned by Google as part of a project
to make the world's books discoverable online.
It has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain. A public domain book is one that was never subject
to copyright or whose legal copyright term has expired. Whether a book is in the public domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture and knowledge that's often difficult to discover.
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in this file - a reminder of this book's long journey from the
publisher to a library and finally to you.
Usage guidelines
Google is proud to partner with libraries to digitize public domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the
public and we are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to
prevent abuse by commercial parties, including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Google Book Search for use by individuals, and we request that you use these files for
personal, non-commercial purposes.
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the
use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.
+ Maintain attribution The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential for informing people about this project and helping them find
additional materials through Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
+ Keep it legal Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just
because we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is also in the public domain for users in other
countries. Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of
any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used in any manner
anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
About Google Book Search
Google's mission is to organize the world's information and to make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
at http : //books . google . com/|
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
. h
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE
AMERICAN
Journal of Philology
EDITED BY
BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE
Prof*stor of Greek in ifu yohnt Hopkint University
& Co.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE
AMERICAN
Journal of Philology
EDITED BY
BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE
Prof*ttor of Grttk in tkt yohnt Hophint Univtrtiiy
VOL. XVIII
BALTIMORE: THE EDITOR
Nxvr York and London: Macmillan & Co.
Lripsic: F. a. Brockhaus
1897
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
^it ftithnmatb Company
BALTIMORB. MD.. U.S.A.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
iv CONTENTS,
No. 70.
I. — The Subjunctive in Independent Sentences in Plautus. I. By E.
P. Morris, 133
II.— Textual Notes and Queries on Plautus. By Edwin W. Fay, . 168
III. — Superstitions and Popular Beliefs in Greek Comedy. By Ernst
RiESS, 189
IV.— On the Definition of Some Rhetorical Terms. By V. J. Emery, . 206
Reviews AND Book Notices : 214
Schanz*s Beitrage zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache.
Band III, Heft 3 u. 4. Dyroff*s Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum.
— Rambeau and Passy's Chrestomathie frangaise. — Karsten's Journal
of Germanic Philology.
Reports: 228
Revue de Philologie. — Englische Studien. — Rheinisches Museum ftir
Philologie.
Brief Mention, 242
Necrology, 247
Recent Publications, 248
Books Received, 253
No. 71.
I. — The Ethics and Amenities of Greek Historiography. By B. Perrin, 255
II. — The Subjunctive in Independent Sentences in Plautus. II. By
E. P. Morris 275
III. — Caecilius of Calacte. By W. Rhys Roberts, .302
IV. — Are the Letters of Horace Satires? By G. L. Hendrickson, . 313
V. — Notes on Horace. By Charles Knapp, 325
Note: 339
On Lucian's Nigrinus. By Emily James Smith.
Reviews and Book Notices : 342
Jusserand's A Literary History of the English People. — Hillebrandt's
Ritual-Literatur. — Kaibers Sophokles Elektra.
Reports: 357
Romania. — Hermes.
Brief Mention, 368
Necrology, 371
Recent Publications, 376
Books Received 381
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
CONTENTS.
No. 72.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
2 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
any wide acceptance. Some other young men, not so thoroughly
grounded in the literary tradition as their elders, returned from
Greece ^ith more or less enthusiasm for the revolutionary doctrine
and for its author. In Hermes for 1886 (pp. 597 ft) appeared an
article by Wilamowitz, *Die Biihne des Aischylos.' This was
based in part on the new view, and made it widely known in
fragmentary form, though the article is now seen to have con-
tained some hay and stubble along with better material. Then
it was announced that our revolutionary architect was to publish
a book on the subject soon. Years passed and the book did not
appear ; some were inclined to scoff and others to grieve. Mean-
time on other grounds Dorpfeld's reputation was growing. His
part in the Olympia publications and a steady stream of papers
in the Mittheilungen attested his power. Schliemann secured his
help in excavating Tiryns, and later Troy; in 1887 Dorpfeld
succeeded Petersen as First Secretary of the Institute in Athens,
and the stream of publications never ceased. It was more and
more widely recognized that a mind of exceptional force, training
and candor was at work on the scattered remnants of Greek
architecture of every sort, discovering order in supposed chaos,
revealing significance in little facts till then unnoticed, clarifying
and enlarging our knowledge of Hellenic and prehistoric building,
and vastly improving the young art of excavation. Further,
even before he became the head of the Institute, he adopted the
plan of explaining on the spot accessible architectural remains to
'stipendiaries' of the Institute and others. This plan developed
into three separate courses, identical in character and differing
only in the location of the monuments and the means of reaching
them. The first was a weekly peripatetic lecture two or three
hours in length during the winter, in Athens and vicinity. The
second was a journey to Mykenai, Tiryns, Epidauros, and across
Arkadia to Olympia: this has been extended and enriched as
excavation has increased the material for study and as facilities
for travel have improved. Third comes a trip by sea for similar
examination of some of the islands and places on the coast inac-
cessible otherwise for large parties. The severe charm of those
lectures no one can forget who has been so fortunate as to hear
them; and during these years a goodly number of scholars,
younger and older, have carried back from them to Europe and
America more just impressions of Dorpfeld's mastery of the entire
field of Greek architecture, as well as a more accturate knowledge
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DORPFELD AND THE GREEK THEATRE. 3
of existing theatres and a clearer perception of the cogency of
arguments drawn from the character, position, shape and method of
working of walls, pavement, and the very workmen's chips. Also,
with the generosity of a mind too rich to fear that some one else
may by previous publication rob him of personal glory, Dorpfeld
has allowed and freely assisted others to publish his results, con-
tenting himself with oral discussion in his lectures, and with occa-
sional reviews, in the Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift, of
publications in which his doctrine was either defended or attacked.
Gradually the circle of adherents has enlarged; especially in
Germany and America, these have examined anew in the light of
his views every scrap of the literary tradition and every fragment
of archaeological evidence other than architectural. More theatres
have been uncovered and those already known have been more
fully investigated, by Greek, French, American and English
scholars. Sometimes the aim was to support, sometimes to over-
throw the new views, but always the result was more light. Every
conceivable argument in defence of orthodoxy has been urged,
and so Dorpfeld has gained the opportunity to consider and meet
all difficulties that could be raised. On the whole then — seeing
the author has lived — it is perhaps just as well that the long-
promised *Theaterbuch' has been delayed till now. * The greater
part of the investigation was substantially finished,' we are told in
the preface, *in the years 1884-8.' If the delay has in part
deprived the book of the charm of novelty, it has made possible
broader and deeper foundations and far greater completeness
and permanence of superstructure. It finds even the stoutest
defenders of the old tradition, among our English brethren for
example, already abandoning the main fortress and withdrawing
to one or two small redoubts. No one any longer believes in a
high stage for the fifth and fourth centuries : the utmost claim
now goes no farther than to assume as probable a very low
temporary stage, wholly without evidence, for the Hellenic, and
a high Vitruvian stage for the Hellenistic period. That, I say, is
abandoning the main position. The very last redoubt will
eventually be carried by the book before us.
The radical difference between this and all previous books on
the Greek theatre has already been indicated. Dorpfeld him-
self approached the problem from the archaeological instead of
the literary side, and his book does the same. As an architect
he examines the Greek theatres existing and adequately exca-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
4 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
vated ; his aim is to interpret the extant remains and from them
to reconstruct the original form and trace its history, appealing to
the literature and inscriptions for such help as they can give.
History of the drama, and its relation to other literature, to
religion and to the state, he leaves to others, except so far as
these relations throw light on his special topic, the theatre itself.
Now it is clear that if we wish to know what the Greek theatre
was, existing theatres are our best witnesses. Nearly sixty years
ago A. Schonbom fully recognized this, and made his journey to
Asia Minor in 1841-2 mainly in hope of there finding theatres in
good preservation. But the best he found was that of Aspendos.
With the best possible use of this, he was forced, as were his
successors, to make Vitruvius and the grammarians the real
starting-point, appealing to the extant plays for confirmation or
occasional rectification. The Athenian theatre was not brought
to light till 1862, and then but partially ; not till Dorpfeld took it in
hand twenty years later did the QKi\vr\ begin to become intelligible ;
one important feature even he did not discover till 1895. The
smaller Peiraeus theatre near the harbor of Zea was excavated in
1880, that of Epidauros in 1881; and these three were the
earliest Greek theatres to become adequately known. Even
Albert Muller in 1886, and Haigh in 1889, could go but a little
way beyond their predecessors along this road, and for that little
were indebted to Dorpfeld, and to Dorpfeld's pupil Kawerau, in
Baumeister's Denkmdler. My object is merely to note how
recently it has become possible to start from anything but literary
tradition in forming a notion of the Greek theatre. It was
inevitable that the system built on the old foundation should
differ from that of Dorpfeld, built on the new, and that those
trained in the old system should oppose the new vigorously. For
even now, if one has not with his own eyes seen those fragmentary
ruins assume form and meaning under Dorpfeld's interpretation,
it is difficult to realize how full is the story they tell and how plain
is their language, now that this has once been deciphered. The
controversy over the Megalopolis theatre is a good illustration.
It was really not to be wondered at that the English excavators
in 1890 and 1891 misread the signs before them; yet on nearly
every point they now read them as Dorpfeld does, and the visitor
who has learned from him the elements of that language may
easily do them injustice in the confidence of his own recent
knowledge. This different starting-point of the entire discussion,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DORPFELD AND THE GREEK THEATRE.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
6 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
mass of apparent confusion as the precinct of Dionysos, one can
best appreciate who has spent hours on the spot endeavoring to
make things out from the plans and descriptions of others.
One peculiarity that immediately strikes the eye is the absence
of footnotes. Of course the footnote has its uses. In it one can
give references, and an occasional aside or a polemic observation
that really requires to be uttered, without interrupting the course
of demonstration or the peaceful flow of exposition. But the
difficulty that many feel in properly integrating their disjointed
thoughts, in properly relating the straggling observation and the
uncontrollable polemic impulse to an organic whole — this diffi-
culty, joined with the tendency towards pedantry to which we
professing scholars are all liable, has led to a monstrous develop-
ment of the parasitic footnote growth. It is a pleasure, therefore,
to read a book whose authors do not feel obliged to prove their
breadth of reading by giving up a large portion of the page to
unincorporated and unincorporable matter. Consequently, when
the eye does catch a footnote, one immediately finds it interesting.
Now, it is a frank acknowledgment that in some minor point the
authors are not in agreement (pp. lo and 148) ; again (p. 8), it is
the announcement of a paper presented at the Institute two years
ago, though not yet printed, in which Dorpfeld has proved that
Kollytos, Alopeke and Kynosarges lay across the Ilissos south of
the Acropolis. As regards polemic, the preface puts the case
admirably: "Wir glaubten eine ins Einzelne gehende Polemik
vermeiden zu sollen gegen Behauptungen, denen wir die Grund-
lagen durch die von uns dargelegten neuen Thatsachen entzogen
haben." In point of literary style too the chapters by Dorpfeld
are notable. Those qualities which his American audiences lately
admired in his speaking appear in more perfect form in whatever
he writes. No one could more religiously avoid ornament; there
is nothing Dorpfeld more strenuously disclaims in private than
literary skill. Using always the plainest language, he makes it
his sole aim to present his subject free from all entanglements,
with all attainable simplicity. The result is a German style
whose lucidity could not be surpassed in French; his quiet
description of the old stones and their meaning glows with a calm
but unflagging enthusiasm that imparts itself to the reader.
Would that philologists and all other men of science would profit
by the example. The first step towards a like achievement is
an equal mastery of one's subject ; the second is a like singleness
and sincerity of purpose.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DORPFELD AND THE GREEK THEATRE. J
In the description of the Dionysiac precinct the first twenty-five
pages or so have a delightfully familiar sound to one who has had
the privilege of listening to him under the shelter of the ancient
rock-fortress on those golden winter afternoons ; in the succeeding
part many details are added that those lectures, though extending
to eight or nine hours, did not allow time for. It would be
impossible to summarize all this here with any useful result ; a
few significant points only will be noticed. It is a part of Dorp-
feld's method that he begins with other portions of the precinct —
the boundary wall, the altar, the newer and the older temple of
Dionysos; in this way the theatre takes its proper place as one
part only of the enclosure. A circumstance passed over Hghtly
in the book, after Dorpfeld's manner, illustrates again the recent
date and the main source of our ability to read the language of
architectural remains. Some of the most important walls, includ-
ing the foundations of the older temple, now recognized by their
material and their relation to the stoa as of the sixth century
B. C, were taken by the original excavators to be of Byzantine
date and were partially removed. Dorpfeld regards the art of
excavation as in its in&ncy still, and believes that much which is
in like manner now thrown aside as of no value will, twenty-five
or fifty years hence, be recognized as full of significance. In
spite, however, of ancient destruction and modern demolition, the
Dionysiac theatre still exhibits remnants fi'om every age of the Attic
drama. This fact alone would make it appropriately the centre
of such a discussion as this. Five periods in the structure's
history are clearly distinguishable, as follows :
1. To the sixth and fifth centuries B. C. belong fragments of the
wall that supported the old circular orchestra; this is all that
survives from the age of Aischylos and Sophokles.
2. To the fourth century, to the administration of Lykurgos,
belong the existing seats and the earliest permanent otki^m?, with
the stoa at its back facing the temple and altar.
3. The Hellenistic period shows a new form of o-ki^v^, with first
a wooden and then a permanent stone npoaKfivtov.
4. In the imperial age, about the time of Nero, appears the first
raised stage, of the Roman type.
5. To late Roman times, the third or fourth century A. D.,
belongs the stage of Phaidros, whose inscription still stands on
its front.
Each of these periods in the life of the structure is presented to
us in full description, and all but the first and last in more or less
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
complete restoration. It is surprising how fully the material is
supplied, by drawing as well as by description, that enables one
to test for himself the 3teps of the interpretation and restoration.
Much, of course, would be unintelligible without the testimony of
other theatres, in which now one, now another feature is preserved
that has disappeared from this.
These other theatres are therefore presented in ' Abschnitt' IL
And here, I think, many will agree with me in wishing that in
several cases the description had been made fuller. On every
one Dorpfeld could throw still more light by reason of his
thorough acquaintance with all the rest But some limit had to
be set to the size of the book, and we may be sure that no
essential matter bearing on general theatre construction is passed
over. I will restrict myself to noting some of the more important
contributions made by these theatres.
The theatre in Peiraeus corresponds in form to the third period
of the Athenian structure, from which it is closely copied. It is
the form of theatre which Vitruvius describes as the Greek theatre
of his time, and shows particularly well, without a trace of Roman
rebuilding, the shape of the permanent stone npwncfiviop, which
Vitruvius called a stage. The little theatre at Oropos is particu-
larly interesting as one in which, wooden UpuL were retained as
seats to the latest period. But above all, more of aiaiprf and
^pwriaiviov are here preserved than elsewhere ; so that considerable
space is given to the elucidation of important details that are here
assured, and so enable us to understand indications elsewhere that
would otherwise be inexplicable. At Thorikos we have a speci-
men of a little provincial theatre of a country deme, its irregular
shape conforming to the shape of the hill, with no permanent
triofiffi) even the orchestra is rudely elliptical instead of round.
This, and the theatres of Eretria and Sikyon, were excavated by
the American School, and are together no mean contribution.
Plate XII gives an excellent general view of the Eretrian theatre,
and incidentally illustrates how unfounded is the assertion that
actors and chorus, if on the same level in the orchestra, could not
be readily distinguished. It is highly probable that the oldest
aiaivTi here, whose polygonal lower course is well preserved, ante-
dates the first permanent orn^r^ at Athens. This fact is explained
by the respective locations. The position of the sixth-century
orchestra at Athens was such that a permanent axijy? there would
have blocked up the front of the temple of Dionysos ; no stone
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DORPFELD AND THE GREEK THEATRE. 9
fTKi\vi\^ therefore, was possible until they resolved, in the fourth
century, to remove the orchestra farther up the hill and so make
room for the o-nym; of Lykurgos. At Eretria there was room
enough to permit the innovation as soon as it came to appear
desirable — not improbably as early as 400. At Eretria also
appears another peculiarity of much significance in theatre con-
struction— the lowering of the orchestra. The location is not on
the slope of a hill, but on the level ground a little way from the
acropolis. To obtain the support for permanent stone seats,
therefore, a large mass of earth or stone had to be built up on all
but the vfo^ side of the orchestra. Practical as Greeks usually ,
were, the Eretrians, in remodelling their theatre, left the old oKi^vi^
at its original height, lowered by about 3.20 m. the level of the
orchestra, constructed sloping ndpodot, at the sides, and used the
earth obtained by this excavation for constructing the needed
basis for seats. The new orchestra was put a little forward of the
old, the new aKrjprf added to the front of the old, still left standing ;
and thus was obtained a theatre at once commodious and inex-
pensive. The slight elevation above sea level fairly compelled a
method of drainage that was a distinct improvement on that at
Athens — a method, therefore, generally adopted from that time, as,
for instance, at Epidauros. Here too is a perfect and indubitable
example of the stairs of Charon-*an underground passage leading
from behind the irpoaKqvtov to the centre of the orchestra, with a
flight of stone steps at either end so cut from a single block as to
imitate closely the earlier wooden flight. The surface of the
orchestra at Athens and elsewhere was usually of trodden earth
merely, until a late period. At Eretria and at Delos the earth
was covered with a sort of hard plaster. At Sikyon an interesting
feature is the stone foundation of the wooden irpoo-nivioy. This is
here sufficiently preserved to give some notion of how the wooden
npwriajviov was constructed, and to show that the stone rrpwnaiviov
partially preserved in many places was modelled on its wooden
predecessor. Another significant fact must not be omitted. Most
of the walls of the o-n^ are at Sikyon cut from the solid rock, and
can never have undergone alteration; in particular, ramps on
either side leading to the top of the wpoaiaivtoif are so cut from the
rock. This disposes completely of the assumption put forward
in their extremity by defenders of a Greek stage, that the trpwrKt/viow,
being such a stage, was originally four or five feet high, which
height was later increased to eight to ten feet. These ramps cut
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
lO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
from the living rock, and leading to the top of the wpoaKriviov, the
pretended stage, were never lower. The Epidaurian theatre,
most beautiful and best preserved of all, is so well known by plans
and photographs that we need not dwell on it The plan here
published corrects some errors to which Dorpfeld calls attention
in his own previous plan, the source of all intervening publica-
tions, which repeat the errors. There is no better place for the
traveler to disprove by experiment the oft-repeated assertion that
masks and a 'raising and conventionalizing of the tones of the
voice' were made more necessary in the ancient drama than in
the modern by the distance between actors and audience. As to
the date, it appears certain that this theatre is later than that
of Lykurgos: the stone irpo<rKri»io¥ may belong to the original
structure or it may be part of an alteration. For the theatre at
Megalopolis the plans published by the English architect, Schultz,
are lauded by Dorpfeld as '* vorziiglich und in ihrer Ausfiihrlichkeit
musterhaft." From Dorpfeld's account, which is longer and more
polemic than usual by reason of Ernest Gardner's attitude on
certain points, I extract two items. First, the irpoaicrivlop is here
no less than seven meters from the structure behind it. Now, the
old theory explains the otherwise universal narrowness of the
wpotriofviov roof by its height, which would unpleasantly conceal
from the seats of honor in front any actor standing more than five
feet back from the edge. A stage ten or twelve feet high and
over twenty feet deep is wholly inexplicable on this old theory.
On the new theory, however, this extraordinary depth of irpoaicffviow
is explained very simply. The orchestra had the extraordinary
diameter of about twenty-eight meters. When the nrydkii n-dXcr
had become a fteyaXi; tprjfua, such an enormous orchestra was
absurd. To bring the actors nearer to the shrunken audience,
the irpoo-jc^Mov, the background .of the action, was brought forward
until the remaining orchestral space had about the same breadth
that was found desirable at Athens and elsewhere. Secondly, we
find here, from the earlier period, pretty clear evidence of a scaena
ductilis, or movable background, which was drawn across before
the great columns of the portico when plays were to be presented.
The base of this scaena duciilis was on the same level with the
orchestra. The actors surely did not stand on the top of it.
What clearer evidence could be asked that the actors, standing in
front of it, were on the same level with the chorus ? Passing over
to Delos we find a <r«7in/ of simple and highly instructive form.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DORPFELD AND THE GREEK THEATRE, II
It is merely a rectangular building with a colonnade running
around all four sides. If the colonnade on the side towards the
audience was a stage, what was it on the other three? The new
theory makes all four sides alike colonnade : in front of it on one
side the action took place. Movable n-tVfuccr or painted wooden
panels closing the space between the columns, with doors, made
this side an ordinary npoaialvioif, which in other theatres of the
Vitruvian type is, in &ct, as here, simply a kind of closed portico.
Statue bases before it, on the orchestra level, quite exclude the
possibility of any raised stage there. At Pergamon a notable
circumstance is that temple and theatre were located in relation
to each other as the old temple and orchestra at Athens : a per-
manent iTKfivrf would have blocked up the approach to the temple
front. Accordingly, throughout the Greek period of its history
this theatre had only a temporary aKip^ erected for each festival.
Large stone bases level with the ground contain carefully cut
holes to receive the posts of the movable wooden structure, which
we may presume was stored, from one festival to another, in a
form ready to be set up when needed. In Roman times a per-
manent Roman stage and fixed aiaiv^ were erected. And it may
be noted here that in no Greek theatre in Greece proper, so far
as is yet known, with the one exception of that in Athens, was a
Roman stage ever built.
Into the detailed consideration of 'Abschnitt' III on the textof
Vitruvius I will not enter, being neither Latinist nor architect.
Reisch's chapter also on the Greek theatre according to the
extant plays there is the less reason for me to report upon,
because readers of this Journal are familiar with the discussion
from this side.^ In all his chapters Reisch has a task in one
sense easier, in another sense more difficult, than Dorpfeld.
Easier, because precisely this field has been so thoroughly
worked over in recent years that not much remained to do
beyond sifting and arranging. His task was more difficult, how-
ever, in that so little remained to glean, and in the nature of the
case so much must inevitably remain uncertain so far as evidence
from that side goes. The dramas from the oldest to the youngest
present an abundance of proof that no high stage existed ; but
agreement is unattainable on the question how much can be
^See Pickard, XIV 6S-89, 198-215, 273-304. Historically interesting is
Allinson*s reyiew of Hoepken, V 252, published in 1884, when it required
i courage to say eren a word for the new yiew.— B. L. G.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
12 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
inferred as to the details of theatrical machinery and the like
from the language of characters in a play. One fact, however,
comes out clearly from the mass of particulars. The dramas of
the fifth century contain nothing inconsistent, they contain much
in positive agreement, with the doctrine that the earliest stone
amyvai preserved are substantially the same in form as the tem-
porary o-m^yoi of the fifth century, before which were acted the
plays of the great dramatists.
The conservatives long found great comfort in the vases from
Magna Graecia on which are represented scenes from comedy
enacted on a raised stage. Following Heydemann and others,
Reisch classifies and examines all the known examples of this
type, and brings out these facts. Their date is between 300 and
200 B. C; all were made in southern Italy; they present scenes
from popular farces of that region, which were usually played on
a temporary stage of moderate height ; these farces and this stage
had no direct influence on Greek theatre construction, but may
well have been one of the influences that led the Romans to prefer
a raised stage.
Reisch's chapter on the Greek names for parts of the theatre
seems to me of considerable value. By numerous examples the
entire range of usage is illustrated for each of the familiar terms,
especially those which have figured so largely in the argument
against the new doctrine. In this manner more than one rooted
prejudice of the conservatives is left dangling without support,
while the method of accomplishing this operation is gentle and
impersonal. It is true that much of the argument based on this
materia] would be inconclusive if it stood alone. Many of these
passages, considered by themselves, might be interpreted other-
wise. But it is false method to consider any one of them by
itself; and when taken in the mass, it is found that Dorpfeld's
interpretation of the theatres introduces a clarifying and organizing
principle that was lacking before : what looked like inexplicable
contradiction or confusion thus reveals itself as a natural succes-
sion. For example, that opxif^pa should be used in Roman times
in the sense of stage becomes entirely natural when it is seen that
this portion of the 6pxn<rrpa always was the ordinary place of the
actors, who in the Roman theatre still occupied the same position
and the same level, while the remainder of the ipxi^pf^ was
lowered. The history of orniym; and its progeny is very instructive
in a similar way. The famous oKpifiat passage from Plato (Sym.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DORPFELD AND THE GREEK THEATRE. 1 3
194 b) is shown to furnish not the sh'ghtest ground for argument
in favor of a stage in the theatre. Indeed, the same explanation
was eleven years ago accepted from Hug and Rohde by A. MuUer
in his ' Buhnenaltertiimer ' (p. 365).
It is, however, in the history of the development of the theatre
as a building that Dorpfeld rightly finds the most striking and
finally decisive proof of the correctness of his interpretation. He
shows us the ancient theatre changing by slow and natural steps
from the simplest to the latest form ; there are no sudden leaps
and no breaks in the development. To maintain the old view
now is to assume a series of such breaks and leaps in an art which,
by the very nature of architecture, is exceedingly conservative,
even unreasonably tenacious of old forms because they are familiar,
after they have become meaningless and perhaps a hindrance.
The whole history of architecture illustrates this quality in it ; and
he who to-day in planning a house cuts loose from tradition and
builds with too great originality illustrates anew the wisdom of
such conservatism. It would contradict one of the best established
characteristics of Greek art in general to suppose any such sudden
leaps in theatre construction. Whoever is interested in the Attic
drama from any point of view should read the last chapter on the
' Entwickelungsgeschichte/ if no other part of the work ; and I
cannot more fidy close this notice than by giving a rapid summary
of this story as Dorpfeld reveals it to us.
Five periods are readily distinguishable. For the early choral
songs and dances in honor of the gods, and especially of Dionysos
at his festival, a level space was required. When the dance and
the participants in it learned to follow a more complicated law,
the opxiarpa became a round floor of trodden earth, sufficiently
marked by a visible boundary to delimit the space for participants
and spectators. At Athens in the sixth century there were two
such dancing places: one, already ancient, somewhere by the
western slope of the Areopagus, near the ancient precinct of
Dionysos ip Xt/iMur, the Aijyaiov; the other on the southeastern
slope of the Acropolis, in the precinct of Dionysos Eleuthereus.
The latter developed into the theatre which we know, and the
former was eventually neglected. The lookers-on at these festivals
found places as they could on the side-hill. As the festival increased
in attractiveness and duration, something more in the way of
seats became needful, not only for priests and officials, but for the
onlooking throng. Such seats, needed but once or twice a year.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
14 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
were naturally of wood and temporary. But on the lower side of
the dpxnarpa such seats were hardly practicable, and it was necessary
that a part of the circle be left free for approach, both for spectators
and'for the chorus. Ramps on either side, to east and west, were
demanded by the nature of the ground. An altar occupied the
centre of the circle, on which offering was made at the opening of
the festival. The introduction of an actor, carrying on dialogue
with the chorus, of itself changed nothing. The common dress-
ing-room for such slight change of costume as the piece required
might be anywhere conveniently in the neighborhood. The
central altar, of the usual form, had a lower part on which stood
the priest in offering sacrifice, and on the same spot stood the
flute-player who accompanied the dance and song. On the same
platform, a mere step or two above the ground, an actor might,
in addressing the chorus, also take his stand for a longer speech.
The scene on Easter Tuesday at Megara or elsewhere in Greece
to-day offers many analogies to the scene at such an ancient
festival.
In the second period, the fifth century, the age of full develop-
ment of the drama, the 6pxn<rrpa remained the same. The seats
for spectators were enlarged, and probably firmer foundations of
earth and stone were found needful to support the benches for
such throngs. The addition of a second actor involved no change.
All action went on in the opxnirrptu It was a better place for the
action than our own theatres now offer. But Aischylos, in the
first half of the fifth century, as a part of his endeavor to enlarge
the range of myth available for dramatic treatment, introduced
the affiym^. Hitherto the scene of every play was distinctly a sacred
precinct. Temple and altar were visibly there, and sacrifice had
just been offered. Even in the Suppliants, where a larger altar,
a ffom>/3Mfua, had been erected beside the orchestra, the action is
still in a sacred precinct, if not distinctly that of Dionysos, and
has all the more of reality and effectiveness for that fact. In the
Persians the tomb of Darius has taken the place of the Koun^iua^
and the spectators are now, by the presence of this tomb, trans-
ported in imagination to Persia. In Prometheus Bound the mass
of rock on which the victim is bound locates the action in some
wild region, which the opening lines define more clearly. There
is scarcely any limit to the range of story possible, now that the
axi^ is available. So in the Agamemnon we have the palace of
the king ; temple, fortress, grove, camp, may all be represented,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DORP F ELD AND THE GREEK THEATRE. 1$
that the action may take place before them. It was a convenience
also that the o-mjin^ could serve as dressing-room, though that was
not its main purpose. It was a matter of course that any such
structure was temporary. The spot remains after all the precinct
of Dion]^sos. During the rest of the year it belongs to the god
exclusively. Not until the theatre, with what was necessary for
the production of plays, had come to be definitely adopted as a
natural part of the sacred precinct could the religious sentiment
allow one portion of that precinct to be cut off from the other by
a permanent building stretching from side to side. For a time
each separate play, or each trilogy, might require a different
fTKi\vi\^ built up for a few hours' use and removed at the end of the
play, or at evening. Probably by 450, however, it had been
found a convenience to build the main orjo^yi^ somewhat more
solidly, to stand throughout the festival: changes in the front
aloiie would suffice for the successive plays. Somewhat larger
use was made of machinery of various sorts. For such a structure
projecting wings, napain^via, were desirable, to support and bound
the decoration between them that constituted the visible back-
ground. A passage is left on either side between the ends of
the tiers of seats and the vapaaiaivia ; here the audience enter,
and chorus and actors use the same entrances when the action
demands it, as is usually the case for the chorus and often for actors.
Doors are made in the <rKriprj front as may be needed. A single
story was usually enough for such a cno^M? ; when needed, a lighter
upper story could be added as easily as the front was changed.
The entire structure was still of wood and light material, and was
all removed at the close of the festival.
Not till the fourth century, after the great period of the drama
was past, and the art of acting more independently developed,
was the o-ki^i^ built of stone. At Athens the change was made
under Lykurgos in the third quarter of the fourth century. The
opxnirrpa, removed several meters up the hill to make room for
the stone 0-1071^, is still circular, enlarged on the side towards the
(rKfi9Ti by the space bounded by that structure. The spectators'
seats were built of fine limestone and marble, supported in part
on great masses of earth and masonry, in part on the solid rock
hewn out to receive them. Of the trKfjp^, that which before had
been made semi-permanent, probably preserved and set up anew
for each festival to remain till its close, was now built of stone — a
long hall or series of connected rooms, with projecting wings,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
l6 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
between which the temporary decoration needed for each piece
was set up. ira^<rjci7ria and front of the ataivr^ proper were adorned
with columns ; for the theatre has now become a regular place of
assembly on other than festal days, and when the -Rpwrtaiviiw was
removed it was necessary that the building should have some
architectural character. The irKi\vi\ is still of one story, but a
second or even a third could be added temporarily if any piece
required it. With the growing prevalence of pieces in which a
temple, palace, or ordinary house was called for as background,
the npoiTKfiifiop takes more and more the form of a row of columns,
or rather pilasters, with movable painted panels between them ;
this arrangement itself permitted considerable variety of make-up
for the individual play, and if an older play requiring something
different was presented, the proper form of ir/MMric^Hoir could be put
in. A space of several feet between the front vpovitripiop wall and
aaiwfi was convenient for the actors, and on the flat roof of the
irpotriafpiov gods appeared, or, e. g., the watchman in the Agamem-
non. The floor level in wpotriofvtov and aai^fl is about the same as
that of the Ip^mpa^ and there is not the slightest reason for
supposing any change in the relative position of actors and chorus.
In the Hellenistic theatre the one essential change is merely
that the npwriaipwv itself is now made of permanent stone, and
doubtless in connection therewith a second story of stone is added
to the aiaivfi. The vpoindpaov has the form which had more and
more become the typical one for the wooden frpocno^Mor— the form
which suited the great majority of plays now presented. It was
a closed portico, of pilasters with movable mpaMt or panels between
them ; by varying their position, number and decoration, a single
palace or three houses, or a temple, could be conventionally repre-
sented. If required, on rare occasions a more elaborate special
decoration could still be placed before the vpovtaiwiw. The height
of its flat roof is three to four meters — the height which Vitruvius
gives for it. The wapaaKffvia have now become of little or no
importance, and in many theatres disappear, or at least no longer
project in front of the wpoaK^piop.
There remains, as the final type, the Roman theatre, which
Vitruvius describes as very different from the Greek, because he
was unable to trace the course of development of one from the
other. Probably none of his contemporaries could have done
better ; the historical method in the study and presentation of such
matters was unknown. The typical course of this development,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DORPF^LD AND THE GREEK THEATRE, 1 7
illustrated abundantly in existing examples, is as follows. Inas-
much as the dance of the chorus, so far as the chorus still existed,
had disappeared, the wide space of the orchestra needed for their
evolutions was no longer wanted. For their songs and their part
in the action, that portion of the opxnfrrpa near the npoaicrfviov, where
the actors ordinarily stood, was quite sufficient. This was a space
say sixty by twenty feet. Also we can trace in many ways the
great increase in the number of dignitaries and personages to
whom the community desired to give seats of honor. By lower-
ing a little over one half the opx^i^p^* the half farthest from the
9x171^, space could be got for more seats of honor without at all
interfering with the remaining seats ; the rest of the 6pxfi<rrpaj left
at its original level, was large enough for actors and chorus
together. On some occasions, too, with the growing taste for
gladiatorial combats and the like, this lowered portion could be
used for the combatants without danger to the spectators. Exactly
this change was made, e. g., in Aspendos. Thereby was produced
the appearance of a low, broad and long stage, such as Vitruvius
describes. Certain minor changes were necessarily brought with
this. The ndpodot still leads as of old to the part of the 6pxn<rrpa
left at its original level. The enlarged <rKfjv^ and the seats are
united by a mass of masonry. It is too awkward for the entire
I audience to enter the old napobos and pass over wb'at is now a
/ stage, down steps into the lowered portion, and the :i mount to
their seats. Therefore new entrances are made — kot^ ndpodoi — to
that lowered portion. The new entrance becomes a vaulted
passage under the end of the upper tiers of seats, and cuts off the
end of the lower tiers ; several steps are necessary for descending
from the outer level, that of the old 6pxi(rrpa and new stage, to the
lowered space, the Kovltrrpa. But not only does the stage remain
on the same level as before, in relation to seats and the ground
without, even the irpoaKffvtoy before the old aiaiv^ remains also in
the old place, back of the new stage, back of actors and chorus.
Changes in style of decoration follow the changing taste ; but in
essentials tl^ese are all the changes made. True, the lowering of
part of the opxnarpa was not the only way of producing the new
type of theatre. At Athens a barrier was erected before the seats,
and a stage raised ; elsewhere the lowest rows of seats were cut
away, and a stage raised ; but the net result was the same. In the
Herodes theatre at Athens one may see a striking illustration of
this. Here is a theatre piu-ely Roman, of the second century
4
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
1 8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
A. D. Yet so conservatively is the type preserved that arose
from lowering the opxntrrpa, that even here the stage is on the
level of adjoining rooms and the outside ground, while the xorv
ndpodoi leading into the Kovlarpa make a descent of nine steps.
The universal acceptance of Dorpfeld's view of the Greek
theatre is merely a question of time. Some will doubtless hold
out for many years yet ; but the great mass of scholars, I believe,
will find that the case is sufficiently proved by the architectural
evidence presented in this important book. In the words of the
preface, " Es war Zeit, die Welt der Antike von jenem wunder-
lichen Zerrbilde zu befreien, das uns als 'griechisches Theater'
gelaufig geworden war."
Yals UmvBMiTT, yam. 1897. THOMAS DWIGHT GOODELL.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
II.— THE QUESTION OF LANGUAGE-STANDARD IN
MODERN GREECE.
The appearance of Dr. Thumb's * Handbuch der neugriech-
ischen Volkssprache ' marks a significant advance in the question
of the Modern Greek language-standard. It does this by virtue
of being the first attempt to state with scientific method and pre-
cision the facts of the colloquial language.
The book is neither a beginner's hand-book nor an historical
grammar. It is not an historical grammar, because it does not
consistently attempt to present the material of the language with
which it deals according to its genetic relations. Its method of
arrangement and presentation is primarily that of descriptive
grammar, but it differs from the ordinary descriptive grammar, in
that its classifications are invariably made in the consciousness of
the real historical relations, and that incidentally an abundance of
historical explanation is afforded. Most of our common hand-
books of Modern Greek have been pseudo-historical in character.
They have simply pared, patched, and re-vamped the paradigms
and rules of the Ancient Greek. They were neither descriptive
nor historical, for they undertook to set the language forth neither
in terms of itself nor in terms of the old. They did not even
start with the existing language. They used chips of it to stop
gaps with. The result was the presentation to the world of a
linguistic monstrosity, looking as fit in a grammar as the beasts '
of the Apocalypse in a hand-book of zoology.
The reputation which the Modern Greek standard literary idiom
has acquired for artificiality is in considerable measure due to the
manuals which have undertaken to represent it. It is of course
unquestioned that both the standard literary idiom and the
standard folk-speech are abundantly mixed with materials firom
the older language. But mixture does not make monstrosity.
The grammatical 'great bad' consists in putting together things
that do not belong together and do not occur together in the life
of a living speech. A book which is to describe grammatically
the Modem Greek speech must take as its basis ^ther the modern
literary idiom or the modern folk-idiom, and not Ancient Greek;
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
20 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
and if it takes, e. g., the literary idiom as its basis, it may cite the
folk-speech forms, but must cite them as such.
Self-consistency will probably prove more difficult of attain-
ment in describing the literary standard, for the reason that the
language of the educated still remains strongly individualized.
The wide-spread acquaintance with the ancient vocabulary and
morphology among persons of this class gives an abnormally free
rein to individual freedom in borrowing. Perhaps the most suc-
cessful attempt to describe with consistency the literary idiom, in
the form of a lesson-book, is that of Captain Eugene Rizo-Ran-
gab6 in his recently published * Practical Method in Modem
Greek' (Boston, 1896). He selects skilfully the essential things,
and arranges the material conveniently for the learner's purpose.
He may be trusted to have excluded everything, whether form
or expression, which would appear out of place either as written
in a letter or as spoken in the formal conversation of the drawing-
room or in formal oratory. It may be questioned only whether
his purism has not gone too far. The forms which he occasion-
ally adds in parentheses or foot-notes and marks ' vulgar,' are,
though an educated man would generally avoid writing them, the
almost universally accepted forms in the current speech of the
caf€s and shops. Nevertheless the book is self-consistent in its
attempt to represent the higher literary language and the polite
language of the highest social circles. The * Modern Greek
Mastery,' by Thomas L. Stedman (New York, 1896) is also a
good book, though it covers a somewhat wider range and makes
more concessions to the every-day speech. It represents with
fair consistency the literary language as it appears, for instance, in
the daily newspapers.
As an introduction to the standard folk-speech, the common
spoken language of the great masses of the people, no book can
vie with the little manual of Wied, ' Praktisches Lehrbuch der
neugriechischen Volkssprache ' (English translation by Mrs.
Gardner). This has been found by me in experience to repre-
sent very accurately the actual facts of the common spoken idiom.
Educated Greeks of the upper class, to whom purism is a part of
patriotism, regard the book as an abomination. *' That is the way
our cooks speak," I heard a lady say, in intended denunciation.
One who knows Ancient Greek should begin the study of
Modem Greek with the folk-speech, for this added to Ancient
Greek gives ready access to all types of the written and spoken
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LANGUAGE-STANDARD IN MODERN GREECE. 21
language alike. Inasmuch as those Greeks who speak the literary
idiom usually speak also French or German, and perhaps English,
and seem to prefer the foreign language, there is little practical
value in learning the literary form simply for the purpose of
speaking it. One who does not know Ancient Greek probably
will do best to learn the literary idiom first, as this enables him
to read.
The ' Praktische Grammatik der neugriechischen Schriftsprache
und Umgangssprache ' von J. K. Mitsodakis (Berlin, 1891) at-
tempts with fair success to describe both idioms and distinguish
between them by means of parallel exercises. The book shows,
however, the lack of a firm and clear idea of what the spoken
language in its norm and standards really is. The facts of this
language had never been collected and sifted, so that perspective
in its material was possible.^ It was to supply this lack that
Thumb's book was written.
This * Handbuch der neugriech. Volkssprache ' is not a begin-
ner's book. Its material is arranged systematically and not
paedagogically. It has no exercises and vocabularies. The texts
at the end of the book are essentially its sources, and are appended
rather for verification than primarily as reading exercises. It is
essentially a first attempt to collect, sift, and assort the facts of the
standard language of common spoken intercourse. It is by no
means, however, an accepted proposition, especially among the
archaizers, that such a standard exists. In the eyes of those who
insist that the weal of modern Greece is to be found only in
clinging to its great past, in reviving the forms, if not the spirit,
of its literature, its architecture, its manners, and its language,
there can be nothing so odiously heretical as this. They claim
that aside from the literary standard there is nothing that can be
called a standard — ^that over against it stands only the multiplicity
of the local dialects or patois. Thumb, however, asserts his belief
that there is such a thing as a popular Greek icoiv^, and his book
is at once the product and vindication of his faith.
The only fault we have to find with him in this matter is that
he states his faith too timidly and sets forth his case too weakly.
^ The most successful attempt to discriminate fully and practically between
the purely colloquial, the standard literary and the learned-archaistic mate-
rials of the vocabulary has been made by Jannaris (A. N.) in his * Concise
Dictionary of the English and Greek Languages, as actually written and
spoken.' 1895.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
22 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
While it must clearly be admitted that this colloquial koci^ is by
no means yet a completely defined and well digested standard, it
is unmistakably well advanced in the process of crystallization,
and will respond more or less satisfactorily to all the character-
istic tests of a standard language. Thus, (i) The dialects are
shrinking back into the more isolated districts, such as the
islands, and the country districts of Epirus and Asia Minor.
(2) While many of the popular songs and popular stories are
published in a form strongly colored with dialectal characteristics,
their dialectal character is distinctly felt, and is recognized and
enjoyed as such. The great mass of the folk-songs of general
currency are cast in the common idiom, and are dependent for
such currency either upon having originally had that form or
upon having with time assumed it.
(3) Certain departments of literary composition have come to
recognize the colloquial idiom as their proper vehicle ; thus the
comedy, the satire of the comic journals (notably the admirable
'Ptf^off), the humorous anecdote of the daily paper, especially
when cast in the dialogue form, comic poetry, and lyric poetry
(prevailingly). The very fact of the continual use of this idiom
for publication in journals which are current throughout the most
of the Greek-speaking territory guarantees a regard for a univer-
sally intelligible medium, and is furthermore working steadily
toward the more precise establishment and definition of a norm.
There is no test which more certainly vindicates the character of
an idiom as ' standard * than just this ; when a given language,
even if originally no more than a local dialect, asserts for itself
noHofuU recognition as the proper vehicle for a certain form of
intercourse written or spoken, or for a certain type of literature,
then it has ceased to be a dialect and has become a standard.
This is not a matter merely of correspondence to a set and
arbitrary definition; it is so in the nature of the case. A language
or dialect which has for any purpose come into inter-tribal or
national use has passed out of the state of nature and become a
tool of formal, organized civilization — a ' Kultur' fact
(4) It is not alone as a printed language that the colloquial
idiom is assuming the character of a standard. There exists also
the substratum, at least, of a standard spoken language. The
language which one can use, and which one will hear in the
transaction of business and in the carrying on of ordinary inter-
course, is, in respect to the ordinary phraseology and the corn-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LANGUAGE^STANDARD IN MODERN GREECE, 23
moaly used words, essentially one throughout nearly the entire
extent of free and * enslaved * Greece. One is not a litde surprised
to find, for example, on landing in Samothrace, an apparently
isolated island under Turkish sway, that the common language
of the people, at least those with whom a stranger comes most
naturally in contact, the officials, the priests, the inn-keepers, and
the agogiates, is such that Athenian and Samothracian converse
freely and without the consciousness of any dialectal barrier
between them. This language of general intercourse is not the
formal literary language, that of the newspapers for instance, but
the colloquial idiom as one hears it in the ordinary conversation
of the shops in Athens. If one met the village schoolmaster he
would undoubtedly seek to delectate the philological enthusiasm
of his hearer and the pedantic vanity of himself by resurrecting
an antique form or two, but this would scarcely survive the
formalities of the first interview.
An educated Greek in conversing with a foreigner who has
not acquired full control of the language, especially if the relation
be that of teacher and pupil, is likely to give the impression that
the colloquial language is in a niost confused condition so far as
any standard of usage is concerned. This is largely due, as my
own experience has shown, to the artificial consciousness of his
language awakened in the Greek by the necessities of teaching.
Under the influence of this reflective consciousness he reverts to
the fuller or more dignified forms of the higher literary idiom,
with which as a written and to a greater or less extent as a spoken
language he is acquainted. Unless he has by continued experi-
ence in teaching acquired the habit of consciously facing his own
language, he is likely, when called upon to commend to his
trustful disciple as a cold grammatical fact something hitherto
only known to him warm, to repudiate a plain usage of his
common speech in deference to what seems the better social
presentability of the literary standard.
There is, however, though the Greeks may be slow to confess
it to themselves, a standard spoken language, not yet indeed a
fixed and unified norm, but a common and universally current
form of language which has found a literary expression, is well
established in the essentials of phonology, inflexion and syntax,
and is perfecdy capable of being summarized and stated in
grammatical form. Beside it there exist: (i) The archaizing
language, used in learned works, forma announcements, etc.;
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
24 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
(2) the literary standard, used in newspapers, general litera-
ture, letters, speeches and addresses, school-books, laws, etc.;
(3) the folk-dialects, found in the more isolated districts, as in
the islands and in Turkey. The colloquial language is steadily
enriching itself from the literary idiom, and the tendency of its
development is unmistakably toward that idiom. The language
which is to become ultimately the standard national language of
Greece is evidently to be built upon this basis, and not upon the
basis of the present literary language. It will be built upon this
basis with free use of materials from the literary language, so that
the resultant will be the product of a series of progressive com-
promises. This is the linguistic forecast for Greece, but it is a
prognostic based upon laws which experience has shown unerr-
ingly rule in the evolution of national standards of speech.
When the various local forms of a folk-speech show a tendency
to solidify in a sub-standard, no matter how strong the crust of
the literary standard above tending to hold the folk-speech down,
it sooner or later bursts through and overspreads the first crust,
gradually in turn becoming a crust itself.
The crust with which the literary standard has thus far suc-
ceeded in repressing the colloquial speech owes its strength to a
variety of causes. The Attic kolvti which took shape and held
sway between 300 B. C. and 600 A. D. is the parent speech of the
modern popular dialects as spoken languages, out of which by
consolidation and compromise, as well as by gradual acceptance
of the influence of the modern literary language, the modern
colloquial standard has been developed. The modern literary
standard is also a continuation of the Attic jcoii^, but by way of
the written language. The continuity of the written language
through the middle ages (Byzantine) and the influence of the
church tended to shore up the literary idiom and hold it aloof
from the declining levels of the living popular speech. The
re-birth of Greek nationality in the early decades of this century
made a sudden demand for a national language. There existed
with which to meet this demand, on the one hand the half-
formed Church-Byzantine standard, on the other a mass of
formless patois. Upon the former was constructed through the
naturally concurrent choice of historians, publicists, pamphleteers,
journalists and public speakers, the modern literary standard. It
adapted itself to the need of the times by free use of ancient
materials. The Philhellenic spirit which gave impulse to the war
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LANGUAGE-STANDARD IN MODERN GREECE, 2$
of the liberation, the overshadowing greatness of the ancient
literature, the patriotic adherence to the church as the one insti-
tution binding the people to their past, the ambition to find a
raison {Tilre for the nation in its re-embodiment of Old Greece, —
all combined to make and keep linguistic toryism an essential
part of national loyalty. Unsoundness on the language question
is generally viewed in the higher social circles, and especially in
academic circles, as both a heresy and a disloyalty. It has been
made an issue in the ' educational politics ' of the country, and
men tainted with a suspicion of this heresy are likely to find
themselves debarred from positions in the university and in the
public schools. The curious sensitiveness of the Greeks on the
subject of the ancient pronunciation is merely symptomatic.
This linguistic orthodoxy which has created and by main force
kept in use for two generations the modern literary standard,
artificial and bizarre as it is, has served nevertheless a useful pur-
pose. The language itself has in the first place furnished during
an emergency the means of communication. It has furthermore,
and what is more important, served as a temporary terrace
between the plane of the old icoii^ and that of the new, — or rather
it has been a staging about a structure in building, helping to for-
ward into their proper and well-determined place the builders'
materials. The stern orthodoxy which has enforced the standard,
has spent, it is true, all its labor upon strengthening the staging,
and has even sought to convince us that the staging was the
house, but it has ensured slower and more careful construction, —
it has indeed made building possible.
Ithaca, Nov. as. 1896. BeNJ. IdE WhEELER.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
111.— ET/AM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE.
It is not uncommon to find the temporal etiam familiar in
Plautus and Terence explained as = odAuc, non eiiam as = mm-
dum; but from any other point of view than the narrow one of
the Ciceronian this is, of course, an inversion of the facts. Eiiam
is originally, as Kiihner (Lat. Gr. II i66, A. i) truly says, a
temporal particle ; it is the particle of continuance in time, which,
through its development into something much wider and more
varied, lost its temporal rights in the negative sentence to dum^
in the positive, less early and less completely, to culkuc — both of
them mere usurpers. Its primitive signification, living to Cicero
and Caesar, perhaps an archaism for Vergil and Ovid, is not only
prominent in Latin comedy, but is often to be felt there even
when another sense is growing up beside and out of it ; and while
the fact that its rhetorical value is much more pronounced in the
Ciceronian age depends in some degree at least on a difference of
literary sphere, the comparative reluctance of Plautus and Terence
to admit a complete disjunction of eiiam from the verb shows
clearly enough that in the sixth century of the city the adverb was
still in a period of transition, still clung to its original narrowness
of relation. This was ignored by Hand, who paid no regard to
the historical point of view and drew his examples indifferently
from all periods of Latin literature ; Holtze merely copied Hand
so far as eiiam was concerned ; and the influence of these gram-
marians is still to be felt, not altogether happily, in Plautine and
Terentian commentaries.^
The following list of examples* from the twenty fairly complete
plays of Plautus (quoted from the edition of Loewe, Goetz and
^It is not to be supposed that any modem editor would follow Hand in
rendering Haut. 1057 nil etiam audio ipswn bj *' ich hOre auf ihn wirkiich
nicht" ; but the spectre of the vis affirmoHva is not jet wholly banished to its
proper place.
' The only similar list known to me is the incomplete one for Plautus in
Ramsay's edition of the Mostellaria, Excursus III, which is made useless for
purposes of interpretation by an insistence on the false rendering * even now/
This would be incorrect even granting— what I doubt — the correctness of the
derivation from et iam. Neither iam nor eiiam denotes a single point of time
or suffers us to feel action as stationary : both include a point of departure and
a point of arrival and mark the flow of action.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ETIAM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE,
27
Schoell) and the six of Terence (quoted from Dziatzko) is meant
to serve as a contribution to the history of the particle and the
interpretation of our texts. The three distinct values of etiam
I have called, with some departure from the usual terminology,
the temporal ('still,' with negative 'yet'), the add i tory (* also')
and the intensive ('even*); and I have proceeded throughout
on the assumption, which is, I think, justified by the passages
cited, that etiam has, at this stage of its existence, a certain
mobility, a sympathetic quality ; that it attracts and is attracted
by words or forms of kindred meaning, which often serve to
determine its wavering signification.
I. The temporal etiam is found with the following verbs or
verbal phrases^ est True. 886, Poen. 315, Aul. 507, Cure. 172,
Cas. 306, Ad. 358; est? Haut. 742; opus est Cas. 502, Pseud.
735; de integro est Ph. 174; sunt True. 174. probably Trin.
1039 eae miserae etiam ad parietem sunt fixae, cf. Andr. 282-3 ;
posse Stich. 617; habeo Mil. 640; pergo? Poen. 1224; pergin?
Cure. 196. With expressions of uncertainty : Merc. 896 metuis ?,
Trin. 572 consulis?, Capt. 892 dubium habebis?. Ph. 774
dubiumst? (cf. Trin. 594), Haut. 188 incertumst, Hec. 614 incer-
tus sum (cf. True. 785). With sto and its derivatives and other
verbs denoting position or delay : stas ? Cas. 749, Hec. 430 (cf.
Eun. 286), asto? Merc. 129, astas? Most. 522 (on Men. 697, Cas.
728 cf. inf. IX S), adstante Amph. 747, restas? Most. 851, restat,
restare (in metaphorical sense) Ad. 190. 444, restitas? Eun. 668,
retentas ? Rud. 877, maneo Ad. 279, manes ? Men. 422, mane Men.
177, maneam (fut.) Trin. 1136 (c£ Aul. 805, Cas. 606), cesso?
Merc. 129, cessant Haut. 175. So of position: Asin. 923 cubat;
of physical action : Asin. 327 anhelitum ducere ; of physical per-
ception: Asin. 109, True. 331 audin?; of physical condition:
Stich. 574 valet?; of mental condition: Capt. 137 beat; of a con-
dition of life: Pseud. 610 servis, Asin. 871 in senatu dare operam.
Spengel on Andr. 116 cites Haut. 175, haud quaquam etiam
cessant, as an example of etiam with negative = nandvm^ which
would yield no sense; Hand's (Turs. H 573) *no longer* is
impossible. The negative here modifies in the first place only
^ This list is not exhaustive ; other instances of the temporal character are
dealt with later in different connections. Here and there I have called atten-
tion to explanations opposed to or agreeing with my own ; in general I have
necessarily refrained from discussion.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
28 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
the modal adverb, and this combination modifies the complex
eiiam cessanty which words reveal to the audience the substance
of the fear expressed by Clinias and com batted by Clitipho:
" they are by no means (as you imagine) still delaying.*' Brix'
on Capt. 892, dubium habebis etiam sancte quom iurem tibi,
translates 'selbst wenn.' But the instances cited above of the
temporal adverb with expressions of uncertainty go far towards
enforcing a similar interpretation here (and so Lindsay renders
by * still ') ; moreover, the combination eiiatn quom = * even when '
occurs nowhere else in Plautus, except in Capt. 256/ a line which
Brix follows Biicheler in regarding as spurious.
II. The notion of continuance sometimes passes into that of
repetition, and so we have 'again' as an alternative rendering
for Mil. 1418 verberetur etiam, 1424 verberone etiam an iam
mittis? (cf. 1339), Amph. 369 at mentiris etiam; in this last
passage the sense is to be determined from 366-7 compositis
mendaciis advenbti. The rendering 'again' is inevitable in
Most. 474 circumspice etiam, Merc. 1013 etiam vide, where the
same imperative has just been used, and can hardly be avoided in
Merc. 324, Hec. 841 vide etiam ; AuL 326 fur, etiam fur trifurcifer
shows the same force in an elliptical construction, etiam denoting
* I repeat ' (cf. Mil. 1373).
III. The additory value of eiiam is an inference from the
temporal, and passages are not lacking to illustrate the develop-
ment of the inference. Brix on Capt. prol. 53, etiamst paucis
quod vos monitos voluerim, translates the adverb by ' noch aus-
serdem,' which would correspond to the Plautine eiiam ht super \
but the similar phrase, Merc. 569 prius etiamst quod te facere ego
aequom censeo, shows Plautus emphasizing the temporal side.
Eiiam = eiiam prius (cf. inf. VII) is clear enough in Men. 431
iam sequar ted: hunc volo etiam conloqui. Pseud. 11 58 mane:
iam redeo ad te . . • hunc advocare etiam volo; the contrast with
the future fixes the anticipatory sense of eiiam. In Bac. 1161,
Most. 118 the English idiom admits only the additory idea; that
this is for the Latin only a connotation appears from the contrast
in the first passage with iam, in the second with a perfect. Here
^ Quom etiam, Capt. 355, is not analogous ; see under VI ; and even if we
read cum with the MSS in Rud. 112^, etiam belongs there to the preceding
clause.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ETIAM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE, 29
the particle is used with verbs of desire ; elsewhere with a future
tense or a tense or phrase implying futurity. It is purely temporal
in Poen. 188, Rud. 441 (cf. inf. XI); usually it has an additory
connotation: Eun. 717 ludificabere, Ph. 547 instigemus, Pers. 669
dedimus dabimusque etiam (the notion of time is held fast by the
contrasting tenses, that of addition is brought out by the identity
of action). The same close connection with dabo (the adverb
suggesting the undefined object) appears in Ph. 877 immo etiam
dabo quo magis credas, Hec. 869 immo etiam qui hoc occultari
fadlius credas dabo ; the verb is omitted in Capt. 290 quin etiam
ut magis noscas, Men. 1018 em tibi etiam ; similar is the connec-
tion with dicam: Pseud. 522 vin etiam dicam quod vos magis
miremini (cf. 324). The additory sense, which penetrates by
implication into such phrases without expelling the temporal, is
reinforced when a word denoting or implying addition stands
beside etiam: porro^ Cure. 453, Bac. 273. 274; ultro Bac 567,
Rud. 484; insuper Cas. 441, Trin. 1025, Eun. 1014, Ad. 246;
unus Poen. 403. 491-2, Andr. 940, Haut. 895, Eun. 1084, Ph.
831 ; alius Men. 922, Stich. 449-50, Pseud. 370 (cf. 524-5); alter
Bac. 692. 954. 971. A simitar and stronger effect is produced by
a verb denoting addition or accession: addo Poen. 385, Epid.
473, Rud. 1007, Merc. 435'; accedo Merc. 24, Pers. 669, Andr.
215; adscribo Pers. 69, Bac 745; accudo Merc 432; accerso
Bac. 424; and in elliptical phrases, where the verbal notion is
suggested by eHam, Stich. 427, Bac. 546, Andr. 300, Eun. 1081
(cfl inf. X). Some of these clauses contain also a word of number ;
and in some (as Pers. 69 atque etiam hoc in ea lege adscribier)
the additory force is further brought out by a position which seems
to throw the stress of the adverb on the pronoun, while it still
belongs logically to the verb.
IV. Etiam is used with words of degree partly in a temporal,
partly in a derived intensive sense. In Men. 158 etiam concede
hue, AuK 55 etiamne? (sc. abscedam) the adverb of time is
transferred to a relation in space. For Asin. 40 etiamne? (sc.
exscreem ?) the answer, usque a penitis faucibus, gives the notion
^ In Asin. 875 the rhythm separates etiam from porro (cf. inf. V a, i). Some
of the examples with ultro and insuper are cited under VIII ; the tense decides
whether etiam retains or not its temporal quality.
'So MSS and Ritschl (with the easy addition of me) ; on Bothe*s etiam nufu,
adopted by Schoell, cf. inf. VII.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
30 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
of extent or degree, which is continued by the following question,
etiam amplius ? The employment of the particle with compara-
tives is by no means so frequent or so fixed as at a later period ;
both dramatists connect it with amplius^ Plautus also with plus^
magis.prius, but the connection is given by rhythm and context,
not by formally established usage. For etiam prizes cf inf. VII ;
the only example which belongs here is Bac. 221 atque eo fortasse
iam opust. — immo etiam prius, which shows an unusual intensifi-
cation of the comparative notion and consequent subordination of
etiam. The temporal force of etiam is felt with amplius where
the latter is an adverb and the tense is present or future: Asin. 41,
Men. 791, Ad. 468 ; it is lost when the tense is perfect : Haut. 132,
Eun. 143; or when amplius is a substantive: [Trin. 249], Capt.
777, Rud. 961. With the substantive //«j : Amph. 610, Pseud.
1329, Rud. 504, the adverb has a purely intensive value ; so with
magis, Capt 150, but in Pseud. 324 the temporal notion is held
fast by the future tense. With parum, Amph. 374, True. 898,
Mil. 1 142, the temporal sense is always felt, being retained even
with the perfect in the third passage by the negative value of
this adverb ; with adaucta, Haut. 435, etiam is of course purely
intensive.
V a. The examples so far cited exhibit etiam as either retaining,
wholly or in part, its temporal character, or as losing it by close
association with classes of words to which it was originally attached
in virtue of that character. It resigns all connection with the idea
of time and assumes a purely additory signification in the follow-
ing cases :
First, where it defines a contrast between two difierent actions
in like time. Here it is still formally a verbal adjunct, but its
relation to the verb is not an intimate one, manifested in the
sympathy of the tense; the tenses are fi^ee, and the adverb bears
upon the whole clause, not especially upon its verbal element,
for which reason it frequently stands at the beginning of the
clause. Secondly, where it contrasts two objects. Here the verb
is the same for both clauses, and etiam has become a nominal
adjunct.
i) Most. 978 quadraginta etiam dedit huic?, Mil. 1 147-8 quin
etiam . . . omnia dat dono, Merc. 1002 quin loris caedite etiam,
Aul. 304 etiamne obturat inferiorem gutturem, 452. 465, Asin.
276 [482], Cas. 367-8 perperam iamdudum hercle fabulor. — pol tu
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ETIAM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE, 3 1
quidem, atque edam facis, Capt. 561 at etiam . . . aibat, Asin. 875
(where eiiam adds the reproach contained in this line to the pre-
ceding,/^tt^ expresses the transition from conrupius to canrum-
///), Cist. 775, Rud. 1275 etiamne salutem earn, 1277, Men. 69i»
Trin. 942. 943, Pseud. 1075 atque etiam habeto mulierem dono
tibi, Andr. 368 etiam puerum inde abiens convent Chremi, Haut.
999, Ad. 209.
2) Most 513 etiam tu fuge, Mil. 1206 etiam me?, Stich. 709,
Aul. 561. 641 ostende hue manus . . . ostende etiam tertiam, Pers.
783, Amph. 760, Asin. 184, Cas.314. 612. 991, Cist. 522, Rud.
1 124. 1275 anne etiam patrem?, Pseud. I95\ 1223 atque etiam
mihi aliae viginti minae, True 248, Ph. 238 etiamne id lex coegit ?,
940, Ad. 532 etiam noctu, 664 atque etiam inliberaliter. Under
thb head may be classed the cases where eitam qualifies a clause
or verbal noun used as object: Poen. 281, Most. 272, Pseud. 1178
etiamne facere solitus es ?, Rud. 402. Sometimes the corresponding
clause is only implied : Merc. 751, Poen. 251, True. 248, Hec. 507 ;
or the clauses cover each other in sense, not in terms, so that for
a repetition of the same verb we have two verbs expressing essen-
tially the same notion: Merc. 437 etiam mens adnutat (cf. 435
iubet). Men. 939 qui mihi etiam me iunctis quadrigis minitatu's
prostemere (c£ 935, which recalls 851 f.), Pseud. 628, Rud. 201.
382, Mil 811, Hec. 221.
i. Under these two divisions belong the infrequent instances of
S€d {verum) eiiam : preceded by nan modo Most. 390. 994, Ad.
387 ; by nan'-quidem Most. 1 1 12 ; without any preceding particle,
Poen. 1386.
c. Occasionally the two divisions are not sharply distinguished.
There is a curious transference of emphasis in Bac. 417 (cf. Hec.
543), Rud. 1270, where the adverb belongs logically to the clause
but is so placed as to throw its whole stress on the noun or pro-
noun. In Men. 944 it qualifies the repeated governing verb scto\
in Amph. 91. 902, Aul. 99, Merc. 728, Most. 422, Haut. 865 (cf.
inf. VIII). 980, Eun. 660 the adverb introduces the clause, but
by position emphasizes especially a nominal element This is, I
think, also the case in the much-discussed passage Men. 1039 f.;
the manuscript reading yields a perfectly good sense if we under-
stand etiam hie as giving a definite contrast to the indefinite aliii
" Some deny my identity and shut me out of my house ; on the
other hand this fellow said," etc. This use of the additory
particle where English requires an adversative phrase finds
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
32 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
parallels in Andr. 849/ Hec. 535, and a more perfect one, as
showing also the contrast with alias^ in Cic. Fin. Ill 19. 63 ut
enim in membris alia sunt tamquam sibi nata . . . aliqua etiam
ceterorum membrorum usus adiuvant (so MSS, Madvig, Orelli ;
Baiter needlessly adopts the conjecture of Marsus, alia etiam).
d. In a number of passages, many of which are interrogative,
the additory eiiant is weakened to the point of being for us
untranslatable except by a vocal stress upon the modified word :
a weakening which arises from the absence of any contrast, or
even any very clear implication of a contrast, to the phrase
modified. Not that the contrasting notion is always completely
effaced : thus in Trin. 934 it is easily found, but not without going
outside of the text. I cite the passages in full, placing side by
side those which exhibit the same emphasized verb ; the stress is
of course variously laid on the clause or a single element :
Aul. 307 at scin etiam quomodo?, Amph. 773 an etiam credis
id?, Capt. 556 etiam huic credis?, Eun. loii at etiam primo calli-
dum ac disertum credidi hominem : Capt. 255 vix cavet quom
etiam cavet : Haut. 235 etiam caves ?, Capt. 327 est etiam ubi pro-
fecto damnum facere praestet quam lucrum : 455 at etiam dubitavi
. . . diu : Amph. 814 haeret haec res si quidem etiam mulier
factast ex viro : Bac. 216 sed B. etiam fortis tibi visast ?, 910 etiam
me mones?, Epid. 524 is etiam sese sapere memorat : Most. 377
quid illi reditio hue etiam fuit?, 552 etiam fatetur de hospite?,
Merc. 202 etiam rogas? (cf. inf. IX c), Men. 1072 ego hunc cense-
bam ted esse : huic etiam exhibui negotium : Pseud. 1 172 an etiam
ille umquam expugnavit ?, 1 177 tune etiam cubitare solitu's ?, Cure.
191 tune etiam . . . odium me vocas?, Poen. 271 tune audes etiam
servos spemere ?, Rud. 982 ausis etiam comparare ?, Trin. 934 an
etiam Arabiast in Ponto? Cas. prol. 74 quam liberales etiam
probably belongs under this head.
VI. The intensive value of eiiam, where not coming from the
temporal (c£ sup. IV), is an outgrowth of the additory, from which,
strictly speaking, it does not differ ; only the varying tone of the
* Where the stress rests of course on hoe and the contrast is with the pre-
ceding id: **Of that there is now no question; but do you answer me as to
this." AHud tu responds would express the contrast in a less concrete and
definite fashion ; and this apparently adversative use of etiam is due to the fact
that it can suggest alius. Cf. Pseud. 370, Bac. 274. So in Hec, I. c, etiam
illorum is the definite substitute required for aliorum.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
vw*r A mr tat tot a rrfTTo a\7t\ tz? di? Arr^i?
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
34 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
etiamnum mali pendii^ for which Schoell conjectures tt iam
malli\ the simple inversion, nunc cHam, would yield a good sense
(eh'am = 'even ') and would save malipendii as a pendant to bani
cansulas True. 429, ctegui banique facto Haut. 788.
prius: On Bac. 221 cf. sup. IV. Elsewhere the two words,
while having much liberty of position, are essentially fused into
one temporal expression; but the context sometimes gives to
eiiam an additory connotation, while /rrt^ serves to bring out the
anticipatory side. In the following passages eiiam might stand
alone : Amph. 202, Cist. 586, Merc. 389. 569, Mil. 1401, Pseud.
331 ; in the following, where a quam clause follows or precedes,
prius might stand alone, save in so far as eiiam conveys an
additory notion: Asin. 232. 939, Cure. 210, Merc. 169, Pseud.
524-5, Bac. 920-1 (this last the only instance where the phrase
is negatived) ; cf. also Mil. 1339.
turn : Pers. 356, Rud. 846, Hec. 145.
etiam atque etiam : Trin. 674, Eun. 56, cf. Aul. 614.
diu : Cas. 606, Haut. 402.
denuo: Amph. 394, Bac. 923. Here the idea of repetition
possible to eiiam is made more distinct by the accompanying
adverb.
parumper Mil. 596; paulisper Aul. 805; modo Triil. 910
(with imperfect ; the only other example of this tense is with
neqiu eiiam Eun. 113).
dum : I cite the passages which show the use of eiiam and
dum^ together or apart, with a negative word :
i) etiam : Amph. 248. 733, Asin. 385. 445. 491, Bac. 920, Epid.
336, Merc. 386, Mil. 1400, Pers. 128. 231. 552. 630, Pseud. 280,
567, Rud. 959, Stich. 356, True. 526, Andr. 116. 503, Haut. 433.
1057, Eun. 113. 360. 710. 1030. 1092, Ph. 474. The negatives
are : non^ neque^ haud, numquam, nemo, nihil) they precede the
temporal particle except in Pseud. 280 etiam non dedit, Eun, 710
etiam non credes ?
2) etiam dum (dum etiam): Mil. 992, Pers. 174, Pseud. 957,
True. 321, Andr. 201. 807, Haut. 229, Eun. 570, Hec. 192. 745.
The negative is nan or neque, except True. 321 haud, Pseud. 957
nihil.
3) dum: Cure, 57, Mil. 641. 787, Pers. 137. Pseud. 622. 730,
Rud. 1201. True. 205, Andr. 340. 659, Ph. 147. 445. 492, Ad. 467.
The negative is non or neque; in Pers. 137 Schoell adopts
Ritschl's metrical correction, hau dum for nondum.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ETIAM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE, 35
In two instances the MSS of Plautus exhibit eHamdum without
a negative. In Rud. 1380-2 they give:
cedo quicum habeam iudicem
ni dolo malo instipulatas sis nive etiamdum siem
quinque et vigintl natus annos :
annos naius and sive appear in Priscian's quotation. Sive is
adopted by Sonnenschein and approved by O. SeyfTert (Berl.
Phil. W. XVI, p. 1 291) on the ground that, as Sonnenschein puts
it, "in spansiones what the challenger denies is introduced by «,
what he affirms by niJ* He adds, as a further argument for
adopting sive^ that the second clause " contains the word eitamdum,
'as yet,' which is used only where a negative is expressed or
implied." I know of no instance of such an implication of the
negative, and it seems impossible because eitam (to which eiiam-
dum is exactly equivalent) has a totally different meaning in
positive clauses from that which belongs to it with a negative.^
The sponsio^ says S., is ''always expressed from the point of view
of the person challenged"; this is true here in the first clause,
where ni instipulaius sis represents the denial of Griphus, non
siipulaius sum. The reading sive in the second clause would
require an affirmation on the part of Griphus ; but this could only
be expressed by iam naius eSj since eiiam (dum) naius es would
be contrary to the syntax of the temporal eiiam and, even if that
were not the case, could only mean *you are still of that age,'
which would be nonsense. It is evident therefore that Labrax
formulates this part of the challenge from his own point of view,
and that we must on the one hand retain nive, and on the other
follow Acidalius, Bentley and Reiz in inserting a negative, which,
however, should stand, according to the normal form, before
eiiam.*
^English 'yet' is misleading; alike by sense and construction (with perfect
tense) the positive of non etiam {Jum) is not etiam but iam. This appears
clearly in the question which is akin to the negative ; cf. Andr. 806-7 ^^^ suos
parentis repperit? an nondum etiam? *has she yet found her parents? not
yet, say yon?* In the first clause fiiam would be impossible.
'The corrupt lines 1 381-4 may, I think, be thus emended: ni dolo malo
instipulatus sis nive hand dum etiam siem | quinque et viginti annos natus. —
habe cum hoc. — at aliost opus. | nam ego ab isto auferre haut ausim si istunc
condemnavero. The last line is spoken by Labrax to the audience : ** When
I have got sentence against that fellow (Griphus), I shall not dare to claim
my money from that one (Daemones).*' At might easily be dropped by haplog-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
36 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Pseud. 1028 reads: metuo autem ne erus redeat etiatndutn a
foro. Here no negative can be inserted ; etiamdum has the value
of the afiirmative etiam, an irregularity to which we have a pendant
in Epid. 42, where etiamnunc is used with a negative, and a
parallel in Cic. Att. 13. 3i. i quoniam etiamdum abes. As nunc
and dum are mere satellites, adding nothing to the sense, there is
no ground for questioning these irregularities, which show that
the restriction of etiamdum to the negative, of eiiatpnunc to the
affirmative, function of etiam, though usual, was not absolute.
The meaning here is that of eiiam = etiam prius.
VIII. The additory etiam also lends itself to conjunction with
particles kindred in meaning : ultro : Amph. 587, Asin. 440 [Aul.
530], True. 112, Eun. 860, Ph. 360. 769; insuper: Eun. 645 (cf.
sup. Ill, note); adeo: Most. 629. Much the most important
of these combinations is that with quoque. The refusal (as of
Brix on Men. 1160) to recognize this as a pleonasm rests on the
assumption that etiam is properly an intensive particle ; so Brix
says "quoque ist vergleichend, etiam steigernd"; and Lorenz on
Most, mo, while speaking oi etiam quoque as a pleonasm, incon-
sistently agrees with Brix in translating it by "sogar auch." But
this rendering is permissible in few cases, necessary in none ; and
in fact etiam and quoque, so far as they coincide in range, corres-
pond exactly in meaning, both having the additory sense 'also,*
from which the intensive 'even' is derived for both, though less
frequently for quoque} The real difference between the two words
lies in the fact that etiam, by reason of its temporal origin, belongs
primarily to the verb, while quoque is a nominal adjunct.' This
raphy before a/—; and the reduction of haut ausim to {h)aut sim would be
merely another form of the same error. V^ith haud dum etiam cf. Pers. 174
nondum eiiam, Etiam was probably omitted by the copyist of the archetype
and inserted in such a manner as to make it seem intended as a substitute for
hand,
^Prof. Gildersleeve, Lat. Gr. 479, Remark* calls attention to the fact that
** the difference between etiam and quoque is not to be insisted on too rigidly/'
and cite^, for quoque ^^tytviy Juv. 4. 116. Plautine examples are Asin. 207,
Foen. 166. 888, Pseud. 295.
' So regularly in Terence, the only exception being Haut. 866, where, how-
ever, desponsam is a nominal element of the verb. Out of some fifty examples
of quoque which I have noticed in Plautus, five exhibit it as a verbal adjunct :
Pers. 234, Cist. 35, Pseud. 367, Capt. 284, Bac. 892 (in Most. 538 text and sense
are uncertain).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ETJAM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 37
distinction is actually retained in Haut. 865-6 postremo etiam si
voles desponsam quoque esse dicito, where etiam by its position
serves to introduce the clause (cf. Most. 422 quin etiam illi hoc
dicito). This is the only Terentian example of eiiam — guoqtie ;
in Plautus the fusion is complete and the phrase qualifies always
a noun or pronoun: Amph. 461. 702, Asin. 502. 567, Cure. 128,
Most, mo, Pseud. 121. 353. Quoque eiiam, following the noun
or pronoun, is found in Pers, 145. 744, Stich. 258, Poen. 40, Merc.
299- 328, True. 94. 731. 875, Amph. 30. 81. 717. 753, Epid. 234.
589, Men. 1 160, Pseud. 932, Hec. 543. 762. In Amph. 281 the
words guoque — eiiam after a pronoun are separated by edepol, in
Trin. 1048 by the verb ; and in Hec. 734 ego pol quoque etiam
timida sum, the adverbs precede the noun (as quoque alone does,
Asin. 184).
IX. It has been said that eiiam in questions loses wholly or to
a great extent its proper signification. Thus Ussing on Asin. 677
(670) etiam me delusisti, says: '* etiam saepe ponitur in principio
interrogationis, ubi quaeritur aut quod per se vix credibile videtur
. . . aut quod propter alterius cunctationem fore non videtur . . .
Hoc adhortandi quandam vim habet nee multum abest a quin."
This view appears in the notes of Sonnenschein and Lorenz on
Most. 383, Palmer on Amph. 369 and Brix on Trin. 514; objec-
tion is raised to it by Langen, Beitr., p. 160, who says that eiiam^
in a question retains its proper meaning ; but he admits as an
exception *'einen bestimmten Fall, in welchem das abgeschwachte
etiam lediglich dazu dient, der Frage eine besondere Niiance zu
geben, wenn sie namUch statt einer AufTorderung dient." This
weakening of the adverb Langen finds in questions where "etiam
dem Verbum immer vorangeht und, wenn die Fragepartikel ne
hinzutritt, diese sich an etiam, nicht an das Verbum anschliesst"
Morris, Am. Jour. Phil. XI, p. 180, says that "of words of restric-
tion and definition . . . only num clearly assumed the function of
an interrogative particle, though etiam came very near doing so."
SeyfTert, in a review of Morris's article. Burs. Jahresb. 80 (1894),
p. 346, denies that in Bac. 216, Most. 553, Pers. 651 eiiam stands
" without any proper meaning," and adds, " ob etiam iiberhaupt
in Fragen wie etiam rogas, minitaris seine Bedeutung soweit ver-
liert, dass es nur dazu dient der Frage den Ton des Dringlichen,
Ungeduldigen zu geben, wie M. meint, scheint mir gleichfalls
zweifelhaft; ich wenigstens fiihle an alien diesen Stellen die
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
38 AMERICAN JOURt^AL OF PHILOLOGY,
Bedeutung von etiam noch klar heraus. Freilich liesse sich dies
nur im Zusammenhang einer eingehenden Untersuchung iiber
den Gebrauch von etiam bei Plautus darlegen."
Langen's theory seems untenable ; etiam and etiamne preceding
the verb are found in other passages than the score which he
cites, and we cannot rely on a formal distinction which is not
universally valid. In general, SeyfTert is, I think, right in feeling
that the significance of etiam cannot be obscured ; yet a few
passages support the view of Ussing and Morris by exhibiting an
etiam which has no distinct characteristic other than that it intro-
duces an emphatic question. But instead of extending this
apparently meaningless use to passages where a meaning may
easily be found, we must rather seek to restrict it to cases where
it is inevitable, and to find its origin, if possible, in some significant
employment of the adverb. I have already cited many interroga-
tive clauses in which the value of the particle seemed sufficiently
obvious, and have reserved for this place certain questions which
can be easily classified under a few heads.
<i) etiam temporal with verbs of speaking: muttis? Pers. 827,
Amph. 381 ("nondum taces?" Ussing), muttire audes? Men.
710-1, loquere? Merc. 982, Pers. 848, clamas? Amph. 376; and
with omission of verb, etiamne 'opinor'? Pers. 651 (^'nondum
certumst?" SeyfTert, 1. c.). In Epid. 711 etiam inclamitor quasi
servos, the suggested contrast may be given in the form of an
assertion: iam non inclamitandus sum, In the following (where
the verb of speaking is specialized as a verb of abuse) the idea of
repetition enters in, reference being had to previous utterances of
the same kind: etiam male loquere? Pers. 289, at etiam male
loqui mi audes? Capt 563-4 (this being the second insulting
remark of Tyndarus, cf. 551 f.), at etiam maledicis? Trin. 991 (cf.
926 ne male loquere apsenti amico), etiam minitare? True. 621
(cf. 612 f.).
b) etiam temporal in the elliptical construction noticed under
II fin : cf. Weise, Lex. Plant., p. 463, with whose choice of examples,
however, I cannot wholly agree : respicis ? Pers. 275, Most. 886,
dicis? Pers. 277, tenes? 413, vigilas? Most. 383, aperis? 937.
938, adstas? Cas. 728, imus? 977, abis? Poen. 431, despondes?
Aul. 255, acceptura es ? Rud. 467. 469, redditis? Bac. 1167, taces?
Trin. 514. In all these cases the demand (or command) has
already been uttered, and etiam reintroduces it with emphasis :
"once more (I say), will you — ? " In Pers. 542 etiam tu illam
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
mmti
ETIAM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE, 39
destinas?, Cure. i88 etiam dispertimini ? it is rather a suggestion
than a demand that has preceded ; in Bac. 670 etiam quid respon-
detis mihi ? there is a sudden shift in the kind of question used ;
and in Men. 697 mane: etiam astas? etiam audes mea revorti
gratia ? the particle follows so quickly on the command that we
have hardly time to feel its force. In the following there is no
backward reference and the meaning is quite effaced : amoves ?
Asin. 714, taces? Pers. 152, Cure. 41, Ad. 550, abis? Ph. 542. It
is only to these last instances that Ussing's formula ''etiam inter-
rogantis" can properly be applied ; and these can easily be under-
stood as representing the degeneracy of an idiom which in its
original value seems not to have survived Plautus. For the two
Terentian examples show no trace of repetition ; and we may
conclude that, while etiam was, as Morris says, on its way to
become a mere particle of interrogation, it was diverted from
this tendency by the disappearance of the usage from which the
tendency was derived.
c) etiam additory or intensive in questions (occasionally also in
affirmative clauses) which imply that the utterance, or act, is an
aggravation of some wrong done, an adding of insult to injury.
Thus, in affirmative clauses : Amph. 586-7 qui quoniam erus quod
imperavit neglexisti persequi | nunc venis etiam ultro inrisum
dominum; Poen. 1280 f. si ego minam n'on ultus fuero probe
quam lenoni dedi ... | is etiam me ad prandium ad se abduxit
ignavissumus, | ipse abiit foras; Rud. 325 f. data verbo ero sunt :
leno abit scelestus exulatum. | in navem ascendit, mulieres avexit
... I is hue erum etiam ad prandium vocavit, sceleris semen. In
interrogative clauses, expressing anger at denial, mockery, evasion
or threats: negas? Mere. 763, inrides? Most. 1132, derides?
Men. 499, rides? Eun. 10x7, ut etiam inrideat? Ph. 669, delusisti?
Asin. 677, exordire argutias? Bac. 127, minitare Bac. 785-6
(differentiated by the context from True. 621) ; so of a question
which is regarded as evasion or denial: rogas? Amph. 571. 1025,
Andr. 762, rogitas? Amph. 1029, Aul. 424. 437. 633, Cas. 997.
But for Merc. 202 etiam rogas? cf. sup. V; here no contrast is
implied, and etiam therefore merely gives emphasis to the verb.
X. The ins affirmativa of etiam is to be found in its use as a
particle of response = 'yes'; but this use is very rare, and as
a rule etiam in the response has some meaning of its own. In
Poen. 406, atque audin? — etiam, the temporal sense is evident.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
40 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Amph. 544 numquid vis ? — etiam : ut actutum advents : Bac. 757
numquid aliud? — hoc atque etiam: Hec. 811 nil aliud dicam?
etiam ; show the half-temporal, half-additory value noted under
III ; indeed, from the elliptical phrases there cited these differ
only by standing after a question. The same notion is underlying
in Most. 1000 numquid processit . . • novi ? — etiam : but the use
of the perfect tense puts the verb out of sympathy with the
particle, and thus reduces the latter to a mere affirmative.
XI. This is the case also in Baa 214-5 sed nilne hue attulistis
inde auri domum ? — ^immo etiam. The fusion of eHam with immo
to a phrase of affirmation is therefore here only apparent ; and
elsewhere, in Plautus as in Terence, the two words have no
relation to each other. The following instances of their occur-
rence in close proximity have already been cited : under I, Poen.
315 ; III, Cure. 453, Ph. 877, Hec. 869; IV, Rud. 961, Pseud.
324, Bac. 221; VI, Epid. 518; VII, Mil. 1401, Rud. 1123. In
Poen. 188 immo etiam ubi expolivero magis hoc tum demum
dices, Rud. 441 immo etiam tibi, mea voluptas, quae voles faciam
omnia (both referred to under III) the sympathetic tense decides,
as so often, the value of the adverb; the singularity of both
passages lies in the fact that they alone exhibit the purely tem-
poral notion with a future, all other examples having additory
connotation, unless eiiam is reinforced by another adverb of time,
as in Haut. 402 diu etiam duras dabit, or by a sympathetic signifi-
cation of the verb, as in Trin. 11 36 maneam (these two elements
combine in Aul. 805, Cas. 606). Poen. 188 is also noticeable
because the more exact definition of time, ubi — demum, following
on etiam detaches the latter to some extent from the main verb
and makes it almost equivalent to mane.
Andr. 655 reads: immo etiam, quo tu minus scis aerumnas
meas, hae nuptiae non adparabantur mihi. Dziatzko's change of
guo to guom shows that he understands immo eiiam in the sense
of Spengel's explanation, "ironisch bestatigcnd." But it is only
immo that confirms, and the relative pronoun is necessary to
eiiam, as may be seen by a comparison with Ph. 877 immo etiam
dabo quo magis credas, Hec. 869 immo etiam qui hoc occultari
facilius credas dabo ; the ellipsis is like that in Capt 290 immo
etiam ut magis noscas, where also etiam is independent of the
principal verb, uHhir, as here it is independent of adparabantur.
These three passages differ firom the one under discussion only
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ETIAM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE, 4I
by the circumstance that in them the subordinate clause gives the
purpose for which the statement is made, while here it merely
defines the character of the statement. Pamphilus has several
times declared to his friend that he does not understand the cir-
cumstances: 647 ialsu's, 649 nescis, 652 baud istuc dicas si cog-
noris; Charinus insists: scio e. q. s. 653-4; "I understand very
well ; you have had a quarrel with your father, he is angry with
you and could not get you to marry to-day." "Nay," answers
Pamphilus, " I will tell you another thing by (ignorance of) which
you fail to understand my troubles ; no one was asking me to
marry."
Andr. 673 Davus says: nisi id putas, quia primo processit
parum, | non posse iam ad salutem convorti hoc malum. His
master replies : immo etiam : nam satis credo, si advigilaveris, | ex
unis geminas mihi conficies nuptias. He means: immo etiam
posse puto ; the temporal sense is clearly given by the preceding
nan tarn, which is the negative of the temporal efiam, as non etiam
is the negative of tarn ; and cf. Stich. 617 posse edepol tibi opinor
etiam uni locum condi bonum. In Andr. 708-9 Dziatzko and
Spengel put a stop after eitam ; but etiam volOy or dicitOy implies
an object: "I wish (say) something else": so in Most. 1000, Bac.
215 an etiam aliquid was implied by the preceding quid and nil*
The punctuation of Umpfenbach is therefore to be preferred :
verum vis dicam? — immo etiam | narrationis mi incipit initium.
The force is temporal: "nay, he is still (etiam prius quam abit)
beginning a speech to me."^
XII. In Mil. 1014 immo etiam might be treated as temporal if
we restore the metre and furnish the temporal contrast by reading
sed iam non celas ; but Studemund's reading of A makes such
conjecture needless. For Trin. 708 [Pseud. 566] I can find no
explanation ; in Rud. 783 etiam may have the value considered
under X ^ ; in Cure. 612 it cannot easily be defended. Cist. 518
seems hopelessly corrupt ; but in any attempt to restore it the
reading of A deserves more consideration than it seems to have
received : anne etiam quid consultura es ? " are you going to form
^Narratio in the technical sense ; the jest is Menander's, not Terence's ; for
stock oratorical forms were not familiar to the lattefs audiences, and it is the
Attic orators who constantly preface their St^ytfot^ with an assurance of truth-
fulness : awavra inideiiu • . . Xiyuv rahid^^ says the Lysianic Euphiletus ;
similar examples abound.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
42 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
any other, any new decision?" Poen. 570 may perhaps be
referred to VI df; but this interpolation shows an un-Plautine
lack of emphasis in the particle. If we accept Lachmann's
emendation for Asin. 499, it is to be referred to VI c^ the closest
parallel being Amph. 91 ; but the passage may be regarded as
still doubtful. But Bac. 321 etiam dimidium censes? sc. eum
attulisse, though unique, need cause no difficulty when we
remember that the additory or intensive etiam has ne — quidem
for its negative. "Has he brought even the half, do you think?"
asks Nicobulus ; in a less hopeful mood he would have exclaimed :
ne dimidium quidem attulit?^
VAifDMBiLT umvwsiTY. Wm. HAMILTON Kirk.
^ At the time of writing this article I had not seen Birt's discussion of the
etymology of etiam^ Rh. M. 51 (1896), p. 70 f. It was gratifying to find Birt
arguing with force and, as it seems to me, with cogency for the rejection of the
ordinary derivation and the acceptance of that from eti (= fri) -f* ioM, This
naturally leads him to conclude that the original sense was temporal, and he
notices this fact briefly, p. 107-8, quoting some passages in illustration, chiefly
from Plautus.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
IV.— THE ORIGIN 6F LATIN BAUD AND GREEK oy;
AND THE EXTENSIONS OF THE ORIGINALLY
UNEXTENDED FORM.^
A.— The Origin of Lat. Aaud Gk. ov *not.'
§1. Iniroductton.
Lat hand and Gk. ov 'not' have long been the subject of
discussion, but it will hardly be contended that the question of
their origin has yet received a satisfactory answer. Under these
circumstances I would venture to offer a new explanation in the
following pages.
§2. The three farms Aau, Aaud, kauL The evidence of (a) /»-
scrtpiians^ (^) MSS and Libri, {c) The Ancient Grammarians.
The form *au established as the earlier Latin form.
One of the chief difficulties lies in the Latin form. Hence we
shall do well to examine this word first, to see what its earlier
form was in Latin. *
The three forms hau, haud, haul.
We have apparently three forms to deal with — namely, hau^
hand, haut, Ritschl, Prol. ad Plant. Trin., pp. xcix-cii (1848),
writes : " Corruptelis autem etiam haut scriptura non raro prodi-
tur, velut cum pro eo aui positum est, e. g. Trinummus, vv. 362,
721. Sed novum est quod duabus haui et haud formis tertia hau
accessit, suscepta a me ex Ambrosiano vv. 233 {hau liquet) y 462
{hau bonumst), in eodemque codice aliis in fabulis tam saepe
exstans, ut de calami lapsu cogitari nequeat."
(a) Inscriptional Evidence.
The usual form of the word on inscriptions is haud^ e. g. C. I. L.
I 1306 quaniam haud licitum, but we find hau in one inscription,
' The present is the paper to which an advance-reference has already been
made in the Essay on the 'Establishment and Extension of the Law of
Thurneysen and Havet/ Part II (Amer. Joum. of Philology, vol. XVII, part 2,
July, X896). §6, p. 180, n. 3, and §8. p. 189, n. i. and p. 193.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
44 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
C. I. L. I 1007 (= Orelli 4848 = Gruterus, p. 769) heic est sepul-
crum hau pulcrum pulcrai feminae} hau does not occur again
in C. I. L. I, nor does it occur at all in the indices to C. I. L. II-V
(incL), VII-X (ind.), XII, XIV. The form haui is found in C. I. L.
II 562 ^haut liciium^ (an inscription 'aevi Antoniani' probably),
and XII ti499 ^kaut dispar* ('ex titulis Christianorum ')f but is
not found in the indices toX. I. L. I,' III-V (incL), VII-X (inch),
XIV.
{b) Evidence of MSS and Libri.
Otto Ribbeck, Scaenicae Romanorum Poesis Fragmenta, vol. I
(Tragicorum Fragm.), 187 1, gives the following readings : —
hatiqucLquaniy Att 6x8.
haud in Ennius 330'; Pacuvius 325, 426'; inc. inc. fab. 30.'
haut in Livius 35; Enn. 340; Attius 108, 115, 193, 330, 360,
466; Fabul. Praetext. 31.
Otto Ribbeck, op. cit., vol. II (Comicorum Fragm.), 1873: —
hau, Liv. 3 {haui codices) ; Naev. 16 {hau om. libri) ; Titin. 181
(The MS has room for three letters only) ; Afran. 58 {aui libri) ;
Pub. Syri Sententiae 461 (= 694) (reading very doubtful).
?iaudy Fabul. Palliat. inc. inc. 47^; Afranius 12^; Sententiae
Turicenses 693 (= 850).
hauiy Naevius 60, 112; Caecilius i8r; Turpilius 9, 10; Fab.
Pall. inc. inc. 74; Titinius 127, 166; Afran. 7, 51.
L. Miiller, Q. Enni Carminum Reliquiae (1885), reads as
follows : —
haudy Annales 278, 389, 578 ; Fabulae 127, 424 (= Ribbeck,
voL I, Enn. 340 haui, v. supra).
haudquaquam, Ann. 293.
haut, Ann. 499.
In connexion with Ribbeck's ' velut cum pro eo (s. c. hauf) aui
*C. I. L. I 1007 (=also F. D. Allen, Remnants of Early Latin. No. 138,
where it is Included among ' Epitaphs dating from about the Gracchan period
on') and I 1306 are among the " Inscriptiones a bello Hannibalico ad C.
Caesaris mortem" (see Mommsen in C. I. L. I, pp. 5, 43), and they are, I
believe, the only instances of the negative in question to be found in C. I. L. I.
^haut does not occur in C. I. L. I 1306, as might perhaps be at first sight
inferred from Stolz, Lat. Gr.', §69, p. 316. This particular inscription (quoted
above in the text) shews * haud licitum! with which contrast hata lieitum in
C. I. L. II 562 (also quoted in the text above).
* Wrongly placed under haui in Rtbbeck's index to vol. I.
* Wrongly placed under haut in Ribbeck's index to vol. II.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN HAUD AND GREEK OT. 45
positum est' we may note that in the following of the above-
mentioned passages the reading out is supported either by Libri
or by at least one MS :
Ribbeck, op. cit., vol. I, Enn. 340; Pac. 426; Att. 108, 115,
I93» 330-
Ribbeck, op. cit, vol. II, Naev. 60, 112; Turpil. 9, 10; Pall,
inc. inc. 74; Titin. 166; Afran. 7, 12, 51, 58.
Miiller, op. cit., Enn. Ann. 499 ; and Fab. 424 (= Ribbeck, op.
cit., I, Enn. 340).
Ritschl, in his edition of Plautus, Trin. 1848, reads as follows
(I add critical notes in brackets) :
hau in lines 233 (Jiau A, ut videtur. hand reliqui), 462 (Jiau A,
haud reliqui).*
haui in lines 60 {haui A, haud reliqui, et sic constanter nisi ubi
contrarium testabimur) ; 62 {haui A. R., haud reliqui); 90 {aut
H.) ; 1 15 {Jiaut B, haud reliqui) ; 362 (jxui A, haud reliqui) ; 445
[haud BCDE, hau Camerarius, au Palmerius Spicil., p. 859) ; 584
[haud dare Pius, haddare B, addere CDEZ); 625 [haui B,
haud reliqui) ; 721 [haud Dousa iv. 24, Scaliger. aut libri) ; 835 ;
II57-
[c) The opinions of the Ancieni Grammarians.
Marius Victorinus (flor. about 360 A. D.), according to the
reading of Ritschl, Proleg. ad Plant. Trinum., page c, writes :
^*Hau adverbium est negandi et significat idem quod apud
Graecos ov: sed ab antiquis cum adspiratione, ut alia quoque
verba, dictum est et adiecta d littera, quam plerisque verbis
adiiciebant. d tamen litteram conservat, si sequens verbum
incipiat a vocali ut haud aliter muros et haud equidem. at cum
verbum a consonanti incipit, d perdit ut hau duiiam et hau multa
et hauplacitura refer '^'^
An alternative reading given by Ritschl (1. c.) runs as follows :
* To these statistics we may add that Georges, Lex. der Lat. Wortf., gives
hau in Plant. Bacch. 506; Men. 927; Most. 434, 720, 919; Pers. 11, 23, 500;
Poen., Prol. 94; Pseud. 215. Nipperdey, Ritter read hau in Tacitus, Ann.
(e. g.) II 36 and VI 43 (49).— P. S. Reference may profiUbly be made also to
Friedr. Neue. Formenl. d. Lat. Spr. II' 664 sqq.
' The reading " at cum verbum a consonanti incipit, d perdit ut haut dudum
et haut muUum et hatU placitura refert^ et inducit /" cannot possibly stand.
Keil's reading is, in the main, identical with that of Ritschl, and runs thus :
" at cum sequens verbum a consonanti incipit, d perdit, ut hau dudum et hau
mulhtm et * hau placitura refer* [et inducit /]."
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
46 AMERICAN JOURNAL PF PHILOLOGY.
^'Haud adverbium est negandi et signiiicat idem quod apud
Graecos ov, et fuit au : sed ab antiquis etc." ^
Flavius Caper (flor. before the end of the 4th century A. D.)f
according to the reading of Keil, Gramm. Lat., vol. VII, p. 96,
1. 4, writes : —
''*hau dolo^ per d recte scribitur, etenim d inter duas vocal es
esse debet, quod si consonans sequitur, d addi non debet, ut
Charisius (flor. some time between the middle of the 4th and
end of the 5th centuries A. D.), Institut Gramm., bk. I, §xv ad
fin., after a brief discussion of the particle sed^ continues: —
'^Haud similiter d littera terminatur: du enim Graeca vox' d
littera termina[ri apud antiquos] coepit quibus mos erat d litt[eram
omnibus] paene vocibus vocali littera finitis adiungere, ut quo ted
hoc noctis [dicam pro\ficisci foras, Sed et per / scribi sonus
vocis admittit."
Charisius thus gives authority also for the form haid.
Resulis of the foregoing investigation.
(i) The three forms haUy haudy haut are established by the
united evidence of Inscriptions, MSS and Grammarians.
(ii) The earlier form of the Latin word under discussion seems
beyond all reasonable doubt to have been *au.
Thus we have before us Lat. "^au 'not' : Gk. ov 'not'; and the
problem is to find the connexion between them.
The explanation of the h and d: t ot hau hand : haut^ which
have been shewn above to be non-original extensions of the
earlier Latin form *auy and the examination of the extensions of
Gk. oly viz. ov-K ol'x o^-ic/ ov'Xh will be deferred to the latter part
of the present essay (§8, pp. 61 sqq.), where the various Latin
^ This, with the omission of Ritschl's ' et fait au^ is the reading given in
Keil's Grammatici Latini, vol. VI, p. 15, 11. 21, 22.
' Keil gives the following critical note : ** haud oh per d recte scriHtur M
(= Codex Montepessulanus 306); Mattd doh sic recte scriHtur C (= Codex
Bernensis 338) ; hauddoto sic cUioqid recte scriHtur B (= Codex Bemensis 330) ;
rectius erat hau dohper unum d recte scriHtur, nisi potius Aaud aliter scriptum
erat, quod ex Vergilii versa Aen. Villi 65 Marius Victorinus p. 15, 24
adscripsit/' Lindsay, The Latin Language, ch. II, §136, p. 122, suggests a
new reading : haud uolo.
'Ritschl (1. c, p. ci) prefers to read "Aan enim, graeca vox ov, </ littera etc."
Keil, Gramm. Lat., vol. I, p. 112, 1. 8, and Lindsay, The Latin Language, ch.
X, §18, read **ov enim Graeca vox </ littera," etc.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN HAUD AND GREEK OY. 47
and Greek extensions of the forms *au : o^, together with some
kindred forms in the same or in some other Idg. languages, will
be dealt with m detail.
§3. Older expianaUans of hand : ov examined.
Before I venture to put forward my own views on the vocalism
of Gk. o^ and Lat {K)au{d')y it may be well to examine one or
two of the older etymologies or explanations offered.
Corssen, Ausspr. Vocalism. und Beton. d. Lat. Spr.', vol. I
(1868), p. 205, regards the au of {JC)au{dy as the 'Pronominal
Particle' au^ which in au-fero au-fugio has the meaning 'away,
apart/ and occurs also, according to Corssen, 1. c, in Lat. au-iem^
Osc. aV'H, Umbr. o-ie^ Lat. au-i (see id. ib., p. 157). This au, he
says further, corresponds to Skr. dva, which properly means
'down, downwards,' but which, he adds (on the authority of
Benfey, Chrestom. Gloss., p. 32 £), in composition often contains
the pure negative meaning ' -less, un-, not' On the ground, too,
that Pott (Etymol. Forsch., part II, 1836, pp. 64, 134) identified
Gk. o^jc with Skr. avd-k, Corssen (1. c.) identifies Greek 6{f with
the same Skr. dva,* which, according to him, has the form au in
Lat. h-au'd.
Thus Corssen identifies the vocalism of Lat. (Ji)au{d'), au{ferd)y
au{fugio\ au(Jtem)y au[i\ Umbr. a{te), Osc. av(tt), Skr. dva, Gk.
oi. Leaving Lat. h^au-d and Gk. ov for the moment out of the
question, it may be remarked that only on one condition — viz,
that Skr. dva and the au- of Lat. au-fero aufugio ret)resent an
Idg. ay, (a view which I believe to be right, v. infra, p. 50, n. 3,)
— can we regard as correct Corssen^s identification of these with
Lat. auitem), tf»(0> Umbr. o{ie'), Osc. avift), which must represent
Idg. *au (see Brugmann, Grundriss, I, §§96, 97 ; Lindsay, The
Lat. Lang., ch. X, §§4, p. 599, 5, p. 601). If, therefore, Skr. dva,
Lat. au{Jerd) au(Jugid) au{ien£) au(f), Umbr. o{te'), Osc. av{tt)
are all to be identified together as representing Idg. *au, they
must all be separated from Gk. ov 'not' (which cannot represent
Idg. *a«f), and probably, therefore, also from Lat *a« 'not.'
Thus Corssen's identification of Gk. ov with Skr. dva [based on
^ For Corssen's yiew on the h and d of h-au-d see below, §7 a and h, pp. 55,
59-
'Bopp (as I conclude from Brngmann, Gr. Gr.', p. 236) was the first to
identify Gk. ov vith Skr. dva.
Digitized by
Googte
48 AMERICAN JOURl^AL OF PHILOLOGY.
Pott's incorrect identification of Gk. oW with Skr. avdk (on the
latter syllable of which v. infra, §8, p. 63)] cannot possibly stand.
Osthoff, in Hiibschmann's Das Idg. Vocalsystem (1885), pp.
190, 191, regards **Lat. (Ji)aud\ Gk. ov (from *oW)" as shewing
different ablaut-grades of the same root. For the ablaut '*Gk. ov :
Lat. a«" Osthoff, 1. c, compares Gk. tAaxa (Att. Zvra from *aaro) :
Lat. auris, from Idg. if aus- 'to draw, gather, take, obtain' [Gk.
a{^» Lat. haurio (from ^aus-id, Osthoff, Zur Geschichte des Per-
fects, p. 486) O.Norse ausa]^ the 'ear' thus meaning 'the grasping
organ' — middle grade of Gk. oZ^ in Lesb. nap-ava 'cheek' and
weak grade in Avest. uh-*
Osthoff's derivation of Gk. ov from *ovd seems unlikely. It is
much more probable that ov was the earliest Greek form, and that
the forms such as oid-€is shewing d came in later (cf. Brugmann,
Gr. II, §31 *ad fin.). With respect to Osthoff's view that Lat.
hand Gk. ov belong to the Jf-series, I would not deny that d
appears beside d in the strong grade of this series,' but I would
raise the objection that there is (so to speak) no Indo-Germanic
'peg' on which to hang Lat. Aaud Gk. ov, thus referred to the
df-series.
Victor Henry, in M6m. d. 1. Soc. d. Ling., vol. VI, part 5 (1889),
pp. 378 sqq., seeks {umuccess/uify, I think) to justify Bopp's and
Corssen's above-mentioned identification of Skr. dva with Gk. o£.
He observes that at first sight the disparity o( meaning between
dva and ov is difficult, but remarks (on p. 378) that it is possible
to see in 5kr. the commencement of the proceeding, by which
^ It should be mentioned that Havet, in M^m. de la Soc. d. Ling, de Paris,
vol. VI, part I (1885), p. 18, and King and Cookson* Sounds and Inflexions in
Greek and Latin, chh. V« p. 86, IX, p. 187, regard Idg. ^offs- as the origin of
Lat. auris Gk. ov; . But these scholars seem certainly to be mistaken in their
view. Cf. Osthoff, Perf., pp. 486 sqq.; HObschmann, Das Idg. Vocals., p. 159 ;
Lindsay, The Latin Language, ch. IV, §31, and the present writer in his
Essay on the ' Establishment and Extension of the Law of Thurneysen and
Havet/ Part II (Amer. Joum. of Philology, vol. XVII, part 2, July, 1896). §8,
p. 194, n. 3.
'Till recently 'understanding' was the only known meaning of Avest. uH-
(cf. Armen. ui 'understanding/ regarded as a borrowed word by HQbschmann,
Arm. Stud. I, p. 47), but the meaning 'ear* has been established by the new
fragments of the * Nirangistan,* vid. Darmesteter, Le Zend-Avesta, fragment
vi, verse 26, p. 95 htfoHbya uiibya * with the two ears.'
' Cf. the above-mentioned Essay on the * Establishment and Extension of
the Law of Thurneysen and Havet,' Part I (A. J. P.. vol. XVI, part 4, Dec.
1895). §3 (p. 447. note x).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN MAUD AND GREEK OT. 49
dva^ ''qui a parfois en Sanscrit le sens inversif," has been capable
of transformation into a negative particle. But to pass on to
what is perhaps more important, his attempted explanation of the
form of the words : — he suggests that dva may have come from an
Idg. ^a^O' [adding that Latin is not against this, seeing that the
shortened form au- (au-fero^ etc.), in virtue of the Law of Thum-
eysen and Havet, may represent Idg. *<?^ just as well as Idg. *a|^].
The Old Irish preposition 6 ila (sicO, which comes from Idg. *^,
would correspond to Skr. dva^ if this latter be rightly derived
from Idg. *^|f(^).' According to Brugmann's law that Idg. d in
an open syllable becomes a in Skr., Victor Henry would have
expected Idg. *Guo to become Skr. *dvd, and not Skr. dva^
adding, however, that this rule is not absolute, being violated
notably in the particles, e. g. Skr. dpa : Gk. dn6 ; he further
explains dva by supposing the co-existence of two original forms,
a full one *w> (or *^>ud or *^>?^/), and a shortened one *du (with
which he compares Lat. a«-), the former yielding Skr. *dvd (or
*dvd), the latter yielding Skr. *dv, and contamination of the two
producing dvd. So far as Ionic Attic alone is concerned, Victor
^tia (as accentuated by Victor Henry), which should strictly represent lia
(for the * accent/ which is written in Gaelic, is really no accent at all, but only
a mark of quantity), may be criticised as not being quite an exact way of
representing the true sound of the word. Some diphthongs in Gaelic may be
(i) short, (2) long with respect to the first vowel, (3) long with respect to the
second, but there are also (4) a few others, which are always long\ to this
latter class ua belongs. Diphthongs of this latter class are never 'accen-
tuated' ; thus ila, as written by V. Henry, is both right and wrong — ^wrong
with respect to the notation, right with respect to the quantity (ua being a
long diphthong).
The form o belongs to Scots (as well as Irish) Gaelic, e. g. o umtdgh * from
prayer,' St. Luke xxii. 45 ; c Ghalile *" from Galilee,' id. xxiii. 5. (This o of
Scots Gaelic is of course long, as in Irish Gaelic, but Scots Gaelic very
rarely makes use of the ' accent.') The form ua, however, is, so far as I know,
peculiar to Irish, and even there is, I believe, retained only in the preposi-
tional pronouns which are formed with this preposition, e. g. uaim (:=ua-\-pte)
'from me,' fAzi/(=fAs4-/!K) 'from thee' [all the simple prepositions in Irish
being thus compounded with the personal pronouns, an odd feature common
to Gaelic and the totally unrelated languages, Hebrew (e. g. Immanu-el
'with-us God') and, I am told, Hungarian]. Oi ua \ can find no trace in
Scots Gaelic. Curiously enough, in O'Donovan's Irish Dictionary, the only
form given of the pre[>osition in question is ua^ but the form d (=s o) is now
almost invariably written, even in printing old texts which shew ua.
^See infra, §4. p. 52, n. i.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
50 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Henry observes that ov might come from the full form *of ©,* but
that as this would not suit Lesb., Boeot. and Doric, in which the
said *o/o would have become *«, he prefers to derive ov from the
shortened form *hf (comparing irdp = ita^y av = dra, etc.)i which
satisfies all the phonetic needs, the / before consonants forming a
diphthong with the preceding vowel, so that, e. g., *6f (jm/xi (which,
according to V. Henry, = Skr. dva bhdtni') became od <tniiu.
On Victor Henry's theory the following remarks may be made.
He is surely wrong in supposing that Brugmann's law, viz. that
"Idg. d in open syllables became a in the Prim. Aryan period"
(Brugmann, Gr. I, §78), is intended to include final syllables, for
Brugmann himself, in Gr. HI, §409, regards Skr. sd (: Gk. 6) sd-s
as the Skr. representative of Idg. *sd *sd'S, and in Gr. IV, §1047,
he exemplifies Idg. "^-sd, an Idg. personal ending of the 2 sing,
middle, by Avest. bara-vha (: Gk. ^pfo xfUpov ^-(^>co i'<t>ipov) ;
thus we should have expected Victor Henry's postulated Idg,
*^^ to yield Skr. *dvdj and not (as Victor Henry thinks) Skr.
*dvd. To return to the main question : — his suggested explanation,
that Skr. dva arose by the contamination of two original Idg.
forms *(^d (or '^i>^d or *^) and *du, does not seem at all
satisfactory, and consequently I would reject the view that Skr.
dva is the outcome of an Idg. form containing *^-. In the next
place, although I believe firmly in the truth of the Law of
Thumeysen and Havet,' I yet think that the au- of Lat. au-fero
au-fugio is not an instance illustrative of this Law. Much rather,
Skr. dva and the an- in these two Latin verbs (compare together
Lat. aU'/eroxSkx. ava-bkr- *aufero'), together with O.CSl. «-
Pruss. aU' 'ofT, away' (e. g. O.CSl. u-myii *to wash ofT,* u-daii
'to give away, iwhwvoi Bvyaripa,* Pruss. au-mu'Sna-n 'ablution'),
should all be regarded as representatives of the Idg. preposition
*at4(€). Cf. Brugmann, Gr. I, §100; Stolz, Lat. Gr.' (1890), §50,
p. 293, and in the Historische Grammatik der Lateinischen
Sprache, vol. I, part I (1894), hs^f P* 154; Lindsay, The Latin
Language (1894), ch. IX, §12, p. 576.' From this Idg. prepo-
^ It is curious to compare the representation in Cyprian, viz. o-vo (y. Cauer,
Delect. Inscrr. Graec. 474i line 3).
'See the above-mentioned Essay on the * Establishment and Extension of
the Law of Thumeysen and Havet* (Amer. Joum. of Philology, vol. XVI,
part 4, Dec. 1895. and vol. XVII, part 2, July. 1896).
»M. Br^al, in Mem. de la Soc. de Ling., vol. V, part 3 (1883), pp. 197. 198,
maintains that the au- oiau^fero au-fugio is the preposition ab or d (cf. abstuii^
abhtum). According to M. Br^al, *' Vd a subi la diphthongaison en du comme
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN BAUD AND GREEK OT. 5I
sition *aii{e)^ Gk. ov and (in my opinion) Lat h-au-d must be
entirely separated.
§4. Reference of Lai. *au Gk, ov io a common ground-form,
namely, Idg. iauiosylkMc *&u, from the Idg. nf eu- Ho fail, be
deficient, be wanting^
The views hitherto advanced on the etymology of Gk. ov and
Lat. h'OU'd have thus been briefly criticised. None of them
seems at all satisfactory. I would therefore venture to suggest
the following view, which has, at least, the advantage of attaching
Gk. ov and Lat. h-au-d to an established Idg. root with a well-
defined meaning. According to my view, Gk. 06 and Lat
{K)au{d) are identical in origin, their Idg. ground-form being
tautosyllabic *Su. This Idg. ^D^ became regularly in Greek o^,
in Latin first *ou and then at a later date, some time in the 3d
century B. C.,^ ^atu Granting, then, that Gk. oCr and Lat. ^au
ZdrerUia est devenu Laurentia" He relies mainly on the authority of Cicero,
Orat. XLVII, §158: "Qnid, si etiam 'abfugit* turpe visum est et 'abfer^ nol-
uemnt, {^aufugit'* et) *aufer' maluerunt? quae praepositio praeter haec duo
verba nuUo alio in verbo reperietur." He might much more appropriately
(from his own point of view) have cited Quintil. I 5, §69 : " Frequenter autem
praepositiones quoque compositio ista corrumpit : inde abstulit, aufugit^ a$msit,
cum praepositio sit ad sola." Such a view, however, can hardly be regarded
as correct ; cf. the authorities cited in the text, especially Lindsay, 1. c, where,
speaking of the au- in au-fero and au-fugio^ he writes: "It has not been
produced from t^ by any phonetic process, but represents a different I.-£ur.
preposition *aw{/) (O.Ind. dzMi, Pruss. au-^ e.g. O.Ind. ava-bkr- * au-fero'),
which was brought into requisition in these compounds before an initial/ to
avoid confusion with the compounds of ad^ e. g. affero*^ With this explana-
tion of Lindsay, I would agree entirely, save in one point : — Surely the au-
of au'ferv au-fugio was not " brought into requisition " by Latin " to avoid
confusion with the compounds of a/, e. g. affero" but rather is a relic pre-
served from Idg. times (cf. Skr. ava-bhr-^ quoted above), long before the Idg.
bh of the two Idg. roots bher- and bhe^^- had become Latin / (/ero /ugio).
It would be more true, therefore, to say that the au- of au-fero au-fugio was
maintained in Latin " to avoid confusion with the compounds of a/," a con-
fusion which would have ensued if au had been exchanged for ab (e. g. aufero
exchanged for ab-fero, whence, of course, affero, which would have been
ambiguous).
^ See the above-mentioned Essay on the * Establishment and Extension of
the Law of Thumeysen and Havet,' Part I (A. J. P., vol. XVI, part 4), §3 ad
fin. (pp. 456 sq.), Part II (A. J. P., vol. XVII, part 2), §8 ad fin. (p. 195) and
§9 (pp. 195 sq.).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
52 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
come from Idg. tautosyllabic *e>^, we have next to ask : What
can this Idg. "^ti^ mean ? So far as I am aware, no one has yet
suggested any Idg. root with a known and definite meaning, with
which to connect this Idg. "^du ; but there exists one Idg. root,
the meaning of which is well established, and from which there
are numerous derivatives, a root which exactly suits the needs
required of it here, both as to form and meaning: the Idg. V^'
*to fail, be deficient, be wanting.' To this Idg. V^-» therefore, I
would refer, as preserving the strong grade d of the /-series, Idg.
tautosyllabic *^>{^, the common ground-form of Gk. ov and Lat.
From this derivation we can easily trace the development of
meaning. In Gk. o\i and Lat. h-au-d the idea of 'want' or
'deficiency' has produced the purely negative meaning. In Old
Irish 6ua 'away from,' if connected herewith (as is quite possible
from the phonetic point of view^, the meaning has further
developed through the idea of 'absence' or 'separation' implied
in the primitive root'
§5. Other derivatwes of the Idg. nj e^-.
The meaning of this Idg. V^* *^o fail, to be wanting,' which
is thus given by Brugmann, Gr. II, §66, p. 141 (Engl, ed.), §67,
p. 153 (E. E.), and Osthoff in Morph. Untersuch. IV, p. 370, is
well established from the following derivatives, most of which will
be found in Brugmann, Gr. I, §63, II, §66, p. 141 (E. E.)) §67, p.
153. §95» P- 286, III, §175, p. 25 (E. E.), IV, §574, and in Pick,
Vergl. Worterb. d. Idg. Spr.*, part I, p. 123, s. v. "i/a 'mangeln,
^ O.Ir. ^ ua can represent either Idg. tautosyllabic *i^ or *du (v. Brugmann,
Gr. I, §§66, 82), but not Idg. tautosyllabic *du (v. Brugmann, Gr. I, §98).
' If my derivation of Gk. ot> Lat. (h)au{d) from Idg. tautosyllabic *du from
Idg. y^-'to fail, to be deficient, to be wanting' — ^a derivation to which no
exception can possibly be taken from the point of view of the meaning — is
correct, it will hardly be denied that this is an example very strongly
supporting the views set forth in the above-mentioned Essay on the ' Establish-
ment and Extension of the Law of Thumeysen and Havet.' For according
to no system of ablaut can an original (i. e. Idg.) d appear in the Idg. /-series, to
which the Idg. ye^- (: Gk. ev-vi-c * bereft, mulcted,' etc.) undoubtedly belongs.
See HQbschmann, Idg. Vocalsystem (1885) ; Brugmann, Gr. I (1886), §309 and
§§311-14; Bartholomae in Bezzenberger's BeitrSlge, vol. XVII (1891), pp.91
sqq. Cf. also P. Giles, Short Manual of Comparative Philology (1895), §§258-
265, and the Note following §265. pp. 186-94.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN HAUD AND GREEK OT. 53
fehlen,' " part II, p. 179, s. v. "« 'mangeln,' " part III, p. 542, s. v.
''vd 'mangeln'":
Avestic root fi^ 'to want,' Uyamna pple. mid. 'wanting, failing,'
Una 'empty' also subst. f. 'want' Sanskrit nnd-^ 'defective,
deficient in something,' unay 'to leave (a wish) unfulfilled (find-\^
based on Und-} Armenian unain 'empty.'* Greek c5-w-ff 'bereft,
mulcted.' Latin vdnus, vdcare, vdcuus} Gothic* v-an-s 'wanting,
absent, lacking,' ^ v-an n. ' want.' O.H.G. w-an ' wanting, lacking.'
English wan- 'lacking, without.'^
To the derivatives just given may be added, I. Greek ap-tv
'without' and II. (i) Skr. vd Gk. *-f€ Lat -vi 'or.' (2) Skr. va
'as, like,' Gk. *-f€ 'as, like as,' Lat. *-z/i? 'as, like as,' for a full
discussion of which see the paper on "Some Sanskrit, Greek and
Latm Derivatives of the Idg. V^- 'to fail, to be deficient, to be
wanting,'" published recently in Bezzenberger's Beitrage, vol.
XXII, 3/4 (1896), pp. 189-202.
^Cf. also, in addition to the authorities cited in the text, Grassmann,
W6rterb. zum RV., s. v. (und), col. 272.
*and is apparently not used independently in the RV. (vid. Grassmann), bat
it is found in the compound dn-una 'not defective, perfect' [cf. also dnuna-
varcas * possessing perfect glory (vdrcasy Grassmann, WOrterb. zum RV., col.
61 and 272]. Una is found independent in classical Sanskrit, e. g. (Raghu-
▼anSa) Onam na scUtvehf adhiko hahadhe * a strong one amongst animals has not
hurt a weak (or inferior) one.' Una is frequently used to form phrases of
subtraction in the numerals, e. g. 19 ikdnaviHatii (from thM-ana-ifpati} * a score
wanting one') and unavtsatil, 57 tryundidHi} (see Whitney, Skr. Gr., §§477a,
478b; Brugmann, Gr. Ill, §175, p. 25, E. E.).
'Cf. also Grassmann, op. cit., s. y. (und)^ col. 272.
^Cf. also Httbschmann, Arm. Stud. I (1883), pp. 47. 62.
^On these Latin words cf. also the above-mentioned Essay on the ' Establish-
ment and Extension of the Law of Thumeysen and Havet,' Part II (A. J. P.,
vol. XVII, part 2), §6 (pp. 178 sqq.).
' With the above-mentioned use of Skr. Una^ to form phrases of subtraction
in the numerals, we may compare the similar phenomenon in Gothic, e. g.
2 Cor. II, 24 fidvdr Hguns dinamma vanans 'forty save one' (cited by Brug-
mann, Gr. Ill, §175. P* 35, E. E.).
' Cf. also Osthoff in Morph. Unters. IV, p. 375.
' E. g. wofUon from M.E. watu from A.S. Tvan * lacking,' and iowen = A.S.
ttfgen, past pple. of tedn 'to draw, to educate' (v. Skeat, Concise Etym. Diet,
of the Engl. Lang., 1887), 'lacking or without education.' Cf. also the follow-
ing, cited by R. C. Trench (English Past and Present, Lect. Ill, p. 112, and
note on pp. 112, 113): wanhope 'despair,* wanthHft 'extravagance,' wanluck
' misfortune,' wanlust ' languor,' Tvanwit * folly,' wangrace ' wickedness,' wanfrust
(Chaucer) * distrust.'
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
54 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
§6. The ablaut "ou : cw" in Greek.
The ablaut ov : rv in Greek is not common ; few examples are
known ; but it must have existed originally in Prim. Greek, none
the less ; and an isolated word like ov is just such as might have
been expected to keep its original Wocalismus/ untouched by
external influences. The following^ are examples of the ablaut
ov : cv in Greek : ,
oirovdi; : cnrcvdw,'
wXov-TO-ff : ij pl'e^-^
\oZ<r<ro¥^ : Xcvo-o-w* from *Xev<c-i« ij leuq- 'lucere/^
u\rfkov6'fUv f : root iXtvd' (fut. Af vo-o/MU, cXcvoreoy).'
In 0o6t : Oidf n\6ot : irXco), x^^^ - X^^t ^^^^ ^^^ sonantal element
became at an early period consonantal.^^
* I omit the late word /xiOaiog • reddish/ which Schleicher, Comp. 67, derived
from *i)Mu)c, and placed beside kpMu^ but wrongly so, pohaiog being really a
borrowed word, Lat. russus russeus. Cf. G. Meyer, Gr. Gr.', §9, p. 9.
'Cf. Habschmann, Das Idg. Vocalsystem (1885), §165, p. 116; Brugmann,
Gr. I. §80, p. 72, Engl. ed.
'Cf. Brugmann, Gr. Gr.', §70, p. 96.
*Cf. Httbschmann, Das Idg. Vocals., p. 116, and especially J. Schmidt,
* Asstmilationen benachbarter einander nicht berUhrender Vocale,* in Kuhn's
Zeitschr. XXXII, p. 325, who there observes that only one 0 in anSTjcn^ can
be occasioned by ablaut. A comparison of andikai^ with nk'kEvBoq proves, as
Schmidt rightly says, that the ablaut syllable is that containing the diphthong.
Schmidt considers the original flexion to have been *a/ceAev^ nom., aiuikobBov
gen., and levelling to have thence ensued in the historical time.
^hivaaw * the pith of the fir-tree,* first attested by Theophrastus, H. P. 3. 9. 7.
•Cf. G. Meyer, Gr. Gr.«, §9, p. 9.
^The evof AevK^ * white' cannot be original, but has come in for older ov
(*Aov/c<Jf ) ; cf. G. Meyer. Gr. Gr.«, §9, p. 9 ; Prellwitz, Etym. W6rterb. d. Griech.
Spr., p. 185, s. V. Xovffow; and Bartholomae in Bezz. Beitr. XVII, p. 99.
* In the Idg. perfect the ^grade prevailed in the 2. 3. sing, indie, act. {oUjOa
ol6e J^fftid') and, according to the view of most linguists, in the r. sing, as well
[oIcJo, *Ke^ovya (in Fick, Vergl. WOrterb.*, p. 89, read Hhlbouga for ^bMbauga,
cf. id. ib., p. xxxv), from J^bhiftq- or ^bhef^g- 'to bend, decline'], although
some think that the /-grade prevailed in the r. sing. (e. g. Tzit^euya). On this
question cf. Brugmann, Gr. IV, §843.
*Cf. HQbschmann, Das Idg. Vocals., p. 116; Brugmann, Gr. I, §77. p. 68
(Engl. ed.). g8o. p. 72 (Engl, ed.), IV. §856; id. Gr. Gr.«, §9, p. 26; and G.
Meyer, Gr. Gr.«, §552, p. 484.
»Cf. G. Meyer, Gr. Gr.«, §9, p. 9.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN MAUD AND GREEK OT. 55
B. — The Extensions of Lat. *«« and of Gk. ov 'not.'
Having thus examined thoroughly the vocalism of Gk. ov and
Lat. *au 'not/ and having referred them to the common Idg.
ground-form *di^, representing the strong-grade d of the /-series,
from the Idg. kj €%- 'to fail, be deficient, be wanting,' we will now
proceed to discuss the extensions of Lat. *a«, viz. h-au^ A-au-d,
A-au-i, and also of Gk. ov, viz. ov-x«. ohx, ov-kI, ov-x, together with
some other kindred forms in the same or in other Idg. languages.
§7. Laitn h-au h-au-d h-au-i: — (a) ike h of h-au A-au-d A-au-t;
(*) iAedofh-aU'd; (jc) tAe t of A-au-U
(a) TAe A of A-au A-au-d A-au-L
The explanation of this A- is no easy matter. Various expla-
nations have been offered ; but none seems convincing : —
Corssen, Ausspr. Vocalism. und Beton. d. Lat Spr.', vol. I
(1868), p. 205, regards Aaud as a compound word, consisting of
three parts: A-, au, d. His explanation of the au- as the
'Pronominal Particle' meaning 'away, apart,' considered above
(§3, pp. 47 sqq.), did not appear satisfactory. For his explanation
of the d, see below (p. 59). The A-, according to him, is the
remnant of the demonstrative pronominal stem Ao- of Ai-c Aae-c
Ao-Cy which appears blunted to A- in A-or-nu-s from ^Ao-jpr-nU'S
'this year's.'* Thus, according to his theory, A-au must =
literally 'this away/ and would be a formation similar to Skr. so
(contracted from Skr. sd u) Old Pers. Aauv Gk. o$[-ro(] from Idg.
*so (demonstrative pronoun) +« (the particle of place, meaning
'here' or 'there').' Thus, while Idg. *sou strictly means 'this
man here,' Lat. ^Ao-au, according to Corssen's explanation, would
mean just the opposite, 'this away, this not here.' Although
Corssen's etymology of the au did not seem satisfactory, this
need not really affect our view concerning his explanation of the
A', which, if suitable to the au as derived by Corssen, might be
equally suitable to the au as derived in the present paper (v.
supra, §4, p. 51). That Corssen's explanation of the A- is possible
may be admitted ; but at the same time it can hardly be considered
satisfactory.
^ This Latin slem A^- is generally extended by 'Ce {kic = ^ho-uee)^ but ho-die
ho-rsum and Faltsc. hei he-sz* heic hie' (Schneider, Dial. Ital. Exx. Select., to].
I, part 2, p. 106, Nos. ao, 3ia, 32) are instances of the nnextended root (▼. Stolz,
Lat. Gr.«. §90, p. 347).
''Cf. Bmgmann, Gr. I, §603 ad fin., II, §4, p. 9, £. E., Ill, $414, p. 337, E. E.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
56 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Osthoff, Zur Geschichte des Perfects (1884), Excurs III, on
* Indog. sa^'y aus-, eus' im griechischen/ has on pp. 491, 492
worked out an ingenious theory to explain (i) the incorrect
presence of h in A-aurid (for *auS'idt Osthoff, ib., p. 486) : Gk.
aC»t Old Norse aus-a 'to draw, obtain/ A-umerus : the correct
umertiSy A-erus : the correct erusy A-dldre A-dlUus : the correct
alum dlarCy and (2) the incorrect absence of A in anser : Skr.
Af^sd' Gk. -xfivy arena : the correct but less frequent Aarena (=a
Sab. fasina\ olus : the correct Aolus. Osthoff, it is true, makes
here no mention of Aaud, but inasmuch as this theory of Osthoff
is cited in Hiibschmann, Das Idg. Vocalsystem (1885), p. 191, in
explanation of the A- oiA-aud, we must briefly review the theory
to see whether it can be applied to A-aud. Osthoff explains the
incorrect presence and absence of the A as the outcome of
sentence-doublets. He suggests that, e. g., Lat ex Aarena^ in
Aarena came to be pronounced ec s-arendy i n-arend (cf. French
I'd Z'am^=iUs Aommes), the spiritus asper having disappeared
after the new consonant thus prefixed. But elsewhere, he says,
and especially at the beginning of a sentence, the spiritus asper •
will have maintained itself unweakened, so that in such a position
only Aarena *Aanser Aolus were pronounced. But inasmuch as
in phrases like ec s-arend, i n-arend the A, though no longer
pronounced, continued still to be written, confusion arose, followed
by the not unfrequent wrong insertion of A ; the pronunciation
was not altered when the A was wrongly written in cases like
exAdldre tnhdldre, just as in Aumero.
This theory may or may not give the correct explanation of
the words discussed, but it is difficult to consider it applicable to
the negative A-aud 'not,' which can but rarely have been preceded
by ex or in.
Bugge, Beitrage zur Erforschung der Etruskischen Sprache, in
Bezz. Beitr. X (1886), pp. 75, 76, attempts to prove that the A of
the Latin demonstrative stem Ao- was merely 'vorgeschoben.^
Latin, he says, does not know an inflected demonstrative stem o-^
but rather Ao- : Aoc (from *Aod'ce')y Aunc and so forth. But, he
continues, no other Idg. language shews an inflected stem Ao- or
£^Ao'y and it is well known that Latin sometimes shews a 'vorge-
schoben A' (e. g. A-auriOy where the related Etruscan words
Ausmana Auzmaire likewise shew A), hence he regards the A of
the Latin demonstrative stem Ao- as 'vorgeschoben,' and iden-
tifies formally *Aain (contained in Lat Aunc) with Etrusc am, an.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN HAUD AND GREEK OT. 57
Bu|^ge thinks that the older unaspirated forms *om *am ^od were
aspirated because they were felt to be too unsubstantial, when the
pronoun was in an accented position. He accordingly felt himself
able to identify Lat hd\rdie\ with the synonymous Skr. a\jdyd\.
In his discussion of Lat. haud itself, he appears to call it 'a word
of pronominal origin' and says that "if the h of hand is of the
same origin as the h of haurio, hic^ hodic^ then haiid^ as has long
been conjectured, may be related to Gk. ov."
It is difficult to see whether Bugge means that the h of h-aiid
is the 'vorgeschoben A' of the demonstrative stem h-o- (according
to his own explanation of the latter), or that it is a ' vorgeschoben
A,' as in h-auriOj quite unconnected with the demonstrative stem
ho-. He apparently means the former, in which case his expla-
nation is much the same as that of Corssen, given above, and no
more satisfactory. Moreover, Bugge is, I think, quite wrong in
regarding the h- of the demonstrative stem ho- as a ' vorgeschoben
k'J ^ Much rather does the Lat. ho- represent an Idg. stem ^gho-
(v. infra, §8, p. 62).
Lindsay, The Latin Language (1894), ch. X, §18, suggests that
the initial h- of haud must have been used as a distinguishing
mark to differentiate the word from aui, comparing M. Valerius
Probus (temp. Nero and the Flavian Caesars), Inst. Art., in Keil's
Gramm. Lat., vol. IV, p. 145, 1. 9: "*a«/,' si sine adspiratione
scribatur et in / litteram exeat, erit coniunctio; si vero *Aaiid*
cum adspiratione scribatur et in ^litteram exeat, erit adverbium."
We might compare also Cledonius (flor. 5th century A. D.) in
Keil, op. cit., vol. V, p. 74, 1. 28 : " aui si sine A aspiratione et in
/ exit, coniunctio est; si vero cum A aspiratione et in d exit,
adverbium " ; and Cassiodorus (circ. 500 A. D.), De Orthographia,
in Keil, op. cit., vol. VII, p. 158, 1. 20: "Haud, quando adverbium
est negandi, d littera cerminatur et adspiratur in capite ; quando
autem coniunctio disiunctiva est, per / litteram sine adspiratione
' It is quite trne that we find unaspirated forms on inscriptions fairly often,
e. g. ic in C. I. L. Ill 809; IV 1321 ; V 6400; VIII 5257, 5501, 8297, 9344,
9638. 9768 ; X 7123, 7172. 7763. «^ XII S70. oc V 4488 ; VIII 9192 ; X 1541.
uc (= oc) XII t2i47. ««^ V tl642 ; IX 306 (bis) ; XII 2584. uius V +1741 ;
VIII 9200; X 2184. 4410. «'/ I 1297. aduc V t6244. But these unaspirated
forms (which do not occur on any early inscription) are not the survival of an
original unaspirated demonstrative stem ; they are due merely to the incorrect
' dropping of ^/ as is proved by the fact that the aspirated, not the unaspirated,
forms occur in the earliest inscriptions, e. g. hofu and Aic in C. I. L. I 32 (of
353 B. C. circ.)-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
S8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
scribitur." Albinus Magister, in Keil, op. cit., vol. VII, p. 303,
1. 3, uses identically the same words as Cassiodorus, only differing
from them by the insertion of the word * auV before * per / litteram.'
We can scarcely accept Lindsay's explanation of the h- of
h-aud. The grammarians are merely stating linguistic facts, and
not advancing theories. Had the usual form of the word been
hauiy the aspiration might in that case have been used, as Lindsay
suggests, to distinguish h-aui 'not' from aut 'or.' But this was
not the case, hatd is very rare on inscriptions, and quite late, the
only two inscriptions, on which I have been able to discover it,
being respectively *aevi Antoniani' and *ex titulis Christianorum '
(v. supra, §2, p. 43). The aspiration is already on the earlier
and more usual hand and on the still earlier form hau (v. supra,
§2). Hence we must find an explanation of the h- which will
suit the earlier forms hau, haud, irrespective of the later haui.
The only ancient grammarian, who did not confine himself
(like those just quoted) to the statement of the fact that ''aid
'or' is a conjunction, hand 'not' an adverb" or the like, is Marius
Victorinus, whose remark (quoted above, §2, p. 45) is : ''Hau ad-
verbium est negandi et significat idem quod apud Graecos ov [et
fuit au\ : sed ab antiquis cum adspiratione, ut alia quoque verba,
dictum est." Marius Victorinus would thus seem to regard the
k' of h-aud as a mere ' vorgeschoben A.'
Instances of h 'vorgeschoben' are numerous on inscriptions,
e. g.:
hcLegregius in C. I. L. V ti709 ; homnium XIV 3323 ; hetema
V ti72o; hegit V 7647; hardo IX 5577, X 477; haliquit (=
aliquid) XII 915; Hillyricus V 3620; hac III 5839, IX 5961,
X 7995; his XIV 497; heius III 3917, VIII 3520; hiKOic XII
915; have IV 1983, 2148.
Compare also Catullus' poem (No. 84) on Arrius, whom he
represents as speaking hinsidias and Hionios instead of insidias
and Ionics. To say nothing of inscriptions, this poem alone is
sufficient to prove the fluctuation of A in Latin as early as the first
century B. C; while a century later Quintilian (I 6, 21) laughs at
those, as affected, who greet one another with ave instead oih-avi
on account of the derivation from avere (c£ Blass, Ausspr. d.
Griech.', §25, and Corssen, Ausspr. Voc. und Beton. d. Lat.
Spr.*, vol. I, p. 104).*
^ Both forms are found on inscriptions : have (v. snpra in text) ; ave in C. I. L.
XIV 1473, aveu IV 2071.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN HAUD AND GREEK OT. 59
For the converse we may compare iCy etc. (quoted above, p. 57,
n. i), and also arrespex^ in C. I. L. I 1216; erceiscunda I 205,
part 2, 55 (48 B. C); Iriius I 625 (42 B. C circa), IX 3771;
OraHa* 1 924 ; osHa (for hosiia) I 819 ; Osti(Jius) 1 1 170 ; Ypsaeus
I 467 bis (57 B. C. circa); also numerous instances of the common
verb habeo docked of its h, e.g. abes V 1712; abis (^= abes)
VIII 9277; abeas XII 915; abiai IV 538; abeto IV 2013; abere
V 4488, X 1365, 4539, XIV 3323; abebat IX 2893; «*««"^ V 914,
1707, XII 230; abuis(i)e IV 3121.
This extreme fluctuation in the matter of the aspirate, which
became quite frequent in the second half of the second century
A. D. (v. Blass, 1. c; Corssen, op. cit., vol. I, p. no; Seelmann,
Ausspr. d. Lat., p. 265 f.), may very well have arisen early. The
h' of h-au h-aud will, I think, be best explained as a 'vorge-
schoben h* which (as in h-aurio, v. supra), when once prefixed,
was always retained. Nor is it unlikely that the prefixing of this
(etymologically incorrect) h was partly due to a desire for
increased emphasis on a word which, as directly negativing the
sentence in which it stood, or the word with which it was
connected, was one of emphatic importance.'
(*) The d of h-au'd.
Corssen, Ausspr. Voc. und Beton. d. Lat. Spr.', vol. I (1868),
p. 205, regards the d of hau-d as the remains of the same -de
which he sees preserved in quam-de, un-dey in-de, ex-in-de^
de-in-de^ pro-in-de, and which he translates *even, precisely.'
He holds that, whereas in ex-in, de-in, pro-in the -de has again
disappeared, the ending e having first fallen off, and the (thus
final) d disappearing thereafter, in haud the influence of the
preceding vowel preserved the d after the disappearance of the
final e. Corssen's explanation of h-au has been given above
(§3i P- 47» §7. P« 55)- The whole word h-au-d, therefore, accord-
^I quote this word chiefly in order to point out that C. I. L. I 1 216 is an
incorrect reference for arrespex.
* Oraiia for Horatia beside Praenestine Foratia [Schneider, Dial. Ital. Exx.
Select., No. 200 (=: Gamurrini, add. 1881, No. 2354)].
' It is true that (so far as I have been able to examine the question) * vorge-
schoben A* is at least uncommon on inscriptions prior to the Hannibalic war
(no instance is found in C. I. L. I 1-195, which consists of * Inscriptiones
▼etustissimae Bello Hannibalico quae videntur antiquiores'), but this does not
in the least affect my explanation of the h- in h-au h-aud^ for neither does any
example of hau haud occur prior to the Hannibalic war [cf. supra, §2 (a), p. 43].
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
60 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
ing to Corssen's theory, should strictly mean 'this away pre-
cisely': not a very convincing explanation.
Osthoff in Hiibschmann, Das Idg. Vocals. (1885), p. 191,
deriving Gk. ov from earlier *ovd, would apparently regard the d
of AaU'daiS pre- Latin; but his derivation of Gk. ov, on which his
explanation of the d of Aau-d rests, would appear to be incorrect
(see supra, §3, p. 48).
Of the ancient grammarians, Marius Victorinus (quoted above,
§2, p. 45) remarks : " adiecta (est) d littera, quam plerisque verbis
(antiqui) adiciebant"; and Charisius (quoted above, §2, p. 46),
after a brief discussion of the particle sed, continues : *'I/aud simi-
liter d littera terminatur : au enim , . . d littera termina[ri apud
antiquos] coepit quibus mos erat d litt[eram omnibus] paene
vocibus vocali littera finitis adiungere, ut quo ted hoc noctis \dicam
pro']Jicisci forasJ* The words of these grammarians can hardly
be termed scientific, but I think that their explanation of the d of
haU'd lies nearest to the truth. It seems most probable that the
negative particle hau became hatid on analogy of the adversative
particle sed, aided probably by the extension of the -dy the abla-
tival termination of the ^-stem-nouns and of the pronouns, far
beyond its original limits^ (cf. Brugmann, Gr. Ill, §240, pp. 133
sq., §243» PP- 139 sqq., §442» part 2, §444).
(c) The i of h-au't.
The / of haui affords no difficulty; we find d and / very
frequently interchanged on inscriptions, e. g.:
iioxdx
apui C. I. L. I 206 (15, 34, 120) ; 818 ; II 1963 (2, 20)'; 1964 (I
13, 17, 19; IV 35); VIII 619, 2634,4238; IX 259, 339; X 3334
(10); XIV 474 iguaier), 1597, 1661.
at (for ad^ I 1252; III 633 (I i, 7, 13. 15); IV 1880, 2013; V
1469, 3408, 8003; VII 1310; VIII 284, 1557; IX 2893, 3314;
X 787, 3147. 6565 ; XII 5961 (5 b) ; XIV 78, 380, 527.
aihuc VIII 9624.
aliut II 1964 (II 68 ; IV 6) ; V 532 (I 23), 1 102 ; VIII 212 (36) ;
X 4787, 4842 (11) ; XIV 586, 1828 a.
^V875(6); VIII 2728, 4055; IX 136; X 2780, 7852 (3); XIV
2112 [(I 12) (a. /j<5)], 2795 [(13) (a. 140)'], 3679 [a. 127].
> We actually find advorsus tad in C. I. L. I Z96, 35.
^apudC, I. L. II 1963 (3, 19).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN HAUD AND GREEK OT. 6l
quit IV 1547 a ; V 3415 ; VIII 212 (49), 2532 B, a, 6 ; IX 3161,
5860; X 761 ; XII 915; XIV 1874, 3956.
aliquit IX 5860, {haliquit^ XII 915.
quot (for qiiod) II 144, 462, 813, 1120 ; IV i860 ; V 2090, 3221 ;
VIII 212 (37), 2728; IX 2164 add., 2475; XII 729, 4326; XIV
I357> 1731, 3014. 3435-
set III 847 (al.); IV 1516, 2400; V 5049 (5); VIII 403, 434,
I557> 95191 10570; IX 1164, 3337; X 2496, 3334 (19), 5429 (12),
7024 (I 6) ; XII 743, t575o; XIV 166, 480, 914.
rffor/:
quod (for quof) 1 1016; II 1964 (I 2, 10; II 59) ; IX 2827 (23).
quodquod annis V 7450.
quodannis V 4410, 4448.
W VIII 4770; edYill ♦427, 141 1.
adqtu (for aique^) VIII 828, 1027, 1179 bis, 2530; IX 1588,
1685, 2974; XII 894, 2228, 3619; XIV 126, 1826, 2046, 2919 bis.
Also not unfrequently we find such interchange in the termi-
nations of the verb, e. g. asied, siedy feced in the old Dvenos
inscription,* beside mit{i)at in the same inscription ; cf. 9\sofecid
in C. I. L. I 54. V 1870, VIII 3028, XIV 41 12; diced IV 1700;
rogtid IV 2388 ; liquid V 7570.
To this great fluctuation between / and d (aided very possibly
by the analogy of the form aui * or') we ought, I think, certainly
to ascribe the form haul beside haud,
§8. Gk. ow-x* ol'x ov'u ov'K : — (a) the ori^n of these extensions
[foprether with an examination of Skr. ht -hi, AvesU zi zi, Lot.
hie) ; {b) the accent of Gk. w-xl ov-kI beside that of ?-xt voi-x*.
(a) The origin of the extensions -x* 'x -kI -k.
(l) ov-x* ov-ict.
There is, I think, no doubt whatever that ot-xl and ov-m must
be entirely separated from one another. Roscher indeed, in
^The ultimate deriYation of Lat. atque from earlier Lat. ad-{-qtte (cf. P.
Giles, Short Manual of Comparative Philology, §244, p. 180) does not of course
affect our point, adque in the examples cited is not the old form itself (a^-^
qtu) preserved, but the new form (aique) altered. The form atque may be
found in C. I. L. 33 ('end of 6th century U. C./ Ritschl) and thrice in C. I. L.
196 (* supposed to be . . . 568 A. U. C./ Roby).
* Given in Zvetaieff, Inscrr. Ital. Inf. Dial (1886), p. 80.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
62 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Curtius Stud. Ill (1870), p. 144, endeavoured to prove '*dass in
alien vier Worten (i. e. ^x^ ^^^-X^ ^X^ ix') "X* ^^^ urspriinglichem
-Ki durch Aspiration entstanden ist, dass wir also von der Tenuis
ausgehen miissen, wenn wir diese Formen erklaren woUen"; but
such a suggestion, as Osthoff has clearly shewn in Morph.
Unters. IV (1881), pp. 239 ft, "fiihrt lautgesetzlich nicht zum
befriedigenden ziele."
ov'xL — The 'Xi of ov'Xh as also that of val-xh is almost certainly
to be identified with Skr. hi *for.' This view, first advanced by
Pott (Wurzelworterb. I i, 567), and accepted by OsthoflT (1. c.)i
Victor Henry (in M6m. de la Soc. de Ling., vol. VI, part 5, 1889,
p. 379) and Per Persson (in Idg. Forsch., vol. II, 1893, p. 247),
seems beyond all reasonable doubt to be correct.
The common Idg. ground-form of this Gk. -x/ Skr. kt, beside
which latter we find also Skr. -ki,^ is *gh% as given by Osthoff,
1. c, i. e. *gM. This is proved to be correct by the Avestic zl,
beside which we find also Avest. zl 'for." Skr. A/ and Gk. -xh
taken by themselves, might quite regularly be derived from either
Idg. *g/il (cf. Brugmann, Gr. I, §§386, 405) or Idg. *^Ai (cf.
Brugmann, Gr. I, §§425, 445, 454). but if (as seems undoubtedly
right) they are to be identified with Avest. zi, whose z can only
represent Idg. *^A (cf. Brugmann, Gr. I, §405, and also §452 on
Idg. flA as represented in Iranian), it follows that *2^l must be
set up as the original Idg. form (cf. also infra, p. 65, note 2, on
OldPers. *fl?/*forO.
The meaning of this Idg. *gXi (Gk. -x* Skr. At Avest. zt) may
be fixed with tolerable certainty by a comparison of the Latin
demonstrative pronominal stem *kO', in Lat. ktc (from earlier
Lat. *Ao't'Ce, the -ce of which comes from the Idg. demonstr.
pronom. stem ^ko-), etc., which can come quite regularly from
^Beside Skr. naA{ (from nd-]^M) we find nahi before nti in Rigveda 167, 9;
314, 4; 623, 13; also Pr&tis. 443. 483 [vid. Grassmann, W5rterb. zum Rigv.
(1873), s. V. nah^']. Is the f of this Skr. -hi to be compared to the I of Avestic
If, or is it due merely to metrical reasons ? We find also naht nti in RV. i. 80,
15 ; vi. 27, 3 ; naht nA in RV. viii. 3I, 7 (v. Osthoff in Morph. Untersuch., vol.
IV. p. 240).
'The I of Avestic «l is curious; beside it we find once sffor,' Yt. xiv. 12
(v. Justi, Handb. d. Zendspr., 125 b), also -«f in ya-Mi • if, whether' from *yad'Mi
seen in yatUca *and if,' Yt. xxiv. 47 ("lies yitica"! says Justi, op. cit., s. v.
yasifa), yf'Mi * \{, whether' for regular ya-Mi [v. Osthoff in Morph. Unters., vol.
IV (1881), p. 240].
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN HAUD AND GREEK OT. 63
Idg* *ghO'} The relation between Idg. ^gho- and Idg. ^ghi
would be the same as that between Idg. *kO' and Idg. *ku
(Brugmann, Gr. Ill, §409, p. 329), and that between Idg. *qo-
and Idg. *qu (Brugmann, Gr. Ill, §411, p. 333). Thus Idg.
"^gho- (: Lat. stem ho-^ *ghu (Gk. -X4 Skr. ht Avest. zt) would be
a demonstrative pronominal stem, identical in meaning with Idg.
*kO' *kt' *this.' The development of the meaning *for' in Skr.
and Avest is easily traced: Idg. *^Ai would originally mean
'this' (the meaning perhaps still discernible in the -xi of Gk.
ov'xOt ^"^ might h^ve been used in answers to a question,
as we often say 'Just this,* 'Just so,' 'Why, this,' 'Why,
just this,' before proceeding with our answer to the question.
From the use in such phrases, it might well have developed
gradually into a pure conjunction 'for.' It may be observed in
this connexion that the Skr. Vedic negative nahi, besides its
usual meaning 'for not,' shews sometimes the simple meaning
'not' or 'indeed not' (v. Grassmann, Worterb. zum RV., s. h. v.,
and Delbriick, Vedische Chrestomathie, p. 84, s. h. v.), in which
cases it comes very close to Gk. ov-^t-
ou-jti. — The -lei of oO-#c/, quite distinct from the -xl of ov-x*
(just discussed), is the neuter singular of the demonstrative
pronominal stem *^i- 'this' (cf. Osthoff, 1. c; Brugmann, Gr. Gr.*,
§95. P- 131. and Gr. Ill, §182, p. 49, E. E., §331, p. 330. E. E.),
so that ov'Ki meant originally 'not this,' and is thus identical in
meaning with ov-x^ 'not this' (v. supra).
(2) OVXi OVK.
None of the theories yet advanced in explanation of Gk. olx,
ovK seems at all satisfactory.
We may at once dispose of Pott's above-mentioned (§3, p. 47)
identification of Gk. ovk with Skr. dvdk. Skr. dvdk is of course,
strictly, the nom. ace. sing. neut. of Skr. dvdc 'turned downwards,'
which is compounded of Skr. dva 'off, down' and -ar- 'bent in a
certain direction, turned ' (from Idg. ^-Pg-, seen in Gk. irodawo'tf
\j9i\..prop-inqu-o-s)\ cf. Whitney, Skr. Gr., §§407, 409 ; Brugmann,
Gr. I, §228, p. 195.
Osthoff, 1. c, explains o^x : ovx in the following way : — he holds
that in cases of apostrophe of the -t before a following aspirated
' Bnxgmann, Gr. Ill, §409, Rem. i, pp. 330, 331, was doubtful how to derive
the Latin stem ho-.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
64 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
vowel, ovict and fAiyy fell together in oO^' ; so that e. g. o{»x ort, o&x
SnTOfxai can belong to both o{>jci and olxl ; before &t he thinks there
probably existed both oI-k- and ov-x' (ov-K-m and *ov-x-m)i com-
paring the Etym. Magn. 368, 30 tt<^ccXc yap Xryco^ai o^x' ^pxo/Aai.
Then at a later date, according to his theory, ^olx'tn and *ovx*
HpxofJMi gave way, the use of ovx, beside ovx from oind, becoming
confined to the position before spiritus asper on the analogy of
other cases, such as a<^' beside air', kqB* beside icary aiS' beside avr\
so that thenceforth abx appeared only as a phonetic (or graphic)
modification of ovx.
Victor Henry, in M6m. de la Soc. de Ling., vol. VI, part 5,
1889, pp. 379 sq., without taking oIkI into consideration at all,
regards ovx ^"^ ^*^ ^ ^^^ derivable primarily from ovx(- His
explanation is that " before an initial vowel the I is elided, e. g.
ohx c£«. stnd if the following consonant was an aspirate, then the
X had to lose its aspiration, whence ovc cx^, ovc ^X^oi^ ; whereupon,''
according to his theory, "the relation of ovk «x» ^^ ^^X *^t ^^^
others similar, gave rise to the belief that the x of this last combi-
nation was due to the rough breathing of f^cA, so that the *deas-
piration' has gained more and more, whence oitK con, ovit oXcaXe."
But surely there is at hand a much simpler explanation than
either of these two latter. If, as is most probable, oyi-yl, and ov-«
both had originally the same meaning ^not this' (v. supra, pp.
62, 63), then both would be used indiscriminately. This being
so, it was but natural that in cases of the elision of the [ before a
following aspirated word the form ovx(0 would be chosen, while
on the other hand before a following non-aspirated word the form
used would be ovje(i).
(J>) The accent of oh'Xi oI-kI beside that of J-xi i^at-x*.
Assuming the correctness of the view that "-xi = Skr. Ai =
Idg. accented "^"^hi^^ it appears that the words were originally
accented thus : *o^ x^» *5 X*» *»'«* X'» ^'^'^ 'hen when composition of
the two members took place, the already existing accent on ^ and
val ousted the competing accent on *xt, while in ohxl the accent of
"^X} had no rival, and consequently remained.
In the same way ovu was originally accented "^ov kc, and then
when the two words became one, the accent remained on the -xt
in ovci for the same reason that it remained on the -x^' i° ovxt.'
^Osthoff, in Morph. Untersuch.. vol. IV (1881), p. 244, thinks it possible
that the prim. Gk. form of Gk. ovkI was *o£>-«£ (cf, troWd-Kt), and that then
♦o^-Kt later became <w/ct on analogy of ov^:*.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN MAUD AND GREEK OT. 65
§9. Armenian zi.
Arm. zi^ *for' ought, I think, certainly to be identified with
Skr. ht and (more rarely) -^f , Avest. zl and (more rarely) zl^
Old Pers. *di* 'for/ from Idg. *ghl (*ghi).
Hiibschmann (Arm. Stud. I, p. 79) and Brugmann (Gr. I, §410)
hold that Idg. gA, initially and after n, r, was represented in
Armenian by j\ and only after vowels by z ; e. g. jaune-m ' I
But why should Gk. -kl (from Idg. *>b'-) be regarded as originally accentless ?
It is tme that we cannot adduce any evidence from Sanskrit to settle the
question either way, as there seems to be no Skr. representative of Idg. *^'-
(Brugmann, at any rate, gives none in the Grundr. Ill, §409, pp. 329. 330,
E. E.). Nor do the representatives of Idg. *ki- in other Idg. languages — e. g.
Lith. sti'S O.C.Sl. si O.Ir. ee * this (masc.),' Goth. kU(-a) Ags. hit O.Norse hit{()
*this (neut.)* — prove anything for the accent. Nevertheless, my explanation
of the accent of ovx/, given above in the text, seems to me preferable to that
of Osthoff.
In itoXka-ia (which seems manifestly later than ovxt) we see the same
process as we saw above in ^-;t< '^^*-X^* where ij vol having already an accent
of their own, ousted the competing accent already existing on -x^. Thus
V0XX6 and */d, when combined, produced *iTo?Xaid^ whence iroXXdtu (whence
many an analogical formation, e. g. ir^^iardiu, o^^diu, daadiu^ roaadiu^ etc.).
In ov-ici, on the other hand, there was no competing accent on the av to
oust that on -ki, whence the combination produced ovkL
^Habschmann, Arm. Stud. I, p. 12, and note z); also Justi, Handb. d.
Zendspr. (1864), s. v. if.
' I have written an asterisk against Old Pers.*</f * for.' because Old Pers. does
not actually shew a word *di with the meaning * for.' We find, indeed, in Old
Persian a pronominal stem di- = * this (masc.),' of which the accus. sing, dim
and the accus. plur. dt} appear [v. Spiegel, Die Altpers. Keilinschriften (1881),
p. 325]. These Persian forms are enclitic (v. Justi, op. cit., s. v. di). With
this Old Persian stem di- Justi (1. c.) and Jackson (Avesta Reader, 1893, p. 73)
identify Avestic di-, which also is an enclitic pronoun, third person (v. Jackson,
1. c). Now it is obvious that this Avestjc <&'- cannot be identified with Avestic
si f f, Skr. Ai »M, Gk. x'^* from Idg. *f ^ , hence from these we must separate
also Old Pers. di- (if this latter is identical with Avest. di-). But the Old
Pers. form *di 'for' may quite regularly be referred to *g^M [v. HQbschmann,
Arm. Stud. (1883), I, p. 12, note i ; Brugmann, Grundr. I, §405], hence it is
possible that Old Pers. *di *for' from Idg. *fAi fell together with the
(etymologically) quite different stem which was represented in Avest. and Old
Pers. by di- ' this,' and hence lost its own, apparently Prim. Aryan (Skr. and
Avest.), meaning 'for.' Indeed, if I am right in assigning the meaning ' this '
to Idg. *gki (v. supra. §8, p. 63), it is possible that Old Pers. *di, in contrast to
Skr. Ai -H and Avest. A if, never reached the development of meaning * for,'
and hence all the more easily fell together with the synonymous (but etymo*
logically different) form, Old Pers. di* * this.'
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
66 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
dedicate, sacrifice' from hlgkey^- *pour/ lizum *I lick' (: Skr.
leh-mt). If this rule is correct, we can only derive Arm. zi from
Idg. *gki by supposing that *ghi was already in Idg. so
closely attached to any preceding word which ended in a vowel
that the compound thus formed came to be regarded as a word-
unity,^ and that later in some of the individual developments of
Idg. the compound split up again, e. g. Arm. zi Avest. zl zl Skr.
hi, contrasted with Avest. _y<?--8l ye-zl Mf Skr. nahi nahi Gk. owx*,
where the compound form has remained. Perhaps, however,
the rule, as stated by Hiibschmann and Brugmann (v. supra), is
too narrow.*
Besides Arm. zi * for ' we find also in Armenian zi = ori, zif =
ri; Hiibschmann, Arm. Stud. I, p. 12, says that if we identify
Arm. zi 'for' with Skr. hi Avest. zl *for' we must separate it
from zi =STiy zif ==ti; I cannot see from what other original
than *ghi we can derive these latter; the original meaning of
Idg. *ghi appears to be *this' (v. supra, §8, p. 63), from which
the transition to the meaning on is easy enough, although the
transition to the meaning Wy is, I admit, not quite so clear. But,
after all, it is much the same difficulty as we have in the transition
* In view of the fact that Skr. At -At Avestic a gi Greek -x^ ^^^ always (so
to speak) ' postposition-particles/ this would not be a very rash assumption.
'Ann. Mard 'adornment' I would derive from Idg. ^ghr-tu-^ and identify
(save for the suffix, on which see Biugmann, Gr. II, §108, p. 327) with Gk.
;tap-rd-c ' delightful, in which one takes pleasure,' ^gher^ which is seen also in
Skr. Adr-yaM * takes pleasure in' Gk. x^P^i Umbr. heris * vis' heriest (fut.)
'volet/ Osc. heriiad 'velit.' Thus the relation between Arm. sar-d from
*gAr.tu- and Gk. ;^:ap-T6-f from *gA^'td'S is exactly the same as that between Skr.
^'tU'} and Skr. r-td-s. Thus Arm. sard means primarily 'something in which
one takes a delight, has pleasure.' So too Skr. Airariya (for *Aaranya ?), Avest.
zaranya 'gold* (Pr. Iran. *sArranya) are also traceable to this ^gAer- (cf.
Whitney, Skr. Roots, p. 203, s. v. Aat), and originally meant * something in
which one takes pleasure.'
If the derivation of Arm. zi from Idg. *gAi, and of Arm. zard from Idg.
*gAr.tU' is correct, then the rule concerning the Armenian representation of
initial Idg. gA as stated by Hiibschmann and Brugmann is too narrow.
What, again, is the explanation of the so-called 'prefix' z which so often
occurs in Armenian, e.g. z-erc-ani-m *I free myself* (HQbschmann, Arm. Stud.
I, p. 31). z-ge-uu-m * I dress myself x-gest 'dress' |/w/- 'dress' (Habschmann,
op. cit., p. 30), z-air-ana-l 'to be in a passion' beside air-tl* to burn' (Hflbsch-
mann, op. cit, p. 12)? Cf. also the accusatives z-is 'me' z-A'tz 'thee' t-m<s
'us' Z'j'ez 'you' (HQbschmann, op. cit., p. 70); vide on the subject HQbsch-
mann, Arm. Stud., p. 12, where he refers to his Kasuslehre, p. 317.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN HAUD AND GREEK OT. 6/
of meaning between Gk. n (indef.) : Gk. W; (interrogOi both of
which come from the same original Idg. form.
§io. The c of Armenian 6c *noC
Before concluding the present investigation, it will be well to
add a short remark on the c of Arm. oc *not,' which I would
analyse o-c}
I will not venture to explain the difficult vocalism of o-c (of
which, by the way, I can find no mention in Brugmann's Grund-
riss). Arm. oc has long been compared with Gk. olKt and de
Lagarde, Arm. Stud., p. i8i, regarded their identification as
"richtig Oder doch in hohem grade wahrscheinlich." Hubsch-
mann, however, is undoubtedly right in holding (Arm. Stud. I,
p. 13) that **oc 'nicht' = gr. ovk zu setzen, ist aus lautlichen
Griinden im hochsten Masse bedenlich." If (as I believe to be
the correct view) Gk. ov represents Idg. *<?^,* the o- of o-c certainly
cannot be identified with Gk. ov, seeing that 0 is never the Arme-
nian representative of Idg. *ou (for the true representation of
which in Armenian, see Hiibschmann in Zeitschr. d. Deutsch.
Morgenl. Ges. XXXV, i88i, p. 172, and Arm. Stud. I, 1883, p.
62; Brugmann, Grundr. I, 1886, §63; Bartholomae in Bezz.
Beitr. XVII, 1891, p. 99). Nor can Bugge's attempt to derive
oc firom Arm. *dc from Arm. *auc bom Idg. *au- (Kuhn's
Zeitschr. XXXII, 1893, p. 30) be accepted ; this will be manifest
fi'om the following communication, which I have received from
Prof. Hiibschmann himself, concerning (i) the examples which
Bugge cites in support of his etymology, (2) the Armenian
representation of Idg. a^-: '*Arm. sosk heisst 'bios, allein, leer'
und hat mit skr. stiika-, etc., nichts zu ihun. Ob arm. 60c
^ The first member of Arm. o-c, namely 0-, is never (like Gk. ov) used inde-
pendently. Bnt it is interesting to note that the second member, namely f , is
used independently, instead of the full form cic, frequently with verbs and
sometimes with substantives, e. g. Arm. c-astvac * not god,* i. e. * idol.' Cf.
also the Old Armenian proper-name C-unak^ Catholicos. successor of Nerses,
'not-having/ i. e. 'poor' (v. Hiibschmann, 'Die altarm. Personennamen,' in
Festgruss an Rudolf von Roth, 1893). Curiously enough, the same phenom-
enon is visible in Modern Greek where Old Greek ov6kv appears as 6tv^ the
tmly negative part of the word having been dropped off. without the meaning
being thereby affected. Examples of the same phenomenon occurring in
other languages will be found in Ziemer, Vergl. Synt. der Idg. Comparation
(1884), p. 186, and note I.
»Vid.supra,§4,p. 51-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
68 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
'Flamme' zu n-t^avarxtt gehort ist gl^ichfalls nicht sicher und
beweist jedenfalls fiir arm. o = ursp. au nichts. £s giebt bisher
kein sicheres Beispiel fiir die Gleichung arm. o = ursp. a»."
In discussing the c of o-c we are on firmer ground. In
Armenian, which does not labialise the velars, Idg. q (except after
a nasal or liquid) becon>es regularly k^ k\ but c from k before
original e- and f-vowels (see Hiibschmann in Zeitschr. d. Deutsch.
Morgenl. Ges. XXXV 172 f., and Armen. Stud. I, pp. 66, 67 ;
Brugmann, Or. I, §455). Thus we hiay derive the c of Arm. o-c
from Idg. *qi (: Gk. n, cf. o0-ti) or Idg. *qe (: Gk. re, cf. 00-re).
Bugge, in Kuhn's Zeitschr. XXXII, p. 31, comparing Arm. ack^
beside Gk. ^o-orc from *6k^€, thinks that the c of Arm. oc can
correspond to the -ici of Greek ov-ict; but he is, I think, at fault
herein; for, whereas Arm. c cannot be the outcome of an Idg. k
(v. Brugmann, Gr. I, §§380, 408), the -m which occurs in ov-m
iroXXa-M, etc, and in the Greek numerical adverbs such as rfrpaxi
ircyram, etc., comes from the Idg. demonstrative stem *ki' (v.
supra, §8, p. 63) and not from the Idg. interrogative and indefinite
pronominal stem *qi'} Hence we must separate the c of Arm.
O'C from Gk. •«, and identify it with Gk. r* (from Idg. *qi) or re
(from Idg. *qe).
§11. Classificaiicn of the farms discussed in the foregoing
§§8-io.
The forms which we have been discussing in §§8-io (incl.) may
be classed accordingly : —
I.
Idg. *^^-*lt.:
Lat. -ce in ^ho-i-ce (whence hie) from the Idg. demonstrative
pronominal stem ^ko- ' this.'
Gk. -M in ov-ici, nom. ace. sing. neut. of the Idg. demonstrative
pronominal stem *&- 'this"; cf. Goth. AiV(-a), Ags. A//,
O.Norse hii(i) *this (neut.)/ and Lith. sal-s O.C.Sl. si
O.Ir. ce 'this (masc.)."
Gk. 'K in ol'K, abridged from -kI in ov-ju.*
*■ If Greek -tu were from Idg. *^'-, as is assumed by Wackemagel (in Kuhn's
Zeitschr. XXV, p. 286 f.) and J. Schmidt (Pluralb., p. 352), all the Greek
dialects except Thessalian must have had -ri in place of it (v. Brugmann, Gr.
Ill, §182. p. 49 and note i, §409, p. 330. Engl. edit.).
'Supra, §8 {a) (i), s. v. oif-id, p. 63, and (6) text and note, p. 64.
* Supra, §8 (^), note, p. 64. * Supra, §8 (a) (2) ad fin., p. 64.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
LATIN HAUD AND GREEK OT.
69
11.
Lat. hO' in ^tV (from ^ho-i-ce) from the Idg. demonstrative
pronom. stem ^gho- 'this.'*
Skr. ht (and -Aft*^
Avest.-arl (and -aril)*
Arm. zi*
Gk. -;(i in ov-^t'
Nom. ace. sing neut. of the Idg. demonstr.
pronom. stem *gki- 'this* (whence in
Skr. Avest. and Arm. the meaning
'for').
Gk. 'X in ov-x, abridged from -x* in ov-x»-*
III.
Idg. *qO' *qi' :
Gk. T€ in o0-T€ from the uninflected Idg. *ge 'how' (indefinite
'somehow' and 'as also' = 'and') of the Idg. interrogative
and indefinite pronominal stem *gO'y and identical with
Skr. and Avest. ca, Lat. -gue.^
Gk. n in oihri, nom. ace. sing. neut. of the Idg. interrog. and
indefl pronom. stem *gi', whence come also Skr. nd-ki-}
(for *nd'Ci'f) 'no one,' Lat quidy etc.*
Arm. c in o-c : either (i) from Idg. *qe (: Gk. re in o0-re), mean-
ing 'some- how,' so that ^-f = ' no-how, in
no wise.'*
or (ii) from Idg. *qi (: Gk. t* in o0-ti) 'some-
what,' so that O'C = 'not at all.'*
Lionel Horton-Smith.
53 Queen'9 Gardens, Lancaster Gate, London, W.,
and St. John's College, Cambridge; England.
* Supra, §8 (a) (i), s. v. <w-;r«. P- 62. • Sapra, §9, pp. 65, 66.
'Supra, §8 {a) (i), s. v. ou-;t*. PP- 6x. 62. and (b\ p. 64.
* Supra, §8 (a) (2) ad fin., p. 64. ^ Supra, §10 ad fin., p. 68.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTES.
Latin -astro-.
The material for the study of this suffix has been collected by
Franz Seek, Das lateinische Suffix aster^ asira^ asirum, Arch. I
390-404 ; cf. also Sittl, Zum Suffix aster, Arch. VI 508. Addi-
tional examples are also found in H. Stadler's article, Lateinische
Pflanzennamen im Dioskorides, Arch. X 83-115.
Previous attempts to explain the origin of this suffix have been
unsatisfactory. A criticism of the earlier explanations is given
by Schnorr von Carolsfeld, Arch. I 404-7. His own solution is
that the suffix -siro-j whether coming from -d+fro- (OsthofF) or
from substantives in -os+fro-y e. g. flusirMm>*flovostrum (Cors-
sen), was added to nominal stems, e. g. oiea-strum, halica-sirum,
and from these a suffix -asiro- was propagated. On the other
hand, Lindsay, The Latin Language, pp. 329 f., and Stolz, Histo-
rische Grammatik der lateinischen Sprache, I 543 ff., prefer to
follow Ascoli in seeing here the comparative suffix -iero-. Lind-
say does not concern himself about the 'prefixed -as-.* Stolz's
suggestion is that, in spite of the quantity of the a,^ these words
are to be derived from formations in -dius, e. g. ''^ped%iaster>
*pediidN(/)rO'^formasier>formdti(je)rOy etc.
The objection to all of these explanations is that they fail to
consider sufficiently the lexical contents of the suffix. The suffix
is of pejorative value and expresses the resemblance of the deriv-
ative to the primitive noun, and generally with a connotation of
contempt — 'a poor copy of.' This highly specialized meaning
and the restriction of the suffix to certain congeneric groups of
words suggest at once that we have before us a case of adaptation,
^This is one of his objections to yon Carolsfeld^s explanation. The
difficulty, however, is not serious, as there seems to be no evidence for the
quantity of the a except the analogy of adjectives in estus ; cf. Marx, s. v.
oleaster.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTES, 71
meaning by that term ''the infusion with some grammatical or
lexical value of a formal element originally either devoid of any
special functional value or possessed of a value which has faded
out so completely as to make this infusion possible," Bloomfield,
A. J. P. XII I ; cf. also for the general treatment and other
examples of this factor in language, A. J. P. XVI 409-34.
That adaptation had been at work in the case of this formation
was noted in the first of the articles cited above, but no attempt
was made to determine the mode in which it had operated. The
purpose of the present paper is to offer a suggestion that bears
upon this point.
In considering this suffix we must keep in mind that it belonged
especially to popular Latin and that its use was established before
the beginning of our records. Notice the manifestly secondary
character of the words that occur in the archaic period : filiaster^
pediiasielltis, parasiiasier. Consequently a chronological arrange-
ment of the. words would give not the order of their formation,
but of their emergence in literature, and accordingly we are
warranted in departing from it.
Excepting the names of plants, there is no class of words
formed with this suffix that does not make the impression of
being a secondary formation. But in the names of plants this
suffix seems to be quite at home, and has a very definite value.
Oleaster denotes the wild olive in opposition to olea^ the culti-
vated olive. The distinction is unmistakable ; cf. e. g. Verg. G.
II 182 and Vulg. Ep. ad Rom. 11, 17 and 24, where the two
translate aypuXaw and Ama; cf. also Isid. Orig. XVII 7. 61
Oleaster dictus quod sit foliis oleae similibus sed latioribus arbor
inculta atque silvestris amara atque infructuosa. So apiasirutn
denotes the wild apium, meniasirum the wild menta; cf. Pliny,
N. H. XX 144 Mentastrum silvesMs menta est; cf. XIX 159; cf.
also Arch. X 103 fuvSaarpovfJL = ^dvoa-fiof aypiogy III 3^ G* ^OT
pinasier cf. Pliny, XVI 39 Pinaster nihil est aliud quam pinus
silvestris ; cf. 80. Lotaster = wild lotus ; pyriaster is glossed by
pyrus agresiis ; Pliny, XVI 205 uses pirns silvestris. To these
should be added salicastrum. Pliny, XXIII 20 uses it to denote
a wild vine that grows on willows, but the Italian points to the
more primitive meaning wild-willow.
There is some slight evidence for a similar use with names of
animals. Du Cange reports a gloss caiulaster : lo cane sahaticOy
and Sitd's quotation, 1. c, from the Etymologicum Gudianum,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
72 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Alyatrrptog ai( iypiot^ looks like an imitation of the Latin under the
influence, perhaps, ofSypios. But pu/Iasira in Varro, if the emen-
dation be accepted, has only diminutive, and /^r^a^/^r in Aldhelm
only contemptuous signification.
Now, other formations of this kind in Latin are clearly adapta-
tive — the lexical value of the suffix can be plainly felt — and if this
suffix served originally to express the relation between the culti-
vated and uncultivated varieties of the same plant, I think it may
easily be understood how its meaning could be extended to
denote resemblance in general with the connotation of inferiority,
and how it might then develop into either a pejorative or a
diminutive suffix, and sometimes fade out into a mere expression
of resemblance or approximation. Thus *peditasUr is a * mock
iooi'Soldxtr,^ pkilosophaster ^di mock philosopher,' /^n/^nta^/^r ' a
man that apes Antony.' So too it expresses the fictitious relation-
ships yf/raj/fr *a stepson,' y^fVu/ra *a stepdaughter,' etc.; cf. the
German wiUe Ehe = concubinage.
The suffix comes back on the class from which it started, and
we have siliquastrum^ so called from its resemblance to the
siliqua: liliastrum planta lilii similis; ocymastrum herba ocymo
similis. Apiaster or apiastra, the name of a bird so called quia
apes comeduniy seems at first a strange formation. But it gets its
name (cf. Antoniaster) * Bee*s-fi-iend* by a sort of oxymoron.
Nothing, in reality, but another application of the principle of the
analogy of opposites, which will account for the development of a
meliorative signification as far as it occurs.
Finally the suffix was added to adjectives. It is interesting to
note the closely congeneric nature of the words. They are either
designations of bodily defects — calvaster, adcalvasier^ recalvasier^
claudasier^ mancasUr, surdasier—ox colors that lend themselves
naturally to such use — canaster, *gravaster,fulvaster and nigel-
laster\ besides these are only crudasier, novellasier and *medu
osier.
The next question is the origin of the suffix for the names of
wild plants. The definiteness of its lexical value leads us to look
again for the working of adaptation, and I would suggest that the
suffix came from silvestro- before its passage into the t-declension,
being added first to nouns like oleay and from these propagating
the suffix -astro-.
In confirmation of this view it may be noticed that the literary
expression corresponding to these popular formations is the use
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
-^c*^-
NOTES. 73
of silvesiris ; thus, pinaster : pinus sihesiris, meniasirum : menta
silvestris\ cf. the examples cited above. Notice also how in
English wild has almost passed into a prefix for the expression of
the same idea.
For the putting of the whole lexical value of an adjective into
its sufHx, I know of no good parallel ; but the process does not
seem to me improbable nor essentially different from the forma-
tion execuiian elecirocuiion *hydrocuii(m.
In conclusion I would call attention to the closely congeneric
nature of the group of words to which Silvester belongs : campes-
ier, equester, Fanesier, illustris, nemestrinuSy paluster^ paludester^
pedester, rurestriSy semestris (and other compounds), telluster,
terrestery vallestria. Lanesiris belongs to late Latin and it
stands alone. By the side of this group are agrestis and caelestis^
and it seems desirable to regard them, if possible, as belonging to
the same formation.
Brugmann, II 184, sees in these words the comparative suf&x
'terO' under the influence of the analogy of -^j-stems, and is
followed by Lindsay, p. 330. Stolz, p. 503, adopts the same
view, but considers eqtiester for ^equit-'tero- and pedester for
*pedit''ter(h more likely starting-points for the development of
the suf&x. At the same time he admits, p. 420, the possibility
(cf. Schweizer-Sidler, KZ. IV 309 ; Schulze, ib. XXIX 270) that
we have in these words, as well as in agrestis and caelestis^
compounds with sta-. This view would be supported by the
restriction of the suf&x in Latin: contrast the very different
range of -repo- with nouns in Greek; cf. Otto Keller, Zur lat.
Sprachgeschichte, I 150.
In neither case, however, does it seem necessary to divorce the
two formations. In the former case agrestis might stand for
*agrestriSj with dissimilation — in terrestris the conditions are not
precisely the same on account of the double r, while in caelestis
we also have a liquid in the first part of the word. On the other
hand, if we consider these words as compounds of j/a-, the differ-
ence between -stri- and -j/t- may possibly suggest the Aryan
forms : Avestan rafaestqm and rdpaestdrpm, Sanskrit rathe^kdm
and saTrye^ltdram; cf. Jackson, §§249, 330; Bartholomae, Altir
Dial. 82 ; Ar. Forsch. I 30.
Cath. Umv. OF Am.. GeORGE MeLVILLE BoLLING*.
yam, X897.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
74 american journal of philology.
On the Alleged Confusion of Nymph-Names.
Appendix.
In my paper on the above subject (A. J. P. XVII, pp. 30 sqq.)
I referred to Virgil, Eclogues, X 62, in terras which may be pro-
ductive of misconception. I said : '* What inference can be drawn
from the words which Virgil puts into the mouth of Gallus, Eel.
X 62 sq. ' iam neque Hamadtyades rursus nee carmina nobis | ipsa
placent ; ipsae rursus concedite siluae' ? Why should Gallus not
have sung of tree-nymphs just as well as wood-nymphs ? " The
purport of this remark was to point out that in this mention of
the Hamadryads there is a reference to Gallus' own poems, and
that consequendy the interpretation of the words involves as one
of its factors the consideration of the passage thus referred to. A
theme which runs through the whole of the eclogue is the inability
of the nymphs of whom Gallus has sung to aid him in his day of
trial. To pass over Arethusa (v. i) the puellae Naides (9 sqq.)
are reproached for their failure to help their poet. (It may be
remarked in passing that the language of 9 ' nemora — saltus' would
probably have been twisted into another 'confusion,' but for the
circumstance that Virgil, in the commentator's interest, has added
the necessary reference to water in ' Aonie Aganippe,' 12.) The
practice of making learned allusion to the actual expressions of
brother poets is a natural habit of Latin writers. It is hardly
necessary to do more than refer to the well-known passages, Ovid
Am. 3. 9. 58, Pont. 5. 16. 34 (whence Grattius 23 has been
emended), Statins Silu. i. 2. 255, Mart. 14. 193. 2, and indeed
Propertius 2. 34. 76, a reminiscence more or less conscious of
this very passage. Further down (52 sqq.) Virgil puts into Gallus'
mouth the words 'certum est in siluis inter spelaea ferarum | malle
pati — intereamixtislustraboMaenalaNymphis | aut acres uenabor
apros.' And it is argued that, because in the sequel to these lines,
which I have already quoted, Hamadtyades is used, it is legiti-
mate to equate Hamadryades with Nympkae. It might have been
thought that by this time the principle of poetic variation would
have been better understood. From the variation Hamadtyades
— Nymphae (which latter word includes strictly all kinds of
nymphs, and is of course not limited to 'wood-nymphs'), all that
can be legitimately inferred is that the ' Nymphs ' of v. 55 included
the 'Hamadryads'; and of course this of necessity neglects any
reference that there may be to actual words of Gallus. I have already
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTES. 75
(L c.) spoken of the impossibility of drawing any inference from
the phrase of Propertius, 'facilis — Hamadryadas/ which appears
to unite allusions to this passage (JHamadryas occurs nowhere
else in Virgil) and to Eclogue 3. 9 * faciles Nymphae.* There is
an allusion to this latter passage in a much later writer, Nemesianus
Cyneget 94 sq. ' tecum Naiades faciles, uiridique iuuenta | puben-
tes Dryades, nymphaeque unde amnibus umor | adsint, et docilis
decantet Oreadas Echo.' This place has a special interest, as it
distinguishes the Naiads from the Dryads and from the Hydriads
('unde amnibus umor')* An earlier writer on hunting distin-
guishes the Naiads and the Dryads, though he does not use the
latter name. The words are, unfortunately, corrupt, but should
probably be read as follows: 'adsciuere tuo comijtes sub numine
diuae | centum, omnes, nemorum, umentes de fontibus omnes |
Naides et Latii . . . Faunus . . . Maenaliusque puer,'^ ei q. s.
(Grattius, 16 sqq.). Cf. Calpurn., Eel. 2. 14 'aifuerant sicca
Dryades pede, Naides udo,'
A summary of our results may be appended. A Dryad was a
nymph of the forest or woodland, as an Oread was a nymph of
the mountain. The term is more general than Hamadryad^ which
means the protectress of a particular tree. A Hydriad is a water-
nymph. So is a Naiad, but with this difference of use, that the
word also denotes the protecting nymph (or Hamadryad) of a
tree growing in or out of the water.
The passages of classical authors which have or might have
been adduced to prove any confusion of the above uses are either
corrupt : Anth. Pal. 6. 189, Culex 94, Prop. i. 20 (excluding
those where, as in Anth. P. 9. 668, the error is obvious). 12, 32, 45,
Isidorus 8. 11. 9]^; or irrelevant. Amongst the latter we class (a)
those places where Nais is used for a Naiad-Hamadryad : Prop.
2* 32* 37 sqq*, Ov. Met. i. 690 sq.. Fast. 4. 231, Stat. Silu. i. 3. 62,
to which Nemesianus Cyn. 94 should (apparently) be added;
{b) those places where poetical modes of employing language
have been misunderstood : Virg. Eel. 10. 62, Prop. 2. 34. 76, Ov.
Met. 14. 623, Fast. 2. 155, Stat. Ach. i. 294 sq., Silius Italicus 15.
769 sq.; and Ov. Met. 14. 556 * Naides aequoreae.'
J. P. POSTGATE.
8
^ The MS has nomine diune | centem omnes nemorumentes de f.' The dots
indicate lacunae in the MS.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
76 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
V€fA€iv and v€fita-3ai*
Frohberger, ad Lys. XIX 37 and XXXII 4, distinguishes
between ptftMip and vifucrBai as used to express the division of an
inheritance, and lays down the rule that the active is applied to a
father (or guardian) dividing a property among heirs, the middle
to heirs dividing with each other. G. Huettner, in Acta Semi-
narii Erlangensis III, p. 107, asserts that this rule has its excep-
tions, and that the middle has the force of the active in Dem*
XXXVI 8-9 and Isae. I 16. Paley and Sandys, in Select Private
Orations II, 3d ed., p. 12, quote Donaldson, Gr. Gr. p. 450, to
the same effect and refer to eleven passages in Demosthenes,
Isaeus and Lysias for examples of ** vtfitaBai used in the middle
voice generally (but not always) of the heirs." They probably
rely only on Huettner's two passages to prove their point, as a
glance at their other references will show that in them all Froh-
berger's rule is observed.
Before undertaking to show that it is observed also in Huett-
ner's supposed exceptions, I will mention the two legal significa-
tions of v€fi€aBai (which are not to be found in Liddell and Scott)
and will give references for each.
1. "To divide with another or others." a, followed by irp6t
c. ace. expressing the other party to the division : Lys. XVI 10 ;
Isae. VII 5 and 25 ; Dem. XL 42 and 52, XLVII 34. d, without
vp6f: Lys. XXXII 4; Isae. I 16; Dem. XXXVI 8-9, 11, 32;
XL 14; XLVII 35.
2. **To take or receive as one's portion": Lys. XIX 46;
Dem. XXXVI 38 ; XXXIX 6 ; XL V 76. The passive in Dem.
XXXVI .38 belongs also under this head.
Turning to the two disputed passages, we find in Isae. I 16: ol
rovrmf ffnXoi . . • rf^low ptifuurBai ttjv ovcrLav koi t6 rpirov fupof ^fiat ^X'^"*
The usual construction of d{i« would require an accusative to be
inserted before v^ifiaaBai, if the two verbs are not to be understood
as referring to the same subject. But from Thuc. II 89, i, Antiph.
VI 46 we see that the subject-accusative is not absolutely required
after a{u», and conclude that it may be dropped where there is no
danger of any confusion arising in the hearer's mind. . Isaeus, in
the passage before us, did not fear to be misunderstood, first,
because rovnap and ^fias, denoting the two parties to the suit,
readily suggested a subject for the infinitive, and, secondly,
because no person is ever said either vtfitiv or vtfifcrBai who has
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTES, 77
not some legal right upon the property in question. The whole
tenor of the speech, and especially paragraphs 2, 28, 51, show
that the ^'Xot of 16 were only friendly mediators, urging a division
but claiming no right to make one. The writer could therefore
safely give to ji^Lovv the construction of Uiktvov ; he was probably
led to do so by the fact that the only possible subject for vtifuicrBai
was an 17/iar which should include both contestants, and he was
intending to use fifias emphatically of one side alone with the
second infinitive, Kx^ip.
In Dem. XXXVI 8-9 we read: \oyiC6fA€Poi irp6s tavrovs ol
tnirpoiroif ^t, tl de^o-ci Kara rat diaBffKag, ocr* hp cZrot in KoivZiv t&p
XpflfJMT€»p avaknofft Tovroig €^€\6yras dyriftoiptl tg \oiir6. vtfituff oid 6tiovp
Zarai vtpUp^ ptiiuLo-Boi ra tpB* vnip rov iraMs Hypturap. xal ptpoprai rrjp
SKkiip oifcrlap, • • •
Here the middle is certainly used of the guardians, but its
meaning and the nature of their action are defined by the words
wrtp rov woMg. As the younger son, Pasicles, was not of age, the
operation denoted by the active verb ycficir— a complete trans-
ference of property from guardians to heirs — could not take
place. The division here spoken of was indeed made between
the elder and younger sons ; but as the latter was legally incap-
able of acting for himself, he was represented by his guardians,
who, in their capacity of trustees, could properly be said " to
receive a portion of the inheritance on behalf of the child"
(ptfitcrBai vtrip rov troMg). A similar definition of the action of the
middle voice by vnip appears in Dem. XXVII 7-8, where the
orator says of his own guardians, €h y^p rrip avfApopiop vnip ipoZ
avprrd^apTO • • • trvprrifiifirapB^ vnip ifuw,
Wm. Hamilton Kirk.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES.
Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities, edited by
Harry Thurston Peck, M.A., Ph.D. Illustrated. New York,
Harper & Brothers, 1896. Pp. xv+ 1701.
The genesis of most dictionaries and books of reference is an interesting
subject for investigation, and the portly and comely volume before us is
no exception to the rule.
The preface leads one to suppose that the larger part of the biographical
and geographical material is based upon Anthon's revision of Smith's
Classical Dictionary^ 1852. It would have been more accurate to refer
specifically to Smith's Smaller Classical Dictionary (London, 1852) as the
source of a very large number of the minor articles which appear in this
work. An examination, for instance, of pages 78, 809 82 of Harper will
show the importance of this little volume in the compilation of the new
work. Several minor errors would have been avoided if an independent
abridgment of the Anthon revision had been made oftener.
The preface also states that the archaeological portion of the dictionary
is based in part, but only in part, upon Anthon's revision of Smith's
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities^ 1846. This statement is quite
correct, but the dependence of the new work upon that dictionary is slight,
and no serious injustice would have been done if special attention had not
been called to it in the preface. Nor will any one criticise the editor for
placing his main reliance in archaeology upon more recent works.
Certainly neither of the volumes revised by Anthon so long ago was
essential to the production of Harper's Dictionary. But this assertion
cannot be made of the third edition of Smith's Dictionary of Greek and
Roman Antiquities^ London, 1890-^1 ; nor of Seyffert's Dictionary of Class^
ical Antiquities^ &c., revised and edited, with additions, by Nettleship and
Sandys, London, 1891. In the absence of either of these works there
might have been a Harper's Dictionary, but it would not have been this
dictionary.
A few extracts are found in this work from the second edition of Smith's
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities (1848), but the drafts upon the
third edition have been frequent and copious. To illustrate the important
place which it holds in the production of the Harper, it may be stated that
about one hundred articles appear to have been based upon it under the
letters A and B, of which a large majority are substantially in the words of
the original. In a few cases the articles in the third edition of Smith are
identical with those in the second edition. In such cases it may be fair not
to emphasize the dependence of Harper upon the last edition.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEIVS AND BOOK NOTICES. 79
The topics are, however, treated in Smith on too liberal a scale for the
scheme of this work, and therefore the original articles have been cat
down, sometimes by condensation, more often by omissions. That is,
most of the articles from this source are, in the main, in the original words,
but with a less complete treatment of details. The editor has usually
made his selections and omissions with judgment, and in such a way as to
bring over the gist of the subject, though necessarily the abbreviated matter
sometimes makes the impression of incompleteness in comparison with the
original (e. g. Areopagus). This, however, could not be avoided if the
whole field of ancient knowledge was to be covered within the compass of
a single volume.
Of the articles drawn from Smith's Dictionary of Greek and Roman
Antiquities, third edition, may be cited a few titles as examples of the
prominent place which this work holds in the compilation of Harper's
Dictionary: Abacus^ Achaean League ^ Acta, Aes, Agrariae Leges , Atnbar^
valia^ Anulust Arcus (arch), Areopagus, Athletatt Aurum^ Balneae, Bona,
Breviarium Alaricianum.
The scale and method of the Harper have often necessitated slight
changes in order to unite properly passages not originally connected. The
editor has also exercised an independent judgment in modifying or reversing
statements (cf. Antefixa), in making many minor additions, and in numerous
verbal changes, sometimes obviously on grounds of taste, often without
any obvious reason. Such changes are especially common in the opening
lines of the articles.
Sey£Eert's Dictionary has for its field not only Antiquities, but also
Mythology, Religion, Literature, Art, and the Biography of authors, artists
and philosophers. Hence from its wider field and from the fact that the
scale of treatment of topics was satisfactory, the obligation to this volume
in respect to the number of articles adopted from it is even greater than
to Smith's Dictionary. For example, more than eighty articles under the
letter A are to be credited to this source. In most cases these articles are
transferred bodily, though with occasional verbal changes. Seyffert prints
Greek words in Roman letters, while Harper substitutes the Greek form.
In Sey£Eert the historical present tense is somewhat overworked, especially
in mythological articles, but the editor of Harper prefers a past tense.
Seyffert rarely gives any bibliography, but this is often supplied in Harper,
and sometimes illustrative references to English literature are added.
Among the more important articles due to Seyffert under the letter A are
the following : Acropolis, Aediles, Anaxagoras, Aphrodite, Apollo, Archi*
tectura, Archon, Ares, Argonautae, Aristophanes, Arma, Astronomia.
The obligation to Smith and Seyffert is, however, by no means limited
to the earlier letters of the alphabet, as a chance examination of almost
any page will show. For example, from Smith are taken also the articles
Caelaiura (seven columns, slightly reduced by omissions), Domus (thirty-
five pages reduced to sixteen and a half), Theatrum (the letter-press some-
what reduced, but some excellent cuts added), Vcu (twenty-five columns
reduced to five by omissions, leaving the impression of rather scanty
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
80 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
treatment for so important a topic in comparison with the original). From
Seyffert have also been taken the following titles, as well as others here
and there : Comoedia^ Education (the first four columns), Eisphora^ Fulcra^
Heracles, Musvuum Opus^ Otiracismus, Pkihsophia, Pictura^ Siatuaria Ars,
Tra^oedia,
Occasionally articles have a composite origin. For example, Augur^
four columns, of which the first half-column and the final bibliography are
from Smith, the intervening matter from Seyffert; Aquae Ductus, three
and a half columns, mainly from Smith (but reduced from twenty columns)
with a half-column from Seyffert inserted; Musica, six columns, mainly
from Seyffert, but with two-thirds of a column on Notation drawn from
Smith ; Servus, eight columns, of which six from Seyffert and a half-column
from Smith; Solon, mainly from Smith's Classical Dictionary, but with
additions from Seyffert, including references to Aristotle, Ath. PoL;
Boeotarchis, a quarter-column from the new and a column and a half from
the old edition (1848) of Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities. The effort to
bring the articles up to date, as shown above, under Solon, is also shown
by additions to the article Tkemistocles (from Smith's Classical Dictionary),
It would have been well to make similar additions to the article Archon,
The indebtedness to Seyffert is not limited to articles which the English
editors have simply translated from the original Lexikon der klassischen
Altertkumskunde, but extends also to original contributions or additions
made by them, as in the articles Fulcra^ Musivum Opus, Philo, and Pictura,
The preface expresses in complimentary terms a regret that similar addi-
tions were not made by the English editors to all the articles.
At this point justice to the editor demands the insertion of a paragraph
from the preface : ** In drawing upon these and all his other sources, the
Editor has allowed himself the very greatest freedom. Whatever he has
taken he has used in the way best adapted to secure the end he had in
view. When material was, in its original form, precisely suited to his pur-
pose, he incorporated it without a change. When change for any reason
was desirable, he enlarged, condensed, modified, transposed, or para-
phrased according to his conception of what was most needed in the given
case ; and as the greater part of his work was compilation rather than
original exposition, he wishes here to express his very great indebtedness
to the many books that have been drawn upon. No acknowledgment can
be too full or too comprehensive ; and if the completed work be found of
service to the student of the classics, this result must be very largely due
to the original sources whence so great a portion of the Dictionary is
derived."
This quotation accurately describes the method employed. The state-
ment is frank and comprehensive. There is no concealment. But it
remains a fact that very few people who consult a work of reference
stop to read the preface to it. And as quotation marks are not used,
except as they are brought over from the original article, and as even the
special contributions secured from American or foreign scholars are not
signed, there is no finger-post of any kind in the body of the work to dis-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 8 1
tingaish one class of material from another, or to prevent the reader from
getting a wholly wrong idea of the character of the book. Most students
will be misled in this respect in spite of the candid avowal of the preface.
Bat even if every one were to read the preface in fall and understand
thoroughly the composite sources of the work, the objections to the
methods adopted in making it cannot be regarded as satisfactorily met.
Both Smith's Dictionary and Seyffert's Dictionary are recent, both in
English, both prepared at a large expense of time, labor and money, and
both largely dependent upon the sales in the American market for their
pecuniary return. It may very well happen that such return will be
lessened by the new dictionary, and the question naturally arises whether
there was any arrangement with the English publishers by which this use
of their material was authorized. There is no hint of such authorization
in the preface. If it was obtained, the fact should have been stated in the
interest of both publishers and editor. In the absence of such a statement
no one can justly protest if the reader assumes that the borrowed matter
was taken without authority, and if public opinion fails to justify this
method of compilation.
It may be justly urged that there is a great mass of literary material
which is, in substance at least, open to the free use of all men without the
risk of criticism, and that all contributions to human knowledge made by
scholars and scientists soon become merged in the common stock. Per-
haps the matter in the old editions of Smith's dictionaries may be con-
sidered as belonging to that class. But will any one claim that six years
are enough for the completion of this communistic process ? It may, how-
ever, be contended that these works were not copyrighted in this country,
and so were legally open to republication here in whole or in part. And
that is true. Whether that fact changes the essential character of the
transaction is an interesting question in literary ethics upon which scholars
are likely to have strong opinions one way or the other. Certainly there
are people who are surprised to learn that the attractive literary wares of
foreign scholars need the protection of the law to prevent their being
offered for sale at a competing establishment in our own country.
It is not the purpose of this article to present any exhaustive examina-
tion and criticism of Harper's Dictionary. It is not possible within these
limits to review half a dozen important works of reference, but that is
what an adequate review of this volume would mean. But a few points
of some interest may be noted.
In transferring matter from other works it is inevitable that occasionally
the errors and questionable statements of the original article will be
included as well as its excellences. Only the most searching and coopera-
tive editorial scrutiny could avoid this. And it will not be surprising if it
prove that this volume is not wholly exempt from this kind of criticism.
In the article Metallum contributed by Professor Percy Gardner to
Smith's Dictionary of Antiquities the following passage occurs (not
repeated, however, in Harper) : " In one passage of the Odyssey (IX 391)
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
82 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
knowledge is shown of the process of hardening iron by repeated plunging
when hot in water." In the article Aes from the same competent hand,
transferred with slight verbal changes from Smith to Harper, may also be
found the following passage : *' The abundance of copper sufficiently
accounts for its general use among the ancients. We have a remarkable
result of this fact in the use of ;to^'^f ^nd x^^^^^^^v where working in
iron is meant (Hom., Od. IX 391 ; Aristot., Poet. 25)."
These two passages are consistent with each other and with the generally
accepted view that x^^^^i was used not merely in its natural sense of a
coppersmith, but also as a metal-worker in general (^.^. Od. Ill 432, where
it must mean a goldsmith, whatever its meaning may be at IX 391)- ^^^
in the next column of the same article {Ags) we find that the ancients
** seem to have understood the art of hardening it [copper] by dipping it in
water and exposure to air. There is a passage even in Homer which is
supposed to allude to this process (Od. IX 391)."
Superficially at least there seems to be an inconsistency between this
passage and that which precedes. If x^^-i^C is used in Od. IX 391, ** where
working in iron is meant,*' can it also be used in the same passage to mean
a coppersmith tempering copper tools by a similar process? Certainly
more clearness of statement was needed. The average student who con-
sults this article will fail to understand how the same passage may refer to
the working of both iron and copper, and it would have been well if the
writer had cited authorities. Still further, it would have been well if the
American editor had found space for the new evidence which has converted
a supposition in Smith into a certainty in Harper. For while Smith
cautiously states that the ancients **seem to have understood" the art of
hardening copper. Harper says positively that ** the ancients also under-
stood " the art.
The statement (from Smith's Smaller Classical Dictionary) in the article
upon Aristidet that he was recalled from exile after the battle of Salamis,
rather than before it, is, to say the least, open to question.
The statement (page 126), taken from the same source, that Aristarchut
** divided the Iliad and Odyssey into twenty-four books each," is incon-
sistent with the more careful statement of p. 837 that Zenodotus "is
thought to have been the first to divide " them thus.
The statement on page 13, taken from Seyffert, that the Acropolis is
"abont 200 feet in height" is seriously at variance with the statement of
page 149 that the hill is ** 156 meters high." In neither case is it stated
whether the reckoning is from the sea-level or the city below. The dis-
crepancy will confuse most students.
Mithridates remains son-in-law of Tigranes, instead of father-in-law
(p. 1584), as in Smith's Smaller Classical Dictionary from which the article
is taken. (The same error occurs in the Anthon-Smith and even in the
Marindin-Smith of 1894.)
Under the article Ostracismus (from Seyffert) it is stated that this
measure *' was introduced at Athens in B. C. 509." (Under Clisthenes^ the
date is B. C. 508.) It would have been more exact to say that though
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 83
ostracism was legalized at Athens among the measures of Cleisthenes, it
was first applied twenty years later (Aristotle, Ath. Pol. 22).
The plan of Salamis on a fairly generous scale was hardly demanded to
illustrate a five-line article in which there is a mere mention of the battle
of Salamis without any details. The map adopted, however, silently com-
mits the editor to the traditional view of the position of the hostile fleets
within the narrow confines of the strait. This view has been hardly tenable
since the publication of Professor Goodwin's paper in 1885 (Vol. I, Papers
of the American School at Athens).
The value of the Attic talent is almost as uncertain as that of the Amer-
ican silver dollar. Under EispAor a it is just |io8o; under Liiurgia just
I1180; under NumismatUs " about |iooo"; under Talentum ** about |xi8o."
Each of these articles is borrowed from SeyfFert, in which the value of the
talent is uniformly given as ;^2oo, or ** about ;^200."
Under Domus (p. 537, b) may be found the following statement : *< In the
palace of Odysseus the three hundred suitors of Penelope feasted in " the
fUyapov, This sentence is taken, with the rest of the article, from Smith's
Dictionary of Antiquities. But the Homeric account (Od. XVI 247 seqq.)
represents the number of the suitors as one hundred and eight with ten
retainers. That would seem to be enough.
No such book is free from misprints and minor defects. A few may be
noted : Artios for Athos, p. 16, 1. 1 ; Ephesian History of Xenophon for Epkf
sian History of Xenophon, p. lox, ^ ; the AcheloQs, instead of the Alpheius,
called the largest river of the Peloponnesus, p. 109, b\ Cleodctcus for Cleo^
dcieusy p. 127, a\ dpiratva for apffratva, p. 186, 3; prcufumium (twice) for
praefurnium^ p. 192, 3, top ; Wagen for JVdgen^ p. 200, a; (Iv. 30) for (lib.
V. 30), p. 219, 3, bot; Pergamun ior Pergamum^ p. 1065,^; Mount Vesula
for Visulus^ p. 1 1 54, a; the omission of Argolis from the list of districts in
the Peloponnesus, p. 1x95, a\ or for of^ p. 1223, 3, 1. 14; [B. C] 296 for
196, p. 1430, a, 1. 4 ; ^e<a for ^eZa, p. 1560, a\ confusion due to misplaced
commas in the article Eisphora, The revised spelling Munichia is found
under Athenatt elsewhere Munychia. Under Artemis is found the cross-
reference Elethyia. The patient seeker will finally find it under Ilithyia
(to which one article is devoted in the body of the book and another in the
Appendix). Under Barathron there is a very plausible cross-reference to
Caedes^ a title not to be found. Perhaps Ceadas was intended. The error
by which the Laocoon (instead of Dirce) group is attributed to Apollonius
of Tralles had already been corrected in the list of corrigenda in Seyffert,
but it is reproduced in Harper (p. xoi).
The illustrations in Harper are abundant and of a much higher average
quality than those found in Smith or Seyffert. In many cases articles
borrowed from those sources are supplied with additional as well as better
cuts. Poor illustrations are exceptional, but one marked instance is the
cut of the Vatican Demosthenes. The cut of Tiryns is not called for at
page 1068, especially as it is duplicated in its proper place, page 1587. A
few of the cuts seem to be mere embellishments of the book rather than
illustrations of the subjects. Such are some of the cuts taken from modern
paintings.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
84 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
The special contributions to this dictionary, according to the list in the
preface, number somewhat over fifty (counting alphabetical Abbreviations
as one article). They cover less than one hundred and fifty pages of the
total seventeen hundred. The special contributions of the editor are
additional to this amount, but no list of them is given, and there is no dis-
tinction in the printing between them and other matter, but his influence
may be traced in many articles known to be mainly borrowed, and often
the changes and additions are distinct improvements. Several of the
special contributions are from the highest authority in their special fields
and are models of what such articles should be. In one or two cases the
writer seems to have allowed himself, or to have been allowed, inadequate
space for the complete presentation of an important topic.
The scope of Harper's Dictionary is very comprehensive. It aims to
include under a single alphabet the subjects of Archaeology, Art, Biography
(including notices of classical scholars and philologians of the recent
centuries). Geography, History, Language, Literature, Mythology, etc. It
is thus a cyclopaedia rather than a dictionary in its scope, and, supplying,
as it will, the place of several books of reference, it will prove a great con-
venience to any one seeking information in an accessible and compact
form. The student will find in it a wide and interesting range of informa-
tion, attractively presented, and it will not occur to him to be fastidious or
even inquisitive concerning the sources of that information. Thus the
book will doubtless, as the editor hopes, *' be found at least to have done
something to promote the comprehensive, intelligent, and sympathetic
study of classical antiquity " in this country.
WlLUAMS COLX.BGB. O. M. FERNALD.
L'Inno Omerico a Demetra. Con apparato critico scelto e un* introduzione.
Di ViTTORio PUNTONI. Livomo, Raffaello Gittsti, 1 896. 8vo, viii, 165 pp.
It is unfortunate that the work of which the Homeric Hymns at present
stand most in need is also that which is most difficult to perform. There is
still opportunity for something in the way of illustration and interpretation,
though perhaps not very much. Dissection is always possible; here every
man can be a law unto himself without gainsaying, and establish his originality
at a comparatively small expense. The real struggle comes in the restoration
of the text, where leader after leader has fallen without catching even a
glimpse of the Canaan of correctness. Perhaps, indeed, we have come to a
standstill until such time as we may be able to enrich ourselves here also from
the spoils of Egyptian tombs.
The latest editor has chosen the easier way. He has not neglected the text,
though he has added no improvement of his own, scarcely even a conjecture
except such as result from and help to support his theories. Illustration and
interpretation he has not attempted, except incidentally. By far the larger
portion of his book consists of the Introduction of 134 pages, in which his
argument concerning the origin of our present text of the Hymn to Demeter
is set forth carefully and at length, though the author admits that he has left
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 85
mach to be done in the way of a minute criticism of each separate verse of
the hymn.
Signor Puntoni believes in his own theory, and has presented it clearly and
emphatically. This theory is briefly stated at pp. 2-3 as follows : The tradi-
tional text of the Moscow MS results from the enlargement of a more ancient
hymn, A, by the insertion of a considerable number of fragments of two
others, B and C, introduced and adapted more or less successfully by two
revisers. The argument of A was the rape of Persephone and the consequent
/^<C of Demeter ; the residence of Demeter in Eleusis was not included. B
resembled the hymn attributed to Pamphos (Paus. 8. 37. 9; 9. 31. 9; i. 39. i ;
I. 38. 3) ; its principal content was the irtvdo^^ not the frnviQ^ of Demeter, her
mournful wanderings over the earth, and her sojourn in the house of Celeus ;
the foundation of her temple at Eleusis, and the establishment of the
mysteries. C combined the motives of A and B in a version probably not
widely different from that followed in the lost Orphic KdpTr 'Apiray^,
Of these three hymns A was the oldest, C the youngest ; and the difference
in age is marked by an increasing use of non -Homeric words and forms.
Puntoni has catalogued these at pp. 112-^5, and finds in the fragments he
assigns to each hymn the following ratios: in A, 22 non-Homeric words
and forms in, 100 verses ; in B, 32 ; in C, 42 (fractions omitted). In the 55
transitional lines which he attributes to the revisers he finds a sufficiently
high proportion of 40 such words and forms to 100 verses.
At pp. 111-12 Puntoni gives a list of the fragments attributed to each of his
three hymns, which will enable any one who cares to examine his theory to
take a rapid survey of it, and therefore may be repeated :
A (the original nucleus) = 1-4+8-17 + 19-20 + 38-46*** + 62(?)-8i + 87-
90 + 305-335 + 337-351 + 370-394 + 404-413 + 433*^ + 441 -450 + 459-476
+ 483-484 + 486-489. Totol, 1 65 verses.
Fragments of B : 5-7, 22-23 + 30-37, 357 + 359-3^9, 82-86, 92-188 (to iroat)
+ 212-301, and probably 478-482 and 490-491 + (?)494. Total, 225 verses.
Fragments of C : 24-25 + 27-29, 47-54 + (?)*58. 191-199+ 202-211, 395-399
+ 401-403 + 434-440. Total , 48 verses.
Principal amplifications: 352-356, 414-432, 451-458.
The reasons for the assignment of each of these passages to A, B, C, or to
the contaminator himself, are fully and clearly stated, and in most cases rest
upon inconsistencies or incoherences of more or less weight. Occasionally
the criticisms are captious and unreal, as at pp. 77-8, where it is said that,
since Demeter had gone into the temple to stay {Ivda KoBe^oftivrf . . . fiifive 303
f.), the statement that Iris found her in the temple (3x9) is out of place (!). It
is but fair to say that this is the worst instance of a perverted microscopic
criticism in the entire introduction.
A detailed examination of the arguments here advanced is, in the space of a
review, obviously impossible. As it is not customary for any two investigators
to agree in matters of this kind, it would be necessary either to refute Puntoni^s
fundamental doctrine of contamination and interpolation, or else to propose a
wholly new analysis. It is a matter of curiosity, if scarcely of critical value,
to remember how Gottfried Hermann took up Creuzer's theory of five-line
stanzas in the Hymn to the Pythian Apollo, but made an entirely new set,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
86 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
which doubtless pleased him better (Jahrbb. 53. 355-73). That sort of thing
can be done indefinitely. On an a priori consideration of the matter, it seems
not at all improbable that a hymn which was used for ritualistic purposes
perhaps for centuries should have undergone extensive alterations and enlarge-
ments. Not is it at all impossible that an interpolator should have chosen the
method of contamination. There are real difficulties and incoherences in the
text of the Hymn to Demeter, as we now have it, such as ayytlJkowia 53, the
uncertain and shifting rdles of Hecate and Helios as informer, etc. Some of
these may be accounted for by the fact that we have the hymn only in a single
manuscript, which Cobet regarded as one of the worst known, though it has
latterly risen in esteem. Others cannot be so explained. But the theory that
the hymn can be analyzed into passages definitely referable to a number of
different pre-existing poems will probably be received with skepticism. At
pp. 71-2 Puntoni himself admits the possibility that an original poet might
have felt himself bound to introduce and harmonize varying versions of the
myth.
In his critical notes to the text Puntoni has in one respect rendered a
valuable service to the future editor of the Hymns, if not to the general
scholar. Though on his title-page he has cautiously promised only an
" apparato critico scelto," he has in reality recorded nearly all conjectures and
hypotheses advanced concerning the hymn from Ruhnken*s day down. Any-
thing so complete would be hard to find elsewhere, and everything is noted
with admirable conciseness and lucidity. Frequent protests have been
uttered in these days against the perpetuation of absurd or improbable conjec-
tures ; but, after all, every new investigator is obliged at least to read what
his predecessors have written, and in the 41 pages of Puntoni*s text and
commentary he will find nearly everything, and save himself a deal of note-
taking. Puntoni, however, is ignorant of Brunck, Peppmtlller, and some of
the recent English and Irish contributions inspired by the Goodwin-Allen
edition.
— iroA^i yap 66bv irp^covatv dSlrai^
rw ol fihf Kwcd froAAd fxefia&reCt ol di ft&k* to6X&,
^Tuaiv ;faA«rdv 6i dafjfievai ktrnv eKoarov,
In the last-mentioned monumental edition, which might well have been
somewhat less monumental in size and price, we have the latest results of a
conservative textual criticism. Puntoni has due reverence for this work, and
except for a less liberal punctuation, and the absence of paragraphing, differs
from it in not many important passages. The principal ones are as follows:
10. The editor keeps, with Gemoll, the MS aipof rdre.
46. The MS olf oiuvav tic ^ is retained.
87. Puntoni prints ^furavaierai, but believes that fieravaierdetv was the
reading of A, 8a-6 belonging to B. Goodwin reads, after Voss, fieravaierdei,
Valckenaer proposed fiira vaier&eiv, and the presence of 82-6 does not
necessarily exclude the infinitive.
115. irtXvp Hermann, Puntoni ; irtXva^ M ; TriXvoffoi Voss, Goodwin. iriXvaoai,
which has also Cobet's authority, is preferable.
118. In the confusion regarding the daughters of Celeus, Puntoni keeps the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 8/
137. Pantoni does not, like Hermann, Goodwin, and others, see a lacuna
after this verse, nor does it appear especially necessary. Hermann's other
suggestion, delirvov cf rfprivovro, or Voss's (T hrhvovro, restores the connection,
and an intermediate action does not seem called for. Puntoni, however,
follows M.
137-8. Puntoni keeps the MS efie & aif olicreipaTe . . . riuv irpd^ 66ftaff
Uufioij which is of course impossible. But what is to be done with it?
an. SaitK kveK£v is retained, and a lacuna marked after the verse. Voss's
Mptf^ adopted by Goodwin, is not convincing.
227. dphlfu' KxA) ftiv, the reading of M, is given. Hermann's dphJHu or
Goodwin's Opk-^ltowf would be better. It is needless to say that Puntoni has
done nothing for 228-9.
236. Puntoni does. not mark a lacuna.
269. Puntoni gives adavdroic Ovrrroiai r' bvtiap Koi x^Pf^ rirvKTai, Goodwin
rightly places a mark of desperation at bveiap. The animated controversy in
recent numbers of the Classical Review has left matters where they stood. It
is not clear how Puntoni reads bvetap,
328. TifA&q ff ag Ksv i?joiTo fisi' adavdroiaiv iXiaOcu, Puntoni fails to observe
in his critical note that the reading of M is ag k' ediXotro. kbv iXotro is
Hermann's.
344-5. The reading of M, i& kif arXfymv | ipyotc deuv ficucdpuv fUfrieeTO
PovXy^ is repeated with two daggers, as by Goodwin. I should almost venture
to introduce Btlcheler's ctt dr^^otc | ipyotg <ola> 6eov fuucdpuv furriaaro Povkif
into the text. It gives exactly the sense which we look for, with less violent
alterations than any other conjectures of satisfactory meaning. The purport
of the passage is clear: Persephone was suffering (i) from longing for her
mother, (2) at the intolerable treatment inflicted upon her by the will of the
gods. V. 345 lacks either two or three syllables, and they may be supplied
either by the insertion of a word, or by the substitution of a longer word for a
shorter. The former method commends itself. Furthermore, fpyoTg ^eav
suggests that the two syllables have been lost here. A relative is necessary
to give the meaning expressed above ; and dia answers the purpose not only
metrically, but admirably in sense. The other changes are not difficult.
364. Puntoni finds the MS hGdS' lovaa appropriate to the position he gives
to vv. 359-69 in B.
428. oowep Kpdioov is kept. Goodwin adopts the inreipoxov of Voss.
490-95. Puntoni reads the sing, throughout, though, as these verses are in
his view patchwork, it is not a matter of great importance.
The editor has done well in making the numbering of his lines agree with
the actual number of verses. There was no reason why the Goodwin-Allen
edition should follow the erroneous numbering of the manuscript.
Puntoni justly says that Goodwin's supplement of the lacuna in w. 387-99
is the best that has been offered, though it does not entirely square with his
theories. Puntoni himself is very shy of attempting Greek composition.
What he can do in that line is shown by his attempt on p. 77 : 'RvfioXirift r* &p*
afivfiovt Kal KeXe^ Ao^;t9 ^^ (•)• '^his lack of feeling for the caesura has
allowed him to print the reading of M in v. 203 : troAAa trapaoKCmrovaa Tpi^ffaro
ir&rviav ayvffv^ where other editors rightly change, with Voss, to rcapcujKCinrovo'
irpiffMiTO,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
I
88 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Whatever the value of his results, the editor has worked at his material
faithfully and conscientiously. His scrupulousness has extended even to the
proof-reading, affording a striking contrast to the slovenliness of GemoU,
whose otherwise valuable edition is as full of misprints as a country news-
paper. Few typographical errors have been noticed in Puntoni : h^pa appears
in the text, v. io6, as Zi>^pa, A wrong citation, copied from Hermann without
correction on p. 54, might arouse suspicion ; but this suspicion is not elsewhere
confirmed.
Charles J. Goodwin.
Handbooks on the History of Religions. Edited by Morris Jastrow, Jr.
Vol. I. The Religions of India, by Edward Washburn Hopkins.
Boston, Ginn & Co., 1895.
In a prefatory note to this first volume, Professor Jastrow outlines the plan
of the series of Handbooks in which he desires to present to students of the
history of religions the results of the scholarly activity of recent years in the
several departments concerned. Each volume is to include an account of
the sources and the method of study, and a chapter on the land and people,
** presenting those ethnographical and geographical considerations, together
with a brief historical sketch of the people in question, so essential to an
understanding of intellectual and religious life ever3rwhere." The main
portion of the work is to present in greater detail a description of the beliefs —
the pantheon, the relation to the gods, views of life and death — the official
rites and popular customs, the religious literature and architecture, followed
by a general estimate of the religion, its history and the relation it bears to
others. In each instance a full bibliography, an index and the necessary
maps and illustrations will be provided.
It is much to be regretted that Professor Hopkins has not allowed himself
the space necessary for the generous treatment suggested by the editor. The
length of time through which we can trace the course of religious ideas and
practices in India and the manifold character of the native developments give
a special interest and importance to the study of the Indian religions, the con-
sideration of which might well claim in this series more than a single volume.
Within these narrow limits, Barth, with whose admirable sketch the present
work challenges comparison, has succeeded only by careful abstinence from
the discussion of all matters not of the first importance and by rigorous exclu-
sion of illustrative citations from his text. Professor Hopkins, however,
writing for "students ignorant of Sanskrit who yet desire independently to
examine and to make their own the very words of the Hindu sages," desires
not merely to summarize but ** to open up the religions of India from within
and in orderly succession to explain them as they display themselves."
The order of treatment, accordingly, follows what the author conceives to
have been the (order of development. The difficulty of the undertaking is
apparent. •* For [none of the native religious works has one a certain date.
Nor is there for any one of the earlier compositions the certainty that it
belongs, as a whole, to any one time. The Rig Veda was composed by suc-
cessive generations ; the Atharvan represents different ages ; each Brahmana
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
appears to b<
have been in
epic is the ¥
represent co]
each individi
case of the ]
a quo, and ev
First with
assign the composition of the hymns of the Rig- Veda ? Are they the work of
priests, and were they composed for sacrificial purposes? Or were they made
"independently of any ritual, as their own excuse for being"? Professor
Hopkins warns us that ** the Rig Veda is not a homogeneous whole. It is a
work which successive generations have produced, and in which are represented
different views of local or sectarian origin ; while the hymns from a literary
point of view are of varying value. The latter is a fact which has been
ignored frequently, but it is more important than any other." **A large
number of hymns are formal, conventional and mechanical in expression,"
and ** it may be argued with plausibility that these were composed to serve
the purpose of an established cult" ;^ but in others is found " poetry, not great
poetry perhaps, but certainly not ground out to order, as some of the hymns
appear to have been." Mechanical hymns, then, are late. ** It must not be
forgotten that the ritual, as it is known in the Brahmanas, without the slightest
doubt, from the point of view of language, social conditions and theology,
represents an age that is very different to that illustrated by the mass of
the hymns. Such hymns, therefore, and only such as can be proved to have a
ritualistic setting, can be referred to a ritualistic age. There is no convincing
reason why one should not take the fully justified view that some of the hymns
represent a freer and more natural (less priest-bound) age, as they represent a
spirit freer and less mechanical than that of other hymns." Elsewhere, how-
ever, the existence of priestly families and of a litany prepared for the warrior
class by priests is recognized in the earliest period. And in describing the
several gods of the Rig- Veda the author refuses to adopt the method suggested
by the distinctions to which he has attached such importance. **After what
has been said in the introductory chapter concerning the necessity of distin-
guishing between good and bad poetry, it may be regarded as incumbent upon
us to seek to make such a division of the hymns as shall illustrate our words.
But we shall not attempt to do this here, because the distinction between late
mechanical and poetic hymns is either very evident, and it would be super-
fluous to burden the pages with the trash contained in the former, or the dis-
tinction is one liable to reversion at the hands of those whose judgment differs
from ours, for there are, of course, some hymns that to one may seem poetical
and to another artificial. Moreover, we admit that hymns of true feeling
may be composed late as well as early, while as to beauty of style the chances
^ Again we are told " Indra, most honored with Soma, and Agni, most closely connected
with the execution of sacrifice, not only receive the most hymns, but these hymns are« for the
most part, palpably made for ritualistic purposes ... In every family book, besides this
baksheesh verse, occur the older purer hymns that have been retained af^er th€ worship/or
which thty were composed had become changed into a trite making of phrases." Is a con-
trast intended here also between worship and ritual?
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
90 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
are that the best literary production will be found among the latest rather
than among the earliest hymns. It would indeed be admissible, if one had
any certainty in regard to the age of the different parts of the Rig Veda, simply
to divide the hymns into early, middle and late, as they are sometimes divided
in philological works, but here one rests on the weakest of all supports for
* historical judgment, a linguistic and metrical basis, when one is ignorant alike
of what may have been accomplished by imitation, and of the work of those
later priests who remade the poems of their ancestors."
Throughout the discussion it is assumed that the linguistic differences between
mantra and brahmana are wholly due to difference of time and not to the
varying usage of literary tradition. In the Brahmanas, it is remarked, ** religion
has apparently become a form, in some regards it is a farce " ; " the whole
moral atmosphere is now surcharged with hocus-pocus, mysticism, religiosity,
instead of the cheerful, real religion, which, however formal, is the soul of the
Rik " ; and this is " the only new literature which centuries have to show.'*
Yet in the same chapter there is a passing recognition of the limitations of
liturgical works. Again in the exposition of the law-books, documents of a
period subsequent to the pantheism of the Upanishads (itself later than
Brahmanic formalism), we are told that " there is a reversion to Vedic belief ;
or rather not a reversion, but here one sees again, through the froth of rites
and the murk of philosophy, the understream of faith that still flows from the
old fount, if somewhat discolored, and waters the hearts of the people."
Attention has already been directed to the author's inability to conceive
that priests interested in the details of sacrifice could produce anything better
than ** mechanical " poetry. He also hesitates to credit them with " a devo-
tional spirit that gave voice to genuine feeling.'* This personal lack of
sympathy with religious ritual has perhaps contributed to Professor Hopkins*
success in his exposition of early Buddhism, altogether the most attractive
chapter in the book, but none the less must be our regret that the whole body
of usages, the significance of which is made so evident in Oldenberg's Religion
des Veda, has been passed by with the simple remark that ** the sacrifice is
but show; sjrmbolism without folk-lore, only the imbecile imaginings of a
daft mysticism, is the soul of it : and its outer form is a certain number of
formulae, mechanical movements, oblations and slaughterings."
The failure to co-ordinate the evidence of the earlier texts has resulted in
a picture of ancient conditions inherently improbable and inconsistent with
the subsequent persistence of belief in India. The theory of " Hindu influence
on the Aryan mind" beginning in the late Vedic period is suggested, but
nowhere seriously supported.
Apart from such considerations of method in the earlier chaptevs, the book
deserves generous praise. The wide range of the author's reading in the
native literature and his extensive acquaintance with the work of Western
scholars are everywhere apparent. From his own more special studies he has
contributed not a little. Particular mention must be made of the excellent
chapters on the epic. Observations, too, such as are made regarding the
general character and the position in the Rig-Veda of the hymns in which the
worship of certain deities or the expression of certain ideas especially appears,
are welcome to all.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 9 1
Two other features of the book deserve mention here : the survey of the
religious traits of the wild tribes, an interesting supplement to the discussion
of the Indo-Aryan religions, and the bibliography, which is well arranged,
and will call forth the thanks of many students.
A. W. Stratton.
Vemer Dahlerup : Nekrolog Over Karl Vemer. Arkiv for Nordisk Filologi.
New Series, Vol. IX. Part 3.
Not a few great talents have been known as men of one book. Karl Vemer
is probably the only scholar of distinguished ability that is generally known
as a man of one article. Although the name of Vemer is a household word
among all students of language, probably few in this country have any knowl-
edge of the life and character of the man that bore it. For this reason, if for
no other, a brief account of some of the salient features in the career of this
so greatly lamented Danish scholar must be of interest to English readers.
Additional interest is given to the article on which this review is based by the
fact that it is written by a Dane, a friend of Vemer^s, and one in every way
competent to judge of the significance for linguistic science of Verner's work.
Karl Adolph Vemer was bom in Aarhus, Jutland, Denmark, March 7, 1846.
Even before entering the University in 1864 he had shown an interest in
the study of language, his attention having been drawn in that direction by
reading the life of his great countryman Rask. While at the University he
devoted himself chiefly to the study of the Oriental, the Germanic and the
Slavic languages. In the beginning of his course he had intended to pursue
the classics, and in spite of his later investigation of the so-called modem
languages, he always retained a vivid interest in the older tongues.
After serving in the army, Vemer went in December, 1871, to Russia, where
he remained almost a year, learning to speak Russian, and pursuing his studies
with great zeal. On his retum his friends induced him with difficulty to take
the master^s examination, for which he had the utmost dread. The next year
and a half were spent in his native town, his health not permitting him to
engage in any regular occupation. During this enforced vacation he wrote
his first scientific treatise, '* Nogle Raskiana" (1874). At the same time he
carefully investigated accent in the Slavic languages and in Danish, and out-
lined the changes in Danish pronunciation from Holberg*s time to the present
day, only the main results of which were published.
The account of the development in his mind of the law that was destined to
make him famous is so interesting that nothing but a full translation of it will
suffice. " According to a verbal account of Vemer*s (repeated to Dahlerup by
Hoffory and endorsed by Vemer), he happened one morning on getting up to
reflect that it was strange that the Gothic words /a/ot and ^fvpar had different
consonants after the root vowel. As he was just then engaged in studying
accent, it was natural for him to seek the explanation in this direction. He
examined the conditions in Sanskrit and found there ^7i/r and Mr<F/iir. He
had discovered the clue, which he quickly followed out." After briefly
explaining the law, Dahlerap adds : ** Vemer finished his epoch-making treatise
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
92 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
in the spring of 1875, and sent it in a letter dated May i to Vilhelm Thomsen.
Shortly before this he had learned that a petition for a travelling stipendium
had been granted him. On his way to the continent he remained a few weeks
in Copenhagen. Vilhelm Thomsen had immediately on receiving his letter
encouraged Vemer to print his paper, which he said would overturn many
accepted views. During his stay in Copenhagen, Vemer wrote his treatise in
German and sent it to Adolph Kuhn." The results of the publication of the
Ausnahtne in the following year are too familiar to require telling here.
Surprise has often been expressed that Vemer, the most famous philologist
in Denmark, should have had so comparatively insignificant a career, and his
fatherland has been reproached by those unacquainted with the facts for
having neglected so brilliant a son. As a matter of fact, Vemer was
thoroughly appreciated at home, and had it not been for the encouragement
of his many Danish friends he would probably have remained in utter
obscurity. Strange as it may sound, the discoverer of Verner^s Law con-
sidered himself a mere amateur, a dilettante in Germanic philology. When
in 1876 Wilh. Scherer offered to obtain for him a professorship in Germany,
he declined on the ground that he was not sufficiently developed for such a
position, and accepted instead a vacancy at the Halle library as assistant
librarian. Two years later he refused a professorship at Gratz, and it is
believed also at Strassburg, contenting himself with a promotion at the
library. It was only with great difficulty that Scherer induced him to apply
for the Bopp prize, which was bestowed on him in 1 877.
On the death of his old teacher of the Slavic languages, C. W. Smith, in
1 881, Vemer, again only after persistent urging by friends, applied for the
vacancy, and in August, 1882, he was appointed Docent in the Slavic
Languages and Literatures, six years later being promoted to Professor
Extraordinarius. A year before this promotion he was granted an honorary
degree by the University of Heidelberg, in 1888 he was elected a member of
the Danish Academy of Sciences, and in 1892 he was decorated with the order
of the Danebrog.
Even stranger apparently than Vemer's modest career was his comparative
unproductiveness. The explanation of this too is to be found in his character.
In a letter to a friend, Vemer once said, ' I have inclination to enjoy, but not
to produce.' (Jeg har tilbOjelighed til at nyde, men utilbOjelighed til at yde.)
His enjoyment, it should be added, was of a strictly intellectual character.
Like many men of genius, too, his interest was confined to the intellectual
process ; with the practical result he was not in the least concerned. After
having made a discovery he seemed to lack any desire to put it in proper
shape for presentation. His innate modesty, too, had much to do with his
unwillingness to publish the results of his investigations. Still another reason
is found in his extreme conscientiousness. Although after his appointment in
Copenhagen his only publications were two short articles in German journals
and a number of short articles on Slavic subjects in Salmonsen's Encyclopedia,
Vemer was one of the busiest members of the faculty. His conscientiousness
in preparing and attending lectures was almost painful. He practically
rewrote the Slavic grammars used by his classes, prepared exhaustive original
treatises on Russian accent and other subjects, and all for the exclusive benefit
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 93
of only one or two students at a time. Hr. Dahlenip states that Verner left
an enormous amount of unpublished material in this and in other directions.
It would be a matter of interest to learn if any of this valuable matter will be
published.
Hr. Dahlerup closes his sympathetic and illuminating study as follows:
" Not only will Karl Verner be honored as one of the foremost linguists that
the North has produced, but his great personal amiability will be remembered
by the many friends who with sorrow have learned of his early death."
Daniel Kilham Dodge.
II Processo di Verre ; un capitolo di storia romana. Di Ettore Ciccotti.
Milano, edito a cura dell* an tore, 1895. 240 pp. L. 3.50.
M. Tullii Ciceronis Oratio in Verrem De Signis, Publiee avec une Introduc-
tion et un Commentaire explicatif par Henri Bornecque. Paris, Colin
et Cie., 1896. 176 pp. Fr. 1.50.
The purpose of Prof. Ciccotti's book is mainly historical. By means of a
wide and careful study of the original documents he has tried to give a faithful
picture of Verres and his times.
The subject of the first chapter (pp. 3-21) is well suggested by Juvenal's
vivid line, VI 293, which serves as its motto, Luxuria incuhdt victumque ulci-
seitur orbem. It describes the great changes in the public and private life of
the Romans which followed the extension of their sway beyond the natural
boundaries of Italy and the establishment of their provincial system. An
influx of wealth, an increase of luxury, electoral corruption and plundering of
the provinces were among the first-fruits of that system. The provincial
governors had almost unlimited powers and the home government provided
no adequate check on their excesses; few of them showed the scrupulous
honesty of a Piso Frugi or were content with the Jeffersonian simplicity of a
Cato Censor. The second chapter (pp. 21-37) gives a brief description of the
way in which the Roman provinces were governed {gttan quaedam praedia
poptiU Romani) and of the arrangements made for collecting revenue from
them. Chapter III (pp. 37-57) gives an account of the various leges de repe-
tundis^ from the lex Calpumia of B. C. 149 to the lex Cornelia under which
Verres was indicted. Chapter IV (pp. 57-79) treats of the conquest of Sicily
(insula Cereris) and of the various relations in which the Sicilian communities
stood to Rome ; also, of the economic conditions of Sicily and the powers of
its governors. Chapters V and VI (pp. 79-106 and 107-44) give an account,
closely following that of Cicero, of the earlier career of Verres (homo amens ae
perditus) and of his doings after he was sent into Sicily {quasi in praedam).
The last chapter (pp. 144-235) describes the trial of Verres.
It is evident from In Verrem, I 37, that Verres was quaestor in Cisalpine
Gaul in B. C. 82, the year of Carbo's third consulship. Hence, ever since the
days of Drumann, Cicero's statement, I 34, that Verres was quaestor under
Carbo in B. C. 84 has been generally regarded as a mistake. Prof. Ciccotti
suggests that Verres was quaestor both in B. C. 84 and in 6. C. 82, that he
either remained in office for three consecutive years or was reappointed in
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
94 AMERICAN JO URNAL OF PHIL OLOGY.
B. C. 82, — a very plausible suggestion which he has since supported at greater
length in the Rivista di Filologia, N. S. Vol. I (1895), pp. 332-40.
With regard to Cicero's voyage to Sicily in search of evidence, it is dis-
appointing that an author who has the literature of his subject so well in hand
should make no reference to Zielinski's ingenious article "Verrina: Die
Chronologie des Processes," etc., in the Philologus, Vol. LII (1893), pp. 248 ff.
It is interesting, however, to notice that while accepting Cicero's own state-
ment, Pro Scauro, 25, that he was in Sicily in the depth of winter, Prof. Ciccotti
thinks that he returned to Rome towards the end of April. He may have
remained in Sicily for a short time after his task was accomplished because
of his eagerness to take his witnesses back with him. In many cases their
departure was hindered or prevented by the new governor, Metellus.
The most interesting part of the book is contained in the last forty pages,
where we have an examination of Cicero's assertion that defence was impossible
for Verres. The writer is not holding a brief for Verres; "la storia non
accusa, nd difende," and his purpose is historical. The frequency of this
assertion in the imaginary Second Actio suggests that the great orator was,
like some of Agricola's soldiers, promptus post eventum ac magniloquus. In
spite of his denial, the eonsuetudo accusatoria is manifest everywhere, and it
would be as unsafe to form an estimate of Verres solely from the elaborate
fiction of the Second Actio as to form an estimate of Warren Hastings from
the rhetoric of Burke, or the brilliant but untrustworthy essay of Macaulay*
Cicero himself tells us how much allowance had to be made for the coloring of
the advocate in trials in which great political interests were involved (Pro
Fonteio, 38-9). He is careful to assure his readers that the Sicilians are not
ordinary Greeks (II 7), but the majority of his witnesses were Greeks none the
less, and he himself knew well the value of a Greek's testimony in a court of
law (Pro Flacco, 11 -12). The first book of the Second Actio and the greater
part of the fifth have nothing to do with the matters for which Verres was
prosecuted ; the charges of the second book are only connected with those
matters by an obviously indirect, conjectural mode of argument,— jto/«//nif.
cipaiiier conuctura, as ' the ancient scholiast puts it. Many of the misdeeds
charged against Verres are moral rather than constitutional in their nature.
The most important factor in his condemnation was the political situation of
the time. Had he been brought to trial a few years earlier he might have
received a much more spirited and loyal support from his senatorial peers.
But the SuUan constitution which had conferred a monopoly of power upon
the senatorial nobility was now nearing its fall. It was a time for compromise
and the intransigent Verres was sacrificed to the political exigencies of the day.
Prof. Ciccotti is full of modern instances. The inevitable comparison of the
case of Verres with that of Warren Hastings recurs again and again ; the body
from which the equestrian order of Rome was drawn reminds him of the class
of francs-tenafuiers, or of the country burghers from whom Cromwell recruited
his squadrons of * ironcoaiis^ \ the popular excitement and political interest
aroused by the trial of Verres find a modern parallel in the investigation of
the Panama Scandal or in the inquiry into the irregularities of the Roman
Bank ; the retinue which accompanied each new governor into his province is
likened, to compare small things with great, to the host of political spoilsmen
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 95
who rise up after every presidential election in America to clamor for their
reward.
M. Bomecque's little book deserves a short notice in this Journal because of
its useful introduction. The study (pp. 20-40) of the works of art acquired by
Verres during his stay in Sicily is particularly good. The various statements
as to the chronology of the trial are absurdly inaccurate (p. 9, 11. 3-21 ; p. 19,
1. 23; p. 31, 1. 20; p. 74, n. 9; p. 77, n. 3; p. 152, n. 2). The commentary
borrows freely from the editions of Thomas and Halm, always with the most
ample acknowledgment, but seems to be intended for a much younger class of
readers. The proof-reading has been extremely poor.
W. P. Mustard.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS.
Englische Studibn. Heransgegeben von Dr. Eugen KOlbing, Leipzig.
XX Band, 1895.
I. — L. Kellner, Interchange and Tautology : Two Peculiarities of Old and
Middle English Style. At the present time, unity and consistency are con-
sidered the first requisites of a good style, and we should condemn such a
sentence as : *' The mob is cruel and they are ignorant." This principle is,
however, purely modem. The best writers of Old and Middle English not
only did not consider these two qualities as admirablCi they deliberately
avoided them. Holding that variety was one of the charms of style, they
sought this variety in ways that would not now be admissible.
I. Changes of grammatical construction, which can hardly be attributed to
carelessness or otherwise accounted for ; e. g. the interchange in the same
sentence of thou and ye, when this cannot be explained as a change from
formal address to familiar, or vice versa, as, "For I sawe you never or nowe,
but hau semist a gentilman," Gesta Romanorum, 208 ; interchange of tenses,
present and preterite, or preterite and perfect, as,
He rydys home to bat lady hende.
And told hur his tale to ende.
-^Ipomadon, A 4535/6 ;
use of the infinitive with and without the preposition, etc.
II. Similarly, tautology was employed, both in grammatical constructions
and in phraseol(^[y. Of the first, the double comparative, double negative
and double genitive (e. g. " in despite and repreef of Sir Tristrams," Morte
Darthur, ed. Sommer, p. 324, line 34) are among the examples given. Phrase-
ological tautology is seen in Old English in such phrases as habban and dgan^
hweorfan and gdn^ geseon and ongietan, etc. In Middle English its forms are
more varied, and may for convenience be thus grouped: I. Double forms.
II. Synonyms of Germanic origin. III. Synonyms of Germanic and Romance
origin. IV. Synonyms of Romance origin. Examples of I are weitawei and
walawa, swete and swoU, kysse or cusse ; of II, all whole ^ e. g. '* We putten oure
deede . . , al holly in youre goode wille" (Chaucer, Tale of Melibeus, 190),
both two, cUpen and namen, etc.; of III, fulfil and per/orm, hap and fortune \ of
IV, accept and receive^ pite and mercy, etc. The number of citations from
Chaucer*s Melibeus is very striking.
O. Hoffmann, Studies on Alexander Montgomerie. The point of departure
for the article is an edition of Montgomerie, 'The Poems of Alexander
Montgomerie, edited by James Cranstoun, LL. D., Edinburgh and London,
1887,' which for the first time made this little-known author generally acces-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. 97
sible. The article is in two parts: I. Montgomerie's life and writings;
II. The strophic structure of his poems.
I. Montgomerie's dates are not exactly known; he was born about 1545
(Cranstoun, in the Diet. Nat. Biog., suggests 1556, but doubtfully), and
died between 1605 and 161 5, so that the period of his poetic activity would
about coincide with that of Spenser, Sidney, and Shakespeare. He was
for a while a favorite at the court of James VI, whose treatise on Scottish
poetry seems to have been, if not inspired, at least greatly influenced by
Montgomerie's poetry. James makes free use of his poems, as illustrations of
his " reulis and cautelis,** sometimes quoting entire poems, sometimes a few
lines from them. Later the poet appears to have lost favor, and the rest of his
life was spent in retirement. This may in part account for the slight impres-
sion he seems to have made on his times ; but another reason is doubtless the
fact that much of his poetry remained in manuscript until long after his death,
so that the radius of its influence was necessarily small.
In treating the poems, the two long ones, The Cherrie and the Slae, and
The Flyting betwixt Montgomery and Polwart, are dealt with separately;
the rest are taken up in groups, following Cranstoun's classification into
sonnets, miscellaneous poems, devotional poems, and a collection of para-
phrases from the Psalms, called The Mindes Melodic.
Of the sonnets Cranstoun says that they show **a cultured taste formed on a
careful study of. Italian models." From this opinion Hoffmann dissents,
holding that, in the main, Montgomerie went his own way untouched by
Italian influences except such as reached him through the works of one writer,
Pierre de Ronsard, seven of whose sonnets he translated. He used some of
Ronsard's metres, and his ideas and expressions show Ronsard's influence.
This, indeed, in view of the great mass of poetic thought which was, as it
were, common stock among the writers of that day, might not be so significant,
were it not that it is with reference to Ronsard alone that we can trace
anything of the sort in Montgomerie.
In spite of the fact that he was contemporary with the great Elizabethans,
Montgomerie cannot be classed with them, but must be considered rather as
the link between the representatives of late Middle English literature on the
one hand, and those of so-called Modern English on the other. In some ways
he reminds us of Dunbar, while in others he is already modem : he imitates
the older verse-structure in his deliberate and extensive use of alliteration,
yet much of his verse can well be placed alongside of the best of the new era.
His spirit, too, seems often to belong to the past, as in The Flyting betwixt
Montgomery and Polwart, while in the love poems, for instance, or in his
descriptions of nature, we come upon wholly modem thought in wholly
modem expression.
It is to be regretted that thus far Montgomerie's verse-structure has not
been treated in the works on the subject. Schipper omits his name altogether,
and Lentzner, in his work on the sonnet, barely mentions him, although his
sonnets are quite as deserving of attention as Dunbar's.
Part II. The notes on strophic stractnre are of great interest, but it is
scarcely possible to do more than indicate their scope and character, without
giving them entire. Particularly interesting is the work on sonnet-structure.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
98 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Hoffmann assigns Montgomerie ft very high place among sonnet-writers, both
becaase of the command of language and because of the originality which
they display. One form — abba abba ccd eed — ^he was, if not the first, at least
among the first in Great Britain to employ. Another — abab bcbc cdcd ee —
which Schipper says is first found in Spenser, is used by Montgomerie in a
large number of poems, some of which certainly antedate Spenser's. It is
probable, moreover, that Spenser knew of Montgomerie's work. For it is
scarcely supposable that the author of * The English Poet,' a lost treatise on
poetry, should have been ignorant of King James* similar work, which was,
we may say, based on Montgomerie.
Aside from the sonnets, his poems show great variety in strophic form. In
some he follows familiar Scottish models, in some he adopts older English
forms as used by Chaucer and others, while in yet others he shows Renaissance
influence.
W. France, Syntax of Early Modem English. This is a continuation of
work begun in vol. XVII. The present number treats of prepositions. These
are taken up in order, and their use is illustrated by citations from seventeenth
and eighteenth century authors.
The Book Notices contain reviews of two more numbers of the Erlanger
Beitriige, containing a Tractatus de Diversis Historiis Romanorum, and an
edition of Chettle, Dekker, and Haughton's Pleasant Comedie of Patient
Grissil ; then follow :
L. Frflnkers Shakespeare and the Aubade, O. Rohde's The Tale of the
Hermit and the Angel in its Historical Development, C. Ferrel's Teutonic
Antiquities in the Anglo-Saxon Genesis, F. Liebermann's The Leges Anglorum
Saeculo 13. Ineunte Londiniis Collectae, O. Sommer's The Kalender of Shep-
herdes, L. Lewes' Shakespeare*s Women, P. Roden's Shakespeare's Tempest,
A. Tolman's Shakespeare's Part in the Taming of the Shrew, E. Groth's
Charles Kingsley as Poet and Social Reformer, and J. Wells' Oxford and
Oxford Life.
The two new volumes of the Erianger Beitrfige do not fall below the
standard thus far maintained by the whole series. The Tractatus, though
not so important as the Gesta Romanorum, is of great interest as being
another of those collections of stories in which the middle ages took such
delight. In the opinion of Hippe, the reviewer, Herzstein lays too much
stress on a relation between these two works, for, of the sixty-nine tales in
the Tractatus, only fourteen are treated in the Gesta. It is, however,
probable that all these collections, in Italian as well as in Latin, drew their
material, at least in part, from some common source. The text of the Trac-
tatus has come down to us in bad condition, and needed much emendation
from the editor. Of Patient Grissil an edition has been greatly needed, as
Collier's, 1841, no longer meets the demands of modem scholarship. Httbsch's
text is a faithful reproduction of the edition of 1603, with little attempt at
emendation except in the case of evident misprints. The notes are careful
and scholarly, but somewhat too scanty. The introduction traces the story
from the time of Chancer on, but, unfortunately, fails to give as exact a
description as we could wish of the rare works referred to. He combats the
theory that the drama in question is connected with Boccaccio's novella.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS, 99
Frankel approaches his subject "in the full armor of the comparative
method." This subject is the parting between Romeo and Juliet, act III,
scene 5. Nothing like this passage is to be found in English literature before
Shakespeare, but in Germany countless parallels existed, as well as many in
Holland and Flanders based on German models. It is with these that the
Shakespearean lines must be in some way related, though how the poet came by
his knowledge of German lyrics is not known. It may have been through his
intercourse with Germans in London, or, more indirectly still, through the
close commercial relations between England and Holland, which must have
involved some literary interchange as well. Frankel then makes a line-by-line
comparison between the passage in question and the German lyrics of the
same class, and follows this with a more general treatment, from the stand-
point of comparative literature. The book is, in Hippe*s judgment, not only
a worthy contribution to Shakespearean literature, but a welcome and sugges-
tive study in the history of the love-lyric.
Frankel gives a cutting review of Rohde's work, which he scores as almost
worthless because of the author's incomplete knowledge of his material, and
his failure to profit even by previous critical work on his subject. The book
is an illustration, first, of the danger of using second-rate reference books
and poor or superseded editions, and, second, of the fact that diligence by
itself, without breadth of view and the power to interpret masses of facts, will
not produce a scientific work.
Ferrel's study of Old English life offers little that is new, but is valuable as
bringing together in a systematic exposition what has till now been scattered
through the literature of the subject in incidental remarks. The scope of the
volume is sufficiently indicated by its main divisions, which are as follows :
I. Mythology. II. Christianity. A. God. B. Angels. C. Heanren. D. Satan
and his Companions. E. Hell. F. Paradise. III. Nature. IV. The King
and his Subjects. V. Kinship and Home-Life, Manners and Customs. VI.
War-Life.
The Leges Anglornm is a collection of notes on English legislation from the
time of Ine to that of John — a curious work, which must have been put
together between 1206 and 1239, though some manuscripts contain additions
from a later time, even as late as the fourteenth century. The thirteenth,
century collector seems to have tried to piece together from various sources a
history of English legislation, with special reference to the city of London.
His principal sources were : the larger law-records, i. e. the Quadripartitus,
the Leges Edward! Confessoris, the Leges Henrici I, and Glanville's
Tractatus temp. Henrici 11. These are given only in part, however, and
amongst them are inserted many other fragments, some also from older
records, some apparently fabricated by the collector himself to bear out his
private views. He must have obtained his material in the City archives and
the City library. His use of it is superficial and uncritical, and it is hard to
see on what principle he worked in making his selections. That his purpose
was not scientific but utilitarian is evident The aim of the work is the
furthering of certain great governmental reforms, and, in particular, the
glorification of the city of London. Liebermann has in some cases printed
the text of the various fragments, in others he has indicated where they are
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
100 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
to be foand. He has, moreover, pointed oat their sources where this is
possible/ and compared these versions with their originals. Though in many
respects faulty and inferior, the Leges Anglorum is, on the whole, to be
classed with Roger of Hoveden as the richest collection of early English legal
documents which we possess, and Liebermann has rendered a service to his
fellow-specialists in making it the subject of a detailed investigation. The
reviewer, Maurer, gives a rather full summary of the contents of the volume,
to which those who are interested are referred.
The Kalender of Shepherdes is of great interest both in itself and by reason
of its connection with later literature. It was first written in French, and
printed in Paris, 1493, with the title * Le compost et Kalendrier des bergiers.'
In 1503 it was indifferently well translated by a Scotchman, whose work was
revised and republished in 1506 by Pynson. Both these editions are given by
Sommer, the first in photographic facsimile, the second in reprint. The
introduction gives a brief history of the subject, a bibliography, and a some-
what scanty glossary. KOlbing, the reviewer, adds a few notes of his own on
one of the poems in the collection, entitled ' Of an assaute agaynst a snayle.'
This poem, which KOlbing reprints to substantiate the comparison, is evidently
an earlier version of the snail episode in the interlude of Thersites, 1537 (?).
In conclusion, KOlbing expresses his regret that Sommer's publications are so
generally ignored in Germany, and his hope that in future they will be better
known.
A comprehensive work like Lewes' has not of late years been undertaken
in Germany. It does not claim to give anything new, but rather a new
arrangement of what is already known. The book, however, according to
Koch, does more than its title promises, for it gives not disconnected portraits
of the characters, but estimates of them with reference to and by means of a
general survey of the plays in which they appear. Koch closes by quoting
Lewes' remonstrance against the kind of Shakespeare interpretation which
sees in every play a central idea, philosophical or moral. Such an interpre-
tation can never justify itself except by doing violence to Shakespeare.
Koch makes this statement the transition to a brief notice of Roden*s work
— a study which might well have served as the text for Lewes's protest.
Roden attempts to show that in the Tempest there is portrayed the spiritual
storm which disturbed Europe from the end of the fifteenth to the end of the
sixteeenth century. Antonio is scholasticism, which is arrayed with the
church (Naples) against the true scientific spirit (Prospero). Ariel is the
powers of nature, controlled by Prospero as science, and so forth.
Tolman's study of The Taming of a Shrew is interesting, not only in itself,
but as coming from a pupil of ten Brink. The case stands thus : The Taming
of the Shrew (TTS), whose date Tolman thinks lies between 1604 and 1609,
was preceded by a strikingly similar play. The Taming of a Shrew (TAS),
printed in 1594, written probably not later than 1588. Both plays, but
especially TTS, contain material borrowed from Gascoigne*s translation (1566)
of Ariosto's Suppositi. The problem, then, is to establish the relation
between these three. The general opinion of Shakespeare critics has thus
far been that TAS was derived from the Suppositi, and that TTS was derived
from the Suppositi and from TAS. Tolman gives a number of arguments
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. lOI
making for this view, which, he judges, has fewer difficulties than any other
theory, with one exception— namely, the view of ten Brink. Ten Brink's
suggestion, which he left undeveloped, was that neither play is derived from
the other, but both from a third, a youthful production of Shakespeare, ante-
dating A Midsummer Night's Dream. Wild as this theory seems, and wholly
without external proof, it would, if accepted, explain all the facts better than
any other. Tolman does not give a final judgment, but merely presents the
evidence. Koch, who reviews his work, though he too admits the difficulties
of the question, seems disinclined to take ten Brink's theory seriously, and
indeed remarks that ten Brink himself, in his last lecture at Frankfort,
appeared to have given it up.
A study of Kingsley is especially welcome because so little has thus far
been done on the subject, either in Germany or England. Groth's work,
however, though interesting and sympathetic, leaves much to be desired.
The treatment of Kingsley as a social reformer, for example, is unsatisfactory,
because the background — the social commotions of his day — is treated too
sketchily. The study of the novelist and poet is much more successful. The
biography, again, is weak, containing many errors and failing often in clear-
ness or adequacy. The treatment of Kingsley's relations with Carlyle, Char-
lotte Bronte, and Wordsworth is not full enough, while the influence of Scott
and Bulwer, of Dickens and Thackeray, is not even touched upon. Never-
theless, the work, with its attractive style and its sympathetic rendering of
the poet's personality, will doubtless appeal to a large audience, and may do
much to awaken interest in Kingsley.
The Miscellanea contains a number of notes of interest to Old English
students: LindstrOm discusses briefly the etymology oi preosi\ Pogatscher has
a note on the words bred weall (0\6. English Chronicle, entry for the year 189),
which he explains by comparison with the Latin of Beda ; Swaen discusses
the length of the vowel in seppan^ or sepan, Bttlbring contributes a study of
the quantity of the vowel before nd in Middle English verse, e. g. sendan,
rvetidafif etc. By the rime-test, applied to the three parts of Robert of
Gloucester, with uniform results, he seems to prove that in these verbs the
vowel is long in the present stem and short in preterite and perfect participle.
The rimes in the Ormulum, also, he finds to conform with almost perfect regu-
larity to this rule. E. Koeppel has some interesting notes on Chaucer and
Shakespeare : (i) Gower's French ballads and Chaucer ; (2) Chaucer's Anelida,
whom Koeppel would make queen, not of Ermony (Armenia), but of Emony
(Lat. Haemonia = Thessaly) ; (3) a striking parallel between The Misfortunes
of Arthur and Macbeth ; (4) parallels, almost as remarkable, between the first
part of Jeronimo and Hamlet.
II. — E. KOlbing, Contributions to the Elucidation and Textual Criticism of the
York Plays. Since the edition of the York Plays, by Toulmin Smith, appeared
in 1885, the attention of scholars has been attracted to this important but
corrupt text. Zupitza, Hall, Herttrich, and Holthausen have all done some-
thing towards emendation, but much work still remains. The reconstruction
of a text of this kind should be, so far as possible, the result of the combined
labors of Middle English scholars. The emendations here submitted by
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
I02 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
KOlbing do not profess to be exhaustive or final, but are put forth rather as
suggestions, looking towards a future critical edition of the text — an edition
which he hopes Miss Toulmin Smith herself may superintend.
E. W. Sievers, Shakespeare and the Pilgrimage to Canossa. Not Germany
alone has had to humble herself in the dust before Rome. England, too, has
had her Canossa ; the Pope was Innocent III, the King was John. In the
reign of Elizabeth this event must have been constantly in men^s thoughts,
for a like humiliation seemed, until the death of Mary Stuart and the defeat
of the Armada, not only possible, but imminent. That the struggle between
Protestantism and Rome would have made a deep impression on Shakespeare
we can easily imagine ; that it actually did so is proved by his play, King
John. The play must be regarded as the poet's cry of appeal to the nation to
stand by the principle of the new religion — that is, the exaltation of the
individual as opposed to the belief in authority. The central theme of the
play may be stated as the struggle, not only between a foreign pope and a
national king, but between the principle of authority and the principle of
individuality. Pandulph stands for the one, the other is represented fitfully
by John, consistently by Philip the Bastard. Pandulph — ^and the Roman
Church — bases his power on one of the ultimate forces of the human soul,
the craving for salvation. It is to this that he appeals in dealing with the
French king ; in this alone lies the efficacy of his threat of excommunication.
To subdue John, however, he must seek other means, for the English king is
untouched by threats of a power he despises. In his first attitude towards
Rome, then, John represents the Protestant principle of resistance to authority.
But to work John's downfall Pandulph relies on another human trait, the
instinct of self-preservation. It is this, he foresees, which will tempt John to
kill his nephew ; it is this which will lead the nation to fall away from their
king. All turns out as Pandulph plans, though— and here we are at the heart
of the matter — it need not have done so if John had been thoroughly imbued
with the Protestant spirit. For, though he is a usurper, he is a man far more
fit for the throne than the true claimant, Arthur. Realizing this, John ought
to have been strong enough in his self-knowledge to rely wholly on his proved
fitness for the place, and to see in the invasion of Philip and Pandulph his
opportunity brilliantly to justify his usurpation by arraying himself on the side
of the national feeling. But he does not trust this, and thinks it necessary to
make his right legitimate by removing Arthur. Thus it appears that, though
he is free from the tyranny of authority in one form, he is still under its
dominion in another — under the dominion, namely, of the principle of con-
ventional legitimacy. These are, then, the causes of John's, and through
him of England's, humiliation. One character in the play, however, remains
uniformly true to himself, to his country, and to his king : this is the Bastard,
who from his first appearance stands as the representative of individual worth,
independent of the conventional sanctions of birth and position. His phrase :
And I am I, howe*er I was begot,
is indicative of his character. In him, if anywhere, Shakespeare himself
speaks. His soliloquy, for instance, at the end of act II may be compared
with Aristophanes' use of the chorus. He it is who keeps a steady head
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. 103
throughoat the vicissitudes of the kingdom, who brings the nobles again to
their allegiance, and takes from England's defeat the sting of finality. In his
last words we may hear Shakespeare's warning to England :
This England never did, nor never shall,
Lie at the proud foot of a conqueror,
But when it first did help to wound itself.
. . . Nought shall make us rue,
If England to itself do rest but true.
In support of this interpretation it is interesting to note that the features of
the play from which it has been deduced are peculiar to the Shakespeare
version, although in many respects the poet followed the older play of the
same name.
A. E. H. Swaen, To Dare. That the verb in question is very variable is
seen in the fact that of the seven authorities quoted by Swaen, no two are
quite in agreement as to its forms. Its peculiarities are (i) the two forms,
dare and dares^ in the present tense, 3d singular ; (2) in the two forms, dared
and durst^ of the preterite, and (3) in the fact that infinitives governed by dare
sometimes take to and sometimes not. The bulk of the paper is occupied
with citations from English literature, from the sixteenth century to the
present time, illustrating the use of the word, with special reference to these
three points. The citations have exact references, and the whole is so well
arranged that the reader hardly needs the table of results that is appended.
The Book Notices include reviews of Kaluza's Studies in Old Germanic
Alliterative Verse, A. J. Wyatfs edition of Beowulf, S. Hewett's The Peasant
Speech of Devon and Other Matters Connected Therewith, A. Drake's The
Authorship of the West Saxon Gospels, J. Wright's A Grammar of the Dialect
of Windhill in the West Riding of Yorkshire, J. Groag's The Character of
Julius Caesar in Shakespeare's Play, P. Kreutzbei^'s Brutus in Shakespeare's
Julius Caesar, E. Frey's Robert Browning's Dramas, and P. Branscheid's Life
of Charles Dickens.
Wyatt's edition of Beowulf, with its scholarly notes, well-arranged glossary,
and index of names, is highly praised by Brenner, who foresees that it will, in
England at least, speedily supplant the German editions.
Drake's investigation of the authorship of the four Gospels yields interesting
results. His method has been to compare the use, in each of the Gospels, of
such words as allow variation, and hence are well adapted for this kind of
test, e. g. heofon and heofone, or ^tra and Y^ra, By this test, Mark and Luke
would seem to be clearly by the same hand, while Matthew and John are
written, if not by the same author, at least in the same locality, and certainly
not by the translator of the other two.
Brenner praises Wright's Grammar as a model, despite its failure, in some
respects, to conform to the German ideal. Phonetics is given its due space,
and no more, the system of phonetic sounds is remarkably simple and easily
grasped, and the comparisons with older English or Old French words are
interesting.
The two papers on Julius Caesar are reviewed by Koch. Kreutzberg has,
in his opinion, added nothing to what has been already done, but Groag's
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
I04 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
work is of interest. There has been a tendency among Shakespeare scholars
to the view that Brutus, not Caesar, is the true hero of the play, which there-
fore has not been properly named, and which fails in unity, because of this
confusion of interests. In different phases this was the view of Gervinns and
others, and more recently of Brandl. It is combated by Dowden, and now
by Groag, with whom Koch seems to be in essential agreement. Shakespeare,
who everywhere in his writing exalts the name of Caesar, had surely no
intention of making him appear weak, either to lessen the guilt of the con-
spirators er (Brandrs suggestion) as a foil to Brutus. In judging Caesar's
character we must take into account not only what he does and says on the
stage, but what every one else says about him— how the people feel towards
him. Even Cassius, fbr instance, can accuse him only of physical weakness,
while in the eyes of all he is unquestionably the hero, the man of destiny. By
this test he is restored to his proper position as the greatest as well as the
truly central figure in the play.
In his essay on Browning, Frey gives a careful analysis of all the dramas, as
well as some poems not in dramatic form — Pauline, for example — which are,
however, as the reviewer. Hoops, remarks, quite as much — and as little —
dramas as are some of those so entitled. He touches upon the influence of
Shelley on Browning, but refrains from any detailed handling of sources, or
any attempt at a final literary-historic estimate of the poet.
Aronstein, reviewing Werner's study of Thomas May, characterizes it as in
part superficial, in part worthless, and in part (the section on May's dramatic
style) tolerably successful. Branscheid's life of Dickens, though by no means
complete, is on the whole good, and, in Aronstein's opinion, well worth a
careful working over.
The Miscellanea contains a few English etymologies by Kluge, and some
notes by Wttlfing tending to support the theory of Hubbard and Wttlker that
The Soliloquies are the work of King Alfred. Kaluza contributes a highly
interesting note on the controversy concerning the authorship of the Romaunt
of the Rose. He defends Skeat against the charge of having ignored some
of Lounsbury's arguments, and reiterates his own belief in the 'absurd'
theory of a dual authorship. E. W. Bowen in a brief paper called Confusion
between d and d in Chaucer's Rimes, gives a list of the cases where such
confusion occurs, and where the only explanation seems to be that Chaucer
gave way to the exigencies of the verse. Perhaps the most interesting contri-
bution is Koch's brief note on Shakespeare and Lope de Vega. The occa-
sion of it is the appearance (Berlin and Weimar, 1894) of Arturo Farinelli's
book, Grillparzer and Lope de Vega. Grillparzer always held that Shakes-
peare had come under Spanish influence, although he did not know the
language, and that some passages in his writings almost certainly imply a
knowledge of Lope de Vega himself. In this Farinelli (and Koch) agrees.
It is interesting to note that in four plays — Romeo and Juliet, Winter's Tale,
As You Like It, and All's Well That Ends Well— Shakespeare handles
themes which Lope de Vega also used. Webster's Duchess of Malfy is
paralleled by the Spanish El Mayordomo de la Duquesa de Amalfi, but the
two are, according to Farinelli, only connected by the fact of their common
source in Bandello's novella.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. 105
III. — G. Richtcr, Contributions to the Elucidation and Textual Criticism of
the Middle English Prose Romance of Merlin. The Merlin legend has been
handled three times in Early English literature: (i) in a romance in four-
stressed couplets. The main part of this is contained only in the Auchinleck
manuscript, in Edinburgh. This earliest English form of the story must be
placed, probably, about the middle of the thirteenth century. (2) in the
fifteenth-century poem of Merlin, by Henry Lonelich, preserved in a single
Cambridge manuscript. (3) in a prose romance of the second half of the
fifteenth century, preserved also in but one (Cambridge) manuscript. The
first has been lately edited by KOlbing, and an edition of the second is being
prepared by KOlbing and Miss Mary Bateson. The third was edited for the
Early English Text Society, by Henry B. Wheatley (London, 1865-69 ; revised,
1877). This has, however, neither introduction, notes, nor glossary, and
Wheatley scarcely even attempted to emend the text, full of errors though it
was. Richter, therefore, has undertaken the work of emendation, admitting,
however, that the first attempt in so large a subject must always contain much
that is merely provisional. As to sources, all three English versions go back,
according to Kdlbing, to the same French text, first printed in Paris, 1528,
with the title * Le premier et le second volume de Merlin.' Of this edition
the English prose version is an almost exact translation. Richter then gives
his notes on the first half of the romance. Those on the second are to appear
later.
Ph. Aronstein, John Marston as a Dramatist. The article is the first part of
a rather comprehensive treatment of Marston, whose dramas have thus far
[1894] received rather less than their due proportion of attention. The
present paper forms the literary-historical part, and, after a brief biograph-
ical introduction, is divided into three chapters: I. Marston's works in chro-
nological order. The dates for the works are given as nearly as possible,
with the grounds for assigning them. There are also brief notes as to the
character of each work and its reception by the public. II. Marston's attitude
towards his contemporaries. The bulk of this section is formed by an account
of the well-known quarrel with Jonson. III. Marston's conception of the
poetic art, and his attitude towards the public. Here he stands in marked
contrast to Jonson. As to his idea of the function of poetry, nothing can be
more explicit than his own words:
We strive not to instruct but to delight.
—Dutch Courtezan, Prol., 1. 8.
His attitude towards the public was almost uniformly apologetic, but we may
doubt whether the modesty was not at least in part assumed. His success
with his own times seems to have been rather remarkable, and one of his
pUys, The Dutch Courtezan, was revived after the Restoration.
Thus far the treatment of the subject offers little that is new, though the
compact arrangement of old material is rather convenient The author
proposes in the next part to take up the individual works, beginning with the
tragedies.
J. Ellinger, Contributions to English Grammar. The article gives numerous
citations from nineteenth-century prose to illustrate grammatical usages which
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
I06 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
have either not yet been noted or have been insufficiently illustrated by
grammarians. The points considered are: i. The omission of the definite
article before an attributive adjective modifying the name of a person. 2. The
comparison of adjectives of two syllables. 3. The objective case of personal
pronouns used for the nominative. 4. What a, introducing indirect questions.
5. Any one^ no ane^ sonu one^ used adjectively. 6. Lest followed by might,
7. Except for, only for, save for = but for. For a comment on some points in
the article, see Englische Studien, XXII, p. 153.
O. Schulze, Contributions to English Grammar. Schulze takes up Schmidt's
treatment of limiting relative clauses, and shows that his definition and expo-
sition is not broad enough to cover all cases in Modem English.
The Book Notices comprise reviews of J. Ries's What is Syntax?, T. R.
Lounsbury*s History of the English Language, E. Wttlfing's The Syntax of
the Works of Alfred the Great, Harrison and Sharp's Beowulf and The Fight at
Finnsburgh, second edition, E. Bormann*s The Shakespeare-Mystery, W.
Creizenach*s History of the Modem Drama, Schipper's edition of the Poems
of William Dunbar, and O. Bremer*s German Phonetics.
Ries complains of the prevalent vagueness of ideas with regard to exactly
what syntax is. He defines it as the doctrine of the sentence and of other
combinations of words. He objects, moreover, to the old antithesis between
syntax and morphology, as well as to that between syntax and semasiology,
and would prefer to divide the study of words into: (i) the study of the forms
of words, (2) the study of the meaning of words. Similarly, syntax is the study,
(i) of the form of word-combinations, (2) of their meaning. Ellinger, the
reviewer, concludes that, although Ries's system is not free from flaws, inas-
much as it is (i) too a priori, (2) more applicable to descriptive than to historical
grammar, yet the author has done good service in making this decided
advance towards a scientific demarcation of the field of syntax.
Luick commends -Lounsbury's book, but considers its usefulness greatly
impaired by the fact that it is in the main a history only of written English.
Phonetics would, of course, be out of place in a somewhat popular treatise, but
if the author had dealt with his subject from the phonological standpoint he
would have avoided many statements which, as they stand, give a false
impression. For example, he says that the language of Chaucer is very near
to Modern English. Yet Chaucer's speech, or even Shakespeare's, would be
unintelligible to a modern Englishman. He was thinking, of course, only of
the written language, and took no account of the sweeping changes that have
taken place in the spoken language since Chaucer, especially since the
sixteenth century. Yet these changes left, as Luick says, scarcely one stone
standing upon another, and gave us a language differing, in sound, from
Chaucer's little less than did Chaucer's from that of Alfred. It is to be hoped
that in another edition this, the only great defect in the work, will be corrected.
Kellner expresses a slight feeling of disappointment that WQlfing's work on
Alfred does not ofier more that is new, either on syntax in general, or on
Alfred's syntax in particular. The work seems in the main to furnish only
new instances illustrating principles of syntax already established.
The fourth edition of Harrison and Sharp's Beowulf shows few changes in the
text, rather more in the glossary and list of names. The contents of the
" Digitized b^vjOOQlC
REPORTS. 107
appendixes of earlier editions is now incorporated in the notes. The system
of accentuation is not altered, but some errors are corrected. One good
feature of the notes is their constant reference to other Old and Middle
English texts.
Frilnkel, in a long note on the Shakespeare-Bacon question, takes as his
text Borman's work, which is, he says, the ripest and most scholarly defence
of the Bacon authorship that has yet appeared. After reviewing the history
of the controversy, Friinkel takes up this book somewhat in detail, and finally
remarks that as this work, the ablest on the subject, does not seem to have
carried conviction with it, the adherents of the theory may as well give up
their attempt to prove an absurdity. He quotes with approval Professor
Corson's remark : " If Shakespeare did not write the plays attributed to him,
certainly Lord Bacon did not write them." In conclusion he alludes to a
book about to appear, which promises to be a remarkable work. It is —
according to the announcement of the author, L. Strohl — to prove that the
works of Shakespeare were written neither by Shakespeare nor by Bacon, but
by a London soap-boiler, Shakspere. who also wrote three plays under the
pseudonym of Marlow.
The first volume of Creizenach*s work contains, of course, less to interest
English students than will the second. He has treated his subject under
eight heads. In English literature he treats of the Towneley Mysteries,
especially Cain, the Chester and Coventry Plays, and the Digby Plays.
Creizenach thinks that at this period French influence was less strong in the
English drama than in the other branches of English literature.
Schipper's edition of Dunbar goes further than those of Laing and Small,
in that it is critical and is, where possible, chronologically arranged. Each
poem has a separate introduction. The notes are limited to the elucidation
of words and sentences, without giving parallels from other Scotch poetry.
KOlbing thinks that in punctuating the text Schipper has followed Small too
closely, and that he has been too conservative in making emendations. The
edition is, however, far superior to its predecessor, both because of its chrono-
logical arrangement, its accuracy, and the beauty of its outer form — the print,
etc. KOlbing gives detailed comments on one of the poems, * The tua mariit
wemen and the wedo.'
Bremer's Phonetics was at first intended as an introduction to the study,
but, owing to the necessity of supporting its views, it contains much that will
appeal only to specialists. After its general introduction the book is divided
into two parts: I. Our vocal organs and their functions. II. The acoustic
results of their activity. By far the greater part of his observations would, of
course, hold good of Germanic as well as of German phonetics. Nader says of
the book : '* It is a work of merit, both because it furnishes a general founda-
tion for German dialect study, and because it gives a careful and acute expo-
sition of phonetic questions of a general nature."
In the Miscellanea Swaen has a note on Kellner's study of tautology in Old
and Middle English (Englische Studien, XX). KOlbing replies for the second
time to the criticisms of Vietor and Witzoldt on the teaching of English in
German universities. Sommer pays a warm tribute to Richard Morris, the
English philologist, who died May 12, 1894. Sommer describes him as *'a
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
I08 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
man of modest and retiring disposition, . . . disinterested, self-sacrificing and
forbearing/' and withal possessed of " a great deal of natural tact." *' He was,
indeed, the first Englishman who has attempted to utilize the results obtained
in the past hundred years in the field of historical and scientific philology,
and to apply them to the study of his native tongue. What he has really
achieved is witnessed by his contemporaries, but will only be thoroughly
appreciated by the growing generation who have been taught by, and have
learnt from, his books."
Albert S. Cook.
Rhkinisches Museum fCr Philologie, Vol. LI.
Pp. 1-20 and 31 8-20. Zwei neu aufgefundene Schriften der graeco-syrischen
Literatur. V. Ryssel. A translation into German of two treatises found in
a Syrlac MS on Mount Sinai. One is a ' Treatise (composed by the Philoso-
phers) on the Soul.' the other a free version of Plutarch's essay 'On the
Advantage to be derived from one's Enemies.' An inaccurate translation of
the latter into English has been published by Eberhard Nestle, London, 1894.
These two treatises have been published in the Studia Sinaitica. They are
found in the same MS as the Apology of Aristides for the Christians.
Pp. 21-6. Qui orationum Isocratearum in archetypo codicum ordo fuerit.
E. Drerup. From a comparison of the order given by the leading MSS with
that given by Photios, the writer concludes that the speeches of Isocrates
were arranged in the archetype in three parts of seven each, the letters in
three parts of three each. Here is his conjectural order : a) Contra Sophistas,
Busiris, Helena, Euagoras, Ad Demonicum, Ad Nicoclem, Nicocles ; b) Archi-
damus, Areopagiticus, Plataicus (Plataicus, Areopagiticus ?), De Pace, Philippus,
Panathenaicus, Panegyricus ; c) De Permutatione, De Bigis, In Callimachum,
Aegineticus, In Euthynum, Trapeziticus, In Lochiten; d) Dionysio, Archi-
damo, lasonis filiis; Philippo, Philippo. Alezandro; Antipatro, Timotheo,
Mytilenaeorum magistratibus.
Pp. 27-44. Textkritisches zu Statins. F. VoUmer examines a number of
passages in Statins. For the Thebais, the only reliable authority is the Codex
Puteaneus, and Kohlmann's edition would have been improved by a closer
adherence to the manuscript readings.
Pp* 45-51 and p. 164. Zwei Hermogeneskommentatoren. K. Fuhr. These
are (i) Eustathios, whose commentary is mentioned by Johannes Doxopatres.
He seems to have incorporated parts of an older commentary verbally into his
work. (2) Phoibammon, of whose person and time we know nothing, though
his name suggests that he was of Egyptian stock. His commentary was freely
used by Johannes Doxopatres.
Pp. 52-69. De Hippiatricorum codice Cantabrigiensi. E. Oder describes
a MS in the library of Emmanuel College, and prints the text of the fragment.
Pp. 70-108. Beitrfige zur lateinischen Grammatik. Th. Birt. I. Ueber
Vocalisirung desj. The trisyllabic eliam is usually said to be a compound of
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. 109
et and jam^ but no parallel has been cited from the historical period of the
Latin language for the phonetic change thus assumed. After a prefix which
ends in a consonant j regularly retains its consonantal force ; it becomes
vocalic only when it immediately precedes or follows a vowel i. In this case
j first becomes vocalic and then disappears altogether. Thus rejicic (for
redjUio) becomes reiicio, then rHcio\ quadrijuga becomes quadrijiga^quadrijga^
quadriga, Etiam must be formed from ett-jam. This eti (cf. dti^ in) would
correspond to et as uti to ut. This hypothesis is supported by such combina-
tions as eiiam htm, etiam nunc, and by many passages in which etiam obviously
means * still, yet/ which was its earliest meaning. In like manner quispiam is
formed from quispe-Jam^ through quispi-jam ; the trisyllabic nunciam of Roman
comedy from nunce-jam^nunci-jam; quoniam from quone-jam^quoni-Jam, Inci-
dentally Professor Birt suggests (p. 83) that cumti is derived (not from co-juncti^
but) from eumque^ as quinius from quinque. This is the cumque which is found
in quicumque, Cumque = omnino, cuncti = qui omnino sunt. Its original
independence in position is shown by the so-called tmesis in qui testamentum
tradet tidi cumque (Horace), quod quaiquc quomque incident (Terence), etc. For
the addition of the termination -tus to an adverb like cumque^ compare tam^
tantus; quam^ quantus.
Pp. 109-26. Arrians Periplus Ponti Euxini. C. G. Brandis. The document
entitled ^Appiavoit ktcurroTJl rrp6( Tpalavdv, kv y koI irepinhjvq Ev^eivov UdvTov is
found in only one MS, Palatinus 398. The first part of this document seems
to be a genuine letter from Arrian to the Emperor (Hadrian) ; the remainder
is probably a forgery composed in the late Byzantine period.
Pp. 127-37. Das alte Athen vor Theseus. W. DOrpfeld replies to the
criticism of J. M. Stahl on his new interpretation of Thuk. II 15 (see vol. L,
pp. 566-75 ; A. J. P. XVI 516). DOrpfeld maintains that the lower part of
the city of Kekrops was confined to the slope of the hill ; Stahl, he says, must
assume that it extended as far as the Ilissos — which is impossible. Relying
upon the authority of C. Wachsmuth (Ber. der Sfichs. Ges. d. Wiss., phil.
Klasse, 1877, S. 387), he holds that imb ri^ aKp&iroXiv must here mean half way
up the slope, or a fourth of the way up. He thinks it certain that both parts
of the ancient city were surrounded by the Pelargic wall, and that Athens in
the days of Kekrops was a small fortified town like Eleusis, or Aphidna, or
Thorikos. He still maintains that tovto rb pipoq means the site of the whole
of the ancient city, not merely of the lower part, and is still of the opinion
that n-p^c here means ' on ' or ' on to.*
Pp. 138-52. Der pseudoeuripideische Anfang der Danae. R. Wttnsch.
This fragment, which has been regarded as spurious since the days of Elmsley
and Jacobs, seems to have been written by Markos Musuros. The terminus
post qnem for its composition is the time of Theodorus Prodromus, i. e. the
first half of the twelfth century; the terminus ante qaem is the year of
Musuros' death (15 17), or rather the year of his final departure from Venice
(1516).
Miscellen.— P. 153. F. Bacheler. Versus tragicus graecus. The verse is
(A d* afi^v^ovrat "SiSav etrkXrfKdTa, ilH circumstipahmt sibi Nedam rigidis torridis.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
no AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
It is gained by a very slight change in the verse quoted by Hesychius in his
gloss on tCKhiK6Ta, — Pp. 153-7. Th. Birt. Zu Antisthenes und Xenophon
The fourth book of the Memorabilia was an independent essay 7rep£ ircuSeiac^
and was intended to be a polemic against Antisthenes. The four divisions of
education are announced in Memorab. IV 3, i, apparently in the order of
their importance in the eyes of Antisthenes; but in the discussion which
follows the practical Xenophon takes them up in a different order. — Pp. 157-
60. J. M. Stahl. Zu Philons Schrift vom beschaulichen Leben. A discussion
of the passage 479 M 27-49, ^^^^ ^ suggestion toward the improvement of the
text. — Pp. 160-62. M. Manitius. Handschriftliches zur Anthologia latina.
Variae lectiones of several poems of the Anthology (395, 394, 639, 640, 736)
found in the Codex Berolin. Philipp. 1869, s. IX. — Pp. 162-3. J. Ziehen. Zu
Cicero ad Quintum fratrem III i. For Velvinum (v. 1. velvinus) in §4 the
writer proposes V (= Varro) eluviem \ for silva viridicata in §3 he would read
silva viridi ditatam, — P. 164, R. Fuchs. Nachtrag zu Band L, S. 580. The
word Pov^iuv is explained by Gustav Meyer, Neugriechische Studien, II, as
meaning ' elder' (tree). — K. Fuhr. Nachtrag zu oben, S. 48 f.
Pp. 165-96 and p. 466. Ueber die Schriftstellerei des Klaudios Galenos.
III. J. Ilberg. (Continued from vol. XLVII 514 ; see A. J. P. XV 387.) An
account of Galen's treatises on pathology, therapeutics and hygiene, with a
table showing the probable order of their composition. Almost all of them
were written during his second residence at Rome.
Pp. 197-210. Die Textgeschichte des Rutilius. C. Hosius publishes a
collation of a MS in the library of the Duke of Sermoneta in Rome.
Pp. 211-25. Die panathenaischen und eleusinischen Isponoioi. L. Ziehen.
I. Aristotle, *A07fi/, IIoX. 54, 7, says that the * annual ' UpoKotoi superintended
certain sacrifices and all the quinquennial festivals except the Panathenaea.
Ziehen thinks that this exception was* intended to include both the greater
Panathenaea and the less. The latter was entrusted to a special commission,
which is described in C. I. A. II 163 lepoTrotol oi dtouoovvreq to. TLava&ivata ra
kut' kviavrdv. II. From the same section of the 'Aftyv. IIoA. it is evident that
the quinquennial Eleusinia was under the general charge of the Uporrotol kqt*
kviavT&if, The inscriptions clearly point to the existence of a different set of
lepoKoioi whose duties were confined to the temple at Eleusis. These were at
first called 1. *E?£votv66eVf but between 419 and 329 their name and, to some
extent, their duties were changed, and they were known in later times as I. ey
Pp. 226-39. ^^ Verhfiltniss der aristotelischen zu der thukydideischen
Darstellung des Tyrannenmordes. P. Co'rssen. In the i8th chapter of the
'Adfivaluv UoXiTela the vengeance of Harmodios and Aristogeiton is referred to
the behavior of Thessalos, not of Hipparchos. In order to put Aristotle's
account of the assassination in accord with that of Thukydides, J. M. Stahl
proposes to strike out the words kqi tov( irepl "AvaKpiovra . . . eiTTa}/)^ 6k
vedrepoc noXh (vol. L, pp. 382 ff.; A. J. P. XVI 514-15). Corssen maintains
that this passage is genuine. Aristotle deliberately differs from Thukydides
in his account of this event, and this is not the only point of difference.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS, III
Pp. 240-72. Beitrage zur lateinischen Grammatik (continued from p. 108).
II. Ueber KUrzungen trochaischer WOrter. Th. Birt rejects the view of F.
Skutsch (Forschungen zur lateinischen Grammatik und Metrik, Leipzig, 1892)
that Plautus sometimes dropped the final e of such words as nempe^ untU^ inde^
ille^ and that the resulting nemp^ und^ ind^ Uivitx^ often further simplified to
nem^ un, in^ il. Our authorities for the popular pronunciation of Latin show
no trace of such shortened forms. According to Skutsch's own statistics
nempe, inde^ etc.. are made pyrrhic in Plautus only, or most frequently, when
they are followed by a consonant, a fact which shows the careful pronunciation
of the final e. Nor is it probable that ilU and ilia were both reduced to the
form tV. Birt maintains that the shortening of these words is often due to the
fact that they lack emphasis or accent in the sentence. All the pronominal
forms under consideration are naturally unemphatic and are apt to be rapidly
pronounced. The German *n&mlich' is not an adequate translation of the
conversational nempe\ better is 'ja' or 'doch/ e. g. Cure. 42 nempe obloqui
me iusseras * Dn befahlst mir doch zu widersprechen.' The proclitic nature
of nempe is shown by its vocalic weakening (cf. igitur for agitur)^ whereas the
emphatic namque has retained its a. Incidentally the writer discusses the
^exilitas' of intervocalic // in Latin, especially with an i preceding, and
explains certain cases of so-called ' elision.* Vas argenteis for iftLsis argenteis
and palm et crinibus for palmis et crinibus are just such expressions as the
German * ein 'Und demselben ' for * einem und demselben,' or ' in gut und
bOsen Tagen.' The form omnimodis is due to a similar conscious omission or
ellipsis of a syllable, and multimodis is the natural result of analogy. Here
belong several of the supposed cases of elision of the s before vowels given
by F. Leo (Plautinische Forschungen, S. 231 ff.). Inde has always kept its d
intact, while deinde^ prnnde and exinde sometimes lost their final de. All these
words begin with a preposition which governs the ablative. In de-in-de the
final de seemed superfluous, and was omitted in popular speech ; prvin and
exin were formed by analogy. Perinde escaped a like mutilation because /^r
did not govern the ablative ; subinde did not appear in literature until after
the shortened forms had fallen into disfavor.
Pp. 273-80. Die Theosophie des Aristokritos. A. Brinkmann. Cotelerius
and ToUius have published the formula of abjuration dictated by the Greek
church to converted Manichaeans. In its present form this formula seems to
date from the second half of the ninth century. The first half is directed
against the original heresy of the Manichaeans; the second half seems to
have been added about a century later for the benefit of their direct successors,
the Paulicians. At the end of the first part is an index librorum prohibitorum
which includes the * Theosophy ' of a certain Aristokritos : nyv 'ApuTTOKpirov
pip^mff fjv kniypailfe Beoao^iav, ev y iretparcu 6eiKVvvcu rdv *lov6diafi^ Kai rbv
'EX^^iOfA^ Kol rdv XpujTtaviafidv koX rdv Mavtxa'iofidv h> etvoi xai to airrb Sdyfia.
Brinkmann thinks that this work is identical with a work which had the same
purpose and the same title, and from which we have some extracts in the
Xpfpjfiol Totf 'EAAjTVixuv published by Buresch (Klaros. Unters. zum Orakelwesen,
Leipzig, 1889, S. 95 ff.).
Pp. 281-302. Die Amtstracht der Vestalinnen. H. Dragendorff. The
dress of the vestal virgin is essentially that of the bride. The cingulum and
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
f
112 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
the tnrrita corona were worn by both; the flammenm of the bride and the
snffibulum of the vestal were originally identical. The seni crines of the
vestal was a kind of peruke which almost entirely concealed her own hair.
By the formal captio the vestal is freed from the patria potestas, and her
position is henceforth that of the mater familias. The captio is, as it were, a
marriage to the deity, who is represented at first by the king, later, by the
pontifex ; the words used by the pontifex in this ceremony are significant : ita
te, amatay capio. So the Christian maiden renounces earthly marriage to
become the bride of Christ. It is significant, also, that it was the pontifex
who punished unchastity in the vestal, and that this punishment was the same
as was inflicted in early times by the injured husband upon the adulterous
wife.
Miscellen. — Pp. 303-4. F. Solmsen. Ein nominaler Ablativus Singularis
im Griechischen. This is the word foiKu in an inscription recently discovered
at Delphi and published by Th. HomoUe (Bull. corr. hell. XIX 5 ff.). HomoUe
explained the word as a genitive singular. — Pp. 304-5. J. Wackernagel. Das
Zeugniss der delphischen Hymnen ttber den griechischen Accent. A word
which has the grave accent may be compared with the syllables of a single
word which precede the accent. — Pp. 306-11. J. M. Stahl. Noch einmal das
vortheseische Athen. A reply to DOrpfeld's paper, pp. 127-37. DOrpfeld's
topographical view as to the position of the Dionysion kv Ai/ivaic and the
Enneakrounos is only an hypothesis, which cannot be admitted unless it
agrees with the statement of Thukydides. His excavations have not yet
furnished a single certain proof of his claim. Stahl is still skeptical of the
discovery of the site of a Dionysion kv Aifivaic which was about 15 m. higher
than the ancient market-place, and still rejects D.'s explanation of inr* avr^,
of TovTo rd fUpoc and of irpbc tovto t6 fUpoq, — Pp. 311-14. E. Oder. Ad
Simonis Atheniensis fragmentum (pp. 67-9) addendum. Some notes, supplied
by F. Kenyon, on a MS in the British Museum.— Pp. 314-15. L. Rader-
macher. De Phoinicis loco. A proposed correction of a verse cited by Athe-
naeus, 530*. R. would read rdXavf, 'Ano^Xov, for xai raXla iroXXov, — Pp. 315-18.
M. Ihm. Zu Philodem irepl KoXaKeiag. — Pp. 31 8-20. V. Ryssel. Nachtrag zu
' Zwei neu aufgefundene Schriften der graeco-syrischen Literatur' (Bd. LI, S.
I). The writer has recently discovered the Greek text of the * Treatise of
(one of) the Philosophers on the Soul.' The Syriac version is a translation of
the A&yoc Ke^aXat66ifc ^epi ^IrvxvC ^P^ TaTiav6v written by Bishop Gregorius
Thaumaturgus of Neocaesarea, who died about 270 A. D. — Pp. 320-25. E.
Hoffmann. Die Fescenninen. Horace, Ep. II 1. 145, says that the Fescen-
nina licentia was introduced at the ancient harvest -home ; Ve^il, G. II 385,
refers not to the festival of the vintage, but to the Liberalia which fell on
March 14. Liber, a native Latin deity, was the author of fertility, and his
symbol was the fascinum. The name versus fescenmni is due to the promi-
nence of the fascinum in the celebration of his festival. — Pp. 325-6« F-
Buecheler. Zum Gedicht des Pseudosolinus. The title ponHcon may be a
corruption of poeiUon, To judge from the Latinity, the poem was probably
composed in the age of the Antonines.«-Pp. 327-8. C. Weyman. Varia.
Notes on Acts, XXVIII 16; Juvencus, II 754; Damasus, XXXII z ff. (read
Digitized by VjOOQiC"
I
i
REPORTS, 113
eamifices, not carmjUis) ; Carm. Ut. epigr. 727 B ; and on the expression difnu
dignisj^V. 328. S. Frftnkel. Zu Band L, S. 587. For the obscure word
robprrer, cf. Ducange, Z591, and L5w, Aram. Pflanzenn., 410, Nr. 80.
Pp. 329-80. Die drei Brftnde des Tempels zu Delphi. H. Pomtow. It is
commonly believed that the temple at Delphi built by the Amphictyons after
the conflagration of 548-47 remained standing for more than 700 years, and
that it is this temple whose ruins have recently been discovered by the French
excavations at the village of Kastri. This belief rests upon the express state-
ments of Pausanias (X 5, 13), Strabo (IX 421) and others. A new temple of
stone was begun about 540 and completed about 520-15. The architect was
Spintharos of Corinth. This was the ddfioc Beajr^ of Pindar's seventh Pythian.
The temple of Spintharos was destroyed by fire about 372. The rebuilding
soon began, but was not completed before the end of the third century.
Under the year 84 B. C. = 01. 174, I, Eusebius says (II, p. 133, Schoene):
** templum tertio apud Delfos a Thracibus incensum et Romae Capitolium."
Tko M^f6av in Plutarch, Numa, 9, should be corrected to virb yialSuv^ and rd
AeX^ucdv in Appian, lUyr. 5, is a mistake for rd Auduvalov, This third fire may
be assigned to the last quarter of Ol. 174, I ==84-83, i. e. to April-June of
B. C. 83. After this calamity Delphi sank into a condition of utter insignifi-
cance and helplessness which lasted for more than a century. The work of
restoration was perhaps begun in the time of Augustus, but little progress was
made until the visit of Nero to Delphi in the autumn of 67 ; Xkyovai & bri
ifieivtv km TToAw XP^^ areXr^ (sc. 6 vc^), e«f ov verepov "Nipuv^ 6 paatXevc
'Fofioluv, knTJipuatv avr^, knelae irapayevdftevoc (Schol. to Aeschin. Ctesiph. 115).
Pp. 381-400. Zu Ciceros Rede pro Flacco. F. SchOU. Textual notes,
especially on the fragmentary introduction.
Pp. 40i-4a Die jetzige Gestalt der Grammatik des Charisius. L. Jeep.
Diomedes must have known and used the work of Charisius. Charisius did
not borrow directly from Romanus, but both drew upon common sources.
Pp. 441-55. Beitrftge zur Kritik und Erkl&rung des Dialogs Axiochos.
A. Brinkmann.
Pp. 456-62. Das Wahlgesetz des Aristeides. E. Fabricius. Plutarch,
Arist. 22, mentions a decree proposed by Aristides in 487-86, rove apxotrraiQ k^
'Afhp^aUjv airdvTuv aipeiadai. This statement is apparently contradicted by the
*Adriv<uuv Uohreia^ but it need not be absolutely rejected as a "groundless
invention" (Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen, I, S. 124. 4). Aristides did
propose such a decree, not as a constitutional change, but as an exceptional
procedure for that year to suit the exceptional circumstances in which the
Athenians found themselves. Plutarch's authority was probably the decree
itself, which may have been published by Craterus.
Miscellen. — Pp. 463-6. L. Radermacher. Varia. Textual notes on several
passages in Aelian. — P. 466. J. Ilberg. Ueber Galenos, Nachtrag. — Pp. 466-8.
K. Kalbfleisch. Ueber Galens Schrift Uepl ?.tirrwoi}anc Siair^, — Pp. 468-70.
Th. Birt. Zu Catnll und Petron. GemeUi in Catullus, 57, 6, means * testiculi;
and tUrique is dative. There is a similar use of ol Sidvfioi in Greek ; cf. Philo>
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
114 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
dem., Anthol. Pal. V 125 tw^ keIvov neXinei del 6i6ifiovc d^AfZv. Ammiantts
Marcellinus, Claudianus and Solinus use gemini with the same meaning, and
this meaning must be lurking in two passages of Petronius, 35 and 39 : ** super
geminos testiculos ac rienes/* and " in geminis nascuntur . . . colei."— Pp. 470-
71. O. Hirschfeld. Petronius und Lucianus. The oiKkry veonhjiyrt^t of the
twentieth chapter of Lucian*s essay ttuq del iaropiav avyyp&^tv is probably a
reminiscence of Trimalchio ; cf. Cena Trim. 76, 32 and, especially, 36. — P. 47 '•
J. Gilbert. Ad Petroni saturas (53). Proposes to read reliqua enim iaUa
acroamata etc. for reliqua [animalia] acroamata etc. — Pp. 471-3. F. BUcheler.
Altes Latein (vgl. Band XLVI, S. 233). XX. The epitaph of Encolpus,
C. I. L. VI 14672, may be assigned to the third generation after Petronius
and Nero. The word opter is a genuine archaism ; for its formation cf. inter,
pnuter, propter, etc. — Pp. 473-4. M. Ihm. Tessera hospitalis. F. Bamabei,
Notizie degli scavi for March, 1895, describes a token recently discovered at
Trasacco. It is the half of a small ram's head of bronze divided lengthwise,
the cut surface being inscribed with the names of two men and the word
* hospes.' It probably belongs to the second century B. C. This discovery
explains the purpose of a similar token now at Vienna. It also supports the
old view that these tokens were made by dividing a single object, each party
keeping one part. Cf. Plato, Sympos. 191 D and 193 A; Plant. Poen. 1047 f.
— Pp. 474-5. O. Hirschfeld. Das Consulatsjahr des Tacitus. This was the
year 97. The person referred to in Plin. Panegyr. 58, erat in senatu ter
consul, was not Verginius Rufus, but Fabricius Veiento. — Pp. 475-7. O.
Hirschfeld. Die Tyrier in dem zweiten RSmisch-Karthagischen Vertrag.
Polybius, III 24, wrote Tvpiuv for Kvplcjv by mistake. — Pp. 478-80. F. Skutsch.
Randbemerkungen zu S. 240 if. A brief reply to some of Th. Birt's criticism,
pp. 253-6. No Roman poet hesitated to place t% iUa, illam, etc., before a
word beginning with a vowel, because the gender of the pronoun was likely
to be obscured. Plautus did sometimes shorten the first syllable and elide
the last syllable of the same word ; e. g. Aulul. 708 tibi Ylle ibiit, 785 ^go Ilium
lit, Asin. 370, 757, Rud. 960. etc., etc.— P. 480. C. F. W. M. Zu Band LI,
S. 328. With the expression digna dignis compare Amob. I 39, p. 26, 19 Reif.
digna de dignis sentio.
Pp. 48I--9I. Zur Handschriftenkunde und Geschichte der Philologie.
(Continued from vol. XL, pp. 453 f[.; A. J. P. X 112.) R. Foerster. IV.
Cyriacus von Ancona zu Strabon. Cyriacus of Ancona had a copy of the
seventeen books of Strabo made for him by a friend in Constantinople, and
on the margin of this copy he added all sorts of geographical, historical and
linguistic comments with his own hand. The first part of this MS, containing
the first ten books, is in the library of Eton College, the second part (11-16)
is at Florence, Laurent. XXVIII 15. The interesting history of its fortunes.
Pp. 492-505. De Properti poetae testamento. Th. Birt. A commentary
on Propert. II 13 ^. After the introductory couplet the poem falls into two
parts of equal length. The first part closely follows the order of the Roman
funeral rites. The words funeris acta mei (v. 18) may be compared with
mandata dt future sua (Sueton. Aug. loi).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
I
REPORTS, 11$
Pp. 506-28. De Franconim Gallornmque origine Troiana. Th. Birt defends
the epithet Gallicus in Propert. II 13. 48 Gallicus Iliacis miles in a|ggeribtt8.
The belief that the Franks and Ganls were descended from the Trojans was
widely spread throaghout the Middle Ages, and must have existed at Rome
when this poem was written. Cf. Aethicus, Cosmogr. (ed. Wuttke, p. 77) ;
l^ucan, Phars. I 427 ; Amm. Marc. XV 9 ; Caes. B. G. I 33. 2 ; Qaint. Smym.
Posthom. VII 611. The use of this epithet is very like the erudite Propertius ;
for its application cf. Teucrum Qtdrinum, IV 6. 21.
Pp. 529-43. Neu aufgefundene graeco-syrische PhilosophensprQche aber
die Seele. V. Ryssel. These * Sayings of the Philosophers ' are found in the
same Syriac MS as the ' Treatise of a Philosopher on the Soul* (pp. i if.). A
German translation is given.
I^P* 544-59* Excurse zu Virgil. O. Crusius. I. Entstehung und Compo-
sition der achten Ekloge. The writer refutes the heresy of the prosaic E.
Bethe (vol. XLVII, 590 if.; A. J, P. XV 387) that the two songs of the eighth
Eclogue were originally intended to be independent mimes, not counterparts
for an agon. II. Zur vierten Ekloge. In v. 60 risu can only mean the laugh
of the child, and the subject of risere^ v. 62, must be the same as the logical
subject of risu. Crusius would read with Quintilian qui turn risen parenH,
The ttascens puer of v. 8 is not the child of any Roman noble ; he is a purely
imaginary wonder-child. Modo in the same line should be compared with
modo^ Aen. IV 49 f. The mystic imagery of the beginning and close of the
poem is of Sibylline origin, e. g. v. 10 and w. 50-51. The infant is to show
at once that he is more than human (v. 60) ; this idea is derived from Greek
mysticism.
Pp. 560-88. Delphische Beilagen (S. oben S. 329). H. Pomtow. I. Die
Jahre der Herrschaft des Peisistratos. Merd 61 rairra in Arist., *A6tfv, IIoA. XV
I, should be changed to fitrd Si raimfv, and trti uAXiara i^6fti,) to fupft fi&hjora
eP66fu,f. The career of Peisistratos was as follows: first tyranny, spring to
autumn, 560 ; first exile, autumn 560 to the end of 556-55 ; second tyranny,
seven months of 555~54 ; second exile, spring 554 to the end of 545-44 ; third
tyranny, middle of 544 to spring, 528-27. II. Die Datirung der VII. Pythi-
schen Ode Pindars. The date of the poem is B. C. 486.
Pp. 589-95. Textkritisches zu Ciceros Briefen. J. Ziehen proposes the
following readings: i) Qu. F. II 14, 2 nee labor antiqua mea etc.; 2) Qu. F. I
I, II atque incertos eos quos etc.; 3) Att. II 20, I sed quia hohpragmoHci
homines etc.; 4) Att. IV 11, 2 abs te opipare delector etc.; 5) Att. XI 23, 3
audimus enim de statua Clodi\ 6) Brut. I 4, 5 prorsus alienae etc.; keep the
reading unchanged and make prorsus ironical ; 7) Qu. Ill 8, i LaSeoni dedisse,
qui adhuc non venerat.
Pp. 596-629. Ueber den Cynegeticus des Xenophon. I. L. Radermacher
concludes from an examination of the language and style of the Cynegeticus
that it is not the work of Xenophon. Even the mention of bears (XI i)
becomes a stumbling-block, and so does the absence of all reference to riding
to hounds.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Il6 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Miscellen. — Pp. 630-32. H. Weber. Zu Ariston von Chios. — Pp. 632-6.
E. Ziebarth. Zur Epigraphik von Thyateira. — Pp. 636-7. W. Schwarz. Die
Heptanomis seit Hadrian. By the founding of the city of Antinoe, under the
Emperor Hadrian, the number of districts in the Heptanomis was increased to
eight. The district of Arsinoe was then separated from the Heptanomis, and
the domain of the old Heptanomis was thereafter described as *' epistrategia
septem nomorum et Arsinoitae." This Arsino€ was the city on Lake Moeris,
not the Arsinoe on the Red Sea. Cf. Orelli, Inscr. 516 ; C. I. L. Ill 6575.—
Pp. 637-8. A. Riese. Zu Statins' Silven. Proposes to change calvum, IV 3,
19, to clavum. — P. 638. M. Ihm. Zu Augustins Confessiones. For inspirabat
populo jam^ VIII 2, 3, read inspirabat popuJo Osirim, Cod. Bamberg, s. X has
populosirim, — Pp. 638-40. F. Buecheler. De inscriptionibus quibusdam
christianis. Notes on some inscriptions, both Greek and Latin, recently
found in the catacombs at Syracuse. They were written between the years
383 and 452.
Havbkvord Collkgb. Wilfred P. Mustard.
BeitrAgk zur Assyriologib und skmitischkn Sprachwissenschaft, heraus-
gegeben von Friedrich Deutzsch und Paul Haupt. Dritter Band,
Heft 3 (pp. 385-492). Leipzig, 1897.1
The third Heft of the third volume of the Beitr&ge contains three articles.
The first of these (pp. 385-92) is an introductory paper by Friedrich
Delitzsch, embodying some * preliminary remarks' to the two following
treatises by Demuth and Ziemer on legal and government records, dating
from the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses. Delitzsch takes this opportunity to
explain the method of transliteration (his own) followed by both writers, to
comment on the reading of the proper names, and to give a complete table of
the numbers of the texts as they occur in Strassmaier and in Demuth-Ziemer's
work.
He devotes two pages to an interesting discussion of the doubtful words
imiUu and saUukku, The first of these, which occurs hundreds of times in the
legal tablets in apposition to suluppu * dates,' he explains with great ingenuity
as meaning * assessment, valuation,* deriving it from emidu * to impose/ e. g. a
tax or duty {^imidtu = imittu), Suluppu imittu, therefore, are dates which are
to be paid by the tenant to the proprietor as a rent, according to a previous
agreement between the owner and the lessee of a field. Delitzsch had already
conjectured that this was the meaning of imittu in his AW., p. 93, but arrives
definitely at this conclusion in this article in the Beitrlige, being led thereto
by a passage in a legal document which he cites in full, where the word is
used without any doubt in the sense of * rent' '
He states also that sattukku does not mean * established offering,* which is
the meaning given in his AW., p. 513, but rather *the established, regular
standard of value' {GehaU)} This word seems to be an intensive noun -form
from a stem *]nD, which probably meant originally * to stand, to be perpetual.'
> For the report on Bd. Ill, Heft a, see A. J. P. XVII, pp. xax-s.
sCf. also Demnth, p. 404. sCf. also Demnth, p. 438.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. 117
Thus we find the adjective saiiakka, Nerigl. ii. 12, used practically synony-
mously with la baflak * unceasing/ Sattukku is also discussed ZA. I, p. 3.
The noun mastaku ' place of abode ' seems also to be a derivatiye from the
same stem.
The second article in the Heft (pp. 393-444) is a transliteration and trans-
lation with philological commentary by Ludwig Demuth, of fifty legal and
government records of the time of Cyrus (538-529 B. C).
Among other interesting legal peculiarities of the Babylonians, the author
explains (p. 400) the laws in force regulating the value of slaves, if offered as
security for a debt. Thus, according to him, a female slave and her daughter
were accepted as security only when the debtor offering them owed the
interest on the capital debt, e. g. the slaves were expected to pay the amount
of interest due by their labor for the creditor during a fixed period of time.
If, however, the debtor owed his principal, slaves were not regarded as a
satisfactory security. In this case it was necessary to offer real property.
The opinion expressed, p. 408, that the original meaning of urdhi was not
'assignment/ but rather *debt, obligation,' is highly interesting, as it suggests
the possible derivation of the word from erisu * to desire, demand,' e. g. urdhi
might have meant *a demand on a person,* hence *an obligation.' Demuth
considers ilihi a syhonym of urdhi (p. 409).
The author's remarks on government slaves (p. 417) are also very instructive.
He shows, in commenting on the expression arad-larriitu, that there may have
been certain male slaves who had been conquered in battle and who were
forced, either to render military service, or to work on the royal buildings
(palaces, temples, walls, etc.). He adds, however, that it seems probable that
these slaves were purchasable by private persons.
The third and last article in the Heft is a similar treatise (pp. 445-92) by
Ernst Ziemer on the legal and government records of the reign of Cambyses
(529-521 B. C).
It is interesting to notice that in Nr. I of these selections the fact is
recorded, but not especially alluded to by Ziemer, that Cambyses was coregent
while his father, Cyrus, was still living. Both Solomon and Ahirbdnipal^ and
possibly Belshazzar, son of Nabonldus, probably exercised similar functions in
the lifetimes of their respective fathers, while in the inscriptions of Antiochus
Soter, V R. 66, 25, mention is made of Seleukus his son and the viceMng}
Ziemer comments very strikingly (p. 449) on the exact meaning of the
preposition pHt, which is translated by Peiser, who writes it pHt (sic), as
'receipt' (see also p. 398). The author shows satisfactorily that the word in
the contracts is a preposition with the force * for, instead of, opposite to.* He
might have added that this word is also used in the narrative inscriptions in
the sense of 'opposite'; cf. Shalm. Mon. 26 ina pHt dlthi argip, h&pHt^piUu
is an abstract formation Utyoi pil 'mouth,' its original meaning is probably
'entrance'; cf. SainHrammdn^ iv. 41 ina piU DurpapstUtal,
The allusions in various contract tablets to Egyptians who appeared as
witnesses of deeds, etc., as, for example, that mentioned p. 452, show conclu-
1 Prince, Mene, Mene, p. ay, n. Z4«
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Il8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
siyely, as Ziemer states, that the relations existing between Egypt and Baby-
lonia daring the reign of Cambyses must have been very close. The Egyp-
tians mentioned in most of the inscriptions had become entirely Babylonian,
bearing Babylonian names and living, no doubt, according to the Babylonian
customs.
Such work as that of Demuth and Ziemer, which contributes to our knowl-
edge of the laws and family customs of the Babylonians, cannot fail to be of
the greatest value both to Assyriology and general history.
New York Univbksxtt. J. DyneleY PrINCE.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BRIEF MENTION.
Archaeologists' Greek is not intended to be a complimentary expression
(A. J. P. IX 98), but it can hardly be expected that archaeologists should pay
much attention to grammar. It is doubtless to archaeologists' Greek that we
owe the precious statement, still to be found in Baedeker and repeated care-
lessly erery where, e. g. in The Nation of Jan. 14, 1897, that Herodes Atticus
** almost exhausted the quarries of Pentelikon in carrying out [his] magnificent
improYement" [of the Stadion]. What Pausanias says (I 19 ex.) is: rotn-o
hviip 'AdtpKuog 'Upi^fK fpKoddfi^e kcu ol t6 iro^ nyf XtBoTOfiiag r^f llevTe^aiv if
nyv oiKodofti^ ainj^Mj. Surely it was not necessary to appeal, as has been
done, to the actual state of Pentelikon in order to correct the ' exaggeration '
of Pausanias. In the very next chapter we read I^kbv \^pi{jvri\ olxeoOcu 79
Upa^iTiXei rd no^ ruv ipyuv. The quarry was the quarry of Herodes as the
works were the works of Praxiteles. I cannot recall whether it was an
archaeologist or a philologian who translated AlACfiTHPA 'by the Saviour,'
but it was an archaeologist who settled the hypaethral question by translating
Strabo, VIII 30: dirrdfuvov 6k axe^bv ry Kopv^ rfj^ ofxxp^g 'appearing almost
to touch the uppermost ceiling.* And why should not a^ffoaSai take the dative
in Strabo as dtyelv does — in Pindar? But apart from such monstrosities as
these last, and their number might be multiplied, archaeologists are apt to
satisfy themselves too readily as to points of Greek usage, especially on the
dangerous ground of the prepositions, and so Professor Rbisch, in the great
work noticed elsewhere, has a short and easy method with km ok/Mk (p. 285).
'*Das8 das Vorwort M (mit Genetiv, Dativ uud Accusativ) nicht nur zur
Bezeichnung von HShenunterschieden, sondern auch zur Bezeichnung der
Nachbarschaft zweier auf gleichem Boden befindlicher Dinge verwendet wird,
dUrfte wohl bekannt genug sein." Then follows a list of quotations, sadly in
need of sifting. Surely the average grammarian, on contemplating this * happy
despatch,* cannot but sadly think how long he has disquieted himself in vain
about this very preposition e^rt, and especially about the uses of km w. gen.
and kiri with dat. Nay, there has of late appeared a special dissertation on a
single branch of the subject, and perhaps Professor Reisch would not have
written in this slap-dash way if he had read Dr. Forman's thesis On the
difference between the genitive and dative with kiri used to denote superposition^ 67
pp. (1894), inasmuch as the author has decidedly advanced the treatment of
the subject and brings out the characteristic difference of the cases in a
manner that does great credit to his fine appreciation of syntactical effect.
The general conditions of the problem are, after all, not so abstruse, but it is
one thing to state the conditions, another to work them out with scholarly
care and discernment. When there is a rivalry between the genitive and
dat.-locative, the dat.-locative is the more plastic. This is very plain with
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
120 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
vjr6 (Introduction to Pindar, c), and km is ttsed most frequently with the
dative ''when the superposition sense makes itself felt" (1. c, xcix ; A. J. P.
XIV 499). M w. gen. tends to the phraseological, iiri with dat.-loc. to the
actual, the corporeal, if plastic (Introduction, xcri) is not plain enough ; kiri
with dat.-Ioc. tends to fixity, ini with dat. to freedom (A. J. P. XI 372). km
TTf ice^o^f, to put the matter coarsely, is • on the head,' kiri ry ne^aXy • on top
of the head.* Comp. Pind. OL 2, 12. This is a natural deduction from the
cases themselves. The dative combines with a preposition fua locative, the
genitive either gua ablative or gua fossilized adjective. Such a fossilized
adjective we have in the familiar expressions etc, kv^ kK 6i6aaK&kcv, in which
the genitive may be replaced by the proper case of SidaaKaXeiov, The genitive
does not depend on the preposition, but on the local notion involved in the
use of a preposition. There is no real ellipsis any more than in the corres-
ponding English possessives. Tom's may be Tom's house or Tom's shop or
what not. The practical equivalent is irapd, ch€M i irapd Stdaait&Xov, irapa diHa"
ffjcdA^, irapa 6i6&aKakov, Now, an extension of this doctrine would satisfy the
conditions with biri and elsewhere. In the vast majority of instances kiri with
gen. denotes characteristic superposition, and it may still denote superposition
in such standing expressions as ktrl ri/ovf, kif ouc^fiaroc. See my Justin Martyr,
Apol. 1 26, 15, and note especially Athen. 5, 220 D : raig kiri tuv fUKpuv 6iiaifidT(jv,
Perhaps a visit to Pompeii might help the grammarian's faith in the behavior
of prepositions and postpone the divorce of this km rkyov^ from the km tqv
rtyovc of Lys. 3, ii : f^^Muic KarioTTfoav kiri rov riyovt. The height of such a
hut was well fitted for the display of the wares exposed. But any stand, any
form of superposition, will answer the conditions — a seat in front, a step in
the doorway. Still, Dr. Forman has cited a number of examples against such
rule-makers as Rutherford (Babrius 2, 9), examples in which kiri cannot strictly
mean superposition, though he adduces an interesting example (p. 63), Dem.
58, 40: kiri Tuv duaumfpluv xai rov p^paroi, in which kiri retains enough literal-
ness for the second member. But whatever the local exigencies may be, the
phraseological, the adjectival character of the combination is unmistakable.
ol kiri OK^v^ as a technical term is simply oi aiaivlTai^ the * hutmen.' The rarity
of kiri w. gen. of mere proximity in the best period, the large possibilities of
the * upon ' element even then— all this is abundantly shown in Dr. Forman's
dissertation. That ol aird axrfvyf is more common than ol kiri aiofv^t a fact on
which RusCH lays great stress, is a very simple matter, dird etapni^ is kiri
eiapf^g from a different point of view. Sporadic examples in which kiri with
gen. seems to mean ' before' do not strengthen the ff«7*^ argument, which may
quietly repose on the phraseological use of kiri, * On the playhouse side ' is
all the theory demands, and the phrase was fixed long before the time of th%
earliest passage cited.
Another preposition which plays an important part in topography is irp6g,
and the Enneakrunos controversy may be said to hinge on it. See Thuk. 2,
15. Without going into that controversy, it may suffice to say that irp6c with
ace. can only mean ' facing, fronting.' It is the same preposition that is used
of the same locality in Ar. Lysistrata. The Akropolis, or ir6hq, as it was
popularly called, has two faces, and the part meant in the Lysistrata is rd
irpwriikauL (v. 265), the western end. The women had barred the Propylaia,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BRIEF MENTION, 121
and the men had resolved to burn the barriers away, so that the burning
question of the Akropolis now was the burning question then.
A satisfactory edition of Horace, like a satisfactory translation of Horace,
is an impossibility. Erery scholar worthy of the name has an edition of his
own, just as he has heartstrings of his own about which the Venusian plays.
For the English schoolboy, perhaps nothing better could be hoped than the
abridged triumrirate Horace of Pagb, Palmer and WiLKINS just published by
The Macmillan Co., and many American scholars will welcome it in spite of
drawbacks which will be felt more in this country than in England. Neither
grammar nor metres are in accord with recent studies. German authorities as
late as 1894 are cited, it is true. Names like that of Plfiss recur frequently,
but there has been no systematic revision. On egit visen monies (C. I 2, 9) we
are told that this infinitive is of extreme rarity, but Robinson Ellis, who
remarks, A. J. P. V 12 (1884), that ' it belongs in the main to later Latin,' says
in his Avianus, XXII I (1887), that 'it is common from the earliest Latin to
the latest, and that it is not unfrequent in Augustan and post- Augustan poetry.'
Brenons (Hell^nismes, p. 275), like Bonnet, believes in Greek influence, but it
is Greek influence, not strictly Greek idiom. The note on ne — quaesieris (C. I
II, I) is decidedly behind the times, not to say antiquated (see Elmer, A. J. P.
XV [1894], 133 foil.), and one becomes a little weary of the fut. indicative as
a 'polite imperative,' against which I raised my voice — a vox clamanHs in
deserto — ^many years ago. It is not a polite imperative, nor a mild imperative :
it is a familiar imperative, such as one often uses in English to a servant (cf.
Hopkins, The Aryan Future, A. J. P. XIII 37), and Horace has some good
examples in Epist. I 13. where he addresses one Vinius, whom he treats
throughout de kaut en ^oi.— To turn for a moment to another sphere, the long
note on Epist. I 6, 51 — a note which, like many others, is too long for a
schoolbook — might have been shortened, if the redactor, Mr. Page, had
noticed or had seen in time the inscriptional evidence which Mr. Olcott
(A. J. P. XVI 79) has brought to strengthen the traditional interpretation of
trans pondera. But such close study of periodical literature is hardly to be
expected. Not unreasonable, however, would be the demand of decent proof-
reading. It is hard to understand how a Greek scholar could suffer the jumble
of accents one finds in the familiar quotation from Alkaios (C. I 9), and Bera-
eiuies, cited C. 1 14, has been HerakUitos to my certain knowledge since 1851,
the date of Mehler*s edition of the Homeric Allegories, and ought to have
been Herakleitos before. Inexplicable to me is the omission of the Greek
original or the Greek basis of C. I 27. But perhaps the editor was too busy
to notice Anakreon, so bent was he on the mild joke, * The manner of Mr.
Bardell's decease is strictly classical.' Now, personally I have no objection to
the playful reference. Only I remember how I myself was maltreated by Mr.
Page's countrymen for a like reference to Mrs. Waterbrook, who is quite as
presentable as Mr. Bardell (cf. A. J. P. XIV 501). In the same ode, v. 10. we
have Opuntiae Megyllae^ and we are told that " Megylla is a fictitious name "
and that "Opus was the capital of Opuntian Locris." That may be quite
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
122 AMERICAN JOURNAL OP PHILOLOGY,
enough, but is it quite enough? Of course, Horace's Greek girls are fictitious.
No human being — not even the author of the Amores (III 7, 26) — would have
been equal to so many sweethearts. But, however unreal they are, it is the
scholar's business to find out the origin of their names. Milton's Amaryllis
comes straight from Vergil, Milton's Neaera comes straight from Horace, hair
and all, and in like manner Horace's Neaera comes straight from Parthenius.
There was a Milesian lady of that name, a name which would have been
tolerable in the home of Aspasia (see Wilamowitz-MoUendorif, cited A. J. P.
XVI 125), and we all know what manner of woman the Neaira was that figures
in Ps. Dem. LIX. Lyce's name is borne by an ancient Greek light o* love,
A{>ica. Lyde was the sweetheart of Antimachos. Asterie recalls the famous
epigram aaripag etaadpeig^ dar^p kfidg, and Asterie was doubtless a fallen star.
In short, the proper names of these improper persons are clothed or must have
been clothed with literary atmosphere, and I do not believe that Horace had
the courage to invent so much as the name of a Greek cocotU, So Megylla or
MegiUa is not a chance name selected for its smooth sound, as Orelli would
have us believe. Megylla was doubtless a great scamp, and we find a HikyOCka
playing the part of an kroipa in Lucian. Nor is the adjective Opuntiae taken
at random. Megylla was a Locrian, and every one knows what manner of
songs the AoKpuca gafiora were (see Hanssen, A. J. P. IX 457 foil.). Now, I do
not say that Horace belongs to those who are capable of alluding to Doll
Tearsheet and Moll Flanders without having met a Doll Tearsheet or a Moll
Flanders in the flesh, but he is a bookman through and through, and Greek is
necessary to the appreciation of him even in a school edition.
The fourth edition of the Pirsi Book of Classen's Thukydides has appeared
(Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung). The editor is J. Stkup, who has
made considerable additions and modifications, so that the Thukydidean
scholar cannot afford ^o neglect the book. Especially interesting is Stud-
niczka's learned appendix on the Old Attic coiffure. In the preface, after
resenting Croiset*s treatment of his labors, Steup proceeds to mention the
late Professor MoRRis*s ed. of Classen in the usual sniffy German way. Now,
Morris worked very carefully and conscientiously. His basis was Classen, to
be sure, but beneath Classen lay what Morris deemed to be truth, and he did
not hesitate to differ on occasion from the master whom he followed in the
main. Consequently Steup is forced to admit that Morris has often aided
him in the correction of typographical errors and other small oversights,
though otherwise he has very, very seldom received any furtherance from the
American editor. The correctness of the statement I am not disposed to
impugn, inasmuch as the examination of a few selected passages has sufficed
to convince me that, at least in matters of grammar, Steup does not know
enough to learn from others, and I call attention to his grudging acknowledg-
ment of American work chiefly to emphasize a doctrine which it is the duty of
an American Journal of Philology (X 502) to uphold. No one has been more
generous than I have been in my praises of German learning and German
methods, but are we capable of nothing else but adaptations? No matter
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BRIEF MENTION, 1 23
how carefully the work may be done, it will be considered by some slavish
and by others indolent. The ancient classics speak to each nationality with
a different voice, and surely American classical philology is no longer in its
nonage, and American editors ought to stand on their own feet. Let hand-
books be translated, if it must be so, but let us look into the face of the
ancients with American eyes.
Mr. Lionel Horton-Smith's elaborate article on ov = haud reminds me to
say what I ought to have said long ago, that while I welcomed very heartily
Professor Elmer's first treatise on the I^Hn Prohibitive^ which appeared in
A. J. P. XV 132-53, and was glad to incorporate the main results in my Latin
grammar of 1894, the second part, which resolved nee with the perf. subj. into
a potential construction (XV 299-328), has never satisfied me. The only true
syntactical parallel to ov is haud, Neque and neve have, it is true, a certain
practical correspondence to Mk and }jai6k respectively, but ni qtddem and ni^
quaquam and niquiquam are sturdy monuments of the old state of things,
and prevent the perfect parallelism of //^ and ne. Ni qids seems to be sharply
differentiated from nuffus, but how often does ne quis occur, how often the
accusative feminine ? Or are we seriously to suppose that in the line NuUamy
Vare^ sacra vite prius severis arbarem^ which is an instructively close translation
of Alkaios : nff6lv dAXo ^vreho^ np&repov dhdpiov afiiri^o, Horace conceived the
nuUam severis as cv6kv av <lnfTebaeutc. To be frank, should we not be tempted to
call Horace nequam^ if he had used nequam as demanded by the strict rule?
Nor does it seem probable that in passing from tu ne quaesieris scire ne/as to nee
Bafylanios temptaris numeros he felt any special lurch. Why, one may well ask,
if the feeling was so strong, did he not use neu'i In a matter that is largely a
matter of feeling it is impossible to be dogmatic, but a syntactical equation of
inh and ni does not seem tenable, especially when one considers the enormous
range of /^ in Greek.
This Journal has been singularly unlucky in its efforts to call attention to
* epochal' works, and the notices of Mr. Gawain Hamilton's Moods of the
English Bible (IX 516) and Mr. Philip Skene's Ante-Agamemnona, a New
Departure in Philology (XIV 258) have been interpreted unfavorably by the
authors concerned. The Editor's mind is wide open to conviction on all
etymological matters, and when his collaborators have refused to consider
doctrines that they had condemned in advance, he has not hesitated to call
for a fair field ; but in vain. And it is to be feared that the Abb^ Espagnolle's
laborious work, Le vrai dictumnaire dtymologique de la langue fran^aise (Paris,
Klincksieck), runs counter to so many prejudices that the bare statement will
suffice. According to him, Hellenic is the direct descendant of Pelasgian.
The neo-Latin peoples are of Greek or Pelasgian origin. Modem French is
a sister-language of Hellenic, and Modern French exhibits about 4500 Greek
roots attested and, as it were, authenticated by Hellenic. The common stock
of the idioms of the Mediterranean is Greek, not Latin. A few examples will
serve to show the way in which the vocabulary is handled. "Aooortvfr.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
124 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
cortois, x^p^^f poll* qui sait les usages. Lit(tr6), a et oorrigere." "Aieol
yfr. aioi, at^hog, tr^s Ag^, at6^toc est le inline que aUnmoc parceque le v et le A
pennutent. Lit(tr£), aviolUB, Latin forg^." "Arraoher, arracAo, ap/>6aaii
dor. pour avdp)jfyjati, le m^me qu'avapp^v/u< J'arrache. Lit(tr£), abradioare."
"ArtiBte» 6ihperUrru^je pr^re avtc art,fembelHs, ^Affrlaru est une forme dor.
d'aprtC<>>. Lit(tr£), ars." The Doric and Aeolian dialects play a great rdle
in the Abb^ EspagnoUe's etymologies, and a special chapter prepares us for
the unfamiliar forms which the Hellenic words assume in this DUtumnaire
Atymoiogique, But the subject, as I have said, does not lie within my compe-
tence, and I must content myself with recording the appearance of a book
which will remind every scholar of Henri Estienne's famous Omformit/.
In the matter of English di me pusilH finxerunt ammu I am conservatire
by nature, by education, by profession. I do not glory in American English
unless I am backed by ancient usage, and I am mortally afraid of my trans-
planted fellow-countryman, Dr. Fitzedward Hall. His * Modem English' is
alwa3rs at my elbow, but I am afraid to consult it too often, lest I should cease
to write altogether, and writing is my trade. The letter A in the Oxford
Dictionary caused me sleepless nights. To be sure, I was comforted for
having used aloofness in my Pindar, but I could not deny that I had once or
twice in my life employed aside in order to vary the monotony of apart^ and
when Dr. Hall transfixed an American scholar for having used at that^ I felt as
if his spear had gone through me also. And the worst of it is that in my
Essay on Platen the wretched phrase makes a rhyme with ' flat,' and I have
never been able to think of a good equivalent. Of late, around has begun to
haunt me, and when ' fond memory brings the light of other days around me,'
I bethink me of the many passages in which I and other people — notably
English classics — have used that unnecessary ' a.' If, then, I am somewhat
given to Biblical phraseology, it is because I can cling to the altar of the
Authorized Version and feel myself fairly safe. But my timidity does not
keep me from indulging in a certain fearful joy when any one is bold enough
to try conclusions with Dr. Fitzedward Hall, and this is what Mr. Ralph
Olmstsd Williams has done in Some Questions of Good EngHsh Examined in
Controversies with Dr. Fitudward Hall (New York, Henry Holt ft Co.). All I
dare say is that it is very good reading.
*Eine edie Frau giebt es nicht bel [Pindar],' says Wilamowitz in his
recent edition of the Choephori {Das Opfer am Grabe^ p. 32). That is a hard
saying, especially to an editor who has ventured to call Pindar ' a manner of
Frauenlob' (see my Pindar, p. aoi). Surely Alkmene is not unworthy of her
son (N. X, 50). It means something that Cheiron is known by his mother's
name and that the pure daughters of the Centaur reared that model prince
Jason (P 4, 103). The Ninth Olympian is given up to the Eternal Feminine,
and the lofty realm of personifications is full of goddesses. If the worship of
the Virgin Mary is a tribute to womanhood and motherhood, something is to
be said for Pindar's shining forms arrayed in woman's garb.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
126 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Rambaud (L-B.) La langae mande. Paris, 1897. 8vo. 5 fr.
Revilloat (£.) Notice des papyrus demotiques arcbalques. Paris, 1897.
4to, 544 pp. 70 fr.
Viteau (I.) £tade sur le grec du Nouveau Testament. Pans, 1897.
8vo. 12 fr.
Vlachos (A.) Dictionnaire grec-fran^ais. Paris, 1896. 8vo, 1000 pp.
25 fr.
GERMAN.
Aegyptiaca. Festschrift f. Georg Ebers zum i. IIL 1897. Mit i Taf.
in Licbtdr. u. 9 Fig. im Text. gr. 8. vii, 152 S. L., W, Engelmann. m. 20.
Aiox^Tmv Spdfiara ffu^dfieva koI diro^cj^^(Jv airoa^daftaTa fierd k^ifytfTiKov naX
KpiTiKuv oTjfuUtatuv Ty owepyaaiq. Evyeviov Zufiaptdov kic6t66fieva vnd N. Wecklein.
Td/<of II Kal III Tevxog A', gr. 8. Atben. Leipzig, O. Ilarrassowitz in
Komm, — II. 7repiix('n> Upofitfdia, 'liciTiSac kcu * KiroairaafjidTLa. .vii, 648 S . m. 10.
— Ill A', irtpikxiw 'AirooTraafjidTia, S. 649-798. m. 2.
Anthologia latina, edd. Franc. Baecbeler et Alex. Riese. Pars II. Car-
olina latina epigrapbica, conlegit Franc. Buecbeler. Fasc. II. 8. S. 399-
921. L,f B, G. Teubfur, m. 5.20.
Apulei (Lucii) metamorpboseon libri XI. Recensuit J. van der Vliet. 8.
xxix, 292 S. L., B, G. Teubner, m. 3.
Ausgaben u. Abbandlungen aus dem Gebiete der romaniscben Pbilologie.
VerOffentl. v. E. Stengel. 95. Hft. gr. 8. Marburg, N G. Elwerfs Verl.
— 95. Patzold (Alfr.) Die individuellen Eigentttmlicbkeiten einiger her-
vorragender Trobadors im Minneliede. 145 S. m. 3.20.
Bibliothek der angels£cbsiscben Poesie, begr. v. Chrn. W. M. Grein.
Hrsg. V. Rich. Paul Wtilker. 3. Bd. i. Halfte. gr. 8. vii, 248 S. L., G.
H» Wigand, m. 11.
Bibliothek indogermanischer Grammatiken, bearb. v. F. BUcheler, B.
DelbrUck, K. Foy u. a. III. Bd. L., Breitkopf^ ZTtfr/^/.— IIL Griechische
Grammatik v. Gust. Meyer. 3. Aufl. xviii, 715 S. m. 13; geb., m. 14.50.
Breymann (Herm.) Die phonetische Literatur von 1876-1895. gr. 8.
iii, 170 S. L., A, Deichert Nachf, m. 3.sa
BrUnnow (Rud. E.) A Classified List of all Simple and Compound
Cuneiform Ideographs occurring in the Texts hitherto published. Indices
dazu. gr. 4. viii, 344 S. Leiden, Buchh. u, Druckerei vorm. E, J, Brill.
m. 25.
Corpus inscriptionum atticarum academiae litteicarum regiae borussicae.
Appendix. Defixionum tabellae atticae, collegit, collectas praemissa prae-
fatione edidit Ric. Wuensch. Fol. xxxii, 52 S. B., G. Reimer. m. 9.
Fragmenta scaenicae Romanorum poesis, tertiis curis recognovit Otto
Ribbeck. Vol. I. Tragicorum fragmenta. 8. viii, 335 S. L., B. G, Teub-
ner. m. 4.
Gregorii Abulfaragii Bar-Hebraei scholia in libros Samuelis, ed. E.
Schlesinger. gr. 8. iv, 32 S. B., S, Calvary 6f* Co, m. 2.
Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft. Hrsg. von Iwan v.
Mttller. 22. u. 23. Halbbd. qu. Fol. Mttnchen, C. If. Beck. In Mappe,
m; 13.50.— 22, 23. Atlas zu Bd. VI : Arcbaologie der Kunst v. Karl Sittl.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
RECENT PUBLICATIONS. 12/
64 Taf. m. 1000 Abbildgn., nebst Inhaltsverzeichnis u. alphabet. Register.
28 S. m. 13.50;
Heiiiichen(Frdr.Adph.) Lateinisch-deutsches Schulw5rterbach. 6. Aufl.
V. C. Wagener. Lez.-8. zzix, 926 S. L., ^9. G, Teubner, m. 6.30; geb.
in Halbfr., m. 7.50.
H()hler (Wilh.) Die Comutus-Scholien zam i. Buche der Satiren
Juvenals. [Aus *Jahrbb. f. class. Philol.,' 23. Suppl.-Bd.] gr. 8. 63 S.
L., ^. G, Teubner, m. 2.40.
Holder (Alfr.) Alt-celtischer Sprachschatz. 9. Lfg. gr. 8. 2. Bd. Sp.
1-256. L., B. G, Teubner. m. 8.
Jacob (Geo.) Studien in arabiscben Dichtern. IV. Hft. Altarabische
Parallelen zum Alten Testament, gr.8. 25 S. B., Mayer 6* Mailer, m. i.
Jahresbericht, kritischer, Ub. die Fortschritte der romanischen Philologie.
Hrsg. V. Karl VoUmOller. III. Bd. 1891-94. 2. Halfte. 4 Hfte. gr. 8,
I. Hft. 128 S. Erlangen, ^. /««^^. m. 18.
Kluge (Frdr.) Von Luther bis Lessing. 3. Aufl. Mit e. Kartchen. 8.
▼ii, 151 S. Strassburg, X.J, Triibner Verl. m. 2,50.
Krassowsky (Walth.) Ovidius quomodo in isdem fabulis enarrandis a se
ipso discrepuerit. Diss. gr. 8. 38 S. K()nigsberg, Grdfe &• Unzer^s Sort.
m. I.
Krohn (Frdr.) Quaestiones Vitnivianae. Particula I. De M. Ceti
Faventini epitoma. Diss. gr. 8. 43 S. B., Mayer 6* Mailer, m. 1.20.
Kuhn (E.) u. Schnorr v. Carolsfeld (H.) Die Transcription fremder
Alphabete. gr.8. 15 S. \*.^0. Harrassnvitz. m. 1.20.
Kunze (Alfr.) Sallustiana. 3. Hft. Zur Stilistik. i. Thl. Beitrag zu e.
Darstellg. der genet. Entwickelg. des Sallustian. Stils. gi. 8. xiv, 95 S.
L., Simmel dr* Co. m. 2.50.
Lucretius Carus (T.) de rerum natura. Buch III, erklart v. Rich. Heinze.
gr. 8. vi» 206 S. L., B. G. Teubner. m. 4 ; geb., m. 5.
Ludwich (Arth.) Kritische Miscellen (I-XI). Progr. gr. 4. 20 S.
KOnigsberg, Akadem. Buchh, v. Schubert &* Seidel. m. — 30.
Memoires de la soci^t^ finno-ougrienne. IX. gr.8. Helsingsfors. L.,
O. Narrassowitz in Komm. — IX. Schlegel (Gust.) Die chinesische Inschrift
auf dem uigurischen Denkmal in Kara Balgassun. Uebers. u. eri&utert.
XV, 141 S. m. Titelbild u. i Schrifttaf. m. 6.
Miladinoff (Iwan An.) Dentsch-bulgar. WOrterbuch. 3. u. 4. Hft. 8.
S. 281-612 u. iii S. Sofia. L., Kdssling. m. 4 (L Thl. kplt., m. 8).
Mitteilungen aus den orientalischen Saznmlungen der k()nigl. Museen zu
Berlin. VIII. Hft. Fol. B., W. Spemann.^VUl. Steindorff (Geo.)
Grabfunde des mittleren Reichs in den k5nigl. Museen zu Berlin. I. Das
Grab des Mentuhoten. viii, 46 S. m. Abbildgn. u. 13 (11 farb.) Taf. m. 80.
der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft. 1896. 2-4. gr. 8. B., fV.
Peiser Verl. in Komm. — 2. Hartmann (Mart.) Bohtan. Eine topograph-
isch-histor. Studie. I. 60 S. m. 3.50. — 3. Peiser (F. E.) Skizze der
babylonitchen Gesellschaft. 32 S. m. 1.50. — 4. Meissner (B.) Pallacottas.
— MttUer (W. M.) Ein ph()niktscher KOnig ; Ein neuer HetiterkOnig.--
Winckler (Hugo). Das Siegel Ahlib-sar's, u. s. w.— Niebuhr (C.) Das
Land Jarimuta. 36 S. m. 2.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
128 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
Mailer (Job.) Kritische Stadien za den Briefen Senecas. [Aus * Sitz-
ungsber. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss.'] gr. 8. 32 S. Wien, C Gerald' i Sohn in
Kontfn, m. — ^o.
Mussafia (Adf.) Zur Kritik u. Interpretation romanischer Texte. 2.
Beitrag. [Aus < Sitzungsber. d. k. Akad. d. Wiss.'] gr. 8. 72 S. Wien,
C. Gerald's Sohn in Komm. m. 1.60.
Petraris (K.) Taschenw5rterbuch der neugriechischen a. deutschen
Sprache. 2 Tie. gr. 16. L., O. HoltzeU Nachf, Geb. in Leinw., m. 7.60.
— I. Neugriechiscb-Deutsch. iv, 430 S. m. 3.60. — 2. Deutscb-Neugrie-
chiscb. ii, 553 S. m. 4.
Phaedri August! liberti fabulae Aesopiae, ed. Leop. Hervieax. gr. 8.
133 S. Paris, Firmin-Didot 6* Cie, m. 3.20.
Pi8cbel(Kicb.) u. Geldner (Karl F.) Vediscbe Studien. 2. Bd. 2. (Scbluss-)
Hft. gr. 8. X u. S. 193-334. St., W, Kohlhammer, m. 4.50.
Planta (Rob. v.) Grammatik der oskiscb-umbrischen Dialekte. 2. Bd.
Formenlebre, Syntax, Sammlg. der Inscbriften u. Glossen, Anbang, Glossar.
gr. 8. XV, 772 S. Strassburg, K. J. TrUbner Verl. m. 20.
Platonis opera omnia. Kecensuit et commentariis instruxit Godofr.
Stallbaum. Vol. VIII, sect. II. Sopbista. Ed. II. Recensuit, prolego-
menis et commentariis instruxit Otto Apelt. gr. 8. viii, 217 S. L., B, G.
Teubner, m. 5.60.
Plini Secundi (C.) naturalis historiae libri XXXVII. Post Ludov. lani
obitum recognovit edidit Carol. Mayboff. Vol. IV. Libri XXIII-XXX.
8. X, 500 S. L., B, G. Teubner. m. 6.
Plutarchi moralia, recognovit Greg. N. Bemardakis. Vol. VII. Plutarcbi
fragmenta vera et spuria multis accessionibus locnpletata continens. 8.
Ivi, 544 S. L., B. G» Teubner, m. 4.
Epilogus. 8. 47 S. L., B. G, Teubner. m. 2.
Preuss(Artb.) De yersuum iambicorum in melicis partibus usu Aescbyleo.
Diss. gr. 8. 118 S. l^^E.Grdfe. m. 2.
Prosopograpbia imperii romani saec. I. II. Ill edita consilio et auctoritate
academiae scientiarum regiae bornssicae. (In 4 partibus.) Pars I et II.
Lex.-8. B., G. Reimer, m. 44. — I. Edidit Elimar. Klebs. ix, 489 S.
m. 24. — II. Edidit Herm. Dessau, v, 443 S. m. 20.
Radloff (W.) Versucb e. WSrterbucbes der Tttrk-Dialecte. 8. Lfg.
hocb 4. 2. Bd. Sp. 321-640. St Petersburg. L., Voss* Sort, in ICcmm,
m. 2.50.
Rydberg (Gust.) Zur Gescbicbte des franz5siscben 9, I. Die Entstehg.
des p-Lautes. gr. 8. 67 S. Upsala, 1896. L., O, Harrassowitz in Komm,
m. 2.50.
Scboemann (G. F.) Griecbische Altertbttmer. 4. Aufl., neu bearb. v.
J. H. Lipsius. I. Bd. Das Staatswesen. gr. 8. viii, 600 S. B., fVeidmann,
m. 12.
SchGne (Alfr.) tJeber die Ironie in der griecbischen Dicbtnng. Rede,
gr. 8. 23 S. Kiel, Universitdts-Buchh, m. x.40.
Scbwteger (Paul). Der Zauberer Virgil, gr. 8. 76 S. B., E, S. Mittler
&* Sohn, m. 1.50.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
■noT^
RECENT PUBLICATIONS, 1 29
Scriptores latini medii aevi suecani, ediderunt Johs. Paulson et Lars
Wahlin. I. Petri de Dacia vita Christinae Stambelensis ed. Johs. Paulson.
Fasc. 2 secundum de vita Christinae librnm continens. gr. 8. v, 257 S.
Gothenburg, Weitergren 4* Kerber. m. 6.
Serrurier (L.) Catalogue raisonn^ des livres et des manuscrits japonais
enregistr^s k la biblioth^que de I'universit^ de Leyde. Lex. -8. xiii, 298 S.
Leiden, Buchh, u» Druckerei vorm. E,J, Brill, m. 15.
Strassmaier (J. N.) Babylonische Texte. 12. Hft. gr. 8. Leipzig, £.
Pfeijfer, — 12. Inschriften v. Darius, KOnig v. Babylon (521-485 v. Chr.), v.
den Thontafeln des Brit. Museums copirt u. autogr. 3. Hft. Nr. 452-579
vom 17.-23. Regierungsjahre. S. 321-416. m. 7.20.
Studlen, semitistische, hrsg. v. Carl Bezold. 12. Hft. gr. 8. Weimar,
E. Felber. — 12. Mordtmann (J. H.) Beitrage zur minaischen Epigraphik.
Mit 22 in den Text gedr. Fcsms. xiv, 127 S. m. 12.
Tacitus (P. Cornelius). Ab excessu divi Augusti Buch I u. IL Fttr den
Gebr. der SchUler erkl. V. Geo. Andresen. Text. gr. 8. iii, 90U. Anmerkgn.
53 S. B., Weidmann. Geb. in Leinw. u. geh., m. 1.40.
Thukydides. Erkl art v. J. Classen, i. Bd. Einleitung. i. Buch. 4. Aufl.
V. J. Steup. gr. 8. Ixxiv, 398 S. m. 6 Abbildgn. B., Weidmanu, m. 4.50.
Tiktin(H.) Rumanisch-deutsches WOrterbuch. 2. Lfg. Lex...8. S.65-
128. Bukarest L., O. ffarrassowitn, m. 1.60.
ITALIAN.
Monaci (Ernesto). Crestomazia italiana dei prim! secoli, con prospetto
delle flessioni grammaticali e glossario. Fascic. IL Citt^ di Castello.
L. 10.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BOOKS RECEIVED.
Addresses delivered at the Lowell Commemoration held in the Architek-
tenhaus, Berlin, Feb. 19, 1897. Berlin, Mayer 6* Mutter^ 1897.
Bernstein (Ludwig). The Order of Words in Old Norse Prose. (Colum-
bia University Diss.) New York, The Knickerbocker Press, 1897.
Borsy (Bernhardus). De Aristotelis iroXtrelac *AOrivaiuv partis alterius,
fonte et auctoritate. Dorpat, C, Maitiesen, 1897.
Ciceros Rede gegen Q. Caecilias u. das vierte Buch der Anklageschrift
gegen C. Verres. Far den Schulgebr. herausg. v. Hermann Nohl. 2te
Attfl. 70 pf.
Anklageschrift gegen C. Verres. Fanftes Bach. Far den Schul-
gebr. herausg. v. Hermann Nohl. Leipzig, G, Freytag, 1897. 70 pf.
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, ed. consilio et impensis
Academiae Litterarum Caesareae Vindobonensis. Vol. XXXIL S. Am-
brosii opera. Pars I ez recensione Caroli Schenkl. Fasc. Prior. Vindo-
bonac, F, Tempsky, Lipsiae, G, Freytag, MDCCCLXXXVL 12 m. 80 pf.
Dante Society. Fifteenth Annual Report. Dante in America, by Theo-
dore W. Koch. Boston, Ginu 6* Co., 1896.
Demosthenes. The First Philippic and the Olynthiacs, with introduction
and critical and explanatory notes by John Edwin Sandys. London, Mac
millan 6* Co, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1897.
Dictionnaire g^n^ral de la langue franQaise du commencement du XV He
Slide jusqu'ii nos jours, par MM. Hatzfeld, Darmesteter et Thomas. 2oe
livraison. M£RCENAIRE-N]£gRILLON. Prix de souscription i I'ouvrage
complet, 30 fr. Paris, Ch, Delagrave, 1897.
Educational Review. Ed. by N. M. Butler. March, April, May, 1897.
New York, Henry Holt &* Co, I3 per annum ; 35 cts. a copy.
English Dictionary (The Oxford). Ed. by James A. H. Murray. DIS-
TRUSTFULLY-DOOM (vol. HI). FLEXUOSITY-FOISTER (vol. IV),
by Henry Bradley. Oxford, At the Clarendon Frets. New York, The
Macmillan Co.^ 1897. (^ 2S. 6d.
Euripides. The Troades. With revised text and notes by R. Y. Tyrrell.
London, Macmillan £r* Co, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1897.
Fairclough (H. Rushton). The Attitude of the Greek Tragedians toward
Nature. (J. H. U. Diss.) Toronto, Ont., Ronsell ^ Hutchinson, 1897.
Fletcher (W. L) and Bowker(R. R.) The Annual Literary Index, 1896.
New York, Ojgice of the Publishers' Weekly, 1897.
Galdos (B. P.) Dofla Perfecta. With an introduction and notes by A.
R. Marsh. Boston, Ginn 6* Co,, 1897.
Gardner (E. A.) A Handbook of Greek Sculpture. Part II. New York,
Thi Macmillan C«. , 1 897 . $1.25.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BOOKS RECEIVED. I3I
Hanssen (Federico). Estadiot sobre la conjugacion leonesa. (Reprint
from Anaies de la Universidad,) Santiago de Chile, Imprenta Cervantes,
1896.
— — Sobre el hiato en la antigua versificacion castellana. (Pablicado en
I08 Anaies de la Universidad di Diciembre.) Santiago de Chile, 1896.
Hemp] (Geo.) Middle English -w^ -ur^. (Reprinted from the Journal
6f Germanic Philelogy, vol. I, No. i, 1897.)
HQbner (Emil). Jacobo Zobel de Zangi6niz. {Deutsche Rundschau,
Marz 1897.) Separatabdruck. Berlin, Gebr. PaeteL
Inscriptionet Hispaniae Latinae, ed. Aemilins Huebner. C. I. L. snp-
plementam. £z £ph. Epigr. vol. VIII, fasc. Ill seorsum expressam.
Berlin, Georg Reimer, 1897.
Johnston (Harold W.) Latin Mannscripts. (Inter-Collegiate Latin
Series.) Chicago, Scott Foreseman &* Co,, 1897.
Jonmal of Germanic Philology. Ed. by Gustav E. Carsten. Vol. I, No. i.
Bloomington, Ind., The Editor. Boston, Ginn 6r* Co., 1897.
Koerting n. Koschwitz. Zeitschrift fttr franzOsische Sprache a. Litte*
ratar, heraasg. v. D. Behrens. Bd. XIX» Heft 2 u. 4. Referate n. Rezen-
sionen. Berlin, IVilhelm Gronau, 1897.
Kretschmer (Paul). Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen
Sprache. G5ttingen, Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht, 1896. 10 m.
Le Blant (Edmond). 750 inscriptions de pierres gravies in^dites ou pen
connues. Extrait des Memoires de I'Academie des Inscriptions et de
Belles-Lettres. Paris, Lidrairie C. Klincksieck, 1896. 8 fr. 75 c
Mather, Jr. (F. J.) King Ponthus and the Fair Sidone, an inedited
version of the Story of King Horn in LXVII 1-150. Publications of the
Modem Language Association of America. Ed. by Jas. W. Bright. Vol.
XII, No. I. ' N. s., vol. V, No. I. Baltimore, The Association, 1897.
Modern Language Association of America (Publications of the). Ed. by
James W. Bright. Vol. XII, No. 2. N. s., vol. V, No. 2. Baltimore, The
Association, 1897.
Mortet (Victor). Un nouveau texte des traites d'arpentage et de g^om^-
trie d'Epaphroditus et de Vitruvius Rufns. Avec introd. de Paul Tannery.
Tir^ des Notices et Extraits des mss. de la Bibliothique Nationale, XXXV
2^. Paris, Lidrairie C. Klincksieck, 1896. 2 fr. 60 c.
Plauti Rudens. (MacGill University Edition.) Montreal, 1897.
Postgate (J. P.) Silva Maniliana. Congessit J. P. P. Cantab. MDCCC-
LXXXXVIL
UpOKTusa T^c kv *A6fyifaig *Apxato^^usvC 'Eroupeioc. 'Ad^vfjotv, 1896.
Ramsay (W. M.) The Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia. Vol. I, Part II.
West and West-Central Phrygia. Oxford,^/ the Clarendon Press. New
York, The Macmillan Co, 21s.
Riess (Ernst). Superstitions and Popular Beliefs in Greek Tragedy.
(Extract from Transactions of the American Philological Association, vol.
XXVII, 1896.)
Sanders (Daniel). Encyclopaedic English-German and German-English
Dictionary. Part second, German-English. Unabridged edition. Fasc. i.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
132 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
A-Ambannen. Berlin, LangtnschHdf sche Buchhandlung, New York,
International News Co» 24 fasc. @ i m. 50 pf.
Satura Viadrina. Festschrift zam fanfundzwanzigsten Bestehen des
Philologischen Vereins zn Breslau. Breslaa, Schottl&nder^ 1896.
Schneidewin (Max). Die antike Humanitat Berlin, Weidmannsche
Buckkandlungy 1897. 12 m.
Schoemann (G. F.) Griechische Alterthttmer. Vierte Auflage. Nea
bearbeitet von J. H. Lipsius. Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlungy 1897.
12 m.
Sweet (Henry). The Student's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon. New York,
The Macmillan Co.^ 1897.
Thucydides. Book VI. £d. by £. C. Marchant. London, Macmillan
<&• Co. New York, The Macmillan Co.^ 1897.
Thnkydides. Erkl. von J. Classen. Erster Band. Einleitung. Erstes
Buch. Vierte Anfl., bearb. von J. Steup. Berlin, Weidmannsche Buch'
handlungy 1897. 4 m. 50 pf.
Tsountas (Chrestos) and Manatt (J. Irving). The Mycenaean Age.
Boston and New York, Houghton^ Mifflin &* Co,, 1897. $6.
Vos (B. J.) The Diction and Kime-Technic of Hartman von Aue.
(J. H. U. Diss.) New York, Lemche <Sr- BUchner, 1896.
Weil (Henri). ]£tude8 sar le drame antique. Paris, Hachette et Cie.,
1897.
«— Un nouveau fragment de Ph^recyde de Syros. Revue des £tudes
grecques. (Tirage i part) 1897.
Wilhelm (Eugen). Perser. (Sonderdruck aus Jahresberichte der Ge-
schichtswissenschaft.) Berlin, R, Gaertner*s Verlagsbuchhandlung^ 1897.
Zeitschrift f&r deutsches Altertum u. deutsche Litteratur, herausg. v. £.
Schroeder u. Gustav Roethe. XLI. Bd. 2tes Heft. Berlin, Weidmannsche
Buchhandlungy 1897.
Zielinski (Th.) Cicero im Wandel der Jahrhunderte. Ein Vortrag v.
Th. Zielinski. Leipzig, B. G. Teubner, 1897. 2 m. 40.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
AD VEX TISEMENTS.
LeMCKE & BUECHNER,
Formerly B. WMtMVUUiD & Co.,
Publishers, Booksellers
AND importers,
812 Broadway, New York,
With Offices at London^ Leipzig and Paris.
Just Published— the American Edition of
PLUBOBL-SCHMIDT-TANQER'S
School- and Hand-Lexicon of the Qerman and English Languages.
2 vols., Urge 8vo, half leather, II4.50.
The German-English part separately, $2.60.
Destined to replace the venerable Adler and, more or less, all other
German-English Dictionaries now used in Colleges and High Schools. It
is just the book which Professors of German have been asking us to
SQpply for many years. When it was not promptly forthcoming, there
was a project considered by these gentlemen for a time to compile a
dictionary here. Happily Flnegel now is ready, and orders for Schools
can be filled. Professors will please communicate with us direct.
Special Notice.
The stock of complete sets in the hands of the management of The
American Journal of Philology was exhausted some time ago, but a
few sets have been made up of late by purchase and exchange. These sets
will be sold at the regular price, I51 for the seventeen volumes, cash to
accompany the order. Of single volumes ($3) Volumes IV and VI cannot
be furnished. Of single numbers ($1) 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, 49, 50, 52 are
wanting. No. 40, which contains the Indtfx to Vols. I-X, is not furnished
separately, but a small edition of the Index itself is for sale at $1.00 a
copy. Address,
B. L. Gildersleeve, Baltimore, Md.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
The Macmillan Company's
New Books in Foreign Languages, etc.
An Aid of Great Importance to Students of Early English,
Student's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon (The). By Hsnry Sweet, M. A.,
Ph.D., LL.D., CorrespoDding Member of the Munich Academy of
Sciences. Small 4to, cloth, pp. xvi -{- 217. Price, $1.75 net.
The Anglo-Saxon Primer and Reader by Henry Sweet are so well known
that this needs no introduction; they rank at once among the books
necessary to every student of Anglo-Saxon.
FRENCH.
BIART.— Quand J'etais Petit. Histoire d'un Enfant racontee par un
Homme. By Lucien Biart. Adapted for Use in Schools, with Notes
and Vocabulary by James BoIelle, B. A. Part I. i6mo, cloth. Pitt
Press Series. Price, 50 cents net.
MOLIBRB — L'Avare. Par J.-B. P. MoLiiRE. Edited with Introduc-
tion and Notes by £. G. W. Braunholtz, M. A., Ph. D., University
Lecturer in French. i6mo, cloth, pp. xlvii + 245. Pitt Press Series.
Price, 70 cents net.
GERMAN.
MACMILLAN'S FOREIGN SCHOOL CLASSICS. Edited by G.
Eugene Fasnacht. LESSING. — ^Minna von Bamhelm. Edited
with Introduction and Notes by Kev. Charles Mere, M. A., Ph. D.,
Leipzig. i2mo, cloth, pp. Ixviii -f- 224. Price, 75 cents net.
AMERICANA GERMANICA. A Quarterly devoted to the Comparative
Study of the Literary, Linguistic and other Cultural Relatious of
Germany and America. Editor, Professor M. D. Learned, of the
University of Pennsylvania. Vol. I, No. i. Single number, 75 cents.
Annual subscription, $2.00.
ENGLISH.
BARRERE and LELAND. — A Dictionary of Slang, Jargon, and Cant.
Embracing English, American and Anglo-Indian Slang, Pidgin English,
Gypsies' Jargon, and other irregular phraseology. Compiled and
edited by Albert Barr&re, Officier de I'instruction publique; Pro-
fessor R. M. A. Woolwich, author of 'Argot and Slang,' etc., etc.;
and Charles G. Leland, M. A, Hon. F. K. S. L., author of <The
Breitmann Ballads," The English Gypsies and their Language,' etc. »
etc. In 2 vols. Vol. I, A-K, pp. xix+500; vol. II, L-Z, pp. 415.
Crown 8vo. Price, $4.00.
In Preparation.
GERMAN.
HEINE.— Selections from Heine. Edited with Notes and Introduction
by C. A. BucHHEiM, Professor of German Literature in King's College*
Uniform with Deutsche Lyrik, Golden Treasury Series.
The Macmillan Company, 66 Fifth Ave., New York.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ADVERTISEMENTS.
THE FRIEDENWALD
COMPANY,
Printers,
Lithographers,
Book Binders,
BALTIMORE, EUTAW AND GERMAN STREETS,
BALTIMORE, MD.
THE LEADING HOUSE.
Printers of the American Journal of Philology, American
Journal of Mathematics, Memoirs from the Biolog-
ical Laboratory, Studies in Historical and
Political Science, issued by the Johns
Hopkins University.
ESTIMATES CHEERFULLY SUBMITTED.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
INDISPENSABLE TO EVERY LATIN TEACHER.
QILDBRSLBBVB'S LATIN GRAMMAR.
THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED.
By B. L. GiLDERSLEEVE, Ph. D., Professor of Greek in the Johns Hopkins
University, Editor of the American Journal of Philology, and Gonzalez
Lodge, Ph. D., Associate Professor of Latin in Bryn Mawr College, Pa.
550 pp. Cloth, 9z.ao.
For school and college use. the new edition of Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar, in point of
fulness, accuracy and convenience, rivals, if it does not surpass, all Latin grammars with
which I am acquainted.— -J. P. Postgatb, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, England.
It is a superfluous compliment to praise any work of Prof. Gildersleeve, who never does
any which is not praiseworthy.— W. W. Goodwim, Ph. D., Eliot Prof, of Greek Literature,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
CABSAR'S CIVIL WAR.
With Maps and Vocabularies. Edited for the use of Schools, with refer-
ences to the Latin Grammars of Gildersleeve, Allen and Greenough,
and Harkness. By B. Perrin, Ph. D., Professor of Greek in Yale
University. i2mo, 348 pp. Price, Cloth, 9z.oo.
Prof. Tract Pbck, Yale University, New Haven, says : " It is matter for congratulation
that at last, and so auspiciously, the 'Civil War' has been made available and attractive for
American schools."
Prof. W. A. Packakd, College of New Jersey, Princeton. N. J., says: "Perrin's 'Civil
War' is thoroughly and skillfully edited, and is a welcome addition to our preparatory text-
books in Latip.^'
UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING COMPANY,
Boston, 352 Wathington St. 43, 45, 47 E. Tenth St., NEW YORK.
New Orleans, 714-716 Canal St. [4T.
ESSAYS AND STUDIES
BY
BASIL LANNEAU GILDERSLEEVE
^o pages t small quarto, bound in cloth. Price, $3.50 (net).
Educational Essays: — i. Limits of Culture. 2. Classics and
Colleges. 3. University Work in America. 4. Grammar
and Aesthetics.
Literary and Historical Studies: — i. Legend of Venus.
2. Xanthippe and Socrates. 3. ApoUonius of Tyana.
4. Lucian. 5. The Emperor Julian. 6. Platen's Poems.
7. Maximilian ; his Travels and his Tragedy. 8. Occa-
sional Addresses.
N. MURRAY,
The Johns Hopkins Press,
Oct.^ 1890. Baltimore, Md.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
AD VER TISEMENTS.
HELPS IN CLASSICAL STUDY.
HARPER'S CLASSICAL DICTIONARY.
Harper's Dictionary of Classical Literature and Antiquities. Edited by Harrt Thur-
ston Pbck, M. a., Ph. D., Professor of the Latin Lan^ages and Literature in Columbia
Unirersity, City of New York. With the cooperation of many special contributors.
Pp. zvi, 1 701. with about 1500 illustrations. Royal 8vo. cloth, $6.00; half leather, |8.oo.
Two-volume edition, cloth, I7.00.
Unquestionably, in many rexpects, the most anthoritative work of the kind that has yet
been published. ... In short, this is what the editor claims for it— a classical encyclopaedia.
There is no one rolume on the market at once so complete and so succinct, and whose vast
collection of information is so readily and immediately accessible A^. Y, Htrald,
The student of clswsical antiquity, whether in art, life, religion, or literature, will find the
volume a whole library of information, admirably arranged for practical use. . . . The text is
clear, terse, and pointed.— Ct>ra^<y Inier-Octan*
MODERN GREEK MASTERY.
A Short Road to Ancient Greek. By Thomas L. Stbdmah, A. M., M. D. Pp. viii, 380.
Pott 8vo, cloth, $1.50.
Dr. Stedman has filled a very actual want. ... A work by means of which the mastery of
the so-called modem Greek language will be very greatly facilitated and that of the ancient
will be made more easy. . . . The parts dealing with the conjugation of the verb, especially
the sectioiu on the aorist and future, are written with the greatest clearness, and are readily
comprehensible. . . . There never hajt been published in the English language fuch a practical
method for the mastery of the Greek tongue; and our opinion Is that this important and, as
far as that Is possible, perfect work of Dr. Stedman is a production of great irvighi,— Atlantis,
New York.
AN ENQLISH-QREEK DICTIONARY.
A Concise Dictionary of the Enelish and Modern Greek Languages, as Actually Written
and Spoken. By A. M. Jamnaris, Ph. D. English-Greek. Pp. xvi,436. Post 8vo, doth,
I9.50.
The author has endeavored to render this work compact and concise by employing ajudiclous
system of abbreviation and by omitting all references and quotations. The book is of interest
to the student of Classic Greek who posaenses any tendency towards philology. The extinc-
tion of the present infinitive, of the optative, and of part of the imperative will be noticed in
examining the verb. Likewise the replacing of the dative by the accusative, the disappear-
ance of rho final, and the abandonment of the reduplication in nouns and participles. Archaic
or learned, coUoquial, literary and ecclesiastical expressions are all given, and are marked
with different signs. Careful comparison reveals the Roman, Byxantine, or Turkish influence
in some of the older forms, and the tendency towards learned Greek In the present Restoration
Period of the languages.
PROFESSOR QILDERSLEEVE'S PINDAR.
Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Ode«. With Introductory £«say, Notes. and Indexes.
By Basil L. Gildbkslbkvk, Professor of Greek in the Johns Hopkins University.
Pp. cxvi, 396. lamo, cloth, I1.50.
Prepared with mat exactness.— ^r^^^/^ Union,
Never before did the appearance of an American edition of a Greek poet so nearly approach
an 'event* in scholastic circles as the publication of Gilderslceve's ' Pindar.'— AVw York
Timg*.
Pour ceux qui commencent T^tude de Plndare rien ne saurait remplacer ce livre. — Retmo do
Pkitologit,
PROFESSOR GILDERSLEEVE'S PERSIUS.
The Satires of A. Perkins Flaccus. Edited by Basil L. Gildbsslbbvb, Ph. D. (Gdt-
ttngen), LL. D., Professor of Greek in the Johns Hopkins University. Pp. 933. lamo,
cloth. 90 cents. By mail, |i.oo.
I discover in it at once ample evidence of the accurate and thorough scholarship which I
expected to find. ... I have myself found instruction and recreation in It. The ' Introduc-
tion' and 'Notes' are as good a whetstone as the 'Satires' themselves.— W. S. Tvlxr,
Professor of Greek, Amherst College.
JUSTIN MARTYR.
The Apologies of Justin Martyr. To which is appended the Epistle to Diognetus. With
an Introduction and Notes by Basil L. Gildkr8i.bbvb, Ph. D. ^Gfitt.), LL. D., Professor
of Greek in the Johns Hopkins University. Pp. xlii, 990. xamo, cloth, ^x.30. By mail,
Si.44.
Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, New York.
Tko abovt works art for salf by all booksell'rs, or will he sent by the Publishers on receipt
0/ price, l/ordored sent by mail, xo per cent, must be addod to cover cost 0/ postage. [it.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS,
I. American Journal of Mathematics.
Edited by T. Craig, with the co-operation of S. Nkwcomb. Quarterly.
4to. Volume XIX in progress. $5 per volume.
II. American Chemical Journal.
I. Remsen, Editor. Ten numbers a year. 8vo. Volume XIX in progress.
$4 per volume.
III. American J6umal of Philology.
6. L. GiLDERSLESVB, Editor. Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XVII complete.
$2 per volume. Index to Vols. I-X, $1,
IV. Studies from the Biological Laboratory. 8vo. Volume V complete.
$5 per volume.
V. Studies in Historical and Political Science.
H. B. Adams, Editor. Monthly. 8vo. Volume XV in progress. $3 per
volume.
VI. Johns Hopkins UniTersity Circulars.
Containing reports of scientific and literary work in progress in Baltimore.
4to. Vol. XVI in progress. $1 per year.
VII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. 4to. Monthly. Volume VIII in
progress. $1 per year.
VIII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 4to. Volume VI in progress. $5
per volume.
IX. Contributions to Assyriology and Comparative Semitic Philology.
(Beitr&ge zur Assyriologie, etc.) Vol. Ill in progress.
X. Memoirs from the Biological Laboratory.
W. K. Brooks, Editor. Volume III complete. $7.50 per volume.
XI. Annual Report.
Presented by the President to the Board of Trustees, reviewing the opera-
tions of the University during the past academic year.
XII. Annual Register.
Giving the list of officers and students, and stating the regulations, etc, ol
the University. Published at the close of the academic year.
In addition to the serials above named, copies may be obtained of the works
mentioned below :
The Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.
Edited by Professor Paul Haupt. Prospectus on application.
Rowland's Photograph of the Normal Solar Spectrum. 10 plates.
$20.00.
Description of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. J. S. Billings, Editor.
116 pp. 4to. 56 plates. $7.50, cloth.
The Teaching of the Apostles. Complete facsimile edition. Edited by
J. Rendel Harris. 1 10 pp. 4to. 10 plates. $5.00.
Reproduction in Phototype of a Syriac MS with the Antilbgomena
Epistles. Edited by I. H. Hall. I3.
The Oyster. By W. K. Brooks. 240 pp. i2mo. 14 plates. $1.00.
Studies in Logic. By members of the Johns Hopkins University. C. S.
Pierce, Editor. 123 pp. i2mo. $2.00, cloth.
The Constitution of Japan, with Speeches, etc., illustrating its significance.
48 pp. i6mo. 50 cents.
Bibliographia Hopkinsiensis. Part I. Philology. Parts II-III. Chemistry,
Mineralogy and Geology. Parts IV-V-Vl. Physics, Astronomy and
Mathematics. 8vo. 30 cents per part.
A full list of publications will be sent on application.
Communications in respect to exchanges and remittances may be
sent to The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimfia^ Maryland.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY
Vol. XVIII, 2. Whole No. 70.
I.— THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN INDEPENDENT SEN-
TENCES IN PLAUTUS.
I. — Facts.
This paper consists of three parts: first, a presentation of the
facts of usage ; second, a discussion of some of the forces which
appear to have affected the mode ; third, remarks upon the poten-
tial and the optative uses and upon the subjunctive in general.
No precise line can be drawn between the independent sentence
and the dependent clause, but for my purpose I have included
most of the cases of the subjunctive in parataxis. Of indirect
questions, however, I have taken only those into which uis, uin
and similar words are inserted ; other indirect questions, though
many of them are actually paratactic, are not included in the lists.
The paratactic prohibition with ne passes at once into the ne
clause, and is therefore not given. No sentences are included
which contain a formal protasis ; this involves the omission of a
considerable number of cases where the subjunctive is undoubt-
edly independent of the protasis, but they are in all respects
similar to the cases given in the lists and the material is sufficient
without them.
In the presentation of the facts there is no classification by
function, such as is usually made. The division is by tense,
person and number, with a subdivision according to the form of
the sentence. This, in full, would be as follows :
I. Affirmati/e.
A. Indeoendent.
a) Non-interrogative.
b) Interrogative.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
134 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
B. Paratactic.
a) Non-interrogative.
F) Interrogative.
II. Negative (with the same sub-classes).
For all practical purposes this scheme is followed closely
enough by making for each person and number four classes : —
Independent, Interrogative, Paratactic and Negative with ne^
Under each class the uses to which the form may be put are
described and illustrated, and this leads in the end to a partial
classification by function. Full lists are given only where the
usage is important or infrequent, but complete statistics will be
found in the tables.
Present, i si sing.
A. Non-interrogative, independent. — As the same form is used
in the 3d and partly in the 4th conjugation for pres. subj. and fut*
indie, the undoubted subjunctive forms are given first and used
as a criterion for distinguishing pres. from fut. where the form is
the same.
Three cases are marked as subjunctive by uiinam, Aul. 433,.
Epid. 196, Trin. 618. These are all wishes. Pers. 575, modo ut
sciam quanti indicet, is marked by ut, but in meaning is like those
which follow.
The subj. form is found in the following cases : Ba. 1049 quod
perdundumst, properem perdere ; 1058 sed crepuit foris : ecfertur
praeda ex Troia. taceam nunciam; Trin. 11 36 quid ego cesso*
hos conloqui? sed maneam etiam, opinor; Pers. 542 uideam
modo mercimonium. Cf. 575, above, and Ter. Heaut. 273 hoc
quod coepi primum enarrem, Clitipho: post istuc ueniam. All
express the speaker's desire or choice in regard to an act of his
own. The first three are in soliloquy ; Pers. 542 and 575 are in
a dialogue and are answered, but they are also half-soliloquizing.
All the remaining cases (except those of the 3d conjug.) are
hypothetical, dealing with the speaker's action in a supposed
case. The phrase non meream (merear') is found in Ba. 11 84
quem quidem ut non hodie excruciem, alterum tantum auri non
meream, Men. 217, Poen. 430, and in a like sense, non emanty
Capt 274. Almost identical is floccum (jctccum) non interduim,
Rud. 580, Trin. 994, and, with negative implication, Aul. 672 tam
duim quam perduim. All these assert the speaker's conviction in
regard to his own action in a supposed case, corresponding in
general to the English, * I would not do it for the world.'
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. I35
In two cases the speaker assures the hearer in regard to his
action in a supposed case. Capt. 237, quod tibi suadeam, suadeam
meo patri, is not above suspicion (jsuadeo^ Cam., Sch.), but Trin.
758 is a clear statement of intention.
The assurance is scarcely more than a view or opinion in True.
495 sine uirtute argutum ciuem mihi habeam pro praefica, and
Aul. 230, Merc. 125 nimis nili tibicen siem, are clearly only
expressions of opinion. In Capt. 237, Trin. 758, Aul. 230, a
clause with conditional coloring precedes, and the same thing is
implied in True. 495.
The text is doubtful in several passages. In Aul. 570 there is
a hiatus and Seyffert supplies quod . . . habeo. This makes good
sense, but I think it sure that non potent could mean the same
thing as nolopotare^ which Goetz suggests in the notes. In Trin.
749 the difficulty is in reconciling the text to the following verses,
but adeam^ edoceam are correct in themselves, and precbely
similar to cases which will be mentioned in 3d sing., where a half-
indirect subjunctive is used in proposing a plan of action. Men.
982, if si (Bx.) be not supplied, is an extreme case, scarcely
parallel to any of the preceding. St. 208^ is a gloss.
Of clearly subjunctive forms, then (omitting uelim)^ PI. uses
only 20, with perhaps two to be added from doubtful passages.
Functionally, they are of four kinds. They express a) the
speaker's choice or desire in regard to his own action; V) his
conviction as to his (negative) action in a supposed case ; c) his
assurance to another person in regard to his action in a supposed
case; and d) his opinion about a supposed case. In c and d
there is usually a clause or phrase which gives hypothetical tone.
As to the verbs which use the same form for ist sing, of fut.
indie, and pres. subj., it may be said, by way of preliminary, that
the fact that language has found no special form to express
futurity in the first person dicam^ as it has in dices^ dicas, is clear
proof that there was no strong distinction in meaning. It is
therefore an error to force every case of faciam or dUam either
into a future or a pres. subjunctive.
Some of the frequently recurring soliloquies in which a speaker
conceals himself as he hears the door opening, like Ba. 610 sed
hue concedam, Epid. 103, Cas. 434, closely resemble Trin. 1136,
so that with a different verb we might have had a clear subj. form,
e. g. abeam. The situation in Ba. 798, Rud. 1356 sed conticiscam,
is exactly like Ba. 1058 taceam nunciam. As the periphrastic
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
136 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
form in Ba. 1049 (above) helps to d^fm^ properem^ so in Cist. 657
faciundumst puerile ofBdum : conquiniscam ad cistulam, the two
phrases refer to the same act, toward which the speaker's mental
attitude is the same, and the periphrastic strongly suggests the
sense 'must' for the subj. Cf. the parataxis with necessest, below.
In Asin. 605 sermoni iam finem face tuo : huius sermonem acci-
piam, Aul. 405, Cas. 516 nunc amicine anne inimici sis imago,
. . ., sciam, the verb expresses desire, not futurity, and Merc. 881,
recipiam me illuc, expresses choice, as in parataxis with opiumumsL
The modal shading in these cases is faint and it would no doubt
be possible to translate them all as futures, but they are parallel
to the subj. forms given above and to the paratactic uses to be
given later. With them, though less clearly, may be classed the
cases of the subj.-fut. forms with poiiuSy like Epid. 149 ne feceris :
ego istuc accedam periclum potius, Cas. 999 hercle opinor potius
nobis credam quod dicitis, Aul. 767 i refer: dimidiam tecum
potius partem diuidam. There is a slight modal shading, deter-
mination taking the form of preference, but there is nothing in
the context to give a hypothetical tone. Cf. also the difference
between uelim and malim^ below, and see the careful treatment
of these expressions in Neumann, de fut in prise Lat. . . . ui et
usu, Breslau, 1888.
non dicam dolo, Men. 228, Trin. 480, is an introduction to a
following remark and is allied to the frequent use of dicam,
eloquar to introduce a statement. Trin. 90 haud dicam dolo is
exactly similar, though the statement is postponed to 94; it
should be followed by a colon, not by a period. The ordinary
punctuation makes it wrongly a reply to the preceding question.
Of the same nature is the phrase deum (maiorum) uirtute dicam,
M. G. 679, Pers. 390, Ps. 581, Trin. 346. It is parenthetical and
introductory to the statement which follows.* In Aul. 283 dicam
seems to be similar, though the text is hopelessly corrupt. It is
possible enough to translate ' I may say,' but instead of trusting
to the very uncertain test of translation I prefer for the present to
say that these cases lie in the borderland between the future and
the subjunctive, having resemblances to both.
In a few cases the context shows that the mode expresses an
opinion in regard to a supposed case. In Aul. 232 there is an
^ Cramer, de perf. coniunct. usu potential! ap. prise, script. Lat., Marburg,
1886, p. 54, calls this optative and comp./or/ tua dixerim, Brix on Trin. 346
calls it future.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
wmmm^^smsmmmmBmm^
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 1 37
ubi clause; in Ps. 358 the hypothetical suggestion is in the
sentence itself; in M. G. 845 it is suggested by the other speaker ;
Amph. 156, 161 are in a long hypothetical passage containing a
si clause. Men. 985 is confused and Bx. is probably right in
making a protasis.
To summarize, there are in ist sing. pres. the following :
With uiinam.
3
modo id,
I
Subj. forms—
of desire or choice,
4
conviction (neg.),
7
assurance,
2
opinion,
3
Doubtful forms —
of desire and choice.
9
vf'iih poiius, (?)
non dicam dolo, 3
deum uiriute dicam, 4
of opinion,
5
34
To this number perhaps two or three should be added from
passages of doubtful text, and if the cases -^x^poiius were added,
the number would be somewhat increased.
The remaining cases under this heading are all cases oiuelim
and compounds, of which full lists are given.
uelim with paraiactic subjunctive. — In the 2d sing, pres., Cas.
234 enicas. II uera dicas uelim; Rud. 511 pulmoneum edepol
nimis uelim uomitum nomas; Rud. 1067, Men. 909. The taunt-
ing verse in Trin. 351 quod habes ne habeas et illuc quod non
habes habeas is followed by uelim malum in A, by malum in BD.
To the reasons given by Bx. Anh. for believing malum to be the
gloss, I would add the close resemblance of this passage to the
others above and the fact that the 2d sing, always has uiinam
or uelim in wishes except in certain formulas and once in the
marriage song, Cas. 822. With the 3d pers., Rud. 877 perii. ||
uerum sit uelim ; and six cases with ueniat, Aul. 670 nimis hercle
ego ilium coruom ad me ueniat uelim, Cas. 559, Most. 1074 nunc
ego ille hue ueniat uelim, Poen. 1288, Ps. 1061, True. 481. In
five of these nunc is used and the person is sometimes in the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
138 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
nom. with ueniat, sometimes in ace. (Aul. 670, Cas. 559, Ps. 1061).
The order is always ueniai tielim. With the 3d pers. of the perf.,
Ba. 334 nescit quid faciat auro. || mihi dederit uelim, Poen. 1206
. . . quod haruspex . . . dixit. || uelim de me aliquid dixerit, Rud.
662, Poen. 570. Once, in Most. 632 nihilo plus peto. || uelim
quidem hercle ut uno nummo plus petam, an id is inserted
between uelim and the subjunct., with the same challenging and
hostile sense that appears in most cases with paratactic subjunctive.
In ten cases uelim takes an iniin. Without subject ace, Cist.
497 di me perdant — 1| quodcumque optes, tibi uelim contingere ;
Asin. 274. With me^ Ba. 530, Cas. 287, Epid. 120, Most. 218 in
anginam ego nunc me uelim uorti. With te, Aul. 120 uelim te
arbitrari med haec uerba . . . tuae rei causa facere; Fragm. 41
uelim ted arbitrari factum. With other subjects, St. 587 edepol
ne ego nunc mihi medimnum mille esse argenti uelim ; Trin. 433.
With a perfect participle, Aul. 504 moribus praefectum mulierum
hunc factum uelim ; Ba. 603 sufflatus ille hue ueniet. || disruptum
uelim ; Cas. 326 ego edepol illam mediam disruptam uelim ;
Cure. 83, St. 191, 613. With an adj., Amph. 834 uera istaec
uelim ; cf. Rud. 877, above. With a direct object, Amph. 1058
animo malest, aquam uelim ; Most. 266 nimis uelim lapidem, qui
. . . diminuam caput; Ps. 598, Rud. 211. Absolute, Cas. 464 ut
tibi, dum uiuam, bene uelim plus quam mihi ! (This is the only
passage where «/, which here shows plainly its exclamatory
character, is used with uelim) \ Most. 742 (R.^ L.'* uellem), Pers.
629, Ps. 1070, Trin. 58, Fragm. 38.
As to the meaning of these 44 cases, the following points may
be noted : i) With a few exceptions, the speaker does not expect
that the expression of his desire will bring about the realization
of the desire. This is the general characteristic which, with
some modifications, is common to all the various forms of
optation.^ The exceptions are Men. 909, perhaps Rud. 1067,
Aul. 120, Fragm. 41, in all of which the person addressed is to be
the actor. An expression of desire thus directly addressed to
the person who has it in his power to act is of necessity very little
removed from a direct expression of will, and Men. 909 adeas
uelim is only a trifle more polite than adeas or adeas uolo. But
in Rud. 1067 . . . ne uideas uelim it is not in the power of the
second person to avoid seeing, and in Aul. 120, Fragm. 41, where
^ I venture to use this word in a technical sense, in order to avoid confusion
from the different meanings of the English word wish.
Dlylilz^d by
Geogte-
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 1 39
the dependent phrase is te arbiirari^ the thinking or believing is
not strictly an act which depends on the will of the believer.
Possibly Most. 742 should also be called an exception, but the
passage is peculiar in other ways also. 2) In more than half of
these cases the content of the sentence is a curse or a wish which
involves a threat. 3) The paratactic subjunctive is, with perhaps
two exceptions, the kind of subjunctive which in other connections
would be recognized as optative.
In general, the understanding of a modal usage must depend
upon a correct interpretation, and full lists of uelim have been
given in order to enable the reader to see for himself that the
ordinary explanation of uelim as a potential or a subjunctive of
modesty or of mild assertion is absolutely inconsistent with the
facts of usage in Plautus. To translate it ' I should like ' is simply
to introduce confusion by the use of a peculiar English idiom.
The subjunctive is optative in character, but the fuller discussion
of this must be postponed until the other paratactic verbs ai-e
given.
mauelim, malim. With paratactic subjunctive, Poen. 11 50
abeo igitur. || facias modo quam memores mauelim, Poen. 11 84.
With ut clause, Trin. 762 malim hercle ut uerum dicas quam
ut des mutuom.
With infin., Asin. 811 emori me malim, quam haec non eius
uxori indicem, Ba. 465, 490, 514, 519 (a gloss), Men. 720, Merc.
356, 889, Pers. 4, Poen. 827, True. 260, 743 (a somewhat uncertain
conjecture), Vid. no. The subject is mCt expressed or implied,
except in the last case.
With direct object, Poen. 151 istuc mauelim.
With adj. or ptc, implying esse, Aul. 661, Epid. 119, Poen.
1 214, True. 742.
With dependent phrase implied in the context, though not
expressed, Capt. 858, Rud. 570, True. 422.
It will be noted that malim takes the infin., with me implied or
expressed, much more generally than uelim, and that it has the
paratactic subjunctive only twice, in 2d sing. pres. With these
exceptions, the relationship to uelim appears clearly ; the desire
(preference) is expressed without expectation that the expression
will lead to its realization, as in all optations, and a large number
of cases contain a kind of self-curse (emori me malim, quam;
perire me malim; mendicum malim mendicando uincere; arare
mauelim, etc.). The composition with mage, however, by reduc-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Pant. lubj.
ut
Infin
uelim^ 1 6
I
10
malim, 2
I
13
noitm,
2
peruelifn^
2
140 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
ing the wish to a preference somewhat obscures the optative
sense and gives more apparent reason for calling malim potential.
Compare what is said later on the effect oi poUus.
nolim is used three times : Amph. 86 and sppt. 943 with infin.,
Merc. 539, absolutely.
pemelim also occurs three times : with infin., Cas. 862, Epid.
536 ; with ptc. {esse implied), Cure. 102.
In tabular form these uses are :
Infin. Ptc. and adj. Obj. Absol.
7 4 6 = 44
4 I 3 = 24
I = 3
I = 3
74
B. InterrogaHve sentences^ with fires, subj., ist sing. — Since the
effect of the interrogative form of sentence upon the meaning of
the mode must come up later for discussion, the statement of
usage is made as brief as possible.
I. Questions with quis^ arranged (with the exception of the
dicam questions) according to the form and construction of quis.
The pronoun occurs 5 times in the accus. {qium 3, qtiam i,
quod i) ; two of these are in soliloquy and the question is delib-
erative, the others follow an impv. or its equivalent and seek to
learn the desire of the person addressed, quam ob rem (3 cases,
if we include Mil. Glor. 360) follows and repudiates a suggestion
or command, quo modo (J>acio)y 3 cases, always implies nullo
tnodo, and in M. G. 1206 seems to imply *can.'
The adverbs of place are like the pronominal forms, not
idiomatic, ubi, 3 times in soliloquy with quaeram, requiram^
inuetnam, all deliberative, once in a question as to the will of the
person addressed, quo follows an impv. 4 times and an implied
suggestion once, in true questions; in soliloquy, deliberative, 3
times, unde (2), once after an impv., with rejecting force, once in
soliloquy.
The adverbs which mean 'how* or 'why' are more idiomatic.
qui is used only in the formula qui ego isiuc credam (Jibt) ?, Cure.
641, Merc. 627, 902, 'how do you expect me to believe that?,'
with repudiating force, quitiy M. G. 426, is repudiating, uij Ba.
149, is more nearly hypothetical, under the influence of lubens.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. I4I
quor {cur) is used 13 times. The verb is always of mental action,
poshUem, rogem, negem, curem (2), mirer^ mentiar^ tniniiery
quaeram (2), suscei^eam, adflicter (Ps. 1295), perpeirem (Cas.
701). A few of the questions are addressed directly to the other
speaker, but nearly all have a half-soliloquizing tone, and all
imply a rejection, as in English when the why is made emphatic
with a falling inflection. The negative is nan.
Of the 139 quis questions with the ist sing, pres., 81 are intro-
duced by quid.
quid is the direct object in 54 cases. Of the 18 cases with
other verbs than faciam and agam (which are given separately
below), about half repeat an impv., as in Aul. 651 redde hue. ||
quid reddam?, with a tone which varies from repudiation to a
distinct question as to the desire of the speaker (cf. True. 789
quid loquar ? with Epid. 584 quid loquar uis ?). About half a
dozen are in soliloquy and are deliberative.
quid faciam serves so well to illustrate the history and meaning
of quis questions that I give the lists in full.
a) quid faciam f Ba. 634, Cist. 63, 301, Epid. 98, Merc. 207,
565, M. G. 459, Most. 523, Pers. 42, Poen. 357. Of these, Ba.
634 and Merc. 207 are in soliloquy and are deliberative ; the rest
mean * What do you want me to do?'
b) quid nunc faciam f Men. 834, Ps. 1229, both asking for
advice or direction.
c) quid ego faciam f Cure. 589 (deliberative), Pers. 26
(addressed to another person, but half-soliloquizing).
</) quid ego faciam nuncf Epid. 255, like Pers. 26.
e) quid ego nunc faciamf Ba. 857 {nunc ego), Cas. 549, Cure.
555» Men. 963, M. G. 305, Most. 371. Both Ba. 857 and Most.
371 are answered, but the question was not necessarily addressed
to the other person ; the rest are in soliloquy.
f) quid faciam with other added words : aliud Merc. 568, hoc
. . .postea Most 346, tibi Ps. 78, huic homini Ps. 1316. The last
is in pretended deliberation.
There are also some cases with appended protasis.
quid agam is used in the same way. a) quid agamf in
dialogue, Aul. 636, M. G. 363. b) quid nunc agamf , Amph.
1046, Cas. 952, Poen. 351 {agam iiunc), all in soliloquy, c) quid
^go agamf. Most. 378 (in soliloquy), Trin. 981 (repudiating an
impv.). d) quid ego nunc agamf, Aul. 274, 447, Cist. 528, all in
soliloquy. /) quid ego nunc cum illoc agamf. Men. 568, for
advice.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
142 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
In the accus. of compass and extent quid is generally indistin-
guishable from quid * why.* Capt. 556 . . . etiam huic credis ? ||
quid ego credam huic ? || insanum esse me, is clearly the pronoun,
and where the pronominal force is distinct the questioning force
is also most distinct. But in general these cases, 20 in all, are
like those with quor, above, in implying that there is no reason
for acting as the other person desires, or at least in implying a
disinclination toward the action. Three cases, Capt. 536, Rud.
447, Trin. 1024, are in soliloquy, and Amph. 41 is in a prologue.
In quid ni (7 times), quippe ni (once) the ni has been suffi-
ciently shown to be negative, not conditional,* and these sentences
are merely the negative form of those given above.
Cas. 454 deosculer. || quid 'deosculer*? is not really a question
with subjunctive verb, and in Epid. 281, Merc 887 the text is
entirely uncertain.
Beside these there are 13 cases in which dicam is inserted and
one similar case vrith praedicem. They are introduced by various
forms of quis. True. 689 quam esse dicam hanc beluam ?, Cas.
616 qua, abl.; quid, ace, Ps. 744 sed quid nomen esse dicam ego
isti seruo?, Asin. 587, Merc. 516, Pers. 400; quid 'why,' M. G.
1 201 quid te intus fuisse dicam tam diu?, St. 288; quo, Capt. 533
quo ilium nunc hominem proripuisse foras se dicam ex aedibus?.
Cure. I, 12; unde, Ps. 966, Rud. 264, Ps. 1305 f. sed die tamen,
. . . unde onustam celocem agere te praedicem ? In the last case
it does not matter whether the question is regarded as direct or
indirect; see Becker in Studemund's Studien, I, p. 160, and cf.
Ps. 709. The introducing word in these questions is for the most
part of a kind that does not greatly influence the meaning of the
mode, and the questions differ from those given above only in
the fact that dicam with the infin. is used as a periphrasis for the
simple verb. In the simpler form these questions would be quae
est haec beluaf quid nomen est isti seruo f quid intus fuisti iam
diuf The inserted dicam expresses the same thought as the
English *What kind of a creature am I to suppose this to be?'
* What would you have me call that slave of yours ? * That dicam
is subj. and not future is plain from Ps. 1306 and from the thought.
II. Sentence questions are for the most part exclamatory,
corresponding in form to exclamations with the indicative rather
than to true interrogations.
*0. Brugmann, Ueber den Gebrauch des condicionalen ni, Leipzig, 1887.
Dig itEed-b>^V3-0 OQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 1 43
egone is used 26 times, including Cas. 117 egon quid faciam
tibi ? and True. 276, where Schoell reads tene ego. All are repu-
diating exclamations, and the will of the other person, which is
repudiated, is frequently expressed in a preceding imperative.
The verb is usually a repetition of the preceding (. . . mecum i
potatum. II egone earn ?) or an amplification of it (Cure. 10 lautus
luces cereum. || egon apicularum congestum opera non feram ?).
In a few cases a verb of speaking or keeping silence is used, or
the force of the repudiation is intensified hy patiar^ possim (Asin.
810 egon haec patiar aut taceam? emori me malim).
Other forms of pronouns with -ne {tene 2, eamne^ tuane^ mene^
uosnCy meosne) have exactly the same meaning, ^nd patiar is used
in 3 of the 7 cases.
Parallels to these, in which the indicative occurs in exclamatory
repudiation of a statement of fact, may be found in any play.
Questions with -ne appended to a noun are not idiomatic, either
with the indie, or with the subj. Pers. 26 deisne follows quid ego
faciam ? and is half-deliberative. In Poen. 730 quid tum ? homi-
nemne interrogem . . . ? would be a question for advice, but -ne
is a conjecture of Ritschl, following A; the passage is given
below under parataxis {censen for quid tiim, with Pall.).
The two cases with etiamne are for advice, Rud. 1275, 1277.
Without a particle, there are 8 cases of the verb alone or with
introductory quidf repeating and repudiating an expressed impv.,
as in Most. 579 abi quaeso hinc domum. || abeam ?, Merc. 749
abi. II quid, abeam ?
Four cases with non at or near the beginning of the sentence
repeat and repudiate a negative suggestion, Epid. 588 quor me
igitur patrem uocabas? || non patrem ego te nominem, ubi . . . ?
With the verb at the beginning of the sentence, the exclamatory
and rejecting force is especially clear. Such sentences begin like
those which consist of the verb alone (e. g. Asin. 838 an tu me
tristem putas? || putem ego quern uideam esse maestum ...?),
but run off into added details. Where the verb is not at the
beginning the sentence is short (Jibiego demf loricam adducafnf)y
because the exclamatory tone cannot be long sustained. In three
or four cases (Ba. 903 hodie exigam aurum hoc ? || exige ac
suspende te, Men. 539 dicam curare ? || dicito, and Pers. 26, after
quid ego faciam f) the question is not repudiating. The first two
are, of course, not to be distinguished from futures ; the last is
partially deliberative. In Most. 664 GS. rightly use a period.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
144 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Most 556 quid nunc faciundum censes ? || egon quid censeam ? is
an indirect quotation, and censeam is not properly the verb of the
question.
Amph. 813 quor istuc, mi uir, . . . ex te audio? || uir ego tuos
sim? is defended by Ter. Andr. 915, Hec. 524. It repudiates the
claim implied in mi uir.
The one case with anne. Cist. 518, is an impatient demand ; the
disjunctive questions (4 cases) are all deliberative.
Of the 73 cases of sentence question, four are asked for the
sake of getting advice or direction, and four (the disjunctive
questions) are deliberative. Beside these the only deliberative
questions are the two in Pers. 26, which in form seem to delib-
erate, but in content (deisne aduorser, cum eis belligerem) are
plainly rejecting.
C. Present^ \st singular^ in parataxis. — The value of these
examples for the interpretation of the subjunctive is so great that
full Ibts are given.
a) Depending upon an impv. — Upon sine, Ba. 29 (24 GS.) sine
te amem; 1027 sine perlegam, 1176, 1199, Cas. 136, Cist. 454,
Ep. 204, M. G. 1084 (jsinite). Most. 1180, Pers. 750, Poen. 142,
261, Poen. 375 (3 cases), Ps. 61, 239 (2 cases). Total, 18.
These are all short sentences, usually only sine and the verb.
With facy Epid. 567 fac uideam ; Poen. 893 fac ergo id * facile*
noscam ego ; the rest are all fac sciam, taking the place of the
impv. of a verb meaning *to cause to know*; Cure. 414, 617,
Men. 890, M. G. 277, Ps. 696, Rud. 1023, Trin. 174. The verbs
are all of knowing. Total, 9.
With caue, St. 37 tace sis : caue sis audiam ego istuc posthac
ex te. True. 942 is a conjecture.
There is a small but remarkable group in which a paratactic
subj. goes with the impv. of a verb of action. Cure. 313 uin
aquam ? || si frustulentast, da, obsecro hercle, obsorbeam ; True.
367 deme soleas: cedo bibam ; Most. 373 uigila. || uigilo : cedo
bibam (MSS cedo ui bibam'). Cf. Verg. Aen. IV 683 f. date
uolnera lymphis abluam, where date is not equivalent to siniiCy as
Ladewig thinks. Most. 849 mane sis uideam, and perhaps such
cases as Cure. 427 concede inspiciam quid sit scriptum, though
this is usually printed with a colon after concede. The impv. in
these uses expresses the action which is necessary as an antecedent
to the subj. verb. With the impv., 32.
Digitized by VjQOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. I45
b") With an impersonal phrase. — optumumsiy Asin. 448 nunc
adeam optumumst; Cas. 949, 950, Epid. 59 sed taceam optu-
mumst; Rud. 377 capillum promittam optumumst occipiamque
hariolari.
With necesse est, Poen. 1244 pro hoc mihi patronus sim
necessest. True. 817 is a conjecture.
With concessum, datum, Amph. 12 nam uos quidem id iam
scitis concessum et datum mi esse ab dis aliis, nuntiis praesim et
lucro.
With decretumsi, Poen. 501 profestos festos habeam decretumst
mihi.
With ceriumsiy Asin. 248, Aul. 681, Ba. 382, Capt. 779 {certa
res), Cas. 448. These are all verbs of 3d conjug., but they are
not quite futures.
Possibly Cist. 519 non remittam definitumst is similar.
The single case of licet with ist sing., Asin. 718 licet laudem
Fortunam, tamen . . . shows by the use of tamen that licet is felt
as a conjunction. With impersonals, 14.
c) With indicatives. — Rud. 681 quae uis uim mi adferam ipsa
adigit, Trin. 681 meam sororem tibi dem suades sine dote.
Amph. 9 is in a dependent clause in a long sentence, uti bonis
uos uostrosque omnis nuntiis me adficere uoltis, ea adferam, ea
uti nuntiem, and I have no doubt that, with colloquial freedom,
the infin., an 2^ clause, and the paratactic subj. adferam are used
as parallel constructions.
The effect of indirect discourse, which will be felt in these cases,
will appear also where other persons and numbers are used
paratactically with an indie, verb. With indicative, 3.
d) Paratactic questions. — In quis questions uis is inserted, Aul.
634 redde hue sis. || quid tibi uis reddam? (cf. 651 redde hue. ||
quid reddam ?), Ba. 692 nunc hoc tibi curandumst, . . . || quid uis
eurem?, Epid. 19, 584 quid taces? || quid loquar uis?, Merc. 158
quid uis faciam ?, M. G. 300, Most. 578, St. 115.
uis stands between quid and the verb except in Epid. 584.
The function of uis is evidendy to bring out more clearly the
inquiry as to the will of the person addressed which is contained
by implication in, e. g., quid reddamf With uis inserted, 8.
In sentence questions, which are almost invariably repudiating,
uin is inserted or prefixed in order to emphasize the true inter-
rogative character of the sentence.
Capt. 360 uin uocem hue ad te ? || uoca ; 858 uin te faciam
ibrtunatum?; Asin. 647, Cas. 272, 544, Men. 606, Merc. 486 (2),
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
146 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
721, M. G. 335, 1399 (but the text is not sure), Pers. 575, Poen.
439, 990i 1226, Ps. 324, 522, St. 397, 486, Trin. 1092, True. 502
uin adeam ad hominem ? || uolo, 924 (2). In Trin. 59 uin conmu-
temus ? ego tuam ducam et tu meam ? the force of uin passes
over to ducam. In Merc. 728 etiam uis nomen dicam? the
question is introduced by etiam^ and -ne is not needed. In Capt.
121 the position oi-ne is changed for emphasis to mene uis dent.
In Poen. 730 GS., following Pall., have censen hcmiinem interro-
gemt A has quid turn.
Of these, Men. 606 has something of repudiating force (men
rogas? II uin hunc rogem ?), but none is either an exclamation or
a deliberative question, uin is prefixed in order to exclude the
ordinary meaning of sentence questions with the subjunctive.
With uiny 27.
The ist person sing, is not used with ne.
Present subjunctive, 2d person singular.
A. Non-interrogative, independent. — Wishes with uiinam occur
Men. 1 104 utinam efBcere quod poUicitu's possies, Cist. 555 utinam
audire non queas, both with verbs meaning ' to be able.' In the
marriage song, Cas. 821 uir te uestiat, tu uirum despolies, the
circumstances give something of optative force, which comes out
more clearly in the following verses. Trin. 351 will be given
under parataxis.
saluos (salud) sis is used 17 times as a form of greeting and
ualeas 7 times in parting. The meaning gives them optative force.
Postponing for a moment the hypothetical uses and the indefi-
nite 2d person, there remain 121 cases of the subjunctive express-
ing some kind of will or desire. In a broad sense of the word
these might be called jussive, but not more than a tenth of the
number are true commands and about as many more are
demands. Advice, serious or sarcastic or urgent, is the most
common kind of use, not far from 50 cases coming fairly under
this head. There are 15 or 20 requests and about as many
expressions of permission. Invitation, challenge, petition, expres-
sion of obligation, curse, are used each a few times, and there is
one asseveration. Most. 182. But where the form is unchanged it
is useless to make purely functional distinctions.' I prefer to note
the usage of certain of the more common verbs, accipias (4
cases) is used only in requests and advice ; agcLS (2) and uel aias
uel neges (2) in a challenging demand ; dicas (6) is in all cases
--Digitized b^i^Ogk-
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. I47
but one advice, as part of a plan; habeas (11) is generally a
sarcastic permission ; ignoscas (3) is a petition ; iubeas (3), advice ;
face as (6) a command in all but one case.
Hypothetical uses are rare, and in every case some preceding
or accompanying phrase gives the hypothetical tone. In Capt.
599 sapias magis is in answer to the question quid st.,. iusserim f
In Rud. 1229 si sapias, sapias: habeas quod di dant, habeas is
only a continuation and expansion of the apodosis. In Aul. 231
the ubi clause contains a protasis and in Asin. 180, Trin. 554,
quouis and quamuis prepare for the hypothetical use.
una opera^ in its peculiar Plautine sense, is used three times
'^\\}[i posiules and twice with iubeas y all hypothetical.
There are 21 cases, also, in which the subject seems to be the
indefinite second person: Aul. 506, 517, 520, Capt. 420, Cas. 562,
M. G. 94, 689, 761, Most. 278, Poen. 585, 831, 836, 1416, Ps. 137,
1 176 (?), Trin. 671 (2 cases), 914, 1031, 1052, 1054. Two or three
of these, which are not in soliloquy, might be questioned. If
they are not indefinite, they should be added to the list of hypo-
thetical passages. In many of the cases, some phrase or clause
precedes which sets the hypothetical tone. Thus in Aul. 506
quoquo uenias, Cas. 562 quom aspicias, Ps. 1176 ubi aspicias.
The verbs are uideas (5), censeas (3), audias (2), nescias (2),
scias^ inuenias, conspicias^ cupiaSy uelis^ desideres^ all of mental
action, and noceas and perdas. The last two are preceded by
quomferias and by duarum rerum exoriiur: uel perdas . . . uel
• . . amiseris. 2d sing, independent, 179.
B. Qtusiions. — There are only 5 quis questions, and the small
number and sporadic character make a precise interpretation
difficult. Rud. 1322 quid dare uelis, qui istaec tibi inuestiget
indicetque? and Asin. 558 edepol uirtutes qui (how) tuas nunc
possis conlaudare, sicut ego possim ? appear to be hypothetical,
but the use of the auxiliary verbs as expansions of quid des^ qui
conlaudes, complicates the phrases. Pers. 638 quid (why) eum
quaeras qui fuit? is like Rud. 1322, i. e., might have been
expanded for greater clearness into quid quaerere uelis, Epid.
693 quid ago ? || quid agas ? mos geratur means ' what should you
(ought you to) do ? ' as the mode of mos geratur shows. M. G.
554 fateor. || quid ni fateare, . . . ? goes with other cases of quid
ni, Rud. 767 is not a quis question, but a relative qui with ne.
Sentence questions all repudiate the expressed or implied
desire of the person addressed. There are 8 cases with -«^, all
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
148 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
tun or iuin (gen.), one with an (or four, if Asin. 813 is read an
iu), and 10 without a particle. Aul. 431 is an indirect question.
C. Parataxis. — a) With imperative, fac (13), Amph. 976 hue
fac adsis; Capt. 439 fac fidelis sis fideli; Cas. 421 et quamquam
hoc tibi aegrest, tamen fac accures. || licet; Cure. 521, Merc. 498,
M. G. 812 (^face follows subj.), 1360, Pers. 196, 198, Poen. 1035
{face follows), Ps. 236, 481.
With/arj/^, Asin. 238 syngraphum facito adferas; Cas. 523,
Most. 216, Poen. 1084, 1278, 1418, 1414 leno, tu autem amicam
mihi des facito aut mihi reddas minam; Trin. 485. The impv.
precedes the subj. in 17 of the 20 cases.
With sine^ Asin. 902 sine reuenias modo domum : faxo scias . . .
GS. punctuate sine: reuenias ^ but cf. Cas. 437 sine modo rus
ueniat; Most. 11 sine modo adueniat senex, with exactly the
same threatening tone, sine has lost something of its verbal
force.
With uide^ Asin. 755 adde et scribas uide plane et probe ; Poen.
578 uide sis calleas.
With cauey 10 cases. Capt. 431 caue tu mi iratus fuas; 439
caue fidem fluxam feras; Cas. 530, Epid. 437, Most. 810, 1025,
Pers. 51, 816 caue sis me attigas, ne tibi . . . malum magnum
dem ; Rud. 704. Aul. 660 is also a case of caue, though the rest
of the sentence is confused. With imperatives, 33.
d) With indicatives. — uo/o, Capt. 383 ergo animum aduortas
nolo; 388, 430, M. G. 546, Poen. 279, 1197, Rud. 1414, Trin. 372.
uoio follows in 6 of the 8 cases.
Ttolo, Cas. 233 ted amo. || nolo ames; Most. 1176 sine ted exo-
rarier. || nolo ores. || quaeso hercle. || nolo, inquam, ores. || nequi-
quam neuis ; Pers. 245, Trin. 945. nolo precedes the verb in all
cases.
malOf Ps. 209 taceo. || at taceas malo multo quam tacere dicas.
faxo, Asin. 876 iam faxo ipsum hominem manufesto opprimas ;
Men. 113 faxo foris uidua uisas patrem; 644 faxo scias; Most.
1 133 ego ferare faxo; Ps. 949, Trin. 62 ne tu hercle faxo haud
nescias quam rem egeris ; 882 faxo scias. In Cure. 587 BJ have
faxo reperiaSy E reperies ; the future is of course possible, but
the subjunctive is perfectly good. In Asin. 902 the MSS have
faxo ut scias, and as this construction is not infrequent, there is
no sufficient reason for omitting ut. In 7 of the 8 cases faxo
precedes.
/Google
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. I49
c) With uelim diTidfaxim. — Cas. 234 enicas. || uera dicas uelim,
Men. 909, Rud. 511, 1067. Compare especially Poen. 1150 abeo
igitur. II facias modo quam memores mauelim, with Ps. 209, quoted
above with male.
With /axtm, Amph. 511 ilia si sciat . . ., ego faxim ted Amphi-
truonem esse malis, quam louem.
d) With impersonals. — ofiiumumsi, Aul. 568 tum tu idem optu-
mumst loces ecferendum. With iicei, Epid. 471 estne empta mihi
istis legibus? || habeas licet; Most. 713, Trin. 1179. Rud. 139 is
especially noteworthy because saluos sis is usually so distinctly
optative: me periisse praedicas. || mea quidem hercle causa saluos
sis licet.
e) In questions. — Most. 322 uisne ego te ac tu me amplectare ?
Here the parataxis is really due to the omitted ampiectar. With
poHn, Cas. 731 potin a med abeas?, Pers. 297.
C. Present, 2d person singular, with ne. — The distinction
between the independent sentence and the dependent clause is
nowhere more difficult than in sentences with ne. No thought is
really independent of the preceding thought, and the connection
may increase in closeness until it is one of real dependence with-
out finding expression in language. It is only when language
begins, so to speak, to run in ruts, to form fixed phrases giving
evidence of dependence, that we know that the line has been
crossed.
Such a phrase has been formed in Plautus in the clauses in
which ne is used with a verb of mistaking, of thinking wrongly.
nefrusira sis occurs 7 times, nepostuUs 6 times, ne censeas twice,
ne erres once, ne speres twice, and other forms (jexistumes, arbi-
irere, opinere, etc.) with verbs of thinking and saying {praedices,
dicas'), and even occasionally with other verbs (meiuas, territes (?),
quaeras), are found once or twice each. These may fairly be
excluded as semi-dependent, though they of course show some-
thing of prohibitive force.
molesius ne sis (10 times) shows in a few cases (Asin. 469
abscede hinc, molestus ne sis, Aul. 458), especially where it
follows immediately after another command, a tendency to
dependence, and the same beginnings of a feeling of purpose may
be suspected in other cases, e. g. M. G. 1361 i, sequere illos : ne
morere : Pers. 318 emitte sodes, ne enices fame : sine ire pastum ;
M. G. 1 215 moderare animum, — ne sis cupidus. But whether
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ISO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
these are included or not, they would not change the result. In
the use of the pres. 2d sing, with ne there is the same range of
function as in independent uses without ne. The cases vary from
sharp and emotional warning {ne atiigas mCy adportum ne biias,
dico iam iibi, molestus ne sis) to prayers (Amor, amicus miki ne
fuaS) and mild warning and advice. So far as I can see, the
proportion of emotional cases is not smaller than in the corres-
ponding uses without ne, where also the prevailing tone is one of
advice or suggestion. The number given in the table (61)
includes the partially dependent cases.
Present, ^d person singular.
A. Non-interrogative ^ independent. — Certain forms of wish are
so well marked in the 3d pers. that they can be set apart with
precision, differing in this from wishes in ist or 2d pers.
With utinam there are 4 cases, Asin. 418, M. G. 1009 f., Most.
233, Rud. 158, all general in content, not like the specialized
forms of wish to be given below.
With ut, Cas. 238 ut te bonus Mercurius perdat, an unusual
kind of wish with ut. In Poen. 912 ualeas beneque ut tibi sit,
two forms of wish are put together. Pers. 290, Cure. 257 have ui
in an expression of desire, not a wish.
The phrase qua£ res bene {male') uortat, quod bonum aique
fortunatum sit, etc., is found 10 times. It is introductory, as in
classical Latin, in only 3 cases.
Other impersonal forms of wish are bene {male) sit, uae tibi sit,
bona pax sit, male istis euenat, in all 7 cases.
The wishes which contain the namje of a god are especially well
marked. Mars adiuuet, me facial quod uolt luppiter, luppiter te
seruet, Hercules te infelicet (after a repetition of licet), and
especially luppiter te perdat {perduit) ; 13 cases. There are also
6 cases of asseveration, ita . . . amet] Most. 182 has a lover's
name instead of a god's, and Capt. 877 f. combines ita amabit
with ita condecoret.
Beside these, Pers. 269 uapulet is a curse, Most. 374 pater
aduenit . . . || ualeat pater is the 3d pers. of ualeas, and Cas. 822
tua uox superet tuomque imperium : uir te uestiat is defined as a
wish by the fact that it is used in a marriage song. Wishes, 45.
The formal contract read by the parasite in Asin. 751 ff. con-
tains 9 cases of the 3d sing. These, like the other subjunctives
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 151
in that passage, express that kind of obligation which is involved
in a contract and deserve separate mention.
The remaining cases (except the hypothetical) require a some-
what careful analysis, because they imply in use much more than
the verb-form is capable of expressing, and the implied but
unexpressed elements lead to a considerable extension of the
meaning of the mode. Nothing in the verb-form defines in any
way the relation of the hearer to the will or to the action, though
that relation may be both real and close, and the variety of
possibilities in regard to the subject of the verb (a person, a
thing, impers., etc.) further complicates the matter.
When the subject of the verb is a definite person, the relation
of the hearer to the action suggests the following groups of
usage: — a) The hearer is to convey the speaker's will to the
third person, the actor. Amph. 951 euocate hue Sosiam : guber-
natorem . . • Blepharonem arcessat, i. e. 'tell him that I want him
to call Blepharo'; Poen. 905 manu eas adserat, suas popularis,
liberali causa. Cf. M. G. 1037 adeat, siquid uolt. (i. e. ' tell her
to come here') || siquid uis, adi, mulier, where the wish (permis-
sion) is immediately conveyed to the actor.
3) The hearer is to bring about the performance of the action
by the third person. Most. 920 octoginta debentur huic minae ? ||
. • . Ijhodie accipiat 'see that he gets them'; M. G. 1304 omnia
composita sunt quae donaui : auferat * have her carry them off' ;
M. G. 1 100, Cas. 697. With these should go the large number of
cases in which the speaker is advising the hearer as to the way in
which a third person is to act in order to carry out a plan. Pers.
151 sed longe ab Athenis esse se gnatam autumet; Trin. 764 if.
scitum consilium inueni : homo conducatur . . . : is homo graphice
exornetur . . . : salutem ei nuntiet uerbis patris ; M. G. 792, Ps.
753 f.. St. 299.
c) The speaker wishes the hearer to permit the third person to
act The will may not extend to the third person, who may be
ready of himself to do the act. Merc. 989 redde filio: sibi
habeat. || iam, ut uolt, per me habeat licet ; Merc. 991, Pers. 447,
Rud. 1 1 21 aliud quidquid ibist, habeat sibi.
d^ The speaker expresses his indifference in regard to an act
of the third person and implies that the hearer also is to be
indifferent. Poen. 264 erus nos . . . mantat. || maneat pol : mane,
i.e. 'never mind if he is waiting'; Ba. 224 adueniet miles. ||
ueniat quando uolt.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
152 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
e) In some cases — the large majority, probably, in formal style
— the second person is merely a hearer, the recipient of the
speaker's confidence. Ba. 502 ilium exoptauit potius? habeat;
Amph. 300 clare fabulabor : hie auscultet quae loquar, where LG.,
ed. crit., suggest ui hie, unnecessarily, I think. In such sentences
the expression of speaker's desire is the important thing, and its
effect upon the action of the third person is of little consequence,
so that these sentences may approach a wish; St. 711 modo
nostra hue amica accedat.
As only definite persons are involved, the nature of the will —
command, advice, permission — is much the same as in 2d sing.
With definite actor, 48.
Passages in which the actor is not a definite person fall also into
several groups, but the difference in meaning is slight. When
the subject is described in a relative clause, the meaning is almost
the same as when the subject is definite. M. G. 81 qui autem
auscultare nolet, exsurgat foras; Rud. 486; with quisque^ Pers.
373 dicat quod quisque uolt : ego non demouebor. In a number
of cases the subject is an ideal or typical person, a true lover (Ps.
307 det, det usque : quando nil sit, simul amare desinat), a genuine
woman, by the standards of comedy (M. G. 190 qui arguat se,
eum contra uincat iure iurando suo), an ideal slave (Amph. 960
proinde eri ut sint, ipse item sit : uoltum e uoltu conparet ; Ba.
656, Aul. 599 f.). In Pers. 125 cynicum esse egentem oportet
parasitum probe: . . . pallium, marsuppium habeat, the decline of
the subjunctive in these cases to a mere sense of artistic propriety
is illustrated by the parallel of esse oportet. In nearly all of these
cases the second person, if one is present, is disregarded and the
speaker addresses the audience; i. e. both the actor and the
hearer are indefinite. In all, 25 cases.
If the subject is a thing (which occurs rarely) or if the verb is
passive, the subject is not the actor.
When the subject is a definite person, the hearer is usually to
be the actor, and the expression of will may be essentially the
same as in the cases above under b or even in 2d sing. So
Fragm. 50 (Carbon. II) patibulum ferat per urbem, deinde adfi-
gatur cruci ; Trin. 767 is homo exornetur ; M. G. 1401 iamne ego
in hominem inuolo ? || immo etiam prius uerberetur fustibus ; Capt.
609, M. G. 141 8.
The cases in which the subject is a thing are nearly all in the
plural, but beside a few verbs of passive meaning, maneat, stety
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
^smmmmmmmmm
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 1 53
supersiiy defiai, the phrase cena deiur occurs twice, tnos geratur
4 times zndfiat 27 times. Of the last, three cases have a subject,
but the rest are all in connection with an expression of desire, to
which y^/ gives assent. In these cases the previous speaker, the
second person, has already expressed the desire, and the speaker
oifiai, who is really to be the actor, selects a form which leaves
the person who wills, the hearer, the actor and the nature of the
act indefinite, so that, in truth, nothing is expressed except assent
to the desire, as if he said 'your will is mine.' This leaves yfa/ so
weak that it is little more than a future, and in i^xXfiet is also used
(Men. 186, Merc. 302, M. G. 908) in the same sense, as mos UH
geretur is used, Ps. 22, for the subjunctive. With passives, 45.
The 3d person singular is also used, though not frequently, of
a supposed case. In six or eight passages the hypothetical tone
is set by a protasis and is continued through the following
sentences. These passages are not counted. There are also 12
cases where there is no distinct protasis in the immediate context.
Ba. 139 non par uidetur neque sit consentaneum, . . ., praesens
paedagogus una ut adsiet, is an excellent illustration of the
meaning of this use of the mode, par uidetur is equal to sit
consentaneum, the meaning of uideri exactly expressing the
opinion or view which in the second phrase is expressed by the
mode. Ba. 97 ego opsonabo : nam id flagitium meum sit, mea te
gratia • . . facere sumptum; True. 221 stultus sit, qui id miretur;
M. G. 736 qui deorum consilia culpet, stultus inscitusque sit ; St.
24 ioculo istaec dicit: neque ille sibi mereat Persarum montes,
. . ., ut istuc faciat (cf. non mereani) ; M. G. 691 hoc numquam
. . . audias: uerum priusquam galli cantent, . . ., dicat 'da, mi
uir'; Capt. 208 nos fugiamus? quo fugiamus ? || in patriam. ||
apage, baud nos id deceat fugitiuos imitari ; True. 907 numquam
hoc unum hodie ecficiatur opus, quin opus semper siet ; Ps. 432
fors fuat an istaec dicta sint mendacia; Amph. 1060 nee me
miserior feminast neque ulla uideatur magis. In Trin. 441 hie
postulet frugi esse: nugas postulet, the first verb is in sense a
protasis and the subjunctive is not hypothetical ; the second verb
might perhaps be omitted from this list, as being influenced by
the protasis. Asin. 465 Sauream non noui. || at nosce sane. || sit,
non sit : non edepol scio, is very peculiar and perhaps unparal-
leled in Plautus, but the meaning is clear; cf. Capt. 964, St. 31 ff.
In Most. 984 possiet is a conj. of Cam.
Digitized by
Google
154 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
B. Questions, — The quis questions are introduced by quis (3),
quid (j7^)y qui 'how* (2}, unde (i), and are all of one pretty well
defined class, implying impossibility. The only cases which call
for notice are quid hoc sit hominisf, Amph. 576,769, and quid
hoc sit negoti . . .f, Asin. 407 (Cam. reads est^ but sit is defended
by the other cases). In these the relation to the subjunctive of
desire is somewhat more apparent than in some of the other
cases, though none is strictly potential.
The sentence questions have ne in 3 cases, and are without a
particle in 8. All are repudiating exclamations, but all show the
same leaning toward the potential which appears in the quis
questions, and non is found three times. Rud. 728, where dei^
not det, is the correct reading, and Men. 763 are not included.
Questions, 20.
C. Parataxis, — As the vagueness of the 3d pers. sing, of the
subjunctive is chiefly in the undefined relation of the hearer to
the will and the action, it will be found that the leading verb
serves mainly to define what the mode alone leaves undefined.
The classes below are arranged in the same order as those above,
under A.
<£) With iube^ indicating that the hearer is to convey the
speaker's will to the actor. Most. 930 die me aduenisse filio. ||
... II curriculo iube in urbem ueniat ; Pers. 605 iube dum ea hue
accedat ad me ; Rud. 708 iube modo accedat prope ; with a more
polite addition, Most. 680 euoca dum aliquem ocius, roga circum-
ducat. Cf. Amph. 951 euocate Sosiam : . . . arcessat . . .
V) With fax^facitOyfacite. The hearer is to cause the subject
of the verb to act. Rud. 12 19 et tua filia facito oret: facile
exorabit; Pers. 445 facito mulier ad me transeat; Most. 854 age
canem istam a foribus aliquis abducat face. Some cases with/a^
have a verb of passive sense, often with a thing for the subject,
and correspond to the uses with passive verbs in which the hearer
is the real actor. So Ps. 157 aquam ingere : face plenum ahenum
sit coco; Men. 866 facitote sonitus ungularum appareat; Pers.
438, Men. 867, 992, Rud. 621, 12 15.
c) With sine ; the second person is to permit the third person
to act. M. G, 1244 sine mulier ueniat, quaeritet, desideret,
exspectet ; Cas. 206 sine amet, sine quod lubet faciat ; Cist. 734,
Ep. 36, Ps. 478. With sine modo, Amph. 806, Cas. 437, Most. 11.
In Ps. 159 at haec (securis) retunsast. || sine siet, and Asin. 460 ne
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 155
duit, si non uolt. sic sine adstet, the speaker is indifferent, as in
the following class. Cf. Poen. 264 erus nos mantat. || maneat pol.
d) With licet; the speaker is willing or indifferent. Merc. 989
redde filio : sibi habeat. || iam, irt uolt, per me habeat licet ; Capt.
303 the speaker is helpless.
e) With uolo, emphasizing the speaker's will and leaving the
second person out of the action. Ps. 11 23 leno argentum hoc
nolo a me accipiat atque amittat mulierem, Asin. 77, Rud. 1332,
True. 473. But in Poen. 1151 patruo aduenienti cena curetur
nolo, as the verb is passive with a thing for subject, the hearer is
to be the actor and the will is a command. Pers. 832 at enim
quod ille meruit, tibi id obsit nolo, continues the curse expressed
in 831, and therefore approaches the meaning of the subj. with
uelim.
The cases with malo (M. G. 1333, with somewhat uncertain
text) and nolo (Merc. 107, Ps. 436, St. 734) call for no comment.
uelim with the subjunctive has been given above. The passages
are Aul. 670, Cas. 559, Most. 1074, IJoen. 1288, Ps. 1061, Rud.
877, True. 481. With malim following an asseveration, Poen. 289.
With faxOt emphasizing the speaker's determination to bring
about the act, Amph. 972, Ba. 864, Most. 68, True. 643. With
faxtm in an ut clause. True. 348. With faciam, Amph. 63, 876.
Scattering cases are St. 757 si quidem mihi saltandumst, tum
uos date bibat tibicini (cf. da bibani)\ Merc. 1004 nihil opust
resciscat; Cure. 461 leno, caue mora in te sit mihi. Capt. 961
quod ego fatear, credin pudeat quom autumes ? is the only para-
tactic question. It gives a good basis for interpreting M. G. 614
quodne nobis placeat, displiceat mihi? and shows that these
questions deal with an opinion. In parataxis, 60.
D. With ne, — The contract in Asin. 751 ff. contains 17 cases
with ne^ and a proclamation in Poen. prol. 17 ff. has 3 more.
The rest are nearly all ne quis^ quisquam, and call for no remark.
With ne, 28.
Present^ \st person plural.
A. — The hortatory use is so well marked and so well known
that nothing need be said of it here. There are 94 cases. The
verb eamuSy with its compounds, is used 42 times (evidently
because of a recurring dramatic situation), agamus is used 4
times and other verbs once or twice each, utinam is used only
Digfe^ Google
IS6 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
once, Asin. 615. The use of age^ agUe^ and of a vocative {eamus^
mea germancL)^ and especially of tu (True. 840 eamus tu in ius),
show that the sense of the 2d person was felt.
B. — Questions occur only 3 times: with quo^ Capt. 208, with
uieTy deliberative, St. 696, and in a repudiating exclamation, Capt.
208.
C. Parataxis. — ^With uolo, Ba. 708, St. 670 nolo eluamus hodie
peregrina omnia. With censeOy Merc. 1015 immo dicamus senibus
legem censeo. With suades^ Asin. 644 proinde istud facias ipse,
quod faciamus nobis suades; cf. Trin. 681 dem suades. With
aranty Amph. 257 uelatis manibus orant ignoscamus peccatum
suom. There are 2 questions with «/«, St. 736, Trin. 59.
The proportion of paratactic to independent uses, 7 out of 105^
is much smaller than in other persons.
D. — There is one case with ne^ Poen. 251.
Present^ 2d person plural.
A. — Poen. 623 fortunati omnes sitis is a wish; M. G. 1341 is a
petition or request ; Cure. 632 quid istuc ad uos attinet ? quaeratis
chlamydem et machaeram banc unde ad me peruenerit, follows
two requests that he should tell where he got a certain ring, and
is ironical, *ask me where I got my cloak.' But the addition of
una opera (as with postules) would bring out clearly the under-
lying sense, 'you might as well ask me.'
B. — There are no questions.
C. Parataxis. — The cases are so exactly like those in the sing,
that I give only the numbers, uolo 3, facite 3, oro obtestor 2,
modo facialis oro i, caue i.
D. — With ne^ 13 cases, of which 8 are addressed to the audi-
ence; ne expectetis 5, (jad^miretnini 2, uereamini i.
Present^ ^id person plural.
The differences between 3d sing, and 3d plur. are: i) the
absence of cases in which the subject of the verb is a definite
person; 2) the large number of wishes and curses; 3) the
peculiar paratactic uses.
■ uigitizea
bTVjOOglc
^■a
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 1 57
A. Nofi'inierrogeUive, independent. — Wishes. With utinam,
Asin. 841, Pers. 289, Ps. 108, all general in character. With ut
and diperdant {perduint'), Aul. 785, Merc. 710, Pers. 298, Fragm.
(Boeot.) 21. Rud. prol. 82 ualete, ut hostes uostri difBdant sibi
(cf. Poen. 912 ualeas beneque ut sit tibi) ; Cist. 202 (proL) ualete
et uincite . . . seruate . . . socios, . . . parite laudem et lauream :
ut uobis uicti Poeni poenas sufferant; perhaps also Poen. prol.
128 ualete atque adiuuate: ut uos seruet Salus, though it is
usually punctuated adiuuate ut. These seem to be all cases of ut
in a wish, but I fear that my list is incomplete.
Wishes and curses with di {deaeque) or the names of gods.
There are 25 cases of di te (illum^ istam) perdant and 5 of di
me perdant) 11 of di ie (istunit illos) perduint and i with me.
Other forms are di te infelicent (5), malum quod isti di deaeque
duini(^i), di deaeque . . . te . . . excrucient. Of good wishes there
are dite ament{i^), di ie seruent{i)^ sospttent{i), dibene uartant
(7), di tibi dent quaequomque optes (quae uelis) (10), di duint
quaequamque optes (2), omnia optata offer ant (1), di bene (male,
melius) faciani (8). Asseverations with ita are iia me di ament
(20), ita me di seruent(i), and wishes ita difaciant occur 4 times.
Two other cases, Cure. 575 ita me machaera et clypeus . . .
bene iuuent and M. G. 1316 saluae sient, show by their content
and relation to other phrases that they are wishes.
The whole number of wishes in 3d plur. is 127, of which 118
contain the names of gods or the word di. With these utinam is
used 3 times (in wishes of a general character), ut 4 times, qui 7,
quin 2, at 6, o once, ah once, ita 27 times.
Beside the wishes the subjunctive is used 21 times in other
expressions of will or desire. Most of these are active, and the
subject is never inanimate and never definite individuals, but
always a class, reges, haruspices, matronae, inimici, or, more
vaguely, alii, omnes, or a class described in a qui clause. The
person addressed is usually the audience or a person present on
the stage and treated as a representative of the public ; in a few
cases it might be said that the third persons are really the persons
addressed, indirectly and impersonally, as in laws (e. g. Poen.
prol. 32 ff. matronae tacitae spectent etc.). As both actors and
persons addressed are thus vaguely conceived, there is no possi-
bility of cases of direct command, such as appear in 3d sing.
The 3d plur. expresses only the more general kinds of desire,
amounting usually to no more than a statement of obligation or
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
IS8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
propriety. In two cases, Asin. 671 . . ., ni genua fricantur. || quid
uis egestas imperat: fricentur, Ba. 11 33 cogantur quidem intro,
where the verb is passive, the person addressed is really the actor,
and these express more direct forms of will, almost equivalent to
friceSi cogamus. So also in Capt. 115, where uti adserueniur
expresses a command and is not a dependent clause.
The hypothetical uses are found chiefly in four long passages,
Amph. 155 ff., Aul. 228 ff*., Merc. 407 ff. (10 verbs), Rud. 978 ff.,
where a protasis has preceded or has been plainly implied. In
M. G. 1369 f. the protasis is implied in caue isiuc feceris \ in Asin.
602 qui sese parere adparent huius legibus suggests a protasis ;
in Trin. 703, 740, 743 the implication is plain before the subjunctive
verb is reached.
Counting all the verbs there are 23 cases, occurring in 8 passages.
B. — The 3d plural is used only twice in questions. Poen. 860
is a repetition of a preceding di ament; Ps. 205 is a repudiating
exclamation.
C. Parataxis. — The cases are arranged as in 3d sing.
a) iuhe, Men. 956 tu seruos iube hunc ad me ferant ; St. 396 i
intro . . . : iube famulos rem diuinam mi apparent (cf. for ace.
some cases of ueniat uelim).
b) With faCy facito, faciiCy Aul. 402 (BDJ, but Non. has a
different tradition, which GS. follow) ; Aul. 407 facite totae plateae
pateant ; Cas. 521 fac uacent aedes ; Cas. 527 fac habeant linguam
tuae aedes. liquid ita?||quom ueniam, uocent; Ps. 166, 181,
Fragm. 70 (Cornic. VII). With uide^ Amph. 629 uide ex naui
efferantur.
c) With sincy Ba. 1134 sic sine adstent.
d^ With licet there are no cases.
e) With uolOy Pers. 293 eueniant uolo tibi quae optas; nolOy
True. 585 uasa nolo auferant ; with faxoy Amph. 589, Men. 540 ;
with yaa'am, M. G. 1399 uin faciam quasi puero in collo pendeant
crepundia? (notice the double parataxis); with/a^r/w, Aul. 495,
Merc. 829, Pers. 73, Trin. 221, 222.
Thus far, with three or four exceptions, the verbs are passive in
meaning or in form and the subjects are things. In the indepen-
dent uses, on the contrary, the verbs are nearly all active and the
subjects are classes of persons. The paratactic uses in 3d plur.,
therefore, are not parallel to the independent uses, extending
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 1 59
them along the same lines, but supplementary, expressing ideas
which the independent uses express rarely or not at all. Plautus
did not ^ayfac sese domi caniineant,fac mairariae tacitae specteniy
because the subjects of the verbs were both the persons addressed,
though indirectly, and the actors ; nor did he say uaceni aedes or
ex naui efferarUur qutie imperaui omnia^ without fac or uide^
because such- phrases would omit the actor entirely.
A few other scattering cases are found. Ps. 938 si exoptem,
quantum dignus, tantum dent; Capt. 694 nil interdo dicant (or
tnierdico aiani, Fl. GS.); Ps. 207 prohibet faciant (a gloss);
Poen. prol. 22 decet . . . stent . . . temperent ; Ba. 1033 caue . . .
fuant. Amph. 632 utinam di faxint, infecta dicta re eueniant tua
is a paratactic wish. St. 31 ff. ipsi interea uiuant, ualeant, ubi
sint, quid agant, ecquid agant, neque participant nos neque
redeunt presents two curious indirect questions, uiuant^ ualeant^
depending paratactically upon participant without an interrogative
particle.
D. — With fu there are only three cases, Poen. prol. 23, 29, 38,
entirely like the other independent uses in this passage.
Imperfect, 1st person singular,
A. — In independent non-interrogative uses only wishes with
utinam and expressions of desire with uel/em, mauellem occur.
With utinam, Amph. 575 utinam ita (i. e. ebrius) essem ; Rud.
533 utinam fortuna nunc hie anetina uterer. Both express a
present wish contrary to the fact, impossible of fulfilment.
uelUm is used 9 times: — with infin., Asin. 589, Poen. 681, Cist.
93 ; with perf. ptc. Cist. 506 ; with adj., Most. 980, Ps. 309 ; with
obj., St. 713; with parat. subj., Poen. 1066 patrem atque matrem
uiuerent uellem tibi. ||an mortui sunt ? || factum ; St. 312 nimis
uellem haec fores erum fugissent. Of these cases, Poen. 681
uidere equidem uos uellem, quom huic aurum darem expresses a
desire in the past, but still felt by the speaker, in regard to a
future act (cf. 682 illinc procul nos istuc inspectabimus). The
rest are all Uke uelim in that they express a wish, but the impli-
cation that it will not be fulfilled is clear in some cases (Ps. 309,
Poen. 1066, Cist. 506) and possible in all.
mauellem (jncUlem) is used 8 times: — with infin., Amph. 512,
Ba. 198, 452, Ps. 1057 ; with perf. infin. act., Cure. 512 ; with infin.
implied, Ba. 1201, Ps. 131; with parat. subj., Ba. 1047 ^^ i^^
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
l6o AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
edepol Ephesi multo mauellem foret, . . ., quam reuenisset domum.
The sense of desire or will is present in all ; some express a curse
(Ba. 198, Ps. 1057, 131); in a few cases (Cure. 512, Ps. 131, Ba.
1047) the suggestion of non-fulfilment is quite distinct.
B. Questions. — ^There are two quis questions, both referring to
a past obligation or desire on the part of the second person.
Cist. 94 I should take as a dependent clause.
Sentence questions are mainly rejections of an expression or
implication of obligation in the past. In Trin. 177 pcUerer is
balanced by indicare me aeqtcomfuii in the preceding verse. In
Most. 183 ita ego istam amarem? is an exclamatory repetition of
ita Philolaches tuos te amet in 182. The negative in Most. 455
is nan,
C. — In parataxis there is only one case, St. 177 hoc nomen
repperi eo quia paupertas fecit ridiculus forem.
Itnperfeciy 2d singular.
A. — ^With uHnam there is one case, Rud. 494 f. utinam ... in
Sicilia perbiteres, with distinct past reference.
In one case the subjunctive is plainly hypothetical ; Men. 160
edepol ne tu, ut ego opinor, esses agitator probus. The reference
to the past is certainly not clear, but cf. Merc. 125 nimis nili tibicen
siem, where the future reference is apparent.
In all other independent 2d sing, cases (13) the subjunctive
expresses an obligation which the actor should have felt in the
past. Merc. 633 ff. quid ego facerem ? || . . . men rogas ? requae-
reres, rogitares; Merc. 637, Poen. 387, 391, Rud. 842 quin occi-
disti extemplo ? || gladius non erat. || caperes aut fiistem aut lapi-
dem; Trin. 133 ff. (4 verbs); Pers. 710 animus iam in nauist
mihi. II eras ires potius, hodie hie cenares deserves special mention,
because it expresses a past obligation in regard to a future action ;
* You should have made up your mind (then) to go to-morrow
(not to-day).' Ba. 432 . . . ubi reuenisses domum, ... in sella
apud magistrum adsideres is in a passage describing old customs ;
the other verbs are in the impf. indie, and the subj. adsideres is
due to the ubi clause. Ps. 494 should be printed with a period,
as in GS., otherwise there is no justification for the past tense.
B. Questions. — With quis^ Merc. 884 quo nunc ibas ? || exula-
tum. II quid ibi faceres? Goetz, ed. crit., supplies «/, but the text
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. l6l
as it stands (GS.) gives the proper sense, 'What were you
intending to do there?'
There are no sentence questions. Capt. 713 is a continuation
of a conditional sentence. For Ps. 494 see above.
C Parataxis, — Asin. 503 si esses percunctatus . . ., scio pol
crederes is not counted, and Ba. 635, if nan is dropped from the
text, is exacdy similar. The only clear case is St. 624 ueni
(impv.). II hucine? || immo in carcerem. || quid igitur? || dixi equi-
dem in carcerem ires. This is really a quotation, dixi * in carcerem
t,' remarkable for the use of dixi instead of iussi,
D. — With ne there are 3 cases, expressing past obligation : Ps.
437, Ba. 29, 30 (16 f. in ed. crit.).
Imperfect^ 3^ singular,
A. — With uiinam^ Merc. 823 utinam lex esset eadem, quae
uxorist, uiro. There are 2 cases in Rud. 379 f. of past obligation.
There are 3 passages where the mode appears to be hypo-
thetical, Cas. 910, Rud. 1262 (2), Ba. 314. In the last, nimio hie
priuatim seruaretur rectius, a slight sense of obligation is produced
by recHus.
B. — The one quis question, Rud. 379, is a question in regard
to a past obligation.
The sentence questions are all associated wiih a protasis in the
context, though Ps. 288 is a repudiating exclamation. The others
are Trin. 178, Capt. 714, Trin. 954.
C — In parataxis, mauellem is used with foret^ Ba. 1047, in a
wish. Trin. 115 si inimicus esset, credo baud crederet is not
counted. The rest are all of the nature of indirect quotations.
Ba. 551 ille, quod in se fuit, accuratum habuit, quod posset mali
faceret in me, inconciliaret copias omnis meas. The MSS have
ineonciliare, which in such colloquial style is not impossible;
faceret expresses a past intention, quoted by accuratum habuit,
Pers. 634 tactus lenost, qui rogarat [rogabat?], ubi nata esset,
diceret; that is, the leno asked {dic^ ubi tu nata'sf Trin. 591
tandem impetraui abiret is as if for uolui (iussi) abiret et tandem
impetraui ; Merc. 536 f, inter nos coniurauimus, . . ., neuter stupri
causa caput limaret; in Epid. 316 me iussit senex conducere
aliquam fidicinam . . . : dum rem diuinam faceret, cantaret sibi,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
1 62 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
there are various conjectures, but I take cantarei to be a part of
the ordtT, Jidicinam conducas: ea mihi caniety as often in pres.
tense.
D. — The only case oine has a protasis.
There are no cases of ist or 2d plur.
Imperfecta yi plural.
A. — With utinam, Capt. 537 utinam te di prius perderent,
quam periisti e patria tua, with distinct reference to the past.
Trin. 1028 f. may perhaps also refer to the past, but is better
taken as an ordinary unfulfilled wish.
The other cases all occur in passages where the speaker is
giving the details of a plan made in the past. In M. G. 731 f.
itidem diuos dispertisse uitam humanam aequom fuit : . . ., uitam
ei longinquam darent : . . ., is adimerent animam cito, and in
Epid. 386 aequom fuit clearly defines the meaning of the mode.
Poen. 1 1 39 C hodie earum mutarentur nomina, facerentque . . .
quaestum corpore is part of a plan made by the leno^ not by the
speaker, and would be introduced paratactically by lenoni decre-
tumsi or some similar phrase.
There are no hypothetical or interrogative uses.
C. — In parataxis, Poen. 1066 depends upon uellem ; Merc. prol.
52 (48 G.) pater clamitare . . . et praedicere (histor. infin.), omnes
timerent m^ituitanti credere ; M. G. 54 at peditastelli quia erant,
siui uiuerent.
. The temporal force of the imperfect is plain in those uses which
most nearly resemble the direct expressions of will in the present ;
all expressions of obligation refer to the past, even when the act
to be performed is still in the future. But in wishes the shift of
temporal force, by which unfulfilled conditions and wishes in the
present take an imperfect subjunctive, had already begun. Cases
have been noted above where the reference to the past seemed
most distinct. See also Blase, Geschichte des Irrealis, pp. 3-5.
Perfect, ist person singular.
A. — Asin. 491 praefiscini hoc nunc dixerim. Cramer,* pp. 47
ff., doubts the genuineness of the passage, but calls it a subjunc-
^F. Cramer, de perfecti coniunctiui usa potential! ap. prise, script. Lat.
Marburg, 1886.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 1 63
tive of will, correctly, translating ** Dies wiinsche ich jetzt unbe-
rufen zu sagen/' Cf. the like uses ofdtcam, haud dolo dicam^ etc.
True. 349 follows a si clause in 344 ff. and is hypothetical.
B. — In quis questions, Amph. 748 ubi ego audiuerim ? repeats
and rejects audiuisiin. There are 3 cases of nauerim. Cure. 423,
Men. 299, M. G. 923, which are classed here, though naui is
present in sense.
In True. 625 there is a repudiating repetition of a subjunctive.
There are beside these few cases many perfects ist sing, which
are called potential (v. Brix, n. on Capt. 309), but they are all in
subordinate clauses or in conditional sentences.
Perfect^ 2d singular.
The functions of perf. subj. and fut. perf. indie, differ so slightly
in independent uses, in any person except the ist sing., that one
set of forms suffices for both. The confusion which might be
expected from this is, however, much less than that between fut.
indie, and pres. subjunctive.
A. — In independent expressions of will memineris is used twice
(M. G. 807, Pers. 856) and naueris once (True. 163 dum uiuit,
hominem noueris : ubi mortuost, quiescat), both really present in
sense. Ba. 840 meretricemne esse censes ? || quippini ? || frustra's. ||
quis igitur opsecrost ? || inueneris, i.e. *find out for yourself.*
Trin. 1053 duarum rerum exoritur optio: uel illud quod credi-
deris perdas uel ilium amicum amiseris is exactly like a number
of cases mentioned in the pres. tense.
Other cases have more of future meaning. They are Capt.
1028 (see Brix, note). Cure. 665, Trin. 760, Most. 1152 (see
Lorenz', note), Trin» 61. In Capt. 1028 and Cure. 665 there is a
hypothetical tone, though it is not distinct enough to find expres-
sion in a clause; Trin. 61 is influenced by the preceding ya;i:^
dederis. Most. 1152 and Trin. 760 are the most distinct futures.
B. — There is only one question, a repudiating exclamation,
Amph. 818 tun mecum fueris?
C. — In parataxis,ya;r<? dederis (Trin. 60) and faxo haud come-
deris (Men. 521) lie between the subjunctive and ihe clearly
future uses. So also memineris faciio St. 47, though it is more
closely related to the independent uses oi memineris.
The remaining . cases are all prohibitions, either with caue or
with ne.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
l64 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
The verbs used with caue ^x^ feceris (Cas. 332, M. G. 1368,
Poen. 1023, St. 285, Trin. 513), dixeris (Pers. 389, Trin. 555),
sit^eris, siris (Ba. 402, Epid. 400, Most. 401), praeuorieris (Merc.
113), reitulerh (Epid. 439), sumpseris (Cist. 300), /w^rw (Aul.
618), iniramiseris (Aul. 90), respanderis (Amph. 608).
D. — With ne and its compounds the verbs ds^ fueris (Asin.
839, Epid. 595), dixeris (Cist, no, Merc. ^02), feceris (Epid. 148,
Men. 415), parseris (Pers. 572, Poen. 993), aitigeris (Pers. 793),
induxeris (Trin. 704), desiiteris (Trin. 1012), osienderis (Rud.
ii55)» inierueneris (? M. G. 1333).
Other forms of prohibition are nilmonueris Cure. 384, minume
feceris Most. 272. In Rud. 1135, Pers. 395, the futures in the
context seem to show that nullum osienderis^ nullum acceperis
are also future.
Perfect^ ^d singular.
A. — There are two cases with utinam^ Cas. 398 f., Poen. 799,
both referring to the past, and one, Trin. 753 nam certo scio,
locum quoque ilium omnem, ubi situst, comederit, which is
hypothetical.
B. — There are two quis questions, M. G. 925, Trin. 1050.
C. — In paratiELxis: with uelim^ Ba. 334, Poen. 1206; with/ia^r^,
Aul. 578, Poen. 346 (either might be called fut. perf.) and Capt.
801 (so far as the corrupt text makes a judgment possible); with
caue^ Men. 994 caue quisquam nostrum . . . fecerit, really a second
person. The text of Cure. 27, M. G. 926, True. 429 is too uncer-
tain for use.
There are no cases of the ist person plural.
Perfect, 2d plural.
The only case is M. G. 862 ne • . . dixeritis, addressed to the
audience.
Perfect, 2td plural.
Aul. 542 meminerint is an expression of propriety, like those* in
pres. 3d plur.; St. 385 perierint is a curse, and both verbs are in
reality present in meaning. Poen. 617 is a future perfect.
In parataxis there are two cases with uelim, Poen. 570, Rud.
662, both curses.
ne di sirint (siuerini^ is used in Ba. 468, Merc. 613, Merc. 323.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 165
Of the forms with perfect ptc, Amph. 979 fac conmentus sis is
deponent and perfect. The rest are all presents: paraius sis
Trin. 1189, occlusal sint Asin. 759, curata fac sint Aul. 273,
Amph. g^i yfaciio opsanaium sit Ba. (^6y/acite deducius siei Capt.
'J2l^j/ace occlusal sieni Most. ^00, fac sit delaium Ps. 190. They
do not differ in use from active forms.
Pluperfect.
In 1st sing., Rud. 497 f. utinam cubuissem. In 2d sing., utinam
parsisses True. 375; fuisses (conj.), hypothetical, M. G. 11 12.
In 3d sing., Cas. 996, Poen. 1252 are useless. M. G. 721 si ei
forte fuisset febris, censerem emori: cecidissetue ebrius aut de
equo uspiam, metuerem ne ibi diffregisset crura, is a protasis
without si, under the influence of the preceding si (cf. Pseud. 863).
Epid. 628 is hypothetical. In 3d plur. Amph. 386 is a wish with
utinam and St. 312 with uellem.
Subjunctive forms in -s-.
1st person singular,
haud (non) ausim, Aul. 474, Ba. 1056, Poen. 1358; all of
hypothetical statement.
haud negassim, Asin. 503.
non empsim, Cas. 347, M. G. 316; also hypothetical.
ausim in questions, Merc. 154 egon ausim tibi usquam quic-
quam facinus falsum proloqui ; Most. 923 f. egone te ioculo modo
ausim dicto aut facto fallere? || egone aps te ausim non cauere,
. . .?; Poen, 149. These are, as the form of question shows,
repudiating exclamations, and ausim is an insertion for fuller
expression; in such a phrase as egon tibi usquam quicquam
facinus falsum proloquar ? the idea of wishing or desiring (the
proper sense of audeo) is latent. Cf. the similar insertion of
patiar and of uis, uin. But Merc. 301 sed ausimne ego tibi
eloqui fideliter ? is a true question, answered by audacter.
faxim is used in male faxim lubens Poen. 1091, 1093, 2i"d is
hypothetical, though no protasis is found in the context. In all
other cases oi faxim a protasis is expressed in the context (Trin.
221, cf. 217-20) or in the sentence itself (Amph. 511, Aul. 494,
Merc. 814 G. (826 GS.), Pers. 73) ; these cases are included in the
list for completeness, though strictly they would be excluded by
the protasis. In True. 63' the text is somewhat uncertain, though
faxim is sure. True. 892 hostissim is a conjecture and of no value.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
l66 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
All cases of forms in -siin are, it will be noticed, hypothetical.
2d person singular.
All forms are in prohibitions, either with ne^ neqtu, numquamy
nilj or in parataxis with caue. They are as follows : Asin. 839 ne
dixiSy Aul. 744 ne dixis, Capt. 149 numquam dixis neque animum
tnduxtSy Men. 611 ne comessis (Bx.; comesses MSS GS.), M. G.
283 ne dixiSy 1007 nil amassis, Most 526 nil curassis, 1097 ne
occupassiSj 11 15 ne faxis^ Poen. 553 ne curassis, Ps. 79 ne parsis^
232 nil curassis, Rud. 1028 neque indicassis, St. 149 neque
celassiSy Trin. 627 neque occuliassis, True. 606 ne resp<msis»
With caue^ Asin. 256 /axis, 467 supplicassis, 625 faxis, Aul.
608 indicassisy Ba. 910 par sis ^ 1188 amissis, Cas. 404 obiexis,
Merc. 484 rfiorw, M. G. 11 25, 1245, iyj2faxis, Most. 523 respexis,
SoS /axiSy True. 943 /axis, Vidul. 83 ^i^rw, 91 demuiassis. In
Rud. 982 a2M/j (Seyff. Sch.) would have no precise parallel ;
Sonnenschein reads ausu's. Most. 518 is a conjecture. M. G.
669 optassis is conjectural, as apodosis to a si clause, and is not
counted.^
2^dpers<m.
haud ausit, M. G. 11, is hypothetical and exactly like haud
ausim. In Ba. 697 non ausit has an expressed protasis.
All other cases, sing, and plur., are in wishes or asseverations.
Capt 622 Ha rex deorum /axit, Cist. 742 at uos Saius seruassii,
Most 398 Ha /axil luppiter, Ps. 14 luppiier prokibessii, 923 iia
/axil luppiter, Pers. 330/tfr^w/ajj//.
In the plur. all are with names of gods or di, diui. With
uiinam, Aul. 50 adaxini, Amph. 632 /axint Also di ie {ilium)
/axini. Most. 463, Vidul. 86 ; di ie seruassint, Asin. 654, Cas. 324,
Ps. 37, Trin. 384; iia di me seruassini, St 505; iia di /axini,
Aul. 149, 257, 788, Capt 172, Pers. 652, Poen. 909, 911; di
/axini, Cist. 151 ; di meliora (melius) /axini, Poen. 1400, Ps. 315,
Merc. 285; me amassini, Cure. 578. There is a protasis with
Cist 523.
^Of the 34 cases of prohibition with perfect forms (19 with caue, 15 with ne
or compounds), all but one, Cure. 384 nil monueris, are of the 3d conjugation.
Of the 33 prohibitions with sigmatic aorist forms, 10 are of the ist conjugation.
In other words, the perfect in -ui is used in prohibitions only 4 times (nwnueris,
siueris, siris 2) out of 67, though verbs which make their perfects in -m are
used 14 times. This can scarcely be accidental; it must indicate some
relation between the aoristic forms and the prohibitory use.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS.
167
It should be noted that of the forms in -j- all in the ist pers.
are hypothetical, all in the 2d pers. are prohibitions, and all but
one in 3d pers. are optative.
Present,
Singuidr
Plural,
xst.
ad.
3d.
xst.
ad.
3d.
A. Of will.
17
148
172
94
3
148
582
uelim^
74
74
Hypothetical,
17
31
12
0
0
23
83
B. Questions,
212
24
20
3
0
2
261
C. ParaUctic,
84
69
60
7
10
30
260
D. With ne.
0
61
28
I
13
3
106
404
333
292
ImperfecL
105
"26
206
1366
A.
2
14
3
7
26
uelUm,
17
17
Hypothetical.
0
I
4
0
5
B.
8
I
6
0
15
C.
I
I
6
3
II
D.
0
3
0
0
3
28
20
19
Perfect.
0
0
10
77
A.
I
5
2
2
10
Hypothetical.
I
0
I
0
2
B.
5
I
2
0
8
C.
0
19
6
2
27
D.
0
15
0
0
I
3
19
7
. 40
II
Pluperfect.
0
I
7
66
A.
I
I
I
2
5
Hypothetical.
0
I
I
0
2
B.
0
C.
0
D.
0
I
2
2
0
0
2
7
With perf. ptc.
9
16
Forms in -s-
■.
A.
0
6
21
27
i
Hypothetical.
14
I
0
15
>
B.
4
' i^
/^
C.
0
16
Jr
D.
0
16
/l
18 •
32
7
0
0
J
/"
w
78
1603
i
E. P.:
^fORRIS.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
II.— TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS.^
I. THE MOSTELLARIA.
Argiim., vs. 5 : et inde tprimum 6migratum etc.
So the editio minor. I would read JUium for primum ; -ilium
and -MUM in a capital manuscript are rather close in ductus. The
liability of P and F to confusion is shown by vs. 151, where all the
manuscripts read filia for pila. For this confusion we must
suppose the P to be only a little defective in its curve. The error
may, however, be of semi-uncial origin, arising from a confusion
of F with one of the ligatures /^r (Most., vs. 320 W),pro (ib. 95),
pr(a)e (Rud. 947 B). A ligature for pri I have not observed
in any Plautus manuscript, but we have/rwttw iot primum at vs.
397 (D).
vs. 5 : exi inquam fnidore cupinam quid lates ?
So the editio minor. The best correction of this verse is
Pylades*s nidor e culina^ quid lates ^ but, after all, nidor-e-culina
is a questionable epithet I suggest that the line stood as follows
in*P:
EXIINQUAMEXI JaUDIO JhEMCUPINNAMQUIDLATES.
Now, supposing this archetypal manuscript to have had the
K-form of H (c£ also Lindsay, The * Palatine* Text of Plautus,
p. 18), the mistake of AUDIOKE for NIDORE is accounted for
by their similar ductus. The greatest difficulty for my reconsti-
tuted line comes from the omission of the blank spaces, left, we
* In the following study reference will be made to each separate editor of
the Triumvirate edition. The practical consensus of all the Palatine manu-
scripts will be spoken of as the reading of *P. References to Leo's text of
Plautus will simply run: Leo reads, etc.; Klotz's Grundzttge altrdmischer
Metrik will be abbreviated to Klotz. All other citations will be full enough
to indicate their source at once. The manuscript variants and emendations
of previous scholars that come up for discussion are derived from the critical
apparatus of the Triumvirate or from Leo's edition. The Teubner text
edition of Goetz and Schoell I will call the editio minor. Its readings for any
passage will be generally understood as the practical consensus of the manu-
scripts extant for that passage.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS, 169
may presume, in *P as in A, for the subsequent insertion of the
notae personanim by the rubricator. Still, the reverse process is
the more difficult ; that is to say, to insert a nota personae in one
of the minuscule manuscripts is easier than to drop one.
For the repetition oiexi I compare Aul. 40 exi inquam age exi,
and Cure. 275 Heus Phaedrome exi exi exi inquam ocius. A
parallel to audio is Miles 217 vigila inquam, expergiscere inquam ;
lucet hoc inquam | Xatidio. Jviden hostis tibi adesse ? For hem
introducing the question cupin I cite Asin. 445 non etiam ? Jhem
non? There is a possible play between audio 'Well, Tm not
deaf and haud eo *I won't come.' Thus hem cupin means *You
won't, eh?' I note that cupio'l will' answers the question Vin
* Will you?' three times in Poen. 159 sq.
We might read our line
exi inquam <exi> nid6re — <em> cupin? etc.,
in which case cupin implies a refusal from within, audible to the
questioner but not to the audience. I prefer, however, either exi
inquam <exi> XduA\6 t^e<m> ciipin etc., or exi <6xi> inquam
taiidi6 etc. In either case there is hiatus with change of persons
at audio,
vs. 6: quid tibi malum hie ante aedis clam<it>atiost.
Here <ii> was inserted by Acidalius, following Camerarius.
I propose to mend the line by reading malum <me> hie etc.
A precise parallel is vs. 34 quid tibi malum me . . . curatiost ? I
compare Cas. 91 Quid tu malum me sequere?
The statistics of the expletive malum render this suggestion
certain, I would say, as elision of either syllable of malum, cannot
be proved : i) Before consonants malum, occurs 13 times with the
metrical value ma \ lilfky where ^lum is 7 times in the second thesis
of a troch. sept and i time (Most. 368) in the fourth thesis (the
second after the beginning of a new speech). In the senarius
^liiWi forms a second thesis 2 times (Cas. 91, Most. 34) and a
fourth 2 times (Cas. 472, Rud. 492); in the iamb. sept. (Rud.
945 ?) ^fourth thesis i time ; quid hoc mdlum makes a proceleus-
matic I time in an anap. dim. catal. (Ps. 242 b). Malum is a
pyrrhic arsis in the second anap. of the clausula Reiziana i time
(Aul. 429) ; it forms the first arsis at Bacch. 696, and the fifth
(with change of speaker at the fifth thesis) at Stich. 597, both
verses being troch. sept.
^ By the makron over a consonant I indicate length by position.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
I/O AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
2) Before vowels we might read mdl&m without elision in \he/irsi
arsis of troch. sept at Am ph. 626, Cas. 262, Merc. 184, True. 801,
where the pyrrhic mdlam is on the same footing as at Bacch. 696,
when a consonant follows; in the fifth arsis at Epid. 710, Pseud.
1 165 (with change of person as at Stich. 597), and in Men. 793
(without change of person) ; in the third arsis (with change of
person on the third thesis) at Mil. 446. At Poen. 261 quid hie
malum may be read as a proceleusmatic with malum in the first
arsis (cf. Pseud. 242 b). The only occurrence of malum in arsis
before a vowel outside of troch. sept is Ps. 1295, an anap. sept.
Here the 3d and 4th feet are composed of the words quid tu
malum in os, and even here there is only quasi-elision, for -um
is merged into the nasal syllable in. Such quasi-elision we have
even with the monosyllabic vae in the phrase vae aetati tuae
(Capt. 885, Stich. 594). Thus malum is followed 4 times by im
(in) and i time by ham-. The vowel e follows malum 2 times
(Merc. 184, True. 801), a (in cLstas) 2 times (Mil. 446, Poen. 261)
and i i time (Pseud. 1165).
Still another element comes into consideration : quid tu malum
me occurs at Cas. 91 (iamb, sen.), Most. 368 (troch. sept.), and
quid tibi malum me at Most 34 (iamb, sen.) ; at Rud. 945 we
have quid tu malum nam, me. The phrase quid tu malum with-
out a following me is found only at Aul. 429 (claus. Reiz.) and
Ps. 1295 (anap. sept), and both these are rare measures. This
constitutes a further ground for reading quid tibi malum <me'>
in our verse (iamb. sen.). My restitution is much better founded
palaeographically than the restoration of <//>, now accepted,
and constitutes besides a lectio difficilior; clamaiio and clam-
<it>atio are alike nonce-words.
vs. 13: frutex. This word seems to occur in the literal sense
of 'stump' in Suet Vesp. 5 quercus singulos repente ramos a
frutice dedit. Typical, however, for the class frutex were vioUu^
rosae^ arundines (Col. Arb. I 2), and 'stump* seems to me an
impossible definition. It is a small change to alter afrutice to
ABRADICE, and even easier to suppose that ramos was glossed by
fruiices 'shoots' or vice versa. For our present passage, seeing
^^Xfruiex is parried in vs. 15 by urbanus scurra, I propose to
interpret it as 'green-horn': cf. rudis 'rod switch' and rudis
'green' for the same metaphor. Columella is cited iox frutex
olerum (cf. Lewis and Short, Lat. Diet., s. v.). I compare the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS. 17I
French chou (Molifere, L'fetourdi, I xi fin.) and our 'cabbage-
head/ used figuratively for * dunce,' etc.
vs. 21 : corrumpe erilem adulescentem optumum.
Leo retains this, the manuscript reading, admitting two hiatuses.
We must, it seems to me, admit the hiatus after adulescentem^ for
it recurs in the same metrical position at vs. 84 {ddulescinie
dptumo) and at Capt. 169 (jidulesdniem Aleum). Bentley's
observation that Roman comedy showed a tendency to make the
metrical ictus correspond with the prose accent may be aptly
illustrated for Plautus fi-om dd&lis\cenSj 57 times in the nomina-
tive, but oblique cases, say dd&lis \ ciniem, 43 times. There are
15 cases of the verse-ending ddules\cens and 4' cases of the same
accentuation in initial position. Thus the deviations from the
prose-accent in the nominative seem to be restricted to definite
metrical positions. The accentuation adulis\ceniem is found but
6 times ; at Asin. 833 and Capt. 169 the ictus may be made to
coincide with the word-accent by admitting hiatus before proper
names (cf. Klotz, p. 109). At Trin. 771 the ictus will coincide
with the word-accent by admitting hiatus in the semiquinaria of
the senarius. This leaves only three offending passages: Rud.
664, where adulis\cenie is initial in the senarius; no mitigating
circumstance occurs to me for Rud. 11 97 and True. 99. With
this state of things, it seems to me venturesome to disturb the
coincidence of ictus and accent in this word in order to banish a
hiatus.
I do not believe, however, that Plautus could have written
erilis adidescens for 'master's young son.' I propose, therefore,
to read corrumpe eri <fi>li<u>m^ comparing vs. 27:
ut eri sui corrumpat et rem et filium.
The corruption of ri<,fi> It was approximately haplographic.
vss. 38-9 : quam confidenter loquitur fue Jat te luppiter
dique omnes perdant oboluisti alium.
So the manuscripts, but the modern editors generally transpose
fue to a position before oboluisti, where Goetz and Schoell read
<fufae> and Leo /«• The metre of vs. 39 is good as the
manuscripts read it, with semi-hiatus in the 5th arsis. In vs. 38 I
propose to read loquitur hii, etc. For the change from /ut (i. e.
* Men. loas, 1066, Pers. 660, Trin. 968.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
172 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
phuil) to huiYiQ have to reckon with a confusion of native Latin
hui and Greekish phy. I note Terence, Ad. 411-12, where hui
and phy^TQ alternating exclamations of astonishment. The Latin
grammarians also state the fact of this relationship (cf. Diomedes
in Keirs Grammatici Latini. I, p. 419, 10). If hui be read, its
tone is the same as in Pers. 801 Hui babae basilice te intulisti etc.
The elision of hui ought not to be more surprising than of O / (jd,
Richter in Studemund*s Studien, I, p. 598), or we may operate
with semi-hiatus as with ei/ (ib., p. 469).
We ought perhaps to read /f^/ here and also at Pseud. 1295.
For the latter line A seems to read di te ament Pseudole
Jhae Ji in malam crucem. In B there are no breaks, but p/ui
stands for the hae of »A, where the / is, I surmise, derived from
a P of the rubric of the manuscript prior to B, which may have
indicated the character of Pseudolus by a P as B does. At Cas.
727 *P almost certainly had FYFY, and A seems to read edepoL
Thus, in two cases the scribe of A seems to have been baffled by
FY, FVI, possibly because <^v was written in Greek characters in
his exemplar, though Greek script occurs in A ; or perhaps the
scribes were at a loss how to register an onomatopoetic word
amounting to a stage-direction.
It is perfectly clear at Pseud. 1295 that whatever Pseudolus
may have said, what he did was to retch, and at Cas. 727 the
interjection simulated vomiting. The outburst in vs. 39 of our
text seems hardly justified by quam confidenier loquitur, but if to
this be added fy, which we may render by the stage-direction
'pretending to vomit,' the outburst is accounted for. Here by
fy we must understand * your talk is sickening,' putting it on a
footing W\ih fy/yfoeiet iuos mihi sermo of Cas. 727. In all three
of the passages under discussion fy (Jyfy') has no necessary
metrical value, and may be merely equivalent to a stage- direction,
* retching.' *
' This suggestion, though original with myself, proves to be not altogether
new. See Spengel, Reformvorschlage, etc., p. 80, note. Along with Spengel
and Ussing, I accept it, spite of the words *' insulsam Gruteri explicationem
recoquentes" flung by Schoell at these two scholars (Appendix to Most., p.
153). The English interjection of disgust '\% foh!, and in Congreve's Old
Bachelor, IV iv, the stage>direction 'spits' accompanies fohl I do not know
that there are any stage-directions in Latin comedy, but, considering the
divergence of A's Hae and *P*s pfui at Pseud. 1295, one is tempted to see in
pfyi pfui (so, in fact, C and D), a possible mistake for spui<,t> *he spits,*
taken up from a marginal stage-direction or from a gloss.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS, 173
VS. 40: g^ermana inluvies rusticus hircus hara sui<s>.
So the manuscripts, but riis \ iicus offends the metrical law that
two shorts ending a polysyllabic word may form neither arsis nor
thesis in iambic-trochaic metres. Bergk's correction of rusticus
to siircus is not a bad emendation, but rucius seems to me better,
as a lectio difficilior, and fadges precisely with the interpretation
offered just above for^ (vs. 38). I note the use of rucius in the
similar situation of Pseud. 1294-1301.
If Leo's contention that final s is treated like final m in the pre-
classic period holds, then we might scan without change rustic^
hircus,
vs. 56 : stimulis, si hue reveniat senex.
So the manuscripts. Leo reads stimulis Kcarnufices^^ and
Schoell, much more plausibly, si hue <re bene gestd> etc. V
propose stimulis si h<,oc eveniit> ur reveniat senex ^ where the
assumed haplography seems to me better warranted than in
Schoell's emendation. For the construction eveniet ut I compare
Pers. 535.
vs. 63 : data es inonestis etc.
So B. Here Leo, and before him Ritschl, read most plausibly
date si nan estis (i. e. editis). The other minuscule manuscripts
read inhonestis. I take my cue for the emendation of the passage
from vs. 604-5 •
daturin estis faenus actutum mihi ?
da/2^r faenus mihi ?
So A, but in *P da/^ mihi faenus. where the variant reading
doubtless comes from a ligature for -/«r. At True. 247 da/ar is
unquestionably the reading, but *P has da/«r. Combining these
fects, I propose to read here da/^r es in<h>o-nestis *you are
generous enough to your wicked associates.' For this sense of
dator es compare True. 244 sq. Thus there is no difficulty in my
reading except the change of number, and this is not more violent
than the change in vs. 603 below'.
vs. 73 : venire quod moleste quam illud quod cupide petas.
So the manuscripts. Much nearer to the MSS than anything
yet proposed is veni\re quod \ moleste <est> \ quam ilhid qtiod \
cupide I petas. For mdlisfisi I refer to Klotz (p. 82) ; ^w"*" lllud
qu{fd~ seems warranted by the trochee non illuc (Epid. 715). See
also below on vs. 204.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
174 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
VS. 84 : vide6| corruptum ex idulescente 6ptumo.
Thus I would read the verse with the manuscripts, allowing^
hiatus in the 5th foot (see above on vs. 21).
vs. 104: sibi quisque simile suo is sua sumptu operam parcunt
suam.
This is B's reading. It makes sense and good metre to read
the verse as follows: sibi quisque simile <s> suo ^^5^ sumptu;
<n6> OPERAM parciint suam; or, as CD read sumptu^ we may
represent the archetypal reading as sumptunonoperam, and the
error consists only of haplography of nono. The reading suo
issua arose from suo esse suo, in which the repetition of suo
represents a shift in position such as we have in vs. 235 quidem
absumpta quidem (BCD), vs. 311 cum amica cum (BCD), vs. 529
ui\\A hodie «/ (BCD).
vs. 119: <id> dfcere ut hominis a6dium esse similis arbitr6mini.
The insertion I propose (taking id^ of course, in the sense oiid
quod dixi and defining dicere by 'explain') makes the verse
metrical. Leo scans it dicire ui hdmines^ etc., with hiatus between
-re and ut\ As I read the verse the 2d foot is a proceleusmatic
and is not objectionable on the score of metre (cf. Klotz, p. 353).
vs. 124 : et tit in | ustim | boni et in spe|ciem.
I propose to read this verse as an iambic dimeter, like vs.
902 b. The question is whether bon* et in spe- can be read as a
proceleusmatic The shortening of in here is on precisely the
same basis as the shortening of a in Asin. 59, where there is a
tribrach it d m* in- (cf. Klotz, 69), but in our passage, to be sure,
in would get its shortening from the word-accent on et^ not from
an ictus there, as in quid dni\' (Capt. 206).
vss. 129-30: ad legionem tcomita adminiculum eis danunt,
ftum iam iliquem cognattim suom.
If we read comita<,nt>, vs. 129 becomes an iambic senarius,
and the sense is ' the fathers accompany them ; they give them
help (money ?) and also (?) one of their relatives (as a com-
panion).' It is doubtful, however, whether tum iam may be
taken in the sense of etiam^ though turn does approximate to et
(cf. Lewis and Short, Lat. Diet., s. v. tum, C i).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS. 17$
VS. 139 sq.: ha6c verectindiam mi 6t virtutis modum
d^turbavit ftexit det6xitque a me flico
p6stilla optfgere ea[m] n6glegens fui.
This is the reading of the editio minor. Now it happens at vs.
583 of our play that A reads domum and *P modo^ and at vs. 432
one of two successive lines ending in modo has been corrected to
domum ; and I propose in vs. 139 domum for modum^ and would
retain earn in vs. 141. There has been an elaborate comparison
up to this point between a man's character and a house, and our
verbs are mosUy literally used in connection with a house. We
must, however, take vs. 162 sq. into the count : modestiam omnem
deiexit^ tectus qua fui; and the same figure seems to recur at
Trin. 317 : sarta tecta tua praecepta usque habui mea modestia.
On the other hand, modesHam might be the occasion of domum
having been changed to modum in our verse. This proposal
demands verecundtae, perhaps, in vs. 139, and domus verecun-
diae is hardly a bolder figure than ciedes aurium (Pseud. 469).
In vs. 140 I suggest ex<,ci'>U for iexity with the orthography
exHii\ cf. Cure. 295, where B's extiam is probably for exciam
(so Leo). As to definition, exciii is an intensive ^i^r^ = 'has
shaken up thoroughly.* Metrically, vs. 140 will be, with my
reading, a trochaic septenarius, like vs. 145 ; and vs. 141 a cretic
dimeter + a trochaic tripody catal.
vs. 146: atque 6depol ita ha6c tigna timid6 <ex>p(itent: n6n
uide5<r> mihf.
I suggest <ex>puient on the basis of exputescunt at Cure.
242, and scan the verse as an iambic octonarius like the next
verse. The hiatus at the end of the 4th foot is normal. The
close syntactical connection of umide and exputeni does not
hinder hiatus (cf. Klotz, p. 147). We should possibly write
<e>puient like epoto^ though in Plautus manuscripts only
expoto is preserved.
vs. 159: eventus rebus omnibus vdut homo messis magna
fuit.
I am inclined to ask, recalling the steriles omi of Vergil
(Georg. II III), whether omo did not stand here originally; to
be sure, homo would be the lectio difficilior, but might have crept
in from some grammarian's handling of the text. Nonius, s. v.
(121. 7), cites Lucilius, but does not cite Plautus. I cannot find.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
176 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
however, that the orntts was proverbially disappointing, the sense
in which it would stand here, for yielding flowers and the promise
of fruit, but no fruit. If we read omo it suggests ornate^ and the
sentiment is ' all your beautifying will come to nothing in the end.'
vs. 200: nihilo ego quam nunc tu amata sum atque uni modo
gessi morem.
Exception has been taken to the construction here ; the minus
that seems to be lacking cannot be supplied without hurt to the
metre. The editio minor, however, admits the construction.
Perhaps we should read NIMIO or NIMIU for NIKILO, sup-
posing H to have had the K-form as in A, and then change
quam nunc tu to quanrum iu<m>, but the admission of e^o
between nimium quantum I cannot support by a parallel. If we
read nimium ego, quam. nunc tu, amata sum, the tam correlative
to quam is to seek.
vss. 204-5: [solam] illi me[o] soli censeo esse oportere obse-
quentem,
solam ille me soli sibi suo <sumptu> liberavit.
So the editio minor, which, however, inverts the order of the
lines without a cogent reason, so far as I can see. The motive
for clipping solam from the text is precisely counter to that for
clipping '0 from meo, for me stands precisely below it. Schoell
questions solam as follows: "Philolachis erat, non Philematii
censere * solam* illam esse oportere obsequentem," but solam in
the next verse is exposed nominibus mutatis to the same objec-
tion. I do not see why our verse does not mean * I ought to be
solely devoted to P. only.'
The assumption that me has been corrupted to meo seems to
me to move on the lines of greatest resistance, for the omission of
the personal pronoun with oportere is common in Terence
(Heaut. 200, 247, Ad. 214).
According to Klotz (p. 62 sq.), the cretic may stand wherever
the dactyl may stand in iambic- trochaic measures. Thus sdt"^
llli is an allowable ist foot.
The further question arises whether till may not have the
iambic shortening in this foot, and so be equivalent to a pyrrhic ?
Above, in vs. 73, lllad seemed to be a pyrrhic. Further cases
are illdm (Merc. 380) and llliifh (Trin. 792). As for Jf/A, the
motive for shortening may be derived from lllius (Bacch. 494 et
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
' TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS, 1 77
a].). All of this is called in question by Mueller (Plautinische
Prosodie, p. 337 sq.).
For vs. 205 I propose, not <sumpiu>y but PhilolacheSj scan-
ning
solam ills me soli sibi su6 <Phil6laches> liberdvit.
For suum in the sense of property — especially with sibi — I note
Trin. 156 reddam suom sibi. In the previous verse meo is
euphemistic, like quod suom esse nolit in vs. 247 ; we may also
compaire pecuiium in its bad sense (vs. 253, cf. Pers. 192).
vs. 213. For the unmetrical vlillena I propose viti<^i'>-lena
from an earlier viii<iu>-lenay just such a compound as sociu-
fraude (Pseud. 362).
vs. 241 : edepol si summo loui fbo arg6nto sacruficassem.
This is the reading of the editio minor, following B. Here D
reads uiuo and C reads ioui for the bo of B. The confusion of B
and V is common even in A, and B's ioui bo may well be haplo-
graphic for ioui uiuo, though the variant in C renders this less
probable. I believe that in *P we must assume a text Ioui uiuo
argenio uiuo, with the adjective repeated, a not infrequent
phenomenon, and I would emend the line to read :
edepol si stimmo Ioui arg^nto uiuo sdcruficdssem.
Here there would be semi-hiatus with liul in the thesis. The verse
is broken by the seminovenaria caesura, and so a spondaic 4th
foot is permissible. For the sense of argento uiuo I cite Cicero's
commercial phrase, de uiuo detrahere (resecare) aliquid * to take
something from the capital.' Plautus is here probably playing
on caput in the next verse, by way of double entendre between
the senses 'person capital.'
vss. 274-5 : nam istae ueteres, quae se unguentis unctitant, inter-
poles
vetulae edentulae.
B first read isles ueleres, and further on spells uelule edenluU,
with e for ae, as commonly. I propose to read islae suelae
(assuelae ? Asin. 217, 887) [resl, defining suelae by * experts.' The
reading ueteres was due to a false division (as in B) or to a gloss.
vss. 284-5 • • • • is nequid emat, nisi quod tibi placere censeat
Schoell has corrected tibi to sibi and is followed by Leo and
the editio minor. I cannot follow them ; vss. 287-9 ^^^^ us that
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
178 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
* beauty unadorned 's adorned the most' in the lover's eyes, and
surely the lover will not here be commanded to buy adornments
to please himself.
vs. 301. The oprobarier of the MSS has been corrected to
opprobrarier, but we know the Romans found difficulty with a
succession of r's, and reduced percrebruit^ say, to percrebuU.
Here we should read opprobarier, if we would reproduce Plautus's
probable pronunciation. So also at Pers. 193 *P spells opprobari
(but cf. True. 280 opprobras A, where, however, there are only
two r's).
vss. 313-14: aduorsum uenire mihi ad Philolachem
uolo temper!.
The editors change uenire to ueniri, which is not necessary for
the metre nor for the syntax either, if we may suppose that uolo
'order' lapsed over to the construction of iubeo^ where the
standing ellipsis of the natural subject of the dependent infinitive
amounts to using the active form as a passive (c£ the author in
Am. Jour. Phil. XV 221). I note the close association of uolo
and iubeo in the legal formula uelUis iubeaHs.
vs. 319 : Ecquid tibi uideor mam-ma-madere.
Here *P seems to have read Hecqutd, and at vs. 339 the
drunken Callidamates says Eecquis^ (B) or Hecquis (CD). The
orthography seems to me possibly to reproduce the hiccough and
stammer of a drunken man, while the ho-ho-hocellus of vs. 325
is, I believe, certainly explicable in this way. Forms of ecquis
with initial h- are rather common in MSS of this play, though in
some of the cases they have been corrected : vs. 900 hecquis
ecquis hue, vs. 445 heus hecquis hie est, vs. 907 haecquid placent ,*
but ecquis is found in vss. 354, 899, 988.
Taking the statistics of ecquis and ecquid for all the rest of
Plautus. there is no h- in 67 cases. At Bacch. 580 D reads
hecquis 4 times, but also hostium (for ostium)^ and the h- possibly
has some mimetic intention here; at Men. 163 hecquid (B)
possibly represents the ze/^iffing of odors ; and at Mil. 993 h- may
be due to ze^Aispering ; {heus^ hecquis hie is found at Men. 674 (B),
^ I note an interesting lusus renim from True. 505 . . . ehecquit mei similest ?
rogas? I quin ubi natust <ma-ma> machaeram-fuscebat. If <m<i-m<i> were
not an ingenious insertion of Schoell, the orthography of ehec would conclu-
sively indicate stammering.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS. Ijg
MU. 902 (B), 1297 (D), Trin. 870 (B), and at Cas. 166 hecquis
haec ; in all these cases h- may be due to an alliterative impulse.
The following passages suggest to me no reason for their h-i
Bacch. 980 (DC), Pers. 108 (B), Pseud. 370 (A), 746 (D), 748 (D),
True. 584 (DC). Thus there are some 13 cases, taking all the
manuscripts into account, of the spelling with A-, so that, after all»
we may not make any cogent inference regarding the h- of vss.
319, 339-
vss. 320-21 : semper istoc modo moratus . . .
uitae debebas.
So the editio minor. I propose utie<r> for uitae ^ and
construe isioc modo as the ax^/xa atth koivov with moratus and again
with uH€<r>, The metre is trochaic dimeter acatal. with troch.
tripody acatal. The infinitives in -ter in Plautus are, however^
restricted to final position (see Lorenz on Most. 963), and the
only deviation (Men. 1006) hardly fiirnishes a warrant for the
present passage, and nothing more can be claimed for the
proposed viie<r> than for any emendation ad sensum. Perhaps
we should read uH e<o> debebas, making eo refer to isioc modo.
The lost Ko> would be due to haplography with D in a capital
manuscript.
vs. 328 : sine sine cadere me ^sino <%> sed hoc quod mihi in
manu[se]st.
So the editio minor. No instance of a repeated sine is known
to me (at Poen. 375 each of the three sinews has its own dependent
verb), and I suggest si-si-sine, letting the drunken man keep up
Del.
his stammering. Further in the verse B reads me sinof & hoc^
and, recalling the form semol of the inscriptions, I propose . . . me*
<Del. sino. Cal.> semol et hoc etc, which seems to me a litde
nearer the manuscripts than Schoell's simiiu or Hermann's situs
et.
vs. 334 : quod ego eam.
The reading of *P was indubitably qtu>d and not quo, and a
precise parallel is Asin. 864 hoc ecastor est quod ille it ad cenam
cottidie. The same locution is used by Vergil (Aen. II 664), hoc
erat alma parens, quod me per tela . . . eripis. In all these cases
I take quod to be terminal. I do not agree with Lindsay (Lat
Lang., p. 568), who takes the terminal adverbs to be originally
ablatives. I believe them to be either datives with the same
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
l80 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
paragogic d shown by the accusatives me-d ie-dy or, more
plausibly perhaps, datives in -o plus the enclitic preposition
-d{e), which is retained also in Homer in a few archaic formulae.
Possibly Most. 786 belongs here : quod me miseras, adfero omne
impetratum, though we may, to be sure, interpret quod me (sc. ui
facerem) miseras etc.
vss. 334-5: quo[d] ego earn an scis? CAL. scio: in mentem
venit [DEL.] modo:
nempe domum eo co[m]missatum tCAL. immo istuc
quidem iam memini.
So B, substantially, in the editio minor, but with differences in
the division of the lines. Instead of \_DEL.'\ I propose to read
the vocative <Deiphium>, which makes the line a very good
troch. sept., if we read sctd in thesis with semi-hiatus. In the
next verse CAL is put in above the line by B, and I would
eliminate it altogether, making istttc refer to some gesture on
Delphium's part. This verse is also a septenarius with diaeresis
and hiatus after the 4th foot. In the 7th foot we have a dactyl,
which, though rare, is allowable.
vs. 358 : ubi aliqui quique denis hastis corpus transfigi solet.
So the manuscripts, but aliqui quique seem certainly corrupt.
We have in Cicero (Div. II 50, 104) aliquidquam and in Livy
(41. 6) alicuiquam^ but both have been emended by the editors.
I venture to propose here aliquiquam^ which is orthographic for
aliquoiquam (cf. Pers. 489 A).
vs. 365: quid ita? Jpater adatesi Jquid ego e<x> te audio?
;|;absumpti sumus.
The adaiest of the manuscripts I correct to ad-ad-est and B
divides ad at est Tranio is stammering with fright, and punning
besides on attat I agree with Leo in reading <adest> adest at
vs. 363, where Philolaches announces the coming of dainties with
the reiteration of joy.
Now, at vs. 366 the metre is again defective, and the defect
seems to consist of an omission before the same word adesU The
verse runs :
pater inquam tuos venit Jubi is est obsecro? TR. . . . adest.
So the editio minor. I propose to read < Tranio^ before
obsecro (cf. Poen. 1322, True. 503), and possibly <ad'>adesty
with 'Crd in semi-hiatus.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS, l8l
VS. 376 : quaeso edepol exsurge.
I suggest <ie> exparge^ and compare Ep. 732 . . . lumbos
porgite (*P surgiie)y and Pseud, i exporgi meliust lumbos. Still,
ie exporgt means 'stretch yourself/ and not 'get up.' Perhaps
we should read ie surge or, with Ritschl, ie exsurge^ though I
can furnish no citations of a transitive surgere earlier than Vergil.
vss. 412 sq.: uerum id uidendumst, id uiri doctist opus,
quae dissignata sint et facta nequiter,
niquid potiatur, quam ob rem pigeat uiuere,
tranquille cuncta et ut proveniant sine[mo] malo.
The order of the two last lines has been needlessly inverted, it
seems to me, by the editors. If we invert with the editors, or
follow the manuscripts, an <ea> after ifanquille or after cuncia
is easy to insert palaeographically and lightens the syntax. I
would take ut as subordinate to niquid potiatur^ not co-ordinate.
vss. 451-2 : . . . natus nemo in aedibus
seruat, neque qui recludat neque qui[s] respondeat.
I propose, after Bothe, to drop quis entirely from the text.
For the absolute use of respandeai I cite Cic de Or. 3. 49. 191
respondebunt non vocati. Seyffert notes Rudens 226, where
responsorem means ' ostiarius.'
vs. 469 : vos quoque terram ^obsecro hercle quin eloquere.
So the editio minor. If we may read hircli (cf. Klotz, p. 47),
I propose to read this verse as follows :
uos qu6que terram [J] obsecro h6rcle <t> quin eloquere
<6bsecro>,
and compare Cure. 308 :
eloquere, obsecro hercle Jeloquere te obsecro etc.
The metre can also be mended by inserting <iu> before eloquere^
if we read with semi-hiatus and a shortened /- (cf. Klotz, p. 73).
For quin <iu> cf. Asin. 659, 868, and iu following quin would
be liable to haplographic loss.
vs. 663 : nisi ut in uicinum hunc proxumum mendacium.
I would correct the mendacium^ of *P to mendax siem. After
t ^
proximutn A has in Studemund's Apographum D — RDIE. For
000
^ SchoeU would have it that mitidacium is picked up from vs. 665.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
1 82 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
the first D alternative letters are P, and, with less probability,
E I T, which shows that the perpendicular only of the D is
clear, and this might be as well the first stroke of an M. Of RD
o o
only the lower half remains, so X is a plausible substitute for R
(x) [d] t
(cf. Epid. 19 R), and S for D (cf Most 722 0, Mil. 34 D), though
o 00
Studemund omits S here in giving CGQTE as possible readings of
D. The words mendax stem do not violate the only letters reported
certain by the Apograph, and offer a plausible substitute for *P's
mendacium, Nettleship is entitled to priority in point of this
correction, but he has construed in here with the ablative. I
do not see, however, that in with the ace. is necessarily of hostile
intention, and so need not mean more than 'put a lie on.* Plautus
elsewhere uses aduorsum (Aul. 690, Poen. 400).
vs. 701 : nam et cenandum ei et cubandum est male.
So A ; B omits ei and reads cubandumst ni irahis male ; the
editio minor reads nam et cenandum ei cubandumst ei male^
which does not account for *P*s ni trahis. This we can do by
treating A's ei as dittographic for et and reading intra his (sc
aedibuSy iaedis). The omission of the noun with his can be
supplied by a gesture. The difficulties are that intra with the
ablative seems not to have occurred, and while his could be
justified for a nominative, no accusative his is known. Perhaps
we should read, then, ifttra has or intra hie, accounting for the
variant by the division ni trahis. We must then scan the end of
our line -diimst intra hds male, a troch. trip, catal., such as we
have in the previous verse.
vss. 709-10 : — haec sat scio quam me habeat male
peiius posthac fore <et> quam fuit mihi.
Leo would have a gap between these lines and the editio minor
suspects quam habeat male (omitting me with B). The difficulty
Leo makes is removed by the insertion of et after fore [or, with
Bothe, after male?: cf. Rud. 1169, Mil. 1132 (A)]. The post-
ponement of et after /ore is, however, harsh, unless we can
consider it relieved by the position of ^/ at the end of the second
cretic.
vs. 731 : uitam <iam> cdlitis Jimmd <ita> uit<a> antehac erat.
I insert iam and ita. I note Epid. 12 minus iam furtificus
quam antehac. By supplying ita the retort means * Nay, that's
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS, 183
how we used to live.' That this must be the sense the next
verse, cited below, goes to prove. The subsequent retort (vs.
733)» ^^^ oppide occidimus omneSy plays upon iia uiia — erat,
taking erai in the sense oifuiU In vs. 731 something like iia is
certainly needed for the predicate of uiia erai.
vs. 732 : nunc nobis tcommunia haec exciderunt.
So the editio minor. Here the metre seems undoubtedly
corrupt. The verse will scan as a trochaic hexapody catalectic,
like verses 704-5 above in the same passage, if emended as follows :
nunc nobis communia haec <hic c>e[x]cidSrunt —
if we may employ Vergil's 3d plur. pf. ending. For the sense,
communia haec means 'the common end,' as communis locus
(Cas. 19) means 'the common place,' i. e. Hades.
vs. 756 : quid consomniavit.
Here the metre is defective. Ritschl proposed <hem> quid^
but as D reads qui% and C con sommavii^ I propose quid <se>
cum somniavii, and compare Ter. And. 442 secum reputavit, and
Cic. Off. 3. I. I secum loqui, as general analogues for the con-
struction. This correction would entirely banish the nonce-word
consomniare.
vs. 873 : bonis sum improbis sunt malus fuit.
So B, but the line is neither metrical nor sensible. Now, in a
minuscule manuscript /f^iV may well stand for/tW, and sum in a
capital manuscript is close to sini in ductus. I therefore propose
to read the verse as follows :
bonf sint < bonis si> improbi sint, mail sint
'the masters would be good to good slaves, but if they were bad,
bad.' I compare Amph. 659-61 :
atque ita seruom par videtur sese insdtuere:
proinde eri ut sint, ipse item sit . . .
tristis sit si eri sint tristes ; hilarus sit, si gaudeant,
which approximates our construction. A further parallel at
Bacch. 660 :
. . . bonus sit bonb, malus sit mails.
It would conform to these parallels better if we should read donus
sii . . . mains sii, but there is no cogent reason for the singular
in this truism.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
1 84 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
VS. 890 : ferocem facis quiate eratus amat uha
So B. I propose to emend as follows :
fer6cem facis <te> quia effdrtus ama<s> tu < J> ha.
As far as the ductus goes quiaeffartus is most similar to
QUIATEERATUS, though there is an inversion (metathesis perhaps ?,
cf. Lindsay, Latin Language, p. 97) of ar. The inserted <te>
would have been lost owing to the conversion of quia ef- to quia te.
The bacchius qut ifftrtus is far from impossible (cf. Klotz, pp.
343» 352; 33)' I interpret the verse: *You are playing the r61e
of one swollen with anger because you love jw^/Zm^^-with-food.'
The noun effarius (jefferius) would be formed like partus,
Plautus uses effercio above (vs. 65) and uses efferius as a parti-
ciple 3 times (twice in the superlative). At vs. 169 above, he
uses the simplex fartum (MSS/arlim, but see the editio minor,
Praefatio, sud versu), where vestis fartim seems to mean *the
stuffing of the clothes.' For the sentiment I compare Bacch.
580, where a parasitus says to his boy -attendant : comesse panem
tris pedes latum potes.
There can be no objection to reading ha (i. e. ah, cf Epid. 540
in A) for uah at the beginning of the next line on the score of
metre or meaning (cf True. 525, where ah is used "ubi dolorem
corporis mulier simulat": Richter in Studemund's Studien, I, p.
401).
vs. 904: quid tibi visumst mercimoni t<totus> totus gaudeo.
Gruter's insertion of <totus> is, I believe, correct; cf. Cas. 621
tota tota occidi.
vss. 905-6 : . . . nunquam edepol ego me scio
vidisse umquam abiectas aedis etc
I would let nunquam — unquam remain ; it is certainly no worse
tautology than nemo homo (Pers. 211) and homo nemo (Most. 901
in A, "ut videtur").
vs. 926 : EGOENIMCAVIREC . . . AMBISGRATIAMATQ-ANIMOMEO.
So A, while B reads Earn dehis graiiam, dehis being probably
a spelling of dis as above at vs. 563. That A confuses B and D
is clear from aebis for aedis at True. 252. I propose to read our
verse as follows :
ego enim caui recte ; /am dis gratia[m] atque animo meo.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS. 18$
B's Earn for tarn is responsible for gratiava. The phrase tarn dis
gratia means * great thanks to the gods.' I compare Ep. lo huic
gratia ^thanks to this hand of mine'; at Men. 387, Stich. 472 tarn
graHast means 'no, many thanks/ 'no' being inferred as in
German ich danker but ick danke is also positive.^ I note in
Terence the parenthetic {es() dis gratia (Ad. 121, 138).
vs. 984: Tranio: is uel Herculi conterre quaestum potest.
So the manuscripts, but B' has corrected the second r of
conterre from an original e. I believe that *P had the trisyllabic
infinitive canierery and I would read the verse :
Tranio: is uel Herculi <illi>.conterer quaestum potest.
To supply <illi> makes a perfect diaeresis here, and it is thor-
oughly Plautine (cf. above ille — luppiter^ vs. 398). The apoco-
pated infinitive dicer is demanded by the metre at Merc 282 (cf.
Sonnenschein in Transactions of the American Philological Asso-
ciation, XXIV, p. 14), and biber for bibere is certainly genuine
(cf. Charisius 124. i, in KeiPs Grammatici Latini); while Stolz's
explanation of the infinitive in -ier as apocopated from -iere is
after all the best.'
vs. 1012: quid a Tranione seruo? SI. tn^ulto id minus.
So the editio minor. I propose to read 57. <immo> multo
etc., assuming a haplography of Simo immo, I note vs. 807,
where the manuscripts give SL immo. The metrical value immd
occurs again at vs. 1091.
vs. 1081 : quid iam? tscio iocaris tu nunc [tu] nam ille <illud>
quidem baud negat.
It is obvious that both iu's cannot stand, and they are most
easily accounted for as arising from a shift in order (cf. supra on
vs. 104). Leo inserts <iedepol> after quidem^ but restitutions of
edepoldSid its like seem to me idle where haplography cannot be
made plausible. I propose <illud>, meaning ' his own act.'
^ There is such an inferred *no' at Epid. 638 non me nosti? {quod quidem
nunc veniat in mentem mihi.
'I note my supplement to this explanation in the Classical Review, X i83»
where I incorrectly declared vid^ to have manuscript warrant at Epid. 62,
citing a previous error of mine in Am. Jour. Phil. XV, p. 372. A better
example is our present passage, where conterer approximates to manuscript
warrant.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
1 86 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
VS. 1089: dat profecto <X> quin tet ilium in ius si veniam mane.
So the editio minor. I believe the verse to make good sense
and metre as it stands. After ilium occurs the normal hiatus in
the diaeresis. I interpret the verse: *he doesn't intend to go to
court any more than I do (who as a slave am debarred from
court)'; or, literally, 'expect him too when (if) I come into
court.'
vs. 1090: <TH.> experiar ut opinor TR. tcertumst, mihi homi-
nem cedo.
So A. Schoell, following a cue of Gruter's, reads ut opino
TR, <^opino''i> etc. Leo assigns certumsi to TH. and reads
TR, <immo> mihi etc. I propose the following :
<TH.> experior ut opinor. TR. certum<n>est? <TH. cer-
tumst TR.> mihi hominem cedo,
and cite in illustration Stich. 482 certumnesif Xcerium , and
Merc. 461 certumnesif ;|;censen cerium esse? . 1 note also
the entirely satisfactory restoration of Camerarius at Most. 639
eerie f <cerle^'> inquam
vs. 1091 : uel [hominem] iube aedis mancipio poscere {immo hoc
primum uolo.
The sense here is excellent if mancipio may be construed with
poscere^ on the analogy oi mancipio CLccipere *take possession,'
mancipio dare 'give possession.' Leo suggests that hominem
has crept in from vss. 1090, 1093. If we eliminate hominem^ as
Camerarius did, the verse becomes metrical with only one ques-
tionable foot, the sth — cir*lmmd. The pyrrhic value of immd
seems certain (cf. Lindsay, 1. c, p. 603), and the only question is
whether immd with hiatus or immd with its final shortened by
semi-hiatus may stand in the arsis of a foot.
vs. 1 1 13: ndnquam edepol hodi6 <di med> invituif^ destindnt
tibi.
So I propose to read this verse ; besides the insertion it only
changes MS invilus to invilum. Schoell reads . . . hodie <hinc
abibo> invitus: desine aul abi, and Leo . . . hodie <hincsivivo>
invilus desislam abu For the usage of deslinanl in our passage
I cite Aen. II 129 me destinant arae, and Cic. Off. Ill 45 cum
alteri diem necis destinavisset.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
TEXTUAL NOTES AND QUERIES ON PLAUTUS, 1 87
VS. II 14 : iam iubeo ignem et sarmen <arae> carnifex circumdari.
So the editio minor, following Seyifert's ingenious emendation,
B reads hibeo^ C lubo and D iube\ these best resolve into a
minuscule luber^ and I would amend the line thus :
iam lubet <tibi> ignem et sarmen carnifex circumdari ?
In this line the haplography of libet and Hbi probably took place
in a capital manuscript. I construe Hbi with circumdari according
to the <r)fifia dir6 koivov,
VS. II 34: age mitte ista t^cto ad me ad cenam tdic venturum,
quid taces ?
So the editio minor. I propose to emend as follows :
age mitte ista, a^<i>to ad me cenam etc.,
where the insertion of <i> is justified by the following /, and the
interchange of /^ and c is of common occurrence in capital manu-
scripts. Ussing's ingenious correction ac ie involves shifting die
veniurum to the first speaker. While no great attention can be
paid to the notae personarum, still, dropping one out demands
some justification.
It is not, I take it, a jejune reiteration of hie apud nos hodie
ccnes (vs. 1129), when the would-be host renews his invitation by
agiio cenam Tm having a big dinner' (cf. Pers. 28 agitare
eleutheria, ib. 769 — meum natalem, Asin. 834 — convivium).
The [afl?] I have dropped before cenam came in with the error
in cLcto,
vs. 1 141 : numquid aliud feci<t> nisi quod [faciunt] summi<s>
gnati generibus.
'So the editio minor. I propose to read faciuni and dso^feci.
There is no more difficulty in inferring the verb of the leading
clause from the dependent than vice versa (cf. Livy 34, 46 and
2, 32), and a diaeresis sSttx faciunt would be easier, I take it, than
after quod.
vs. 1 166 : dispudet < t> tistam ueniam : quid me fiet \X\ nunciam ?
So the editio minor. Assuming that the nota personae had
been lost in *P, I suppose that manuscript to have read DISPU-
^The following are salient cases of the confusion inToWed here: Pseud.
1054 tube ftttfir (A), lubet nunc (*P); ib. 1125 lubet (CD), iubet (B); True. 585
iubet, corrected by Camerarius to lubet^ by Buecheler to iube.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
I 88 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
DETEISTAM etc., and would read here dispudei <Xem> is'tam
etc., referring for this metrical value of em isiam to Richter in
Studemund's Studien (I, p. 498), though at both the places cited
(Cure. 212, Merc. 206) we might read em 1st — , a resolved thesis,
because of elisions complicated with change of speaker.
vs. 1 172: mftte quaes<o> istum <J> fe viden ut astat fdrcifer?
So the editio minor, but restai in the manuscripts. I propose
to read as follows :
mitte, qua6so, istum <t> 6<m> viden fit res<is>tat f(ircif6r?
There is no palaeographic difficulty in reading e<m>. For
e<m> viden I cite Terence, Hec. 316 em sensistin? and Pseud.
872 em subolem sis vide. Perhaps, though, we should read hem
viden, like hem cupin above (vs. 5), and the passage cited from
Terence has variants in hem. It is quite certain that resistere is
used by Plautus in the same sense as asiare (cf. Cas. 727).
The questionable point about the reading I propose is whether
quaeso may be read with hiatus or semi-hiatus. It seems to be
so read at Cist. 554 and Cure. 629.
lbximgtok, va. Edwin W. Fay.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
III.— SUPERSTITIONS AND POPULAR BELIEFS IN
GREEK COMEDY.
As to the scope of this paper and its governing principles, I
refer the reader to the introduction of my paper on * Superstition
in Greek Tragedy.'^ One word, however, should be said about
the material on which it is based. The extended use which
Plautus and Terence both have made of Greek originals might
lead to the expectation that their plays have likewise been made
use of in the following discussion. This has not been done,
partly because I do not wish to extend this paper to an undue
length, partly because I think it better, for reasons of method, to
discuss this borrowing and adapting of beliefs in its proper place,
viz. the discussion of Roman beliefe.
I. — In trying to define the extent of superstition^ in antiquity I
called attention to the &ct that the word dtiaidaifMovia shows the
origin to have been an exaggerated fear of divine spirits. From
the comparatively late appearance of the word in Greek literature,
and from the conditions of the age when it first appears, I ven-
tured to argue that it had its origin about 400 B. C, in round
numbers, in that seething cauldron of religious sectarianism which
is marked by the preponderance of Orphicism and by the growing
acceptance of the cult of Cybele by the lower classes. I tried
also to show that such transformation of religious belief into
superstition was not the product of isolated circumstances, but
that it is subject to a law which, therefore, must be expected to
work wherever similar conditions exist. To this I believe I am
able to adduce additional testimony. Even in Menander's time
the word dtiaidaifmy was not yet firmly established. In fact, the
word ISko\o£ repeatedly occurs in its stead, not only here, but also
in the Old Comedy.' Now, this word can only refer to the
enthusiastic shouts of some religious service — in one word, to the
cult of the Great Mother. It is well known that Cybele priests
1 Transactions Am. Phil. Assoc. XXVII 5 ff. * Ibidem, XXVI 40 ff.
'Menand. Aetaidai/tuv, 112 K., inc. 1046 K.; Theopomp. Tiaafiev6c, 61 K.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
190 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
were no mere functionaries in the ritual, but that, beyond this,
they were busily engaged in miraculous cures/ It can also be
proved from Menander's comedies.' That the okokvy^s played a
prominent part in the rites of the Great Mother would be inferred
from their enthusiastic character. But for this, too, we have an
express testimony in the verses of Menander's MKroyvvor':
c^vo/icy dc frevrdi»r r^ff fffupas
€KVfiPd\iCop d €frra Bfpdiraivai icvkXai,
al d aX6\v(ov,
The history of the word firjrpayvfmjty likewise, tends to show that
at a comparatively early stage the more exaggerated features of
the cult had fallen into deep contempt. The rivalry between
deio-tduifuov and oXoXoff enables us to witness, as it were, the slow
decay of a true religion, or rather of some of its features, into
superstition, an opportunity not often offered in antiquity.
It is, however, unsafe to speak too confidently. As I have
urged in the paper referred to,* the individuality of the writer is
of the greatest moment in these questions, and we might sadly
misjudge popular feeling by making the comedian our standard.
An example of this is furnished by Aristophanes.* In his Amphi-
araos he had censured the credulity of the Athenians as regards
the miraculous cures wrought in the Amphiaraion at Oropos.
This appeared to him to be superstition. But did the Athenians
in general regard it as such? The sacred precinct of Amphiaraos
certainly continued to give birth to innumerable miracles and to
form the centre of a fervent worship down to much later times, as
the well-known records unearthed at Oropos prove beyond doubt.
As to Menander himself, not only the fact that he wrote a comedy
called Aeio-idatfuioir, but also his verses about the Syrian fish-taboo,'
show that he was considerably in advance of his own age as far
as popular beliefs are concerned. Now, this should certainly
1 E. Rohdc, Psyche, 336 ff.
* Menand. 'lipeia, 245 K. About the time of the Rhea-Cybele cult cp. also
Preller-Robert, I 651.
' 326 K. = inc. 601 K. It is significant that the passage occurs in the
Mtadywoc. Women at all times hare been the chosen agents of superstition
and its most influential proselytisers. Compare the influence of the freed-
women in imperial Rome, as shown in the poems of Horace, Ovid, Tibullus.
See also Index s. prostitute.
♦Transact. Am. Ass. XXVI 43, 50. *See Bergk, Ar. fgm., p. 951.
* Menand. inc. 544 K.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
SUPERSTITIONS IN GREEK COMEDY, I9I
warn us to exercise the greatest discretion in relegating a belief
to the sphere of superstition. It cannot be repeated too often
that the line of demarcation between superstition and religion
fluctuates.
2. — Aristophanes, 'Hpwcff, 306 K.:
lu\Tt. noddviiTTpov Bvpa{^ cjt;(Ctrc firfrt Xovrpiop.
At first blush this looks like a measure of sanitation which must
have been very welcome indeed where the streets were still
unpaved. But the fragment had its place in a comedy which, by
its very name, dealt with 'souls.' It is a hackneyed fact that
such apparently sanitary measures almost always had their origin
in religion. So it is here also. The sacredness of the door^
hardly needs proving. It will be sufficient to quote Menander':
fiapTvpofxai, vol fxh r6y *Air6k\n rovrovi
Koi rat Bvpai*
This sacredness would be a sufficient reason for the prohibition.
However, its root seems to lie deeper. At the door the souls
have one of their habitual haunts, though I hardly recollect
any reference to it from Greek soil.' But among the Hebrews
the seat of the Elohtm of the family was at the door. When the
Hebrew slave declared his willingness to remain a slave rather
than to make use of the liberty offered him with the return of the
jubilee year, he was led to the door and his ear was fastened to
the door-post with an awl.* Moreover, firom German superstition
we know of a custom that will admirably help to explain the
Greek prohibition. Immediately after the coffin has been carried
out of the house, the pail of water with which the corpse was
washed is poured out after it. This is to prevent the return of
the soul.* Thus, to pour out the water of the bath would drive
the spirits from their abode. Hence its prohibition by the ^pttcr.
* Cp. H. C. Trumbull, The Threshold-Covenant.
' Menand. inc. 740 K.
' Except, perhaps, the threshold sacrifice in Mag. Pap. V. Ill 27.
* Deuteron. 15, 17. About the meaning of this ceremony cp. Pauly-Wissowa,
I 30, 60.
^ Wuttke, Volksabeigl.*, §732. Cp. Grimm, Mythol., App., 846. A similar
custom prevails in modern Greece : C. Wachsmuth, Das alte Griechenland im
Neuen« 119, 129. The slang expression *to kick the bucket,' so widely used
among English-speaking peoples, may possibly be connected with this custom.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
192 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
3. — Aristophanes, TcXfucr^y, 532 K.:
frivaiciVicoy Sirvpop Ix0vrip6v.
Api(rro<t>dinjf dc coixc diaiptiv rivas dnvpovt Koi ifinvpovs irivaKtaKovs,^
Bergk compares Phrynichus': anvpov mvaKiaKOp' kqivov fifirrw jrvp)
7rpotr€»riv€yfA«pop, We may accept Phrynichus* explanation as
correct ; but Aristophanes certainly did not make this distinction
from sheer arbitrariness. The Telmessians was a comedy dealing
with the superstitious practices of the Telmessians, a people noted
throughout antiquity for its witchcraft. The newness of earthen-
ware is an important factor also in the magical papyri where the
xvrpa Kaivfi is repeatedly mentioned.' A possible explanation of
the word airvpos would also be that the vessel was to consist of
unbaked clay. This, too, finds its warrant in the magical papyri.*
In either case the reason for the prohibition lies in the enmity
between fire, the pure, ethereal element, and magic*
4. — Aristophanes, TcX/ucr^y, 530 K.:
rpdireCav fipiv ti(r<l>€p€
Tp€i£ ir6da£ Uxova-aVf rtrrapat di firj x*'*'^^
— Koi fr6B€v €ya rplirovv rpdn^Cav Xrj^opai/
In a paper on * Folk-lore in Artemidoros,* • I have tried to show
that tables were fitted with three legs, not for any practical- reason,
but on account of some mysterious religious idea. The Aris-
tophanic passage just quoted, while it shows that four-legged
tables must at least have been considerably more frequent than
the others, still confirms my view. For the express command,
coupled as it is with an express prohibition and occurring, in all
probability, in an act of witchcraft, can have no other reason back
of it but a superstitious one.
5. — Alkaios, rawfi^d^r, 4 K.:
Difficult as it is to interpret half a line from an ancient comedy
which may have treated of everything under the sun, I neverthe-
1 Pollux, X 82. » In Bekker's An. Gr. I 14.
'See the index of Wessely's Zauberpapyrus, in Wiener Denkschriften,
XXXVI and XLII, s. v. Katv6c,
* Paris. Pap., vs. 900 3, ed. Wessely.
»Cp. also Soph. Trach. 607. • Rhein. Mus. XLIX, p. 184.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
SUPERSTITIONS IN GREEK COMEDY, I93
less think that this particular half- verse allows of an interpretation.
Indeed, it enables us to state the existence of a belief in the fifth
century B. C. which hitherto has been known only from the
monuments and the literature of later times. I refer to the belief
in the Nereids as evil demons. This assumption of their char-
acter has, in fact, mostly been based upon their modem signifi-
cance.^ It is only a few years since O. Crusius,' by interpreting
a 'Hellenistic' relief, furnished proofs of the existence of similar
beliefs, at least in Alexandrian times. Our fragment, however,
takes us still farther back. The drastic treatment of the daughter
of Nereus is eminently one of the means which were used against
the evil eye, and as such reveals itself as good against evil spirits.'
Why the beautiful sea-nymphs became dangerous I do not know.
Some inference, however, may be drawn from the behavior of
water-nymphs towards Hylas^ and from the more modern
mermaids.
6. — K rates, 'HpttCff, 10 K.:
What right have I to refer this passage to necromancy'? It is
only a very slight justification that it occurs in a comedy of the
title *Hpa>cr. But it seems to me that the verse might almost
stand as subscription to the well-known Teiresias vase.' On this
monument of the fourth century B. C. we see Odysseus sitting
on a heap of stones ; to his right and left his companions are
standing, and between his feet the head of the ram killed as a
sacrifice is lying. At his feet, furthermore, the shadow of
Teiresias is visible. That is to say, we see his head and
shoulders rising from the depth. He is ceriainly represented t6v
avx*y €K yrjs awicar th airrov ffktirwvt SO mUch SO that from crown tO
chin there is an almost horizontal line. It has long since been
surmised that this masterly painting goes back to some cele-
' See espec. B. Schmidt, Volksleben d. Neugriechen, pp. 105, 118 ff.« 123.
« Philologus, L 97 ff.
'O. Jahn, Leipz. Sitzgsber. 1855, 86 ff. Cp. the way in which Luther used
to treat the attacks of the arch-fiend. About the demoniacal nature of the
evil eye see the remarks by Bloomfield, this Journal, XVII 400.
* This point has been made by Schmidt, too, 1. c, p. 99, n. 7. Cp. also
V. Laistner, Rtltsel der Sphinx, and Class. Rev. X 413.
^ See Index s. necromancy.
• Mon. Inst. IV 19 = Baumeister, Denkm. II, fig. 1254.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
]
194 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
brated original, albeit unknown to us.^ The close resemblance
between the verse of an Athenian poet of the fifth century and
the Athenian vase seems to me one more proof of the correctness
of such an hypothesis.
7. — Strattis, *om<r<ra4, 46 K. = Aristoph. N^aoi, 389 K.:
" Es liegt ein tiefer Sinn im kind'schen Spiel.*' These words
of the German poet, so often borne out by facts, are proved anew
by our two passages. Nobody doubts, nowadays, that children's
games and nursery rhymes are often the last refuge for older
religious rites and songs.' The same process has taken place
here. With all other nations of the earth, the Greeks too
believed that eclipses of sun or moon were caused by some bad
spirit or human being trying to attack or swallow the great
luminaries.' It behooved man, therefore, to come to their rescue.
This was done by making a hideous noise or by shouting incan-
tations and songs. Now, in Pollux,^ where the better of the two
accounts of this game has been preserved, we read : ^ dc t^x^ ^
P€<f>os ^v^dpafxjj t6p ^edv. There can be no doubt, to my mind, that
in the cloud we must see the last incarnation of the evil spirit,
which shall be disturbed and beaten off by the noise and shouts
which are raised against it.
8. — Aristoph. Ran. 298 fF.:
airdkovfieB , &va( 'H/MicXciff. — ov fifj xoXccff ft
— At<$vuf7€ Toipvv, — rovT* KB* ^irrop Baripov*
There seems to underlie these verses the well-known idea of
the power of the name, as old as the oldest incantations which
we possess.^ When you know the name of a demon, you have
gained complete control over him, and, contrariwise, you must
take good care lest the sprites learn yours, or they will control
^ Baum. II, p. 1040.
' Grimm, Mythol., passim. Cp. Alice Gomme, Traditional Games.
' Pauly-Wissowa, I 41, 4 ff.; cp. £. Rohde, Psyche, 379 ; W. Roscher, Selene.
* Pollux, IX 7.
* E. g. cp. A. Erman, Aegypten, p. 359 ff.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
^aL..i,,,iJUj^b^l^-^W:'*^m
^H
SUPERSTITIONS IN GREEK COMEDY, I95
you.' Even the o^ir pseudonym of Odysseus goes back to this
belief, however remotely. Dionysos is just now on his way to
the lower world and particularly anxious to avoid the dangers
which beset his path. It is only natural that he should observe
the rule; for, as Hall Caine puts it, custom must be indulged
with custom or custom will weep.
9« — Com. anon. 85 K.: BXcircdai/iODi', h ducTpafi/Atvos ras ^^c(f Kal
olop vn6 dai/Aovos n€ir\rjy&s.* ffk,, 6 vn6 v6€rov icarca«cXi;«cci>ff Koi KaK6xpov£
im6 daifi6p»v,^ " Larvae similis/' says Kock. But all these expla-
nations are at variance with grammar. For compounds which
are formed by a verbal stem with noun following are objective
compounds, viz. the noun is governed by the verb.* The meaning
of iBXeirffda(V«>y, therefore, would be, not 6 p\€w6^€yos imo dalfiovosy but
6 pXtnov daifjLopa. The first part of Eustathius' gloss gives us the
clue to its significance. Squinting has always been regarded as
one of the surest marks whereby to recognize the * jettatore.' *
This much once granted, and fiXtntdaifnop is easily explained as
* he who looks the demon.' * Many circumstances prove the *evil
eye ' to have been regarded as the action of a demon. We need
not go back to Demokritos' c(d»Xa as the cause of vision, or to
the clearly protective character of the amulets against the evil
eye. Foremost among the marks of the fiacKwos is the miros in
his eye'; that is, the figure of a horse, believed to be discernible
in his pupil. O. Jahn, it is true, thinks this due to the confusion
with the name of a peculiar eye-disease,® a theory foreshadowing,
on a kindred field, M. Miiller's mythological 'disease of the
language.' However, matters must be reversed. The very name
of the sickness proves that its origin, too, was ascribed to the
presence of a horse-shaped demon.* Neither is it a far cry from
this explanation of pkfjrtdaifuop to the second part of the passages
' Cp. Laistner, Rfttsel der Sphinx
' Eustath., p. 206, 27. ' Hcsych., s. v.
* Ktthner, Gr. Gramm. I 33S, 5. Cp. also H. Osthoff, Das Verbum in der
Nominalcomposition.
'See Tuchmann, La Fascination in Melusine, IV ff.
•Cp. *torva yidens* in Latin.
^ O. Jahn, Leipz. Sitzgsber. 1855, 35. For modem instances see Tuchmann,
I.e.
»L. c, p.35, 26.
*0n sickness, incarnated in the bodies of beasts, cp. Bienkowski, Malocchio,
in Eranos Vindob.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
196 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
from Eustathios and Hesychios ; for the possessor of the evil eye
is, of course, himself possessed by the spirit/ and, as frequently
happens in such cases, himself harmed to some degree by him.
Index.
Abstinence, Menand. inc. 544 K.
acorn, Nikochares inc. 15 K.; s. cabbage.
QiV^oXoff, bird of bad luck, Alkaios Ganym. 3 K.
Akko, Hermippos Ath. gon. 7 K.
Amaltheia, horn of, Philemon Pter. 65 K.
amulet, Aristoph. Ach. 964-965 (Gorgo) ; Eupolis Bapt. 87 K.
Diphilos Pall. 59 K. (cunnus) ; Menand. Parakat. 387 K.
(snake) ; s. bracelet.
avakxnaiy Magnes Lyd. 4 K.; s. dreams ; 6y€ip6/iavn£»
antipathy, schol. Aristoph. Eq. 539 ; s. cabbage.
ants, gold-digging, Eubulos Glauk. 20 K.
aphrodisiacs, Xenarchos Bupal. i K.; Alexis inc. 279 K.
avoTp67raioy, schol. Ahstoph. Ach. 284 ; s. amulet, Gorgo, evil eye,
squilla, Ephesia grammata.
Artemis = Hekate, Diphilos inc. 124 K.
asphalt, in purification, Diphilos inc. 126 K.
astrology, popular, Damoxenos Syntr. 2 K.; Nikomachos Eil.
I K.; Sosipater Kataps. i K.; Menand. inc. 531 K. (doubt-
ful); Philemon Babyl. 16 K. (doubtful).
B.
Babylonian, as astrologer, Philemon Babyl. 16 K. (doubtful);
s. astrology.
^(TKdpiov, s. evil eye.
ffatTKavos, Aristoph. Plut. 571 ; Pherekrates inc. 174 K.; s. evil eye.
bathing-water, must not be poured out at the door, Aristoph.
Heroes 306 K.; s. door; s. p. 191.
birds, and barbarians, Aristoph. Av. 199-200; 1681 ; Ran. 679-
682.
and soul, Aristoph. Vesp. 49-51 ; s. soul,
bracelet, as amulet, Diphilos Pall. 59 K.; Menand. Parakat. 387 K.;
s. amulet.
' O. Jahn, l. c, 34.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
SUPERSTITIONS IN GREEK COMEDY. igj
Cabbage and wine, schol. Aristoph. Eq. 539 ; Eupolis Bapt. 74 K.;
Nikochares inc. 15 K.; Telekleides Pryt. 27 K.; Alexis inc.
286 K.; Amphis inc. 37 K.; Anaxandrides inc. 58 K.; Eubulos
inc. 127 K.; s. acorn; antipathy,
cathartes, Aristoph. Vesp. 1043 ! s* incubus ; sickness,
cathartics, Aristoph. Pax 1250; Vesp. 119.
charm, Aristoph. Thesm. 430; Antiphanes Dipl. 86 K.; Menand.
Her. 213 K.; inc. 559 K., 702 K.; monost. 313.
and counter-charm, s. moly.
or medicine, Aristoph. inc. 872 K.; s. ^kvt6kiov,
produces mania, Aristoph. Thesm. 561.
charm-song, Aristoph. Ran. 1033 (s. Musaios) ; Amphiar. 29 K.;
Daidal. 188 K.; Anaxandrides Od. 33, 12 K.; Antiphanes
Philotheb. 217, 15 K.; com. dub. 1206 K.
Charon, identified with death, Antiphanes Dipl. 86 K.
xprjtrros = pure, Antiphanes inc. 272 K.
Circe, as witch, Aristoph. Plut. 302.
cock, untimely crowing of, ominous, Com. anon. 341 K.; s. omen,
copper, material of a ring, Aristoph. Danaid. 250 K.; s. magical
ring,
cross-roads, Eupolis Dem. 120 K.; Charikleides Halys. i K.; s.
Hekate.
crumbs from the table, Aristoph. Heroes 305 K.; s. Heroes,
cunnus, Diphilos Pall. 59 K.; s. amulet.
D.
Day, lucky or unlucky, Eupolis Kol. 174 K.; Menand. Leuc. 315 K.
fourth of the month, Ameipsias inc. 28 K.; Arist6nymos
Hel. rig. 4 K.; Plato Peis. 100 K.; Sannyrion Gel. 5 K.
dead, must not be slandered, Aristoph. Pax 648-656 ; Dionysios
Soz. 6 K.
intercourse with living, Aristoph. Dram. 278 K.; s. Mai-
makterion.
death = Charon, Antiphanes Dipl. 86 K.
early d. is lucky, Menand. Dis. Exap. 125 K. = monost. 425.
deiaecation, to drive away demons, Alkaios Ganym. 4 K.; s.
Nereid ; s. p. 192.
demon, sends sickness, Eupolis Mar. 191 K.
and fate, Alexis Asotod. 25 K.; Menand. inc. 550 K.;
Philemon inc. 191 K.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
198 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
demon and life, Anaxandrides Anchis. 4 K.
? AtoXaor, a spectre, Kratinos inc. 402 K.
dio<njfitiat Aristoph. Ach. 170-17 1 ; Nub. 579; s. omen.
dog, incarnation of Hekate, Aristoph. inc. 82 M.
donkey, Aristoph. Av. 721 ; s. vvfjfioXoi.
door, sacred, Menand. inc. 740 K. (oath).
seat of souls, Aristoph. Her. 306 K.; s. bathing-water ; s.
p. 191.
dreams, significance of, Aristoph. Vesp. 24-25 ; Kratinos inc. 363
K.; Alexis Cithar. 103 K., inc. 272 K.; Menand. inc.
534> 734 K.; Com. anon. 185 K.
interpreted, Aristoph. Eq. 809 ; Vesp. 52-53 ; s. dpaXvrai,
Earthquake, ominous, Aristoph. Eccles. 791-793; s. fire, yaXij.
east, in purification, Kratinos Cheir. 232 K.
eclipse, ominous, Aristoph. Nub. 584-586.
ccpcorifloin}, kept in the house, Aristoph. Vesp. 398-399 ; cp. schol.
Eq. 720.
Aaiofuxyreca, SChol. AristOph. Ach. 1 1 28.
Empusa, Aristoph. Eccles. 1056-1057 ; Ran. 288-296.
= Hekate, Aristoph. Tagen. 500-501 K.
Ephesia grammata, Anaxilas Lyrop. 18 K.; Menand. Paid* 371 K.;
s. wedding.
Eudemos, vendor of magical implements, Aristoph. Plut. 883-884 ;
Ameipsias inc. 27 K.
eunuch, foreboding ill. Com. an. 350 K.; s. crvfipoXoi.
Eurykles, ventriloquist, Aristoph. Vesp. 1019.
evening, time of spectres, Aristoph. Av. 1484-1489; s. spectres,
evil eye, Aristoph. Eq. 103-104, inc. 592 K.; Pherekrates inc.
174 K.; Alexis Troph. 238 K.; Antiphanes Did. 80, 8 K.;
Misop. 159 K.; Dionysios inc. 7-1 1 K.; Timokles Synerg.
31 K.; Menand. inc. 540 K.; Nikomachos Naum. 2 K.;
Philemon inc. 131 K.; Com. anon. 85 K., 160 K., 359 K.;
s. ^cTKayos, squinting ; s. p. 195.
F.
Fig-tree, wood of bad luck, Com. anon. 7 K.; s. portent, sixteen,
fire, ominous, Aristoph. Eccles. 792 ; s. earthquake.
ordeal by, Aristoph. Lys. 133-134.
destroys magical power, Aristoph. Telmes. 532 K.; s. p. 192.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
SUPERSTITIONS IN GREEK COMEDY, 1 99
flatfish, fairy-tale about its origin, Aristoph. Lys. 115-116.
footwashing, Aristoph. dub. 914 K.; s. right and left.
? foundation-sacrifice, Aristoph. Danaid. 245 K.
four, in burial ritual, Aristoph. Eccles. 1031 ; s. vine.
fourth day, s. day.
furnace, protection of, Aristoph. inc. 592 K.; s. evil eye.
G.
Vakr\, ominous, Aristoph. Eccles. 792 ; s. omen, cvfiPoXoi.
and loss of speech ?, Aristoph. inc. 664 K.
yaarpofULVTtiai S. Kurykles.
yXovieor (fish), ominous, Nausikrates Naucl. i. 2 K.*
and magic, Nausikrates Naucl. i. 2 K.; s. omen,
Persephone, Sicily, rptyXij.
gods, their appearance accompanied by light, Aristoph. Av. 1709-
1713.
by scent, Aristoph. Av. 1715-
1716.
Foi^rfff, title of a comedy by Aristomenes 5 K.
Gorgo, on a helmet, Aristoph. Ach. 964-965 ; s. amulet, a'noTp6'
natov,
Gorgoneion, Aristoph. Pax 560-561 ; Lys. 560; s. shield.
H.
Hades' cap, Aristoph. Ach. 386-390; s. wizard.
haruspicy, Aristoph. Telm. 540 K.; Euphron. Ad. i K.; Theor.
7K.
Hekate, her chapel in every house, Aristoph. Vesp. 805.
dog-shaped, Aristoph. inc. 594 K.
invocation of, Charikleides Hal. i K. (s. cross-roads).
= Artemis, Diphilos inc. 124 K. (s. Artemis).
= Empusa, Aristoph. Tag. 500-501 K. (s. Empusa).
title of comedies by Nikostratos 11. 12 K.; by Diphilos
28 fr. K.
hellebore, Aristoph. Vesp. 1489; Kallias inc. 28 K.; Diphilos
Helleb. 31 K.
from Antikyra, Diphilos inc. 126 K.
against mania, Menand. Aul. 69 K.
Hermes, protects from evil, Aristoph. Plut. 1153-1154; Philemon
dub. 226 K.
Heroes, seat of, at doors, Aristoph. Her. 306 K.; s. door.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
200 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
Heroes do evil, Menand. Syneph. 459 K.; Com. anon. 257 K.
punish neglect, Aristoph. inc. 692 K.
live on crumbs, Aristoph. Her. 305 K.
= souls, Aristoph. Her. 305. 306 K.; Myrtilos Titanop.
2 K.; s. souls, spectres.
title of comedies by Aristoph.; by Chionides, Kock, v. I,
p. 4 ; by Philemon 30 K.
Heros, title of comedies by Diphilos 47 K., by Menand. 209 ff. K.
Hieronymos, Atheniaij wizard ?, Aristoph. Ach. 386.
Hippalektryon, sign of a ship, Aristoph. Ran. 932-933.
I.J.
'lierti/off, protection against, Aristoph. Av. 500-503.
incubus, Aristoph. Vesp. 1 037-1 042; s. cathartes; sickness.
Isis, oath by I. and sickness, Ophelion inc. 6 K.
ivy, Aristoph. Vesp. 480 ; s. oplyapop.
iynx, Aristoph. Lys. iiio-iiii.
K.
KtpKOfjMVTfla, Aristoph. Pax 1054-1055.
KiBapos (fish), Pherekrates Dulod. 39 K.
Kkfjdmv, Diphilos inc. 100 K.; s. omen.
KOfrKwoiMVTtiay Aristoph. Nub. 373 (doubtful) ; Philippides inc. 37 K.
Kotytto. Eupolis Bapt. 83 K.
Kybele, her priests as miraculous healers, Menand. Hier. 245 K.;
s. p. 190.
L.
Lamia, Aristoph. Nub. 555-556 ; Menand. Plok. 403 K.
her 5px<«i Aristoph. Pax 758 = Vesp. 1035."
breaks wind when caught, Aristoph. Vesp. 1177; Krates
Lam. 18 K.
title of comedy by Krates.
lamp, its sputtering prophesies rain, Aristoph. Vesp. 260-263.
lentils, healing, Menand. inc. 530 K.
lettuce, makes impotent, Eubulos Astyt. 14 K.
light, accompanies the appearance of gods, Aristoph. Av. 1709-
1713-
lightning, ominous. Com. anon. 49 K.
-stroke makes sacred, Aristophon latr. 3 K.; Anaxippos
Ker. 3 K.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
SUPERSTITIONS IN GREEK COMEDY, 201
lightning-Stroke and perjury, Antiphanes inc. 233 K.
-tower (legend), Aristoph. Av. 1537-1538; cp. Aeschyl.
Eum. 812-814.
love-charm, Aristoph. Ach. 1065-1066; Alexis Mandr. 141 K.
(s. mandragora); Menand. inc. 259 bM., 646 K.
Xv;^Waff, Plato Soph. 146 K.
M.
Magic, evil ?, Aristoph. inc. 793 K. = schol. Vesp. 288.
and Samothracian mysteries, Aristoph. Pax 277-279;
s. prayer,
magical book, Aristomenes Goet. 9 K.
herbs and metamorphosis, Aristoph. A v. 654-655.
ring, Aristoph. Plut. 883-884 ; Danaid. 250 K.; Eupolis
Bapt. 87 K.; Antiphanes Omph. 177 K.; s. copper,
Eudemos, Phertatos.
magician, Ameipsias inc. 27 K. (Eudemos) ; Theopompos Alth.
2 K.; Anaxandrides Pharmakom. 81 K. (doubtful) ;
Antiphanes Omph. 177 K. (Phertatos); Mnesima-
chos Pharmakop. 6 K. (doubtful); Diphilos inc.
126 K.
social estimation of, Alexis Tarant. 222, 7 K.
Maimakterion, mouth of the dead, Aristoph. Danaid. 278 K.;
s. dead,
mandragora, Alexis Mandr. 141 ff. K.
mania, produced by spectres ?, Menand. Phas. 502 K.
Man-etff, title of comedy by Alexis 146 ff. K.
medicine, popular, Aristoph. Acli. 862-863.
and charms, Anaxandrides Pharmakom.' 81 K.
and magic, Menand. inc. 530 K.
Megara, seat of magicians, Theopomp. Alth. 2 K.
miraculous cures, Menand. Hier. 245 K.; s. music,
moly, as counter-charm?. Com. anon. 641 K.
monkey, forebodes ill. Com. anon. 350 K.; s. crvfi^oXoi,
moon, influences action, Aristoph. Ach. 83-84.
drawn down by magic, Aristoph. Nub. 749-752 ; Menand.
Thess.; s. Thessaly.
Mormo, Aristoph. Av. 1245; Eq. 693; Pax 473-474; Ran. 925;
Krates Her. 8 K.
Mormolykeion, Aristoph. Thesm. 417 ; Amphiar. 31 K ; Ger.
131 K.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
202 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
mouse, its nibbling ominous, Com. anon. 341 K.; s. omen.
Musaios, and charm-songs, Aristoph. Ran. 1033.
music, subdues the gods, Menand. Hier. 245 K.; s. miraculous
cures,
ftvpoii^a, its relation to snakes. Com. anon. 219 M. (doubtful).
N.
Name, power of, Aristoph. Ran. 298-300; s. p. 194.
necromancy, Aristoph. Av. 1553-1564; Krates Her. 10 K.; s. p.
193; Alexis Thespr. 89 K.
Nereid, as evil demon, Alkaios Gan. 4 K.; s. defaecation ; s. p.
192.
nursery-rhymes, Aristoph. Nes. 389 K.; Strattis Phoen. 46 K.; s.
p. 194.
O.
*OicvT«J#cia, Aristoph. Thesm. 504; inc. 872 K.; s. charm.
omen, Aristoph. Ach. 170-17 1 ; Av. 720; Eccles. 791-793; Eq.
24-29. 638-640; Nub. 579 f. 584-586. 1 1 28-1 1 29;
Vesp. 1086; Hermippos inc. 81 K.; Theopompos inc.
74 K.; Anaxandrides Agr. i K.; Nausikrates Naufel.
I. 2 K.; Diphilos inc. 100 K.; Menand. inc. 534 K.;
Philemon inc. 100 K.; Com. anon. 49 K., 341 K.; s.
cock, diooi^/ACUi, yaX^, yXavieof , Kkifiiav^ mOUSe, Owl.
'accipio,' Eupolis Dem. 119 K.
absit, Aristoph. Av. 61 ; Lys. 146-147 ; Plut. 114-116. 359.
855; Vesp. 161. 535-536; Anaxandrides Agr. i, 4 ft.
K.; Antiphanes Omph. 177 K.; Menand. Deisid. 109
K.; Methe 321 K. Cp. Transact. Am. Phil. Ass.
XXVII 34.
omission, Myrtilos Titanop. 2 K.; s. silence, tombs.
6vtipOfJMtfT€i£, S. dyaXvrai,
onions, Aristoph. Eccles. 1091-1092; Com. anon. 484 K.
6piyavoy, Aristoph. Eccles. 1030; Ran. 602; Vesp. 480; s. ivy;
Anaxandrides Pharmakom. 81 K.
6ppieofjMVT€iaf Aristoph. Av. 593-601. 716-722 ; Plut. 63.
Orpheus, as healer, Antiphanes Orph. 180 K. (very doubtful);
s. magic and mysteries.
owl, Aristoph. Vesp. 1086; Menand. inc. 534 K.; s. omen,
ovfifioXoi.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
SUPERSTITIONS IN GREEK COMEDY. 203
Petosiris, Aristoph. Dan. 257 K.
*apfuiK6fiavTi9, title of a comedy by Anaxandrides 49 ff. K.
Phertatos, manufacturer or vendor of magical rings, Antiphanes
Omph. 177 K.; s. magician,
phthisis, sent by a god, Aristoph. Vesp. 158-160.
nofnrvcrfji6s, Aristoph. Plut. 732.
iropdrf, Aristoph. Plut. 618.
portent, Plato inc. 257 K.; Com. anon. 7 K.; s. fig-tree ; sixteen,
possessed, Aristoph. Vesp. 119; Alexis 87 K.; Menand. Heaut.
140 K.
women prophesy, Menand. Theoph. 223 ff. K.
prayer of fivarai can bind the steps of the runner, s. magic and
mysteries,
prostitutes, as witches?. Com. anon. 220 K.
purification, Kratinos Cheir. 232 K.; Araros 12 K.; Diphilos inc.
126 K.; Menand. inc. 530 K.
purity, of water, Aristoph. Amphiar. 32 K.
nvpofuurrtia, AristOph. Pac. IO26.
R.
Red, in miraculous cures, Aristoph. Plut. 730-732.
rejuvenation, in comedies by Philemon 8 K.; by Philippides 5 ff. K.
right and left, Aristoph. dub. 914 K.
rumor, Aristoph. Av. 720.
Salt, in medicine, Menand. inc. 530 K.
sardonyx?, Philemon inc. 73 K., 216 K.
scent, accompanies appearance of gods, Aristoph. Av. 1715-1716 ;
s. gods.
Scythia, seat of witches?, Xenarchos Scyth. 12 K.
sea-water, in purification, Diphilos inc. 126 K.
servant, meeting a s. forebodes ill, Aristoph. Av. 721 ; s. o-vfi/SoXoi.
seven, Aristoph. Lys. 698.
shield : device, Aristoph. Ach. 574 (Gorgoneion) ; Lys. 560 (do.),
shoe, and right foot, Aristoph. dub. 914 K.; s. right and left.
Sicily, seat of wizards, Nausikrates Naukl. i. 2 K.; s. yXawot.
sickness, as demon, Aristoph. Vesp. 1037-1042 ; s. incubus,
healed by charm-song, Aristoph. Ran. 1033.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
204 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
sickness, sent by demons, Eupolis Mar. 191 K.
caused by witchcraft, Xenarchos Scyth. 12 K.
silence, Myrtilos Titanop. 2 K.; s. omission, tombs,
sixteen, Com. anon. 7 K.; s. fig-tree.
snake, healing, Aristoph. Plut. 733-736 ; Kratinos Troph. 225 K.
(doubtful),
as amulet on bracelet, Menand. Par. 387 K.
and stick. Com. anon. 486 K.; cp. Transact. Am. Phil. Ass.
XXVI 53.
sneezing, ominous, Aristoph. Av. 720; Menand. inc. 534 K.;
Philemon inc. 100 K.
soul, and star, Aristoph. Pax 832-833.
as bird, Aristoph. Vesp. 49-51 ; s. Heroes,
spectres, size of, Krates Her. 1 1 K.
strike men, Aristoph. Av. 1490-1493.
evening their time, Aristoph. Av. 1484-1489.
hover in or over the coffin. Com. anon. 1151 K.
title of comedies by Menand. 501 if. K.; by Philemon
84 K.; by Theognetos, Kock, v. IH, 364.
spitting, Aristoph. Pax 528.
squill, buried ^t the door-sill, Aristoph. Dan. 255 K.
purifying, Kratinos Cheir. 232 K.; Diphilos 126 K.
squinting, sign of evil eye. Com. anon. 85 K.; s. p. 195.
star, and soul, Aristoph. Pax 832-833.
storm, sacrifice to, Aristoph. Ran. 847-848.
sulphur, used in purification, Araros Kamp. 12 K.; Diphilos inc.
126 K.
used in healing, Menand. inc. 530 K.
superstition, castigated in Aristoph. Amphiaraos and in Menand.
Deisidaimon; s. p. 190.
superstitious (^oXoOf Theopomp. Tisam. 61 K.; Menand. Debid.
112 K.; Misog. 326 K., inc. 601 K., 1046 K.; s. p. 189 if.
swallows, language of, Nikostratos 27 K.
arv/ui/3oXoi, Aristoph. Av. 721 ; Eccles. 792 ; Alkaios Gan. 3 K.;
Menand. inc. 534 K.; Philemon inc. 100 K.; Com. anon. 350 K.
Table, three-legged, in witchcraft, Aristoph. Telm. 530 K.; s. p.
192.
Telmessians, title of comedy by Aristoph. 528 if. K.
Thessalian, title of comedy by Menander 229 if. K.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
SUPERSTITIONS IN GREEK COMEDY, 20$
Thessaly, seat of witches, Aristoph. Nub. 749 ff.; s. moon.
theurgy, Menand. Hier. 245 K.
three, feet of a table, Aristoph. Telm. 530 K.
the divine number, Antiphanes Myst. 165 K.
calls of the dead, Aristoph. Ran. 1175-1176.
springs, water from, Menand. inc. 530 K.
third wave the highest, Menand. inc. 536 K.
threshold, protection of, Aristoph. Dan. 255 K.; s. squill,
thunder, makes idiotic, Aristoph. Eccles. 793; Menand. Georg.
100 K.; Philemon Moich. 44 K.; Com. anon. 965. 995 K.
tombs, passed in silence, Myrtilos Titanop. 2 K.; s. omission,
torch, in purification, Diphilos inc. 126 K.
rptyXi; (fish), sacred to Hekate, Plato Phaon 19. 20 K.; Charikleides
Halys. I K.
to Persephone, Nausikrates Naukl. i. 2 K.; s. yXovKor.
V.
Vine, tendrils used in prothesis, Aristoph. Eccles. 1031 ; s. four.
W.
Water, against demoniacal diseases, Aristoph. Vesp. 119.
and dreams, Aristoph. Ran. i33S-i34a
from three springs, Menand. inc. 530 K.
wedding, and Ephesia grammata, Menand. Paid. 371 K.
white, lucky color, Menand. Leuc. 315 K.; s. day.
wind-eggs, Aristoph. Daid. 185. 186 K.; Plato Daid. 19 K.;
Araros Caen. 6 K.; Menand. Dact. 104 K.
witch, s. prostitute, Thessaly, women.
and sickness, Xenarchos Scyth. 12 K.
witchcraft, Aristoph. Thesm. 534 ; Menand. inc. 535 K.
wizard, Aristoph. Ach. 386 ; s. Hades, Hieronymos.
women, as witches, s. Thessaly, prostitute.
as miraculous healers, Menand. inc. 530 K.
wood of unlucky trees, Eupolis Dem. 120 K.; s. cross-roads;
Com. anon. 7 K.; s. fig-tree,
word, power of, Aristoph. A v. 646-647 ; cp. KKifiw\ s. prayer.
Ernst Riess.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
IV.— ON THE DEFINITION OF SOME RHETORICAL
TERMS.
During a course of reading in the Latin writers on rhetoric I
collected the following words and definitions, either omitted or
incorrecdy given in our dictionaries. The dictionaries consulted
were those of Lewis and Short ; White and Riddle, 3d edition ;
Forcellini, English edition by J. Bailey; and Georges Hand-
worterbuch, 7th edition.
Cornificius and Cicero are cited according to the recension of
Friedrich, the minor rhetoricians according to Halm's Rhetores
Latini Minores.
Adfictio, paronomasia. lul. Ru£ de Schem. Lex. Halm, p.
51 : Uapovofui<ria est secundum praedictum verbum positio alterius,
ipso poscente sensu, ut apud Terentium :
Nam inceptio est amentium, hand amantium.
Latine dicitur adnominatio vel adfictio. G. alone records this
word and refers to adfiominoHo.
Antici PATIO, the anticipation of an opponents argument or
objection; a translation of irpo/earoXij^cf. De Schem. Dianoeas,
Halm, p. 60: npoicaroXi^^iff est schema dianoeas, cum id quod
adversarius arrepturus est atque objecturus, praesumimus ac
praecipimus, ut illud :
neque me Argolica de gente negabo :
Hoc primum. Et :
Scio me Danais e classibas unum
Et bello Argolicos fateor petiisse penates.
Latine haec figura dicitur praeceptio vel anticipatio.
Articulus, asyndeton. Ad Her. IV 19, 26: Articulus dicitur
cum singula verba intervallis distinguuntur, caesa oratione, hoc
modo : ** Acrimonia, voce, voltu, [adversarios] perterruisti." Item :
"Inimicos invidia, iniuriis, potentia, perfidia sustulisti." Corni-
ficius limits articulus to the omission of conjunctions between
single words, and uses dissolutum to denote the absence of
conjunctions between clauses. See Ad Her. IV 30, 41. L. and
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DEFINITION OF SOME RHETORICAL TERMS, 20/
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
208 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
ac contrarium vertitur. . . . Latine conversio dicitur. Martianus
Capella, Halm, p. 478 : ' Ano<rTpo<l>^ est in aliquem disiricta conversio,
frequens apud Ciceronem ac nobilis figura.
CoNVERSUM, a figure of speech in which the last word of a
clause is repeated at the end of succeeding clauses. Aquila
Romanus, Halm, p. 33: dvTKrrptxfiri, conversum. Species huius
figura cum eandem fere vim habeat, contraria est superior!, eo
quod ibi ab eadem parte orationis saepius incipitur, hie in eandem
partem desinitur. An example from pro Fonteio 4, 8 follows.
Cornificius, Ad Her. IV 13, 19, calls this figure conversion a name
which is also used by Cicero and Quintilian.
Defectus, the omission of a word; ordinarily denoted by
detractatio, Schem. Dian. Halm, p. 75 : "^ExXcc^if , defectus. Ver-
gilius : ** Haec secum "; deest loquitur.
Denominatio, paronomasia. Schem. Dian. Halm, p. 75:
UapovofAatria est denominatio, quae similitudinem verbi conflectit
ad auditoris affectum. Cicero in invectivis : Qui de huius urbis
atque adeo de orbis terrarum exitio cogitant (Catil. I 9), et Ter-
entius: Nam increpatio est amentium, haut amantium (And. 218).
Terence wrote inceptiost.
DepreCatio, the reply of the defendant. Ad Her. I 11, 18:
Constitutio est prima deprecatio defensoris cum accusatoris insi-
mulatione coniuncta. Cic. de In. I 10, 13: Atque hoc eodem
urgebitur, sive constitutionem primam causae accusatoris confir-
mationem dixerit sive defensoris primam deprecationem ; nam
eum eadem omnia incommoda sequentur. Q. Ill 6, 13: Alii
statum crediderunt primam eius, cum quo ageretur, depreca-
tionem. Forcellini says simply : Interdum simpliciter pro depul-
sione sine precibus, and quotes Cic. pro Rab. 9, 26 : Huic quidem
afferet aliquam deprecationem periculi aetas ilia qua turn fuit, and
Quintilian. While in both passages the meaning of the word
corresponds to his definition, it has not the same meaning in the
latter passage as in the former, inasmuch as Q. used it in a
technical sense. The other lexicographers overlook this meaning
entirely.
Detractatio, a mocking, a satirizing, Schem. Dian. Halm,
p. 75: Aia<rvpfi6t est delusio vel detractatio, cum inludentes ea
quae ab adversariis sunt prolata disolvimus, ut est pro Murena in
Sulpicium de iure civile: Quoniam mihi videris istam iuris
scientiam tanquam filiolam complecti tuam.
DisiUNCTUM, a constrtution in which several successive clauses
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DEFINITION OF SOME RHETORICAL TERMS. 2O9
are each concluded with the appropriate verb. Aq. Rom. Halm,
p. 36 : Ai€(€vy fitvov, disiunctum. Haec figura ita oraat et amplificat
orationem, ut diversis redditionibus verborum membra, quae
vocamus K&\a, disiungat ac separet, sive duo sive plura, hoc
modo: Capuam colonis deductis occupabunt, Atellam praesidio
communient, Nuceriam, Cumas multitudine suorum obtinebunt,
cetera oppida praesidiis devincient. Ad Her. IV 37 : Disiunctum
est, cum eorum, de quibus dicimus, aut utrumque aut unum quid-
que certo concluditur verbo, sic : Populus Romanus Numantiam
delevit, Karthaginem sustulit, Corinthum disjecit, Fregellas evertit.
The usual reading in the last example is disiunctio, and the
passage is cited under that word in the dictionaries. Friedrich
reads disiunctum, and this seems to have the better MSS support.
Disiunctum would therefore appear to be the better reading,
supported as it is by Aq. Rom. supra, and Mart. Cap. Halm, p.
482: Ai€CtvyfjLivov disiunctum appellamus, cum diversis redditio-
nibus verborum cola disiungimus, sive duo sive plura, hoc modo :
[same ex. as Aq. Rom.].
DiSPARSUM, as a translation of tijipi\fUvov. Carmen de Figuris,
Halm, p. 65 : AijjpfjfAipov
Disparsum reddo, quod sparsum uno ordine reddo.
" Ambo lovis merito proles, verum ille equitando
Insignis, Castor, catus hie pugilamine, Pollux."
DissoLUTio, asyndeton. Quint. IX 3, 50: Et hoc autem
exemplum et superius aliam quoque efficiunt figuram, quae, quia
coniunctionibus caret, dissolutio vocatur. . . . Hoc genus et
ppaxvXoylav vocant, quae potest esse copulata dissolutio.. Contra-
rium id est schema quod coniunctionibus abundat : illud acrvpdtrov,
hoc noXvavpdtTov dicitur. W. and R. and L. and S. define wa7it
of connection, and cite this passage. Georges defines correctly.
DiSTRiBUTio, discourse delivered with frequent pauses. Ad
Her. Ill 13, 23 : Contentio dividitur in continuationem et [in] distri-
butionem. . . . Distributio est [in contentione] oratio . . . frequens
[cum raris et brevibus] intervallis [acri vociferatione]. Ad Her.
Ill i4> 25 : Cum autem contendere oportebit, quoniam id aut per
continuationem aut per distributionem faciendum est, ... in dis-
tributione [vocem] ab imis faucibus exclamationem quam claris-
simam adhibere [oportet] et quantum spatii per singulas excla-
mationes sumpserimus, tantum in singula intervalla spatii consu-
merc [iubemur]. Ad Her. Ill 15, 27: Si contendimus per con-
tinuationem ... sin contentio fiet per distributionem, porrectione
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
2IO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
celeri bracchii, inambulatione, pedis dexteri rara supplausione,
acri et defixo aspectu uti oportebit,
Divisio, the dilemma. Ad' Her. IV 40, 52 : Divisio est quae
rem semovens ab re utramque absolvit ratione subiecta, hoc
modo: Cur ego nunc tibi quicquam obiciam ? Si probus est, non
meruisti; si improbus, non commovebere. Quint. V 10, 64:
Divisio et ad probandum simili via valet et ad refellendum.
Probationi interim satis est unum habere, hoc modo : ut sit civis,
aut natus sit oportet aut factus. This meaning is not in any of
the dictionaries unless it is thought to be sufficiently covered by
the definition logical or rhetorical division,
EvACUATio, a refutation of arguments; a translation of ayao-Rcv^.
De Schem. Dian. Halm, p. 61 : 'Ayaaxeui; est superiorum proxima
figura qua ab adversariis maxima proposita destruimus ac redar-
guimus velut falsa . . . Latine dicitur destructio vel evacuatio.
L. and S., citing evacuatio fideiy Tert. adv. Marc. 4, 24, star the
word.
ExPEDio in the sense explain^ narrate is cited in prose before
Tacitus only Sail. J. 5, 2 ; Asin. Pollio ad Fam. X 33, 5. Add
Cornificius ad Her, H 26, 42; HI 20, 33; IV 18, 26; IV 54, 68.
L. and S. say it does not occur in this sense in Cicero. Krebs-
Schmalz, Antibarb., refers to Cicero ad Brut. I 15, i, where the
reading is doubtful, and adds : '* jedenfalls ist es nicht sicher fiir
Cicero erwiesen." It is found, however, Cicero de Or. HI 66:
Sed ea si sequamur, nullam umquam rem dicendo expedire
possimus.
ExQUisiTio, a figure of speech consisting of question ana
answer. Schem. Dian. Halm, p. 74 : *££cra(rfu>r est exquisitio, cum
res complures divisas cum interrogatione exquirentes singulis
quae conveniunt applicamus, ut Cicero : Quid tandem te impedit ?
mosne maiorum? at persaepe etiam privati in hac re publica
perniciosum hostem morte multarunt. Aut leges etc.
HoMOEON, a simile in which the resemblance is confined to
certain parts of the objects compared. lul, Ruf. Halm, p. 44 :
Homoeon. Haec figura fit, cum ex partibus aliqua similitudo
colligitur, ut Vergilius :
Sic oculos, sic ille manus, sic ora tenebat.
Etiam in actu fit homoeon, ut idem Vergilius :
Non aliter, quam si immissis mat hostibus omnis
Carthago aut antiqua Tyros.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DEFINITION OF SOME RHETORICAL TERMS. 211
Icon, simile. lul. Ruf. Halm, p. 44 : Icon fit, cum perfectae
formae similes conferuntur. Vergilius: Talis Amyclaei domitus
PoUucis habenis. Cf. Beda de Tropis, Halm, p. 618: Icon est
personarum inter se vel eorum quae personis accidunt comparatio,
ut : Vidimus gloriam eius, gloriam quasi unigeniti a patre. W.
and R. and L. and S. do not recognize this word in a rhetorical
sense. Georges gives it, citing Apuleius min. de Nota Aspira-
tionis. Forcellini cites for it Diomedes.
Iniunctum, a zeugma in which several phrases depend upon a
common verb at the end. Aquila Romanus, Halm, p. 36 : 'YTreCevy-
fifVoy, iniunctum. . . . Quale est hoc : Quorum ordo ab humili,
fortuna a sordida, natura a turpi oratione abhorret. Hoc enim
postremum abhorret ad tria refertur. Cf. Mart Cap. Halm, p.
482 : ^KjfTtCtvytiivov iniunctum. Haec figura a superiore hoc differt
etc. [same ex, as above]. The reading ^ hyrtCtvyiUvov is doubtful.
Interrogatum, interrogation (rhet. fig.). Aquila Romanus,
Halm, p. 25 : 'Ep^n^/ia, interrogatum. Eo utimur ubi exacerbando
aliquid interrogamus et augemus eius invidiam, hoc modo : Fuis-
tine ne illo in loco ? dixistine haec ita gesta esse ? renuntiastine ea
quibus decepti sumus ?
Interruptio, parenthesis. Jul. Ruf. de Schem. Lex. Halm,
p. 51 : UaptpOtaig est, cum ordinata ac legitima sententia interrum-
pitur per alienum extrinsecus diversamque sententiam, ut : ...
Latine haec figura dicitur interruptio vel interiectio.
Oppositum, antithesis. Carm. de Fig. Halm, p. 64: 'Am^croy
Oppositum dico, contra cum opponimu' quaedam.
*' Doctor tute, ego discipulus ; tu scriba, ego censor ;
Histrio tu, spectator ego ; adque ego sibilo, tu exis."
Permutatio, transposition (rhet. fig.). Carmen de Figuris,
Halm, p. 64 • 'AvTifuraPoK^
Permutatio fit vice cum convertimu' verba.
" Sumere iam cretos, non sumptos cemere amicos. —
Quod queo, tempus abest; cui tempus adest, nequeo, inquit."
This is noted only by Georges. It is used in another sense by
Cornificius ad Her. IV 34, 46 : Permutatio est oratio aliud verbis
aliud sententia demonstrans. Ea dividitur in tres partes : similitu-
dinem, argumentum, contrarium. Per similitudinem ... sic:
"Nam cum canes fungentur officiis luporum quoinam praesidio
pecua credemus ? " Per argumentum . . . ut siquis Drusum
"Gracchilm nitorem obsoletum" dicat. Ex contrario ducitur sic.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
212 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
utsiquis hominem prodigumet luxuriosum [imprudens] ''parcum
et diligentem" appellet. It is defined by the lexicographers as
follows : Forcellini quotes the first two sentences of Cornificius'
definition. White and Riddle: "An exchanging of one expres-
sion for another ; permutation." Lewis and Short: "A substitu-
tion of one expression for another, permutation." Georges : "die
Vertauschung der Ausdriicke." None of these definitions con-
veys any clear idea to the mind. From an examination of the
examples we first arrive at a definite idea of what Cornificius
meant. I would define as follows : Allegory in its broad sense,
including enigma and irony,
Praeceptio, the anticipation of an opponents argument or
objection; a translation of frpoieordXiT^ir. De Schem. Dian. Halm,
p. 60 : npoieardXi;^cr est schema dianoeas, cum id quod adversarius
arrepturus est atque obiecturus, praesumimus ac praecipimus, ut
iUud:
neque me Argolica de gente negabo :
Hoc primum.
Latine haec figura dicitur praeceptio vel anticipatio.
Principium, a kind of exordium, the direct beginning, opp. to
insinuation Ad Her. I 4, 6 : Exordiorum duo sunt genera : prin-
cipium, quod Graece npoolfuov appellatur, et insinuatio, quae tijxfdos
nominatur. Principium est cum statim animum auditoris nobis
idoneum reddimus ad audiendum. Cic. de In. I 15, 20: Igitur
exordium in duas partes dividitur, principium et insinuationem.
Principium est oratio perspicue et protinus perficiens auditorem
benevolum aut docilem aut attentum. Quint. IV i, 42: Eo qui-
dam exordium in duas dividunt partes, principium et insinua-
tionem.
Pronuntiatio, as a figure of speech, a translation of {moKpiois.
De Schem. Dian. Halm, p. 61 : 'Yfrdie/Ko-ir est figura sententiae,
cum adversarium gestu et pronuntiatione extollimus vel abicimus
et spernimus, ut in illo :
Non ego Daphnim
ludice te metuam.
Scilicet mibi iniquus es et non recte iudicaturus. Latine dicitur
pronuntiatio.
Regressio, the repetition of the last word of a clause or verse
as the first word of the next. lul. Ruf. Halm, p. 50: naXcXoyca est
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
DEFINITION OF SOME RHETORICAL TERMS,
213
cum verbum, quod in prima sententia est ultimum, in sequente
est primum, ut : •
Pierides : vos haec facietis maxima Gallo,
Gallo, coins amor tantum mihi crescit in horas
Latine dicitur regressio. The dictionaries give regressio only =
fv6»t)bw from Quint. IX 3, 35 and lul. Ruf. de Schem. Lex. §19
(in Halm §21).
SoLUTUM, asyndeton, Aquila Rom. Halm, p. 35: Solutum ;
sic enim voco quod davvdcroy Graeci vocant. Mart. Cap. Halm,
p. 482: 'Ao-vvdcroy est solutum, cum demptis coniunctionibus
quibus verba aut nomina conectuntur etc.
Traductio, the use of words of like form btU different in
meaning. Ad Her. IV 14, 21 : Ex eodem genere est exomationis
cum idem verbum ponitur modo in hac, modo in altera re, hoc
modo : ' Cur eam rem tam studiose curas, quae tibi multas dabit
curas?' Item : Nam amari iucundum sit, si curetur, ne quid insit
amari. Item : * Veniam ad vos, si mihi senatus det veniam.' The
name traductio is also given to the repetition of the same word in
the sentence, and this is the only definition given by the lexi-
cographers.
TrANSITUS, as a translation Ol /icraoraac? or fitrafiaai^. De
Schem. Lex. Halm, p. 54: Mrrdaraait est vel fAtrdfiaais, cum a
loquentis persona ad personam aliam transitum facimus, ratione
aliqua vel affectu, ut :
Non haec Evandro de te promissa parenti
Discedens dederam.
Haec figura dicitur variatio aut transitus.
WisTntM Rbsbhvb Unxvbksitt,
CLBVSL4MD.
V. J. Emery.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES.
Beitrage zur historischen Syntax der griechischen Sprache, herausgegeben von
M. SCHANZ. Band III, Heft 3 u. 4. Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexivum,
von Dr. Adolf Dyroff. Erste Abteilung, Von Homer bis zur attischen
Prosa. Zweite Abteilung, Die attische Prosa und Schlussergebnisse.
WUrzburg, 1892 u. 1893.
The stem sve- (parallel form seve-) originally had a signification which was
nearly identical with that of the English * self.* It seems that this stem was
not specially invented for reflexive purposes, but that it had a wider scope,
which was gradually narrowed down to that of a pure reflexive. The conclu-
sion of this narrowing process, or, in other words, the emergence of a distinct
reflexive, antedates the period of the breaking up of the original mother-
tongue. But whilst the reflexive signification of the stem sve- can readily be
proved for the sister- tongues of the Greek, it is a remarkable fact that in the
oldest documents of the Greek language — the Homeric poems — the prenoun
of the 3d person is essentially anaphoric. Still, there are traces of the
reflexive use of the substantive pronoun even in Homer, and these, together
with the exclusively reflexive use of the adjective forms (df, ^(5f, etc.), point to
the reflexive nature of the pronoun in the pre-Homeric language. The other
dialects agree with the Homeric in the reflexive use of the pronominal adjec-
tive, the rare non-reflexive use of individual forms belonging to a much later
date. In Attic, the substantive pronoun is undoubtedly reflexive, and there
are indications that this was true also of the other dialects. Even in Homer
the parallel form hi is a reflexive. Furthermore, the plural forms ff^oc and
ai^epog, which are derived from the non-reflexive forms <t^ and at^iv, and the
plural forms of the substantive pronoun were originally reflexive, and this
cannot be otherwise explained than on the supposition that the singular forms
(that is, what became the singular forms after the differentiation of the
numbers), to which the above-mentioned plural formations attached them-
selves, must have been likewise originally reflexive. Finally, the substitutes
for the simple reflexive pronoun and the forms by which it was supplanted in
various dialects, show the correctness of the theory of the reflexive nature of
the simple pronoun of the 3d person in the pre-Homeric language. For, not
to mention other attempts that were unsuccessful, it was this very pronoun
that was used in juxtaposition with a following avr6^^ or else merged with
avrd^^ to form either complex or compound reflexive forms. Neither does the
existence of similar complex and compound reflexive forms of the 1st and of
the 2d person weaken the force of this argument, for these forms, when
reflexive, are merely analogical formations, built after the pattern of the forms
of the 3d person.
After this preliminary statement regarding the origin and nature of the
Greek reflexive pronoun, there follows a historical survey of the use of the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 21$
reflexive in the various departments of Greek Literature from Homer down
to Attic Prose, information being given as to the forms of the simple pronoun
of the 3d person, the use of the complex {p^v avrov^ etc.) and of the compound
{iavTov, etc.) reflexive of the 3d person, the limitation of the pronominal
adjective, the scope of reflexives of the ist and 2d persons, including the
possessive adjective, the nature and degrees of reflexion and the free use of
the reflexive.
Homer.
The language of Homer is characterized by a wealth of pronominal
forms of the 3d person. In the first place, there are two stems, the one a
demonstrative fuv (495 ^) and the other a reflexive. The reflexive is split up
into two branches, the one a dissyllabic stem represented by the forms iol (2),
ii (2) and i6g (90), and the other a monosyllabic stem with differentiated forms
for the plural and represented by the forms io (11), 61 (753), e (73), a<j>iuv (4),
a<^iat{v) (48), a<^ac (aa), 8f (ao6) and ff^<Jf (la). Furthermore, some of the cases
have duplicate forms, belonging to diff'erent periods of the language. So to
has by its side an older flo (2), a younger ev (5) and an ablatival €6ev{i'j);
a^uv has by its side a<^iuv (i) and of^v (2) ; <T^tm(v) has the parallel form a<^i{y)
(141) ; with a^aq is coupled a^c (i), and with the possessive cr^r, the form
a^repog (9). a^epog was perhaps a dual, which number is certainly repre-
sented by the substantive forms a<puiv (8), and a^k (5) with parallel form a^ (4).
The reflexive has lost its strong force of 'self.' Hence the pronoun is
sometimes strengthened by a postpositive avrdq, rarely by a prepositive avrdq.
This combination is used preferably when the pronoun is used reflexively, but
in all the 20 instances of the reflexive combination there is no governing
preposition, and avT6q directly follows the personal pronoun and forms a
complex with it. The adjective pronoun is also occasionally accompanied by
a genitive of amdq^ there being three instances of k(f» avrov, one of ^ avrov and
one of airrap at^ipyaiv.
The Homeric epos lacks a general substantive reflexive, but the adjective
pronoun of the 3d person refers in four instances to the 1st person and in five
to the 2d. As this use belongs to the period preceding the time of the
differentiation of the numbers, it is only the forms e6q and 5c that are thus
found. In but one instance — to wit, A 142 — does 8f stand for the possessive
plural — that is, it is equivalent to iftirepoc, or rather af^irepog. It is principally
in stereotyped expressions that the general use of the reflexive has been
preserved. The reason why the usage occurs only in the case of the adjective
pronoun, and not in the case of the substantive, is due to the fact that in
Homer the substantive pronoun is almost exclusively anaphoric, while the
adjective remains strictly reflexive.
At this stage of the epic literary language, as has been stated, the simple
pronoun of the 3d person is essentially anaphoric, for, with but two exceptions,
the direct reflexive use is found only in prepositional phrases, and these
phrases, as is shown by the frequent preservation of the effect of the original
initial of in lengthening a preceding syllable, belong to a period that antedates
the main bulk of the Homeric poems.
1 This and the following numbers in parentheses indicate the number of occurrences of the
form in Homer.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
2 16 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHIL OLOGY.
The personal pronoun is the only means at Homer's disposal to express
simple anaphora, for mrrdq^ except in an insignificant number of passages in
later portions of the poems, regularly preserves its intensive force.
airroiv is also used as a reflexive in Homer.
The possessive pronoun, as noted above, is strictly reflexive. For the
anaphoric expression of the relation of the possessor, the Dative of Interest
is used.
The Genitive of Possession is as yet very rare.
Hesiod and ths Homeric Hymns.
Hesiod and the Homeric Hymns show a reduction in the wealth of forms.
hi and ik do not occur, but the corresponding genitive idv is found in Hesiod,
Theog. 401. The genitive singular of the monosyllabic stem is practically
dead, inasmuch as kdev is missing and elo and eo occur only in borrowed
expressions. The genitive plural is rare in Hesiod and found only in the
form a^uv, while it is entirely wanting in the Hymns. Dual forms are not
used. Hesiod employs the forms ff^c and a^ side by side with a^ac and
atftirepoi respectively, and the doublets c and fiiv^ a^lv and a^'taiv^ and c6f and
hq are found both in Hesiod and the Hymns.
The simple pronoun lacks the intensive signification. Hence avrd^ is
added to the personal pronoun, but only when the latter is used as a reflexive.
The position of avT6g is after the pronoun. In two passages compound forms
of the reflexive are found: iavr§, Theog. 126, and kavr&v^ Hymn. Ill 239.
The simple personal pronoun of the ist and 2d person, whether reflexive or
not, may be combined with a following avrd^^ and kfjik is used as a direct
reflexive. In Hesiod, the possessives e6q and aiftirepoc are usually emphatic
and therefore are not combined with avrov and avruv, while dc is used as an
unemphatic possessive. In the Homeric Hymns, the possessive has lost its
intensive force ; bg is once combined with a following avroi), and kfi6c and adq,
a number of times.
The substantive pronoun is not used as a general reflexive. Interchange
of persons in the case of the possessive occurs twice in Hesiod and once in
the Batrachomyomachy ; interchange of numbers is found four times in Hesiod
and once in the Batrachomyomachy. That the feeling for the original use of
the general reflexive had been lost is shown by Hesiod's use of a^epoc for
vfUrepoq and of the plural possessives a^g and ai^krepoQ for the singular 6f. In
the Hymns anaphoric h is used for a^aq 4, 267, and anaphoric ff^cv takes the
place of o\ in 19, 19.
The substantive pronoun is anaphoric. Remnants of the direct reflexive
use are found only in the formulae ec o^oq^ knl o^ag^ anb to^ dfi^i e and irapd
c^iai, and the indirect reflexive use is preserved in the phrases fierd elo and
fierd a^aq,
avrdg almost everywhere is intensive.
Both Hesiod and the Hymns use avroi) as a reflexive. In addition Hesiod
uses both the complex and the compound reflexive, but the Hymns lack the
complex forms.
The possessive pronoun is regularly a direct reflexive, but it is twice
found in Hesiod as an indirect reflexive.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 21/
Lyric Poetry.
Melic Lyric poetry introduces new forms from the dialects, especially
from the Doric. These forms are kov^^ 'iv, viv and a^6^ ; edev also has been
preserved through the influence of the dialects. Elegy and Iambic poetry fall
in line with Hesiod's usage, but omit antiquated forms, c is very rare, a^ia^
is found only in Archilochus and Simonides Cens, and a^ is confined to
Theognis, Simonides and Pindar, viv and \v are the only new forms that
Pindar uses in common with the other Lyric poets.
The simple pronoun is generally unemphatic, but in four instances Pindar
uses non-reflexive o\ and e with special emphasis, avrov is used as an emphatic
reflexive of the 3d person, kfiavrov and aavrov being used for the 1st .and 2d
singular, iavrov is found in Simonides. The difference between the strong
and the weak stem is kept alive by Pindar in his use of the forms id^ and be
The possessive is nowhere accompanied by airrov or avrov.
The instances of the erroneous interchange of numbers are further
augmented by the plural use of the demonstrative viv and by the singular use
of 01^ and a^df, a^epog is freely used for idc, and Alcman even employs
a^6g for non-reflexive a^repog.
The substantive pronoun is predominantly anaphoric in Pindar. It is
nowhere used by him as a direct reflexive and very rarely as an indirect
reflexive. The other Lyric poets preserve the reflexive use in the combina-
tions ait' iovCf &Tep eOev, less frequently in edev and a^tv unaccompanied by a
preposition.
of^iatv avToic and avrov are found as reflexives in Pindar, elsewhere only
avTov is used.
The possessive is as yet reflexive, but o^ and a^6c are each once used
anaphorically.
The Possessive Genitive of reflexive avrov does not occur in Pindar,
though that use is common in the other Lyric poets.
Tragic Poets.
In the use of the forms of the simple pronoun, the Tragedians show
Lyric influence. The following is a tabular exhibit of this use :
Aesch. — I —
Soph. 2 — ]
Eur. — — —
The absence of e and a(^v and the disappearance of i6g are to be noted.
Only the rare forms of the simple pronoun when used reflexively have
special emphasis. These forms are edev in Aeschylus, ! and ov in Sophocles,
and ol in Euripides. The possessive pronoun is emphatic in Aeschylus, but
lacks special emphasis in Sophocles and in Euripides. Sophocles once
combines the genitive avrov with dc, and in like manner kfidg and a6c are once
each combined with airrov by the same author.
The free use of the pronoun is quite extended, atpi is frequently used
for viv, less frequently viv for o^i, the metre being the determining factor.
01
<r^t<r»v <r^tV
<r^£c
ir^
ytp
5«
9^CT«P<K
I
I 5
I
16
48
—
2
4
I 6
5
M
87
5
—
I
— 2
5
57
248
2
—
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
2l8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Aeschylus (once) and Sophocles (twice) use a^iv for ol, a use that was noted
also for the Homeric Hymns. In his use of the word a^tpoq Aeschylus also
preserved its use as a substitute for 5^, thereby showing that he was subject to
Lyric influence. Euripides in a choral passage uses 5f in a plural sense.
(70dc and c^iv are exclusively anaphoric and c^k and viv are predominantly
so. ol is anaphoric in the one instance in which it is used by Aeschylus and
in two choral passages and one trimeter passage of Sophocles, but in another
trimeter passage of Sophocles and in the only instance furnished by Euripides
it is an indirect reflexive as in Attic. Sophocles follows Attic rule in using
a^iaiv as an indirect reflexive, but Aeschylus uses it anaphorically with refer-
ence to the subject of the leading verb. In dependent sentences i^tv is used
by Aeschylus and Z by Sophocles as an indirect reflexive. The only instance
of a direct reflexive is that of ov in Sophocles.
There Is no complex reflexive of the 3d person. Aeschylus once uses the
combination avraX vfidg avrdg, and, for metrical reasons, Sophocles once
employs the singular oi r* avr^v, vtv avrdg is once used by Euripides, but not
as a reflexive.
The compound forms iavr&v and airrov, oeavrov and oavrov, and kfMvrov gain
in frequency. Dissyllabic avrov and aavrov are preferred to trisyllabic iavrov
and (Tcavroi), which are only occasionally used when required by the metre.
The plural of iavrov does not occur ; that of airrov is used by Aeschylus in
the Genitive only (4 times), by Sophocles in the Dative only (2 times), and by
Euripides twice in the Genitive and four times in the Accusative. Sophocles
once uses the dual of avrov.
avTov, both in the singular and in the plural, is used as a free reflexive, and
is used to represent both the ist and the 2d person. Euripides is sparing in
this use, showing only two instances of it.
iavToi) and airrov are almost exclusively direct reflexives. As an indirect
reflexive, iavrov is once found in Aeschylus ; eairrov and avrov are thus used in
Sophocles in phrases that are the equivalents of sentences; in Euripides,
eavroit is an indirect reflexive once, and airrov five times, in dependent clauses.
Whilst the reflexive forms are the rule in the case of the reflexive use of
the pronoun of the 3d person, the reflexive forms are not always used when
the pronoun of the ist or 2d person is reflexive. In direct reflexion the
compound forms are the rule and the signification *self' is prominent.
Enclitic forms are rarely admitted instead. So Aeschylus once uses fxe in a
choral passage, and Euripides uses fie and 001 even in the trimeter. The
convenient conversational phrase doK6> fioi is first met with in Euripides. Both
Aeschylus and Euripides use unemphatic aidev as a direct reflexive, Aeschylus
doing so twice in choral passages, and Euripides 25 times as a metrical
necessity at the end of verses, especially to aflbrd a light close for the trimeter.
More frequently used are the orthotone forms of the simple pronoun in sharp
contrasts. For the indirect reflexive, the simple pronoun is the rule ; only
Sophocles thrice uses the compound forms in dependent sentences and
Euripides 8 times in phrases that are the equivalents of a sentence.
The possessive of the 3d person is generally a direct reflexive. Aeschylus
once uses it as an indirect reflexive in a dependent proposition and Sophocles
so uses it once in a declarative sentence.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 219
The possessive adjective of the 3d person is rare as compared with the
possessive genitive of the compound pronoun, the ratio being that of 9 to 48.
In the 1st and 2d person, the simple possessives e/<^ and a6q are far more
frequent as direct reflexives than the corresponding possessive genitives of the
compound pronoun.
Aristophanrs.
The simple pronoun is not used in Aristophanes, except for purposes of
parody. The complex reflexive of the 3d person likewise does not occur.
The compound forms are used as follows : efxavrov 48 times, aavrcv and asavroiv
71 and 27 times respectively, avrov and kavrov 44 and 25 times respectively.
The plural of the form kavrov is used in Aristophanes for the first time, and is
relatively more frequent than that of avrov. Except in the formula fJtoi doKu^
the reflexive forms are the rule also for the 1st and 2d persons singular in
direct reflexion. The possessive adjective 3d person does not occur in Aris-
tophanes except in parody, the possessive genitive of the reflexive being used
instead, twenty times in the singular and twice in the plural. kfi6c as a direct
reflexive occurs 29 times, possessive kfiavrov 11 times; aS^ (re<$c« <^^) ^ a direct
reflexive occurs 13 times, possessive aawov 18 times and aeavrov 3 times.
Herodotus.
The simple pronoun is 19 times used as a direct reflexive : a^(,)v twice, a^iai
16 times, and a^iag once. Of the indirect reflexive use there are about 400
instances. The purely anaphoric use of the simple pronoun (not counting
fiiv) is represented by more than one thousand examples. The form a^/at is
never anaphoric in Herodotus, but is always either a direct or an indirect
reflexive.
The complex form of the reflexive pronoun is not found in the singular.
The plural a^uv airruv occurs 21 times, a^i avrolai 11 times, and at^a^ avrov^
33 times. Of these 65 instances, only 8 belong to the indirect reflexive use,
the simple pronoun and the compound forms being better adapted for that
purpose. Complex forms of the ist and 2d plural occur 14 times and are
always used as direct reflexives. In addition to these plural forms, the
singular ako avrov occurs once — 1, 124.
In the singular number the compound pronoun of the 3d person is the only
form used for direct reflexion, and it is the predominating form for indirect
reflexion. In the plural number, however, the compound forms occupy a
subordinate position, especially in the direct reflexive use. iuvrdv is regularly
used as a possessive genitive (46 times) rather than a^civ avrav (4 times).
Compound reflexive forms of the 1st and 2d person are also in use, but, as in
the case of the 3d person, the simple forms are preferred in indirect reflexion.
Herodotus once uses ^cnrrov for the 1st person and a^iai avrolai for the 2d.
Of the possessive adjective, only the form ai^rtpoq seems to have been used,
\i rjv 1^ 20s is to be emended, a^repoq occurs 64 times (42 times as a direct
reflexive, including a^tpo^ avrov twice), while possessive ionrrav is used 46
times, a^epo^ is always plural. The possessive singular is represented
exclusively by the possessive genitive iowrov, ifiSc is a direct reflexive 19
times, but ifuuvrov as a possessive genitive is used only 6 times ; a6^ is used
as a direct reflexive 5 times, while possessive atuvrov is used 17 times.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
220 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Attic Inscriptions.
In the pre-Euclidean inscriptions, the form a^v is twice used as a direct
reflexive. Complex forms are fonnd 9 times, only in the plural and only as
direct reflexives. There are no certain instances of compound forms. &c
occurs once and a^repoc twice, in poetry ; in prose inscriptions atf^irepoc airav
is found 5 times.
In post- Euclidean inscriptions, the simple pronoun is wanting. Of the
complex reflexive, ai^iaiv avroig is the only form used and that only in the
earlier inscriptions. The compound forms are found both in the singular and
in the plural. The ratio of iavrov to avrov is that of 31 : 23. a^epog no
longer occurs, iavrov is a possessive genitive 8 times and possessive iavrov
(avTov) is found 10 times. In the absence of reflexion, avrov and avrov are
used as possessives.
[Xenophon] de rspublica Athenibnsium.
a<pav and a^i occur as indirect reflexives. The complex and the compound
forms are used both as direct and as indirect reflexives. The adjective
pronoun is represented by two instances of off^irepot avrov, both direct
reflexives, and by one instance of a^repog used as an indirect reflexive.
There are two examples of the possessive genitive, iavrov and a^.
Thucydides.
As the simple pronoun of the 3d person, the complex forms and the com-
pound forms are all used as direct and as indirect reflexives, the following
exhibit of the relative frequency of their use will be of interest.
In the singular, the compound forms are the only forms that are used in
direct reflexion, iavrov occurs 65 times, airrov 31 times.
In the plural, the simple pronoun is used 9 times as a direct reflexive (oipov
4 times, aiffiai 3 times, and a^ twice), the complex pronoun is thus used 94
times, and the compound 42 times (iavrov, etc., 23 times, airrov, etc., 19 times).
This does not include the use of the possessive genitive, which is represented
by two instances of ff^v, one of <t^v airrov, and 103 (73 + 30) of iavrov {airov).
For the indirect reflexive use, the following figures indicate the frequency.
The simple pronoun, excluding a^i^ (10 times), occurs 439 times (01 12, ff^uv
102, oijfioi 239, <T^df 86), the complex pronoun 14 times, iavrov (airrov) 83 (48 +
35) times. The figures include the instances of the possessive genitives:
<T0ov 46, iavrov (airrov) 18 (13 + 5), but do not include the 67 (39 + 28)
instances of the genitive and the accusative singular of iavrov (airrov).
In the case of the compound reflexive, the question arises as to whether
ai;rov or avrov is the correct reading. In the light of such criteria as the use
of the complex reflexive in corresponding syntactical groups, the correspond-
ing use of the simple pronoun, the frequency of passages containing iavrov,
the aspiration of a preceding mute, the position of the possessive genitive
between the article and the substantive, and the parallelism of pronouns of
the 1st and of the 2d person, it is certain that the compound reflexive, and not
airrov, is used as a direct reflexive. It is also regularly used as an indirect
reflexive, but in relative participial clauses, the pronoun avrov seems to be
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
RE VIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 221
warranted in many instances, though the reflexive is not uncommon. So too, in
most clauses introduced by conjunctions and in dependent sentences, reflexive
and determinative appear side by side. This occurs in object clauses with
5r<, in indirect questions, in the &OTe w. inf. construction, in final and causal
sentences, and in clauses forming an integral part of an infinitive sentence.
Of the other dependent clauses, only the relative sentences introduced by
hao^ permit the reflexive, the rest require cojtov. The genitive absolute does
not admit the reflexive. As to the use of the forms iaurov and avrw^ it is
to be noted from the figures given above that Thucydides vastly prefers iavrdv
to arrrcw. A difference in meaning between iavrdv and avrw does not exist,
though of the two avroiv seems to have the greater emphasis.
Thucydides once (i, 82, i) uses the plural compound reflexive of the 3d
person in reference to the ist person.
There is no consistent use of purely reflexive forms of the ist and 2d person.
In the plural, the simple pronoun is used as a direct reflexive, though the
complex forms are also found. In the few cases of the direct reflexive use of
the singular, the compound form is regularly used except in the formula 6ok&
hv ftoi 6, 38, 4. For the indirect reflexive use, the simple forms are the rule
for both singular and plural.
The pronominal adjective of the 3d person is found only in the form
a^repoc, which occurs 90 times, 62 times as a direct reflexive. Oi^repoc airrdv
occurs 13 times, once as an indirect reflexive, kfiavrov and ifMv avrav occur
as possessives, and e/i^, a6c, ^fitrepo^, ifdrepo^ and iifikrepo^ avruv occur as
reflexives.
Attic Orators.
Of the Attic Orators, Lycurgus, Aeschines, Dinarchus and Hyperides do
not use the simple pronoun at all ; the other orators use only ol 1 1 times, ff0e<c
twice, a<^v twice, a^Uri la times and (T^dc 4 times. Only two of these 31
occurrences are instances of the direct reflexive use, the rest are indirect
reflexives.
The complex reflexive is used only in the plural and is regularly a direct
reflexive, very much less frequently an indirect reflexive. Like the simple
pronoun, it disappears towards the close of the period of Attic Oratory. In
Antiphon and Andocides, it predominates over the corresponding forms of
the compound reflexive, the plural of the compound pronoun being found
only in the genitive; in Lysias and Isocrates, it is as yet pretty frequent,
especially in the accusative; in Isaens, the rival forms are about equally
divided; in Demosthenes and Hyperides the complex forms are rare, and
they are entirely wanting in Lycurgus, Aeschines and Dinarchus. The
genitive of the complex pronoun is found but twice as a possessive genitive,
the genitive of the compound form being used instead.
The form avrov is everywhere preferred to iavrov except in Andocides and
Aeschines, where the two forms balance. In Isocrates, avrov seems to have
been the only form used. In this connection it may be noted that aavrov
likewise is more common than aeavrov, except in Andocides, who uses only
oeavrov, and in Dinarchus, who has four instances of aeavrov to three of aavrov.
The possessive adjective is found only in the form atpirepoc (airrotf). It is
rare where the simple substantive pronoun is rare and is wanting where that
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
222 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
is wanting. The ratios of the direct and indirect reflexive use of cipirepoc and
a<^epoc airrijv are for a^repoq 8 : 6 and for afftirepoc avruv 6o : 4. a^repoq is
never anaphoric in the Attic Orators. In Antiphon, Andocides and Lysias,
the frequency of the adjective forms either excels or nearly equals that of the
corresponding possessive genitive of the compound reflexive, whereas in
Ps.-Lys., Isoc, Isae., and Dem., the possessive genitive far outstrips the
adjective forms in point of frequency.
In direct reflexion, except in the formula fioi 6oko, which occurs 10 times,
the compound forms of the pronoun of the zst and of the 2d person are the
rule for the singular and the complex forms are the rule for the plural : the
simple forms are rare. In indirect reflexion the simple pronoun is much more
common, the reflexive forms being the rule only when the indirect reflexive
use borders closely upon the direct reflexive use.
There is no complex form of the possessive adjective of the ist and 2d
person singular, ifiavrov and aavrov (aeavrov) being used instead. In direct
reflexion, ifiavrov and aawov {aeavrov) are very much preferred to kfid^ and <i6c,
whereas in indirect reflexion, the forms kfJiSc and fiov are used by preference.
For the plural, there is a complex possessive adjective, and in direct reflexion
this is very much more common than the simple forms, the possessive genitive
^fiuv (vfiav) avTuv being very rare. In indirect reflexion, the complex possessive
adjective is quite exceptional.
There is no instance of the interchange of numbers. Of the interchange of
persons there are a few examples in the plural, a^v avruv is once used for
{;fia}v avTov, airrav is once used for ifiav avruv and 8 times for viiov avruv.
These instances are found in Andocides, Lysias, Demosthenes and Aeschines.
In the singular avrov is twice used for hfiavrov and once for oavrm. These
examples are found in Antiphon and Andocides. Other instances of the use
of iavTov (avTov) for the 2d person are found in the MSS of Isocrates, Aeschines,
Dinarchus and Hyperides, but these instances are very uncertain, inasmuch as
tradition varies and iavrw is graphically close to aavrov, and, besides, the MSS
of Lysias, Isaeus, Lycurgus and Demosthenes furnish no such examples.
Plato.
The simple pronoun is represented by the forms ov, ol, I, a^v, a^lai and a^c
It occurs 109 times, and, with the solitary exception of at^^ in Legg. 782 E,
which is used as a direct reflexive, its function is that of an indirect reflexive.
The complex reflexive is found 11 times in direct and 6 times in indirect
reflexion.
The compound forms are used 2013 times, 1719 times as direct reflexives
and 294 times as indirect reflexives. The form airrov is preferred to iavrxnt,
the ratio being z 21 2 : 801. aavrw also is preferred to ffcavroi), the ratio being
no: 27.
The compound pronoun of the 3d person plural is twice used in Plato and
twice in Ps.-Plato for the pronoun of the 1st person, and it is once used in
Ps.-Plato for the pronoun of the 2d person. In the singular the reflexive of
the 3d person is found only for that of the 2d, and in every instance aavrov
may be readily restored for iavrov {avrov).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 223
With but few exceptions, the singular of the simple pronoun of the ist and
2d person is used as a direct reflexive only in the formula fioi doKij or Soicij fioi,
and even in this formula the reflexive is used when a contrast is involved. In
the plural, the reflexive form is likewise the rule for direct reflexion. In
indirect reflexion, the simple pronoun predominates, though the compound
and complex forms are also used except in the genitive.
airrd^ is used in a number of instances both before and after non-reflexive
(Tf, etc., and kue, etc., without forming a regular complex pronoun.
Plato is the only one of the Attic prose-writers that uses the possessive 5c,
and he uses it but once, and that as an indirect reflexive in a paraphrase of
the Iliad (Rpb. 394 A). Even the plural form a^trepoq {avriiv) is rare in direct
reflexion as compared with the possessive genitive eavrav. In indirect
reflexion, a^repo^ is more freely used, though not as often as iavruv. The
ratio of iavrav to a^trepog (avruv) is 202 : 20. c^repog avruv is used only as a
direct reflexive. ^/liTepog {yfihepoq) avruv and simple ^fiirepo^ (vfikrepoq) are
each used 11 times as direct reflexives, while possessive ^fiuv avrav occurs but
twice. Ifidf (a6c) is used 30 times in direct reflexion, but kfiavTov {aavrov^
aeavToif) occurs 58 times.
The simple pronoun is found in but six of the admittedly spurious works,
whereas it is wanting in only the Critias, the Crito, the Meno and the
Parmenides of the genuine works, oh and i are used only in the Convivium
and in the Republic. The complex reflexive is confined to four of the
genuine (Gorg., Politic, Rpb., Legg.) and to four of the spurious (Ale. I, Ale.
II, Eryx., Men ex.) dialogues. The form avrov predominates in most of the
works, but iavroif outnumbers avrw in the Apol., Parmen., Euthyd., Protag.,
and in seven of the spurious dialogues, a^repo^ is restricted to the Rpb.,
Phaedr., Politic, Tim., Legg., Soph., Euthyd., Menex., Eryx. and Epist. III.
Xenophon.
Xenophon uses the forms ol, (T^civ, a^iai, a^, a^l^. They are indirect
reflexives except in Cyr. 3, 2, 26, where o\ is used anaphorically. The complex
reflexive is rare in both direct (5 times) and in indirect reflexion (8 times), the
compound form being the prevailing form, except in the dative plural, in
which a^ioi is the most common form for indirect reflexion, iavrov is used
679 times (225 times in indirect reflexion), and avrov 394 times (203 times in
indirect reflexion), but aeavrov (16 times) is less common than oavrov (42 times)
a^av airrCw, airruv and iavruv are used once each for the reflexive of the 2d
person plural. All three instances occur in the first book of the Hellenica.
In the singular, the compound reflexive of the 3d person is found for that of
the 2d person, but aavrov should everywhere be restored.
The simple pronoun of the ist and 2d person is used as a direct reflexive when
there is emphasis ; elsewhere, only in fioi SoKa and Soku fxot. The compound
forms are used in direct reflexion 103 times, but they are also used in indirect
reflexion. The simple pronoun, however, is exceedingly frequent in indirect
reflexion.
The use of the possessive forms becomes clear from the following figures :
a^repoq is used 13 times (once in direct reflexion), the corresponding posses-
sive genitive 149 times (12s times in direct reflexion), a^repoc avruv does not
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
224 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
occur. In direct reflexion, ^fttrepoq avruv is used once, ifUrepoc (vfihepo^y
lo times, possessive ifiw avrw once. ifi6c {06^) is used 32 times as a direct
reflexive, possessive ifiavrcv (aavroi), (Teavrov) only 26 times.
Anab., Cyr., and Hell. II and III show a decided preference for the plural
forms of the simple pronoun, and they use o< rather frequently. All but three
of the complex reflexives of the 3d person are found in the Hellenica. airrotf
is more frequent than iavroif in only the Cyneg. and Hell. I; in the other
works iavTov preponderates.
C. W. E. MiLLBR.
Chrestomathie fran^aise, by A. Rambbau and J. Passy. Henry Holt & Co.
N. Y., 1 897. Pp. XXXV + 250.
The phonetic method of teaching modem languages, while it has as yet
scarcely gained a foothold in this country, has rapidly won favor in Germany
and Scandinavia, and is gradually coming into notice in France and England.
For the slow progress, in America, of a system that undoubtedly has much to
commend it, there are at least two potent reasons; in the first place, our
educators have seen, within the last twenty years, the rise and fall of so many
new modes of linguistic study, each one loudly proclaimed as infallible, that
they are inclined to look with distrust upon any apparently similar innovation ;
and, secondly, as a result of much experimenting, our ways of instruction, in
the more enlightened regions, are really less antiquated than those of most
other countries, and the need of a change is correspondingly less urgent.
The * phonetic' or 'reform' program differs from nearly all other methods in
that it is based on really scientific principles and advocated chiefly by men of
learning and successful experience. With it are associated especially the
names of Professor Victor, of Marburg, and Dr. Paul Passy, of Paris. A large
society of teachers, the Association Phon^tique Internationale, is devoted to
the propagation of the 'reform' creed. It has two thoroughly reputable
organs, the Mattre phon/Hqtu in France and the Neueren Sprachen in Germany.
The principal articles of the new faith are these : modem language instraction
should take as its first material the living, spoken tongue, reserving for later
study the more or less obsolete speech of literature ; pronunciation should be
thoroughly, accurately and scientifically taught from the very outset. For
these purposes various printed aids are required : charts of sounds, with well-
chosen key-words; pictures that afford topics for questions and answers;
dialogues and simple narratives in modem, idiomatic style and in phonetic
spelling. This latter condition is indispensable; for the advocates of the
system attach the greatest importance to the exclusive use of a phonetic
notation until the pupil has become very familiar with the sounds of the
language, considered both as artificially isolated phenomena and as elements
of naturally combined phrases.
Amid the surprisingly copious literature that the new method has called
into existence, two collections of phonetic texts have merited particular
attention : Sweet's * Elementarbuch des gesprochenen Englisch,* for Germans
who are acquiring English, and the ' Elementarbuch des gesprochenen Fran-
zOsisch,' by Franz Beyer and Paul Passy, for Germans who wish to leam
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
"anssHsmv^E::
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 22$
French. To these is now added, for the special benefit of American and
English students of the French language, the * Chrestomathie franQaise ' prepared
by Professor A. Rambeau, of Johns Hopkins, and Jean Passy, a brother of the
distinguished founder of the Association Phonetique. Professor Rambeau's
linguistic and pedagogical works have long since made him known to philolo-
gists and phoneticians; and Mr. Passy has won himself a reputation as a
teacher and as an investigator of French dialects. The present volume is,
therefore, the product of men expert both in the theory and in the practical
side of their science.
The Chrestomathie is not meant for beginners, but is intended for pupils
who have already used some more elementary work of a similar character ;
hence the texts are given in two forms — the standard spelling and the phonetic
transcription — on opposite pages. The book begins with a strong defence of
the *new method'; then follows, condensed into less than twenty pages, a
description of French sounds and sound-groups. The rest of the volume is
filled by the texts themselves ; they are chosen to illustrate all sorts of styles
in prose and verse, and are of various degrees of difficulty, some of them
being very hard, and none particularly easy. The figured pronunciation of
the poetry conforms to Paul Passy's theory of accentuation. The phonetic
alphabet used by the authors is that of the Association Phonetique ; though
rather unsightly, as compared with Bell's * visible speech ' or Sweet's ' broad
romic,' it can be quickly acquired and readily deciphered. The print is clear
and sufficiently large. It is to be hoped that the Chrestomathie, which repre-
sents an immense amount of disinterested labor, will, even if not extensively
used in America *for years to come, at least serve fo bring home to many of our
French teachers the importance of phonetic study.
C. H. Grandgent.
JoxntNAL OF Germanic Philology. Editor : Gustaf E. Karsten, University
of Indiana. Vol. I, 1897, No. I.
The first number of the Journal of Germanic Philology has recently appeared
in very attractive dress on heavy paper ; in general make-up it is above criti-
cism, forming a pleasing contrast to similar journals in Europe. But not merely
its exterior reflects credit upon Professor Karsten ; its purpose and plan are
especially deserving of the highest commendation. The problems of a journal
of this kind in America are not only distinctly scientific, but are also decidedly
practical. It ought not only to call forth and foster scientific study and
scholarship amongst those engaged in such work at the larger institutions of
learning, but try to raise the general average of scholarship in the country
by disseminating the results of such investigations here and elsewhere amongst
the larger body of students and teachers ; amongst those whose time is so
taken up by their routine tasks that they cannot hope to follow carefully all
the latest literature in their lines of work, but who are forced to depend upon
abstracts and digests, when they can get them, or who are not near libraries
where they can obtain the latest literature, particularly such as is to be found
in the scientific journals. It is an age of 'Reviews of Reviews,' and such
a * Review' of Germanic studies has been greatly needed. This need the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
226 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
new journal intends to satisfy ; in the first number it has made an excellent
beginning with digests of the contents of Anglia, vol. VI ; Englische Studien,
vol. XXII ; a general discussion of the purpose and aims of the Euphorion ;
and digests of the first three volumes of Indogermanische Forschungen. If
a suggestion might be allowed, possibly in some of these digests a little more
condensation would be advisable. Except where an article in a journal is
of pretty general interest* the reader can hardly expect to find in a digest
anything but the main points that he may be interested in ; if he desires more
detailed information, he must expect to go to the original.
The body of this first number of the Journal provides a variety of well-
selected and scientifically interesting studies, hardly needing other vouchers
for the quality of their contents than the names of the contributors. Horatio
S. White of Cornell contributes the first article, a discussion and review of the
various theories in regard to the home of Walther von der Vogelweide, which
arrives at the only possible conclusion of the whole matter, that it is still incon-
clusive. The second article, by George Hempl of the University of Michigan,
is on Middle English -7&^-, -wb-^ in which, after a careful study of Chaucer's
rimes, he establishes a new rime-test for the determining of Midland and
Southern texts, the latter riming wd with gd and /g, the former showing the
rimes wd : do^ to. The investigation further. traces the history of the influence
of w on a following d, establishing definite dates for the change of g to ^ after
w, Edward Payson Morton, of the University of Indiana, in the next article
presents the results of a study of Shakespeare's popularity in the seventeenth
century, as evinced by the number of different Shakespearian plays put on the
stage during the century, and the frequency of their repetitions. He shows
that Shakespeare was popular, notwithstanding the adverse opinions of literary
critics of the times, and, at least as far as representations on the stage are
concerned, was as popular as he is to-day, judging by a comparison with
statistics from the Boston theatres. In an article on voiced spirants in Gothic,
George A. Hench, of the University of Michigan, establishes by a careful
investigation of all cases, first, that b after r and / is a voiced labial spirant ;
and, secondly, that the sandhi theory as stated by Streitberg (Gotisches
Elementarbuch) for the explanation of ^, d and «, where /,/ and s would be
expected, is untenable, as are likewise the theories of Kock (Zfda. XXV) and
Wrede (Heyne's Ulfilas, gth ed.). The forms are to be explained rather by
leveling, which at first was only a matter of spelling, but afterwards * prepared
the way for the representation of the real voiced spirant in sandhi, which is to
be seen in the first eight chapters of Luke, perhaps in isolated cases else-
where.* The d in the verbal endings is due to *a sound-change in East
Gothic, by which the voiceless spirant became voiced in an unaccented
syllable.' In the fifth article. Otto B. Schlutter, of the Hartford High School,
offers a number of corrections and criticisms of Sweet's edition of the Oldest
English Texts. H. Schmidt- Wartenberg, of the University of Chicago,
follows with a series of investigations (illustrated) made with the Rousselot
apparatus on r-sounds, and on the quantity of labials in Finnic Swedish as
determined with Rosapelly's lip observer. In the article on Teutonic ' eleven '
and ' twelve,' F. A. Blackburn, of the University of Chicago, would substitute
for the derivation and explanation of the ending Uf of these two words, as
niuili I illi^ * iOO^IP-
. II ■ Will I.
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 22/
given by Kluge, a derivation from a nominal form UH, root lip^ meaning
* addition.' AinliH would then mean ' having one as an addition/ a derivation
which, however, fails to explain the Lithuanian forms. The last article, On
the Hildebrandslied, is by the editor, Professor Karsten, who defends the
theory that the original text was OS., explains the HG. forms by the dialect
of the first scribe, and presents emendations for verses 48 and 30.
This first number as a whole fully comes up to the high expectations which
were entertained of it, and augurs well for the future. The names of the
co-editors, Professors Cook of Yale for English, White of Cornell for the
History of German Literature, and Hench of Michigan for the Historical
Grammar of the Germanic Dialects, together with Professor Georg Holz of
Leipzig, and a large number of European scholars who have promised
co-operation, guarantee that the following numbers will contain thorough and
careful work, and that the scholarly character of the journal will be kept up
to a high standard. Its continuance is provided for by the financial support of
seven gentlemen in Indianapolis, to whom all friends of Germanic studies in
America owe a debt of gratitude. It is a most encouraging sign for the future
of learning in this country that those who stand outside of the body of scholars,
strictly speaking, should so munificently show their interest in a distinctly
scientific journal, and that in a way so free from selfishness or ostentatious
display. Such generosity ought to call forth an equally generous spirit of
support in the community of scholars and students more directly interested.
Yale UNXva«siTY. GUSTAV GrUENER.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS.
Rbvue de Philologib. Vol. XX.
No. I.
1. Pp. 1-1 1. Paul Girard discusses two passages of Aeschylus. I. Pers.
527-31. After a brief examination of the views of others, M. Girard advances
the theory that these verses are interpolated, and that they were at first
inserted after v. 851. — II. Theb. 961 ff. He examines the arguments of those
that reject this closing scene, and finds them unsound.
2. Pp. 12-22. Philippe Fabia investigates the conflicting accounts of the
adultery of Nero and Poppaea, and gives the preference to that of the Annals
of Tacitus.
3. P. 22. L. Havet proposes * ftiratrina' in Nonius, p. 63 M.
4. Pp. 23-35. Albert Martin publishes an article left nearly complete by
Charles Graux on some unpublished fragments of Lydus irepl duxrrffieiuv, found
in the Library of the King of Spain.
5. Pp. 36-7. C. E. Ruelle discovers that the fragment of * Numenius on
Matter' {^ovfiifviov wepi ih^c) in the Escurial, referred to by some writers, is
nothing but an extract from Plotinus (pp. 30S-22 ed. princeps).
6. Pp. 3S-40. Notes on some MSS of Patmos, by J. Bidez and L. Parmen-
tier. I. Fragments of Dio Chrysostomus. (To be continued.)
7. Pp. 41-2. Louis Duvau reads, Phaedr. I 15. 1-2, In principatu commu-
tando civium | nil praeter domin^j inopgs mutant saepius. Id. Appendix 16, 7.
for *facinoris' he reads *funeris' = cadaveris.
8. P. 42. In Babrius LXI (75), id. Tournier proposes ov irapanaTo,
9. Pp. 43-52. On the correspondence of Flavius Abinnius, by Jules
Nicoles. Some sixty papyrus MSS found at Fayoum, and now partly in the
British Museum, partly in the Library of Geneva, furnish an outline of the
life of Flavius Abinnius from A. D. 343 to 350. Abinnius was commander of
an ala of cavalry {knapx<K ^2^). and is sometimes called also irpaitrdotToc
Kdarpoig, All the documents are in Greek except two in Latin. Only two are
written by him. He may have forgotten to send these, or they may be rough
drafts of letters sent. Half of the papers are official, half of them private.
They throw important light on several questions. Nicoles publishes the text
of two : the first, in Latin, dismissing Abinnius from his command (A. D. 344 ;
in 346 he is found reinstated) ; the second, in Greek, an instrument conveying
to him the possession of two cows, for which he has paid 1200 talents (in the
depreciated currency of the times). One of the cows was named aoAc . . .
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
f^m
REPORTS, 22g
(two or three letters obliterated), the other oreeiaei. Whatever may be said of
the former, the latter, as a single word, belongs to none of the languages then
used in Egypt— Latin, Greek, Egyptian. Nicoles suggests that the explana-
tion may be furnished by a fact which M. Rend Bazin records in his Italians
d*aufowrl*hui (pp. 224 ff.), that in various parts of Southern Italy cattle are
called, not by single names, but by short phrases, such as proverbs, refrains of
popular songs, hucksters' cries, etc. He thinks that (yretuitt may be the begin-
ning of such a phrase, 6re cl act, and that aake . . . may be aa^^ei (jJ vovf, for
instance). [One naturally recalls the analogous names of men of the good
old Puritan days, such as If-God'had-nei-died-for-ihee'thoU'hadst'been'^amned
Barebones^ The name of Abinnius is written *Apivatog, 'AjStwawf, 'Afiivatoiy
'AfilwaioCt *Afiiweioc, 'Afiiwto^, *'Epiwtog, The use of fjt seems to indicate that /?
was already losing, or had lost, its full labial character.
10. Pp. 53-6. Geoi^es Lafaye defends the reading of the editia princeps
(i. e. of Cod. Sangallensis) in Statins, Silvae I, Preface, 1. 28 (Baehrens). His
defence seems conclusive.
11. Pp. 57-9. Critical notes by H. van Herwerden on seventeen passages
of Callinicus, Vita S. Hypatii.
12. Pp. 60-64. Epigraphic notes, by Jean Negroponte. Discussion of a
bilingual (Latin and Greek) inscription found near the railway station of
Deirmendjik, and published (1895) at Athens ; also of two or three other small
inscriptions.
13. Pp. 65-7. L. Havet explains Lucilius 317 (Baehrens) and Phaedrus, V
7. 26. Pascal Monet emends Lucian, Charon 15.
14. Pp. 68-72. Book Notices, i) Philo: About the Contemplative Life,
or The fourth book of the Treatise Concerning Virtue, critically edited with
a defence of its genuineness, by F. C. Conybeare; Oxford, 1895. Joseph
Viteau gives a brief description of this work, which he finds full of valuable
information, but objects to a very small number of statements. 2) J. P. Walt-
zing, £tude historique sur les corporations professionelles chez les Romains,
t. I, Louvain, 1895. F. C. considers this a much-needed work, and predicts
that, when completed, it will add much to our knowledge. 3) Bibliotheca
scriptorum Graecorum et Romanorum Teubneriana. Under this head P. C.
gives a brief and, in the main, favorable account of Herondas (2d ed.) by O.
Crusius, the Politica of Aristotle by Susemihl, ApoUodori Bibliotheca by R.
Wagner, Epicteti Dissertationes ab Arriano digestae by H. Schenkl, and
barely mentions Dion Cassius by Melber and Plut Moralia, vol. 6, by Bemar-
dakis. 4) P. C. commends Goodwin and White's Anabasis and White and
Morgan's dictionary to the Anabasis. 5) P. C. pronounces The Hecuba of
Euripides, by W. S. Hadley, Cambridge, 1894, neither the best nor the worst
of the series to which it belongs.
No. 2.
I. Pp. 73-83. On qu in liqtddus, liquor^ Hquem^ aqua^ by Louis Havet.
The author retracts the whole of his article on this subject published in the
Revue de Philologie, 1891, pp. 8 ff. He now denies that liqiUdus (four
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
230 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
syllables), dqUa (three syllables) and like resolutions occur at all. Moreover,
some of the examples of hqu- are not from hqui, but from liquere. The
length of the syllable is simply quantity by position :■ liq-uidus. The same is
true of aqua several times. Had the Pisistratidae edited Homer with digamma
written in such words as idfetaev, aqua would have been as common Aspdiris,
As it is, only Lucretius and Laevius applied the principle to Latin independ-
ently of Greek models. Even liqumtia flumina in Verg. Aen. IX 679 is no
exception, although liquenUa here cannot come from liqui) for, as Servius
expressly says, this is a proper name (in adjective form ; cf. stagna Aufida and
the like). The modem name is Livenza^ though it seems probable that the
earliest form of the name was Liqu€tia, and had nothing to do either with
liqui or with liquere. The insertion of n was due to analogy, and is illustrated
by Vicenza, which was ViceHa in ancient times.
2. Pp. 84-8. P. Foucart, by means of two Greek inscriptions, fixes the
reign of Tachos between 360 and 357, and discusses the dates of events
connected with the contest between Samos and Priene, especially the arbi*
tration of the Rhodians.
3. P. 88. K. D. Mylonas publishes an inscription giving the name of a
hitherto unknown sculptor, fArpfo^ of Pergamus.
4. Pp. 89-92. Critical notes on nine passages of Aristot. Poet., by Mdderic
Dufour.
5. Pp. 93-4. Louis Havet proposes. Plant. Amphitruo 96, Comoediai dum
huius argumentum eloquor, and shows how the corruption probably arose from
V. 51.
6. Pp. 95-101. Epigraphic notes, by B. Haussoulier. Discussion of a few
inscriptions from the neighborhood of Heronda. These establish an *kn6A}uuv
Xitdavaaaeh^, An examination of avroiriK shows that, contrary to what some
had maintained, it has its ordinary meaning in certain inscriptions.
7. Pp. 101-2. Louis Havet writes an interesting note on C. I. L. V 1939
(Concordia).
8. Pp. 104-15. On the first two Ptolemies and the confederation of the
Cyclades, by J. Delamarre. An inscription (containing 62 lines of about 35
letters each, and discovered in 1893 on the little island of TiiKovpyid near
Amorgos) is made the basis of an instructive investigation of the origin of the
confederation of the Cyclades and its relation to the kingdom of Egypt. The
inscription contains other valuable information, especially concerning the
'isolympic' games celebrated at Alexandria.
9. Pp. 116-25. Notes on some MSS of Patmos (continued), by J. Bidez
and L. Parmentier. II. First a critical account of other MSS and editions of
Evagrius' Ecclesiastical History is given, then a Patmos MS is described and
a collation of many important passages is presented, illustrating the value of
this MS. III. The same MS contains also the Ecclesiastical History of
Socrates, which is briefly described.
10. Pp. 126-8. Book Notices, i) J. J. Binder, Laurion, die attischen
Bergwerke im Alterthum; Laibach, 1895; unfavorably criticised by £. A.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. 231
2) Carlo Pascal, II culto di Apollo in Roma nel secolo di Augusto; Roma,
1895 ; favorably mentioned by Georges Goyau. 3) Carlo Pascal, Acca Larentia
e il mito della terra Madre a proposito di un passo dei Fasti Prenestini;
Roma, 1894. A work of 31 pages, considered by Georges Goyau a useful
collection of passages relating to the subject. 4) Ettore Ciccotti, La fine del
secondo Triumvirato; 1895. Georges Goyau gives brief summary. It is a
question of chronology. 5) M. Deloche, Le port des anneaux dans Tantiquit^
romaine et dans les premiers si^cles du moyen-age; Paris, 1895; briefly sum-
marized, with high commendation, by Georges Goyau. 6) C. Castellani, Cata-
logus codicum Graecorum qui in bibliothecam D. Marci Venetiarum inde ab
anno MDCCXL ad haec usque tempora inlati sunt. Briefly described and
pronounced very useful by C. £. R.
No. 3.
1. Pp. 129-45. Nero and the Rhodians, by Philippe Fabia. I. The rela»
tions of the Rhodians to Rome before Nero. II. The date of the restoration
of their autonomy. Discussion of the accounts of Tacitus and Suetonius,
showing that the preference is to be given to the former, and that the date was
A. D. 53. III. The threat of Nero to escape his mother's yoke by abdicating
and retiring to Rhodes, and his reasons for selecting that place. IV. Discus-
sion of an inscription, recently published by Hiller von Gaertringen, relating
to an embassy from the Rhodians to Nero in the first year of his reign.
V. The escape of the Rhodians from pillage of works of arts at the hands of
Nero*s agent, Acratus. — An interesting and instructive article.
2. Pp. 146-8. Louis Havet critically discusses Phaedrus, IV 20, V i. 10,
V 5. 18-19.
3. Pp. 149-50. C. E. Ruelle collates two pages of the Epitome prior of the
CUmetUinae^ found written on the cover of a MS of Ptolemy (Paris, Greek MS
1403).
4. Pp. 151-4. A. Cartault declines to accept the conclusion reached by
Louis Havet (Rev. d. Phil. XII, pp. 145 ff.) and approved by other scholars,
transposing w. 616-20 of Verg. Aen. VI so as to follow v. 601. He, on the
contrary, places 602-7 after 620, shows how the transposition probably
occurred, and that the proposed arrangement is in every respect satisfactory.
5. P. 155. L. Havet proposes sacerrume in Plant. Trin. 540.
6. Pp. 156-8. C. E. Ruelle denies the correctness of avfi^uviag and avfju^ia
in the disputed passage of Arist. Quintil., p. 26 (Meibom), and restores
ofKXfuviag, dfMM^ia. The use of avfu^ia = dfio^uvia is shown to be inconsistent
with the usage of Aristides himself. The converse change of aifjupuvoi into
6/i6^uvoi occurs in all the MSS of Martianus Capella, De Nupt. Phil. IX 947
(Kopp).
7. Pp. 159-64. Book Notices, i) F. Robiou, L'etat religieux de la Grdce
et de rOrient au sidcle d' Alexandre. II. Les regions syro-babyloniennes et
r^ran ; Paris, 1895 ; unfavorably mentioned by Ch. Michel. 2) Dionis Prusae-
ensis quem vocant Chrysostomum, quae extant omnia edidit etc. J. de Arnim ;
vol. II, Berlin, 1896; described and commended by F. C. 3) F. T. Cooper,
Digitized byj
232 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Word-formation in the Roman Sermo Pkbeitu\ Boston, 1895. T., in a notice
of some length, finds that this work exhibits learning and diligence, but
otherwise his remarks are chiefly unfavorable. 4) P. Terenti Phormio, with
Notes and Introduction, by H. C. Elmer; Boston. 1895. Philippe Fabia
describes this work, on the whole favorably, but finds that in the Introduction
the special study of the play is too much sacrificed to generalities. 5) The
Adelphoe of Terence, by William L. Cowles; Boston, 1896. Pronounced
"soign^ et bien imprime" by Philippe Fabia, though some slight strictures are
made.
No. 4.
1. Pp. 165-75. P* Couvreur publishes a catalogue of the papyrus Greek
MSS discovered in recent times. The names of authors, whose fragments or
works are contained in these MSS, are given in chronological order in two
lists — one for poetry, one for prose. The bibliography, except where it is
very voluminous, as in the case of Hero(n)das, is added ; also the date of each
MS. Those that contain anything otherwise unknown are marked with an
asterisk. The author requests scholars to inform him of any omissions he
may have made. This catalogue must have cost much labor, and Hellenists
cannot be too grateful for so useful a work.
2. Pp. 175-7. Paul Tannery proposes *cacumen perlibratum cum oculo^ in
Vitruvius Rufus, §39.
3. Pp. 178-84. Louis Havet critically discusses Phaedr. Ill, Prol. 38
(II Epil. 14) ; III 15, 20 ; III Epil. 2 ; V 5, 11-12 (and I 29, 3); Appendix 6, 6.
4. P. 185. In Ter. Eun. 588, A. Mace proposes hiemem for homimm,
5. Pp. 186-7. Otto Keller critically discusses Anecdota Bernensia, ed.
Hagen, p. 187 ; Alexand. Aphrodis. 2, 16; Oros. VII 9, 14.
6. Pp. 188-90. J. Chauvin proposes sucturrit for quaerit in Phaedr. IV 9, 2.
7. Pp. 191 foil. Book Notices, i) Quelques notes sur les Silvae de Stace,
premier livre, par G. Lafaye ; Paris, 1896. Jules Chauvin gives numerous
illustrations of the great value of this work. Of special importance is the
happy use that the author has made of his knowledge of archaeology.
2) Thucydides, Book III, edited with Introduction and Notes, by A. W.
Spratt; Cambridge, 1896. E. Chambry reviews this work at considerable
length. Though he enumerates some details which he cannot approve, he
says *^Non ego paucis offendar^"* and pronounces the edition an excellent one
and almost as exhaustive as it is possible to make a work of the kind. 3) De
Flavii Josephi elocutione observationes : scripsit Guilelmus Schmidt ; Leipzig,
1893. Briefly and favorably mentioned by J. Viteau. 4) J. J. Hartmann, De
Terentio et Donato commentatio ; Leyden, 1895. Philippe Fabia, after
describing this book, says that, of its four chapters, only the second was worth
writing. 5) P. Cornelii Taciti Ab excessu divi Augusti quae supersunt.
Annales de Tacite, texte soigneusement revu, precede d'une introduction et
accompagne de notes explicatives, grammaticales et historiques. par MM.
Leopold Constans et Paul Girbal ; Paris, 1896. Philippe Fabia does not
hesitate to pronounce this the best of all the editions of the Annals that have
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS, 233
ever appeared in France. He finds only the Introdaction weak. 6) Antho-
logia Latina, pars posterior, Carmina Epigraphica conlegit F. Buecheler;
fascic. I, Lipsiae, 1895. Georges Lafaye, after a brief history of other
attempts to collect poetical inscriptions, gives an account of the origin of this
valuable work, "worthy of the eminent master." This volume contains
inscriptions in the Saturnian verse, iambics, trochaics, and the dactylic
hexameter. The second volume will contain those composed in the elegiac
form. 7) Cassii Dionis Cocceiani Historiarum Romanarum quae supersunt
edidit Ursulus Philippus Boissevain ; vol. I, Berolini, T895. Briefly described
by Dx., who says it merits the thanks of philologians and especially historians.
The Revue des Revues, begun in a previous number, is finished in this
number.
Milton W. Humphreys.
Englischb Studibn. Herausgegeben von Dr. Eugen KOlbing, Leipzig.
XXI. Band, 1895.
I. — F. Graz, Contributions to the Textual Criticism of the so-called Caed-
monian Poems. In his article, * Die Metrik der sogenannten Cadmon'schen
Dichtungen,' in Part III of Studien zum Germanischen Allitterationsvers,
edited by Kaluza, Graz suggested emendations on the basis of the metre.
The present article discusses those emendations more fully.
Ph. Aronstein, John Marston as a Dramatist. This article is a continuation
of a study begun in vol. XX. Part II is devoted to the literary criticism of
the poet's work, and Part III is a brief conclusion. The tragedies and
comedies are treated separately. In the first group are Antonio and Mellida,
Parts I and II, The Malcontent, Sophonisba, The Insatiate Countess. The
comedies are What You Will, The Dutch Courtezan, Parasitaster or The
Fawn. The order of discussion in each case is : a sketch of the plot ; the
sources; the idea; the plot-treatment; the characters; the language and
style ; final estimate. The second part of Antonio and Mellida, called
Antonio's Revenge, was planned as a satiric comedy, but is really a tragedy
of blood. The first part is evidently from some Italian novel, and the second
follows Thomas Kyd*s Spanish Tragedy, but we find suggestions of Romeo
and Juliet and Much Ado About Nothing. The poet exercises little poetic
justice. In diction this drama best illustrates Marston's excellencies and
faults. He is a reflective lyrist. Passages of tenderness, such as IV. i. 12,
are only oases in a wilderness of bombast. Jonson in the Poetaster scores
Marston for his use *of wild, outlandish terms' and his use of high-sounding
diction in preference to simple Anglo-Saxon. The whole drama shows the
need of a discipline. Of the Malcontent, the source may be some Italian
novel, or it may have been constructed by Marston himself after the plan
of Antonio and Mellida. Its style shows Jonson's influence. Sophonisba
is a historical drama, taken directly from Livy, bks. 27; 28; 29; 30, §§i-i6.
The story is told also in Appian's history of Spain, and briefly in Polybius.
The subject had been treated by Trissino in 1524, and Marston may have
made some use of that treatment. The witch-scene comes directly from
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
234 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Lucan, Pharsalia 6. 488 ff. With a few exceptions, the style is bombastic and
repulsiye. The Insatiate Countess contains two poorly joined plots. Its
sources are the fourth and fifteenth novels of Bandello, but it is also heavily
marked with Shakespeare. Of the comedies, What You Will is drawn directly
from the Amphitruo of Plautus or through the Italian. It shows some skill in
detail, but is without unity. Lampatho Doria, a mad scholar, is, Aronstein
thinks, a caricature of Jonson, while Quadratus, the misanthrope, is Marston's
self. The Dutch Courtezan is one of the best of the Elizabethan comedies.
It is not only the contrast between a high and a low woman, but between the
ascetic and the man of wide experience. Its characters and diction sire the
poet's best. Parasitaster is built upon a device of the Adelphi of Terence,
which appears also in the third novel of the third day of the Decameron. It
contains enough material for three or four better plays. Marston was well
acquainted with Latin literature. Seneca was his inspirer. Of his contem-
poraries, he follows Jonson more closely in his comedies and in form, but
Shakespeare is his help in ideas and motives, and in the tragedies. He is
open to the criticism of immoderation. Plots and characters are in the
extreme, though their range is small. His types of women are three : the
lover and heroine, the emancipated woman, and the low woman. Marston is
more of a dilettant than a poet, but the friends that he makes are faithful.
E. Nader gives an interesting report of the Sixth Summer-Meeting for
University Extension at Oxford, 1894. He promises the historical sketch of
the movement which appears later in the volume. •
Under Book Notices are reviews of O. Jespersen*s Progress in Language
with special reference to English, P. Cosijn's Concise Early West Saxon
Grammar, Hall's Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary for Students, the second
volume of Walker's revision of Grein's Library of Old English Poetry, H. A.
Vance's Late Old English Sermo in Testis S*« Mariae Virginis, W. H. Hulme's
Language of the Old English Recension of Augustine's Soliloquies, C. G.
Child's John Lyly and Euphuism. Under the continuation from vol. XX of
reviews of the latest literature on the Elizabethan drama are Brandl's Shaks-
pere, W. Oechelhftuser's Shakspeareana, S. von Milletich's The Aesthetic
Form of the Conclusion (abschliessenden Ausgleiches) in the Shakespearean
Drama, L. Wurth's The Pun in Shakespeare, Julius Caesar, translated into
German by A. W. von Schlegel, edited by A. Englert. Other books reviewed
are the Manchester Goethe Society Transactions, E. H. Lewis' History of
the English Paragraph, E. Hausknecht's The English Student, and The
English Reader, G. KrQger's Systematic English-German Vocabulary, V.
Olsvig's Yes and No, Dialogues in English on Holzer's Charts.
Jespersen's book is an enlargement and translation into English of his
Studier over Engelske Kasus. He rejects the theory of Schleicher that the
order of linguistic development was (i) isolated terms, (2) their agglutination,
(3) inflection. In modern English, as compared with ancient speech, he finds
that (i) its forms are shorter, (2) there are fewer forms, (3) fewer irregularities,
(4) the more abstract character of words facilitates expression. Simplicity was
not an original characteristic. An old language presents with simple forms a
fixed order, and a fixed order is * the highest, finest, and accordingly the latest
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
-. "JUW
REPORTS, 235
developed expedient of speech.' The second part discusses the question of
the English plural in -f, and finds that its uniformity was not due to French
influence. Case-questions of less interest are also treated.
Cosijn's Grammar would serve as a good introduction to Sievers'. The
phonological chapter is commended by Nader for the abundance of corres-
ponding Gothic forms, and the inflections for the references to phonology.
Hall's Dictionary will be used by the learner, where the specialist will use
Bosworth-Toller.
Volume II of Grein's Library contains reprints of poems from the Vercelli
Codex and the Exeter MS, including Andreas, the Fates of the Apostles, the
Address of the Soul to the Body, a Homily on Ps. 28, the Dream of the Rood,
Elene ; in the second part, poems from the so-called Caedmon MS at Oxford
and the Corpus Christi MS, the Caedmon Hymn, and the lately discovered
inscription on the Brussels Cross. The concluding volume will contain the
rest of the Exeter MS, the Metrical Psalms, Metres of Boethius, Soloman and
Saturn, and several minor poems. Gldde gives a specimen of Winker's work.
Such a work as this is a safeguard against mistakes arising from a scholar's
confinement to a narrow circle of originals.
Frankel, in his review of the late literature on the Elizabethan drama,
criticises the crowd of drivelers or demented laymen who have attempted the
biography of Shakespeare. Shakespeare's biographer must possess both
experience and scholarship. The object of Brandl's book is to show the
personality of Shakespeare in its changing phases, and the apparatus of
Ikerary-historical research is used to serve this purpose. The poet's works
fall under (i) the Falstaff period, (2) the Hamlet period, (3) the Lear period,
(4) the Romances. -Then follow Cymbeline, The Winter's Tale, Tempest.
Fr&nkel inconsistently criticizes the book's obscure style. He finds some
unwarranted inferences. The book, however, is a precipitate of the accumu-
lated knowledge of Shakespeare, and marks a stage in the advance of critical
work.
For thirty years OechelhUuser has been active in the aesthetic and dramatic
criticism of Shakespeare's plays. In the problems of their staging the internal
evidence of the plays must be considered. His book contains eight essays,
among which is a most careful analysis of Richard III. Most of the work is
devoted to a consideration of the adaptability of the plays to the stage. The
author looks forward to an advantageous adaptation of the plays to our boards.
Milletich, from the standpoint thaf the poet must in his conclusion set forth
clearly and in harmony his view of life, treats his subject with much help
from both Zimmerman and Knauer of Vienna. The book is guilty of dilet-
tantism and some inaccuracies. Wurth thinks Shakespeare's use of the pun
is a worthy criterion of the poet's dramatic art.
Lewis' treatment of the paragraph was his doctoral thesis at Chicago.
After a careful historical consideration, beginning with the oldest MSS, he
concludes that Hunt's definition, ' a collection of sentences unified by some
common idea,' is historically the most accurate. GlMe especially commends
Lewis' skill of selection.
In the Miscellanea, KSlbing offers emendations to the text of William of
Shoreham's most interesting though incomplete religious poem, *In Holy
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
236 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Sauter we may rede/ and points to the need of a well-edited edition of this
poet's complete works. Emendations are also suggested to the text of A. W.
Pollard's English Miracle Plays, Moralities, and Interludes, Oxford, 1890.
This book of selections goes to fill a great want in a rather neglected period.
K51bing's notes on Byron explain that the dedication which now heads Childe
Harold, *To lanthe* (Lady Charlotte Harley, second daughter of the fifth
Earl of Oxford), appeared first in the seventh edition, 1814. The song * Good
Night,* immediately following Canto I. xiii, is shown, by a collection of
interesting parallels, to be an imitation, both in matter and spirit, of the
Border Minstrelsy, edited by Scott, and of Percy's Reliques. Other notes are
by Frankel, on the Legend of the Hermit and the Angel ; Wolfing, on the
meaning of M. E. eroud\ Gnerlich, on the etymology oi pedigree, Gruber
notes the discovery in Berlin of the oldest edition of Steele's plays. Its date
is 1723, which is 38 years earlier than any hitherto known. Ellinger corrects
Swaen (Eng. Stud. XX 266 ff.) in a note on the verb to dare, A. SchrOer
pays tribute to the service of Miss Laura Soames, who died Jan. 24, 1895.
Her great service began in the use which she made of phonetics as a means of
teaching foreign languages to children. In the science of language-history
the phonology of the living tongue grows every day more important. Miss
Soames' work is most valuable for its conscientious observation.
II. — ^J. H. Hall prints three short religious pieces from MS Cotton Galba E.
IX, two of them for the first time.
J. Hoops, Keats* Youth and Early Poems. After a brief review of the
Georgian poets and their position, the author says that the two whose spirit
has stamped the Victorian poetry are Wordsworth and Keats. Both are little
known in Germany : Wordsworth because of Anglo-Saxon peculiarities; Keats,
who is more universal, through lack of a good translation and a stout champion.
The translation is forthcoming from the hands of Marie Gothein. The present
article proposes to meet the translation with a treatment for Germany of the
biographical and literary side. It contains little that is new, and makes use
of much second-hand material. The following sections are treated : parentage
and early childhood ; school at Enfield ; apprenticeship at Edmonton ; study
of medicine in London ; vacation at Margate ; Keats and Leigh Hunt ; the
winter of 1816-17; the volume of 1817 and its reception. Naturally, the
article deals mostly with the forces which entered into the development of
the poet*s art. On the evidence of some remarks by Hunt in an essay entitled
'Young Poets,' in the Examiner of Dec. i, 1816, Hoops shows that Keats
could not have met Hunt until shortly before this date, and not early in the
year, as was hitherto believed. Detailed evidence from the volume of 1817
shows the influence upon Keats of Chaucer, Chapman, Browne, Milton, and
Moore. Other poets whom Keats had read at this time, but whose influence
cannot be traced in detail, are Shakespeare, Chatterton, Byron, and Words-
worth. The early poems forecast Keats' wonderful and deep familiarity with
nature, as well as his inability to comprehend human passion and give it
poetic expression.
A. Pakscher describes the theory and working of the Berlits method of
instruction in foreign languages.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. . 237
In the Miscellanea R. R. de Jong shows that the distinction between -inde
and -ende in rimes holds not only in Robert of Gloucester's Chronicle, as
Balbring (Eng. Stud. XX 149) showed, but also in Sir Beues of Hamtoun,
probably in Guy of Warwick, and possibly in Sir Ferumbras. P. Bellezza
points to the use of the plowman in Macaulay and Tennyson. Swaen rejects
the old derivation of Caliban from Cannibal, It may be from Gipsy kalo =
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
238 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
being a noun. This seems to show that alliteration is a comparatively late
embellishment of the verse, and somewhat external to it. In the first hemi-
stich the prevailing alliterative form is ajax^ where a is the alliterative and x
the non-alliterative word. This analysis reveals the great flexibility of Old
English verse. The quiet flow of normal verses might be broken at any
moment by the more solemn or excited expansion.
The object of F. Maychrzak's elaborate study of Byron as a translator is
twofold: (i) to furnish a critical treatment of Byron's translations: (2) to
show their relation to his original poetry. The article falls into three parts:
(i) Byron's acquaintance with foreign languages, (2) the translations and their
relations to the originals, (3) the relation of the diction in his translations to
his diction in general. (3) is to be treated in vol. XXII. In school Byron
did not succeed with Latin, Greek, French, and German. His acquisition of a
language came by * rote and ear and memory ' in its own home. Thus it was
with what Spanish and Portuguese he knew. His modern Greek was begun
in Albania. In Venice, in 1816, he applied himself to the study of Armenian
in a cloister of Armenian monks. His knowledge and love of Italian were
most important. His study of Bandello, Dante, the tragedies of Alfieri and
Monti, as well as his translation, were inspired by the Countess Guiccioli.
The translations are compared line for line with the originals, and separable
amplifications, which generally amount to one-third or one-half the length
of the actual translation, are collected at the end. In his treatment of the
classics Byron merely paraphrases, though some passages, like the Anacre-
ontics, are more literal. His Morgante Maggiore, and the Francesca da
Rimini from Inferno V, are much finer work. The mournful ballad on the
Siege and Conquest of Alhama is from uncertain Spanish originals.
E. Nader presents a short but interesting historical sketch of the University
Extension movement, especially in England.
The Miscellanea contains a note on the name Ophelia by Sarrazin, one on
Germanic legends in England by Kluge, a note on pedigree by Skeat, two notes
of correction, a lately discovered letter of Charles Dickens, and an obituary
notice by KOlbing of Julius Zupitza, who died July 6, 1895.
Ophelia, it seems, is not Greek, but Irish. It is the name of a barony
invaded by Essex in 1599, the possible date of Hamlet's composition. There
are evident references to Essex in the play. It is probable that Ophelia
merely caught the poet's ear. Lord Burleigh may have suggested Polonius.
Julius Zupitza was born in 1844. His training at Breslau and Berlin, under
MOlIenhoff and Haupt, was most thorough. During his twenty-five years of
teaching, he dealt with Gothic, German, Scandinavian, English, Old French,
and Provencal. The first part of this time was spent in Vienna. In 1872 he
visited England to do comparative work on Guy of Warwick. In 1876 he
was called to Berlin as Professor of the English Language and Literature.
He was most successful in rousing his students to scholarly efforts. His own
great work was done in textual criticism. Appended to the notice is a
complete bibliography of his publications.
Yalb UNivBasiTT. Charles Grosvbnor Osgood, Jr.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
liEPORTS. 239
Rhbinisches Museum fCr Philologie, Vol. LII, parts i, 2.
Pp. 1-12. Der prodigiorum liber des lulius Obsequens. O. Rossbach.
The author of the liber prodigiorum was probably not a Christian, and the
book may have been written in the time of Hadrian or of Antoninus Pius.
Textual notes.
Pp. 13-41. Ueber den Cynegeticus des Xenophon. II (cf. vol. LI, 596-
629; A.J. P. XVIII 115). L. Radermacher. The use of the word yv^fui in
contrast with ^vofta forbids us to refer the closing chapter to a later time than
the others. Chapters 2-13 must be ascribed to the same author. The Cyne-
geticus cannot be a youthful essay of Xenophon, and it is not like his later
writings : it is spurious. The sharp distinction between ^iXdao^c and ao^ior^
suggests that the author was influenced by Plato. The proem was probably
written by a later hand» not earlier than the third century B. C: it is mere
rhetoric.
Pp. 42-68. Die BegrUndung des Alexander- und Ptolemaeerkultes in
Aegypten. J. Kaerst. Ptolemy Soter founded Ptolemais in Upper Egypt,
and was worshipped as a god in that city. This was probably in imitation of
the worship of Alexander at Alexandria. The worship of the Ptolemaic
dynasty extended and developed its external ceremonial, but the consecration
gradually became a simple form, and the title of * god ' a mere title.
Pp. 69-98. Die Ueberlieferung von * Aeli Donati commentum Terentii.'
P. Wessner. It is probable that all the 15th-century MSS are derived from
two recensions, that of Mentz and that of Chartres. The former is the more
valuable.
Pp. 99-104. Die Bukoliasten. E. Hoffmann. The various traditional
accounts of the origin of pastoral poetry agree in making it the product of a
people reduced to slavery by foreign invaders. The propitiatory sacrifice to
Artemis took the form of a symbolic restitutio in integrum, and on that day
the slaves seem to have enjoyed some such freedom of speech and action as
the Roman slaves enjoyed during the Saturnalia.
Pp. 105-25. Delphische Beilagen. (S. Band LI, S. 580.) III. Die Th&tig-
keit der Alkmeoniden in Delphi. H. Pomtow.
Miscellen. — Pp. 126-9. O. Immisch. Vergiliana. I. The writer would
transpose verses 40 and 41 of the fourth book of the Aeneid. II. The con-
ception of the Helena taedifera of Aen. VI 518 is probably derived from
Stesichorus. There may be lurking in it something of an old popular super-
stition. If the ** fratres Helenae, lucida sidera *' brought safety to the mariner,
the flame of Helen, ^*iXivavg^ i^vSpog, iXiirroXtg/^ may have indicated disaster.
— Pp. 129-31. M. Ihm. Zum Carmen de bello Actiaco. The poem contains
many reminiscences of Vergil and Ovid. — Pp. 131-5. M. Manitius. Hand-
schriftliches zix Germanicus' und Ciceros Aratea. — Pp. 135-7. H. Sch5ne.
Sechzehnsilbige Normalzeile bei Galen. — Pp. 137-40. C. Wachsmuth. Ein
neues Fragment aus Lydus* Schrift de ostentis. — Pp. 140-43. C. Wachsmuth.
Das Heroon des Themistokles in Magnesia am Maiandros. — P. 143. M. Ihm.
Zu den graeco-syrischen PhilosophensprUchen ttber die Seele. (Cf. vol. LI,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
240 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
p. 529.) A parallel from Xen. Cyrop. V i. — P. 144. R. FOrster. Cyriacus
von Ancona zu Strabon. Nachtrag zu LI, S. 490. — P. 144. R. WUnsch. Zu
Band LI, S. 148.
Pp. 145-67. Studien zu Ciceros Briefen an Atticus (IX, X). O. E. Schmidt.
Textual notes on forty passages.
Pp. 168-76. Zu attischen Dionysos-Festen. A. KOrte. i. £iiovixJta rd iiri
ArjvaXtfi. DOrpfeld, Das griechische Theater, p. 9, has accepted Gilbert's view
that the Lenaea was the last day of the Anthesteria. It is clear from C. I. A.
II 834 b that they were separate festivals. The official name in the fifth and
fourth centuries was not A^mx, but Aiovvaia rd em AffvaUf>. This name seems
to have been retained long after the place of celebration was changed. 2. Der
Agon der komischen Schauspieler. The first hypothesis to Aristophanes'
Peace speaks of a competition between comic actors at the *City' Dionysia in
B. C. 421. The earliest competition of this sort mentioned by the inscriptions
occurred at the Lenaean festival in B. C. 354. Possibly the first hypothesis
has confounded the Peace with the other Peace which Aristophanes brought
out at the Lenaea. 3. Der KitharOde Nikokles. The inscription C. I. A. II
1367 cannot be earlier than the third century B. C. The Isthmian contest in
music, in which Nicocles was the first victor, must have been introduced in
the third century, not in the fourth, and the dithyramb, which was unknown
to the Lenaea in the time of Demosthenes (XXI 10) and Aristotle (ABtjv, liok,
57), was not added to this festival until the Hellenistic period.
Pp. 177-86. Anecdoton Fulgentianum. R. Helm. This is an allegorical
explanation of the story of Thebes, with grotesque etymologies of the proper
names, found in a 13th-century MS, Paris. 3012. The author is a Christian
writer, who quotes from Vergil, Horace, Ovid, Lucan and the New Testament.
It is probably the work of Fulgentius.
Pp. 187-204. Buphonien. H. von Prott. A study of the various legends
as to the origin and significance of the ^ov(f>6vta, the sacrifice of a bull to Zeus
Polieus. It is possible that this represents an earlier human sacrifice. Cf.
Ailianos, Hist. An. XII 34 ; Porphyrios, De Abst. II 55 ; Athenaios, X 456 C.
Pp. 205-12. Zu lateinischen Dichtem. M. Ihm. i. Vespae indicium coci
et pistoris iudice Vulcano. This comic epyllion cannot be a carmen infimae
Latinitatis. 2. Das carmen contra Flavianum (Cod. Paris. 8084). A list of
the Vergiliana in the poem. The author seems to have made use of Petronius
and of the eclogues of Nemesianus, and to have read some of the epigrams of
Damasus. 3. Ein verschoUenes Gedicht des Damasus? An anonymous
glossary contained in Cod. Paris. Lat. 7598 (saec. XIII or XIV) refers to a
poem of Damasus, "Prophetatio Nicei (Nicaenif) Concilii."
Pp. 213-36. Beitrage zur Quellenkunde des Orients im Alterthum. L. Jeep.
A study of the epitome of the church history of Philostorgios, III 4-1 1. The
relation of Philostorgios to Agatharcides and Artemidoros.
Pp. 237-85. Zu den Assyriaka des Ktesias. (Cf. vol. L, pp. 205-40.) P.
Krumbholz. 5. Inferences to be drawn from Justinus, Diodoros and Kepha-
lion as to the statements of Ktesias. 6. The relation of Ktesias to earlier
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. 241
historians (Herodotus, etc.) and to later vrriters. 7. Diodoros and Ktesias.
Ktesias represents a Persian anti-Assyrian tradition.
Pp. 286-92. Varia. W. Kroll. Textual notes to Porphyrins, Stobaeus,
Damascius, Galen.
Miscellen. — Pp. 293-4. J. Ziehen. Zwei Vermuthungen zur griechischen
Kunstgeschichte. i. The Vienna bronze statuette (Sacken, Bronzen in Wien,
I 44 ; Dilthey, Taf. IX f.) probably represents Menelaus, not Ares or Achilles.
2. The ** Alexander et Philippus in quadrigis" of Euphranor (Plin. N. H.
XXXIV 77) was probably made at Alexander's command, after the death of
Philip. — Pp. 294-6. O. Hirschfeld. Der Brand von Lugudunum. The burn-
ing of Lugudunum referred to by Seneca, E. M. 91, probably took place in
65 A. D. That Seneca does not directly mention the great fire at Rome in 64
may be due to the popular belief that it was caused by Nero. — P. 296. A.
Wilhelm. Zum Carmen de hello Actiaco. The epithet " pars imperii," III
25, recurs in Propertius, I 6, 34. — Pp. 296-8. R. F5rster. Expletur lacuna in
Libanii declamatione quae inscribitur fwyov icanryopia. — Pp. 298-9. R. FOrster.
Zur Ueberlieferung der Physiognomik des Adamantios. — Pp. 299-302. C.
Heldmann. Ein neuentdecktes Priscianbruchstttck. A new fragment of the
Instit. Gram. (XIV 33/34), apparently written in the 8th century. — P. 302.
C. We3rman. Zur Anthologia Latina Epigraphica. The ' sinergima' of Carm.
lAt. Epigr. 1356, 19 B is not for awipyrffia. The s belongs to the preceding
word. For *inergima' cf. Prud. Apoth. 400 f.— Pp. 302-3. F. B. Carmen
Epigraphicum. A short poem from a stone recently discovered at Cologne. —
Pp. 303-4. E. Lommatzsch. Carpus. The name of Trimalchio's carver
(Petron. 36) appears frequently in Latin and Greek inscriptions. The Greek
name, KdpTroc, is derived not from Kapndc * fruit,' but from Kapirdg * hand.' It is
a name which denotes dexterity. There is no direct evidence of a word
carpus in Latin, but the word catpo *htind' exists in Italian ; whence the word
carpone (K6rting, Latein.-roman. W5rterbuch, 1688). Carpere is the technical
expression for 'carving' (Friedlander on Mart. Ill 13, i); Carpus^ which is
formed from the same stem, corresponds to the carptor of Juv. IX no. Carpere
is for an older ^scarpere^ which was retained in popular speech (LOwe, Coni.
Plant., p. 209 ; Stowasser, Archiv, I, p. 287 ; cf. Usener on coruscus, *scoruscus,
Rh. Mns. XLIX, p. 463). The initial s shows that carpere has nothing to do
with jcopTrdf * fruit,' but belongs rather to Kopirdg 'hand.' The proper name
Scarpus is rare, but some coins of a certain Pinarius Scarpus show the device
of an open hand (Cohen, Med. Imp. I', p. 136). We may thus assume the loss
of an initial j* from Kapirdg * hand, wrist.'
Havxrpobd C0U.B6B. Wilfred P. Mustard.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BRIEF MENTION.
Professor Max Schnkidewin has presented the world with a bulky volume
of 558 pp. entitled Die aniike Humamt&t (Weidmann), in which he has brought
together, without any attempt at literary finish, many facts and reflexions in
regard to a theme of permanent and universal interest. The author does not
profess to have ransacked every nook and corner of antiquity for documents,
and the draughts he has drawn on Cicero, whom he sets up as the accepted
type of antique ' humanity,' are so considerable that this book may be regarded
as a companion-piece to the slighter performance of the same writer published
in 1890, ' Die Horazische Lebensweisheit.' No wonder, then, that the work
revives for the reader the charm of Cicero and Cicero's circle, which is not
less real because it is exotic, which, like the charm of the winter palaces of
Russia, is only heightened by the rigor of the atmosphere without. When we
are with Cicero we are in good society, society that is redolent of Scipionic
traditions, and it would be rude to scratch the skin of this and that Roman
grandee and compare the fine Greek sentiments with the merciless downright-
ness of Italian action. Doubtless Cicero, the novus homo^ and Horace, liherHno
patre naius^ were saturated with Greek * humanity,' but the Greek must have
the credit of it all, directly or indirectly, and there is evidence enough that
the Hellene or Hellenist, Greek or Greekling, whichever you choose, was
fully alive to the essential hardness of the Roman character and was fully
aware of his own success and his own failure in the emollient process.
But there are other sides to Cicero than the Greek side, the ethical, the
philosophical, the humane side. He was much more than a translator of
Panaetius, though the de Officiis has proved itself a potent book ; much more
than a clever lawyer, though the French Revolution is said to have been the
work of lawyers ; and in an essay which takes the form of a discourse in
celebration of the second millennium of Cicero's birth. Professor Zielinski
has produced a sketch of Cicero's influence on the ages which forms a striking
contrast to the work just mentioned, both in bulk and, if it must be said, in
brilliancy. With such a champion as Professor ZisuNSKI is, the friends of
Cicero may well take heart, for, as one reads this masterly summary of
Cicero's after-life, Cicero im Wandel der Jahrhnnderte (Teubner), Drumann's
savagery and Mommsen's sarcasm, the bludgeon of the one and the rapier of
the other, lose weight and point. The salient features are tipped with light,
and the test -question, 'What thinkest thou of Cicero?,' is most effectively put
to the leaders of human thought and action. Cicero's immense influence
on style is generally recognized after a vague fashion, though perhaps few
are aware that every penny-a-liner on the daily press is swayed by his
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BRIEF MENTION. 243
example and his precepts ; but his influence on the coarse of history at its
critical points is a matter that only such a cross-section as ZiEUNSKl has
given us can bring to the consciousness. What Cicero did for Christianity,
what for the Renascence, for the Reformation, for the French Revolution, —
how he affected the leaders of those great transitional periods, this is the
theme of an essay which combines the rhetorical swing of the panegyrist with
the sober merits of historical research. That Augustin was converted by
reading Cicero is a familiar story, and no one that has once read is likely to
forget the passage in Luther's Table-talk in which he extols the man who has
wrought and suffered above that *ass of leisure, Aristotle' — *weit ttberlegen,'
he says, 'dem mttssigen Esel Aristoteli'; but the influence of Cicero the
humanitarian on Voltaire, of Cicero the orator on Mirabeau, of Cicero the
republican statesman on the leaders of the French Revolution is not always
present to the average mind. Vergniaud was the Cicero of the Gironde and
denounced Robespierre in phrases borrowed from the Catilinariae, and Robes-
pierre defended his cause and prolonged his power by a telling use of passages
taken from the Oratiopro P, Sulla, With the close of the French Revolution
ZiELiNSKi bids the procession stop and contents himself with citing Taine to
show the estimate in which Cicero is held by that penetrating student of
history and literature, and with reinforcing in a brief summary the important
lesson that with every advancing stage of culture the vision for the antique
becomes wider and deeper and that the value of the antique is enhanced
from stage to stage.
All who admire the scholarship, the precision, the balance of M. Henri
Weil will be glad to have in a convenient volume the collection of his papers
entitled Etudes sur le drame antique (Hachette). Nearly all these studies
belong to a recent period. One, it is true, goes back to the remote date 1847,
one to 1864, but of the remaining eight there is none older than 1886, and the
eighth deals with the important work of M. Masqubray, Les formes lyriques
de la tragSdie grecque^ which was published as late as 1895 and is still awaiting
the notice it deserves in this Journal. It is a book which M. Weil justly
praises for the exhaustive command of the literature, its wide scope, its fine
appreciation of the rfio^ of the lyric measures of tragedy. M. Weil's admi-
ration of Wilatnowit^s Herakles^ the subject of another chapter, is frankly
expressed, while he preserves the independence of his judgment in details, a
hard thing to do, if one yields at all to the rush of that fervid genius. ZieliiC-
ski*s ayliv with all its minute subdivisions M. Weil cannot bring himself to
accept, but he recognizes, as some have refused to do (A. J. P. X 383), the
popular element that lies at the basis of the comic debate, and compares the
quarrel between tanner and sausage-seller in the Knights with the altercation
of the modem carnival. ''On pense," he says, *'i notre camaval: deux
masques se provoquent, se criblent de lazzi ; on fait cercle autour d'eux, on
les encourage, on les excite, comme fait le choeur de Tantique com^die. De
pareilles scenes nVtaient sans doute pas rares dans les joyeux ebats des
Dionysiaques." In another article M. Weil takes up M. Decharme's book,
Euripide et V esprit de son th^dtre, M. Decharme is especially emphatic on the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
244 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
atheism and rationalism of Euripides, and here, as elsewhere, M. Weil has a
wise word of caution. True, every scholar knows that atheism does not mean
the same thing in Greek as it does in English (A. J. P. XVII 362), but it was
well worth the while to say (p. 105): **Si Ton dit que Ic thfeatre d*Euripide
agit comme un dissolvant sur les vieilles fables et les croyances populaires, on
dit vrai, .mais on ne dit pas tout. Euripide n'a pas seulement ebranle les
opinions revues, il a puisamment contribu^ i repandre une conception plus
haute du divin, qui devait 6tre celle de I'avenir." In the same paper DOrp-
feld's theory of the stage comes up. M. Weil minimizes the difference
between the old view and the new, but holds after all to the raised wooden
stage, and the words hrcX r^g oiofv^g are to him a stone of stumbling, as they
have been to many philologians (A. J. P. XVIII iig). "II faut vraiment," he
says, '* beaucoup de bonne volonte pour traduire [ces mots] par prh de la scene
plutOt que par sur la sehte^* and after the appearance of D6rpfeld and Reisch's
book he adds : ** Tout le monde ne se persuadera pas non plus que les acteurs
sont appel^s ol and aiofv^g parcequ'ils sortaient de la aiap^*^
Mr. M ARCHANT has added BooJk VI to the three books of Thukydides he has
already edited, II, III, VII (Macmillan). The text is based on Hude's, but
the editor shows his wonted independence in minor matters. There is a
chapter of new explanations headed 'Some Cruces* which will be read with
interest by Thukydidean scholars. An adjutant and admirer of Dr. Ruther-
ford's, Mr. Marchant has learned from his master the importance of a sharp
formulation of Attic usage, and his work shows advancing appreciation of
syntactical phenomena. As he has referred to this Journal (XIII 7,^<^yii propos
of the negative in c. 81, 5, it may be as well to say that I cannot see any call
for * mobility ' in order to understand so simple a case as rriv irpbg ifiag ix^pav fu^
av ppaxelaif yevdfievjpf. The article with the participle gives, as it often does,
the impulse to the negative ///;, and the resolution is not what Mr. Marchant
has, ^ oifK &u ppaxeia yevoiro, but f/ fir) ap Ppaxela ykvotro^ the so-called
characteristic relative {q — nrig) taking fi^. See A. J. P. I 54, 56, and for
rel., fi^ dv, opt. comp. Dem. 19, 313; 20,161; 21, 203; Plato, Phileb. 20 A;
Legg. 839 A, 872 D. For a parallel use of (iti av c. partic. ^ee Dem. 54, 40
6 ftndht av ofiSaaCt with Sandys* note. This is one of the many points that
show the importance of an historical survey for the appreciation of syntactical
phenomena. It was only when the participle was consciously employed as
the shorthand of a hypotactic sentence that the neg. fii^ could be used with it.
Pindar*s 6 fiij awulq (N. 4, 31) is a distinct advance not only on Homer, but
also on Hesiod, whose /3odf . . . ^ reroKviTK (O. et D. 591) is under the domi-
nation of the imperative opt. tlij.
Dr. Rutherford's Introduction to his Scholia Aristophanica (Macmillan) is
a prolonged growl over the uncongenial work that has cost the leisure of no
less than seven years. AieiCcj Ai&rtfwv, The subject-matter of the scholia of
the Codex Ravennas, he says, would not have tempted him to edit them. In
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
mammtmmmmB/m
BRIEF MENTION, 245
fact, " the direct value of any corpus of scholia as a commentary upon the text
to which it belongs is in no degree commensurate with its indirect value as
evidence, on the one hand, of the manner in which classical texts have been
manipulated at different periods in the history of learning, and, on the other
hand, of the kind of corruption and interpolation to which they have been
exposed." We know the note from the Introduction to his Fourth Book of
Thukydides. Still, a man might be worse employed than in laboring over the
Greek scholia. It is higher work than the preparation of an index, and the
preparation of an index is better than making canons of Greek usage on the
basis of imperfect induction. It is something to have to one's credit two
such stately volumes as these. The third volume is still due, the volume that
is to contain Dr. Rutherford's conclusions, drawn from his seven years' study
of the scholia ; and while we are grateful for all that these two volumes hold,
it is the third volume in which we shall behold the flower of the Scottish thistle.
The most striking characteristic of Professor Tyrrell's edition of the
TrocLdes (Macmillan) is the sympathetic discernment with which he has
brought out the poetic vein of Euripides. In so doing he has made free use
of translation — now an apt rendering of his own, now an extract from Mr.
Way*s brilliant version. The book is meant for boys, and, as Professor
Tyrrell justly remarks, * a boy should not be encouraged to think that the
Greek poets were bald and frigid.' How soon the attention of the student
should be called to the dissonances of Euripidean style, designed or not, is
another matter. Dr. Verrall's 'Euripides the Rationalist* would not be a
good book to put in the hands of a beginner in Euripides, and the young
student would be rather puzzled than edified by a demonstration of the
contrarieties of the diction and the syntax of Euripides, the matching of cloth
of gold with cloth of frize. The metres are not neglected, as in so many
English editions, but it is to be regretted that Professor Jebb's example has
not been followed and that Schmidt's schemes have not been reproduced. It
seems rather late in the day to cite Dr. Kennedy's views in the matter of
Greek metres.
Dr. Sandys* edition of the First Philippic and the Olynthiaes of Demosthenes
(Macmillan) is marked by his unfailing adequacy. Every side of his author is
treated with sound judgment, excellent taste and rare command of the litera-
ture. The proof-reading is good. An odd mistake occurs p. 36, §25 (critical
note), where read *^suu5 locus est infinitivo supra §12, Bl.' By the way, if
Blass means to differentiate between participle and inf. in the two passages,
he sees too much. §12 reads: ri rh KxSkvov if avrihf iarai Padi^eiif bvroi
pob^£T2i/ §25: rig avrdv Ko^vaei devpo padi^ovra; As padi^ovra is condi-
tional, = eav Padii^% the difference is naught. In conditional relations inf.
and part, often meet, aiaxwoifiifv av avriXiyuw (X. Mem. 2, 6, 37) = el avTikk-
yoifu = avTiXtyeiv, See Hertlein (1853) on X. Cyr. 3, 2, 16.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
246 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
An esteemed correspondent sends to the Journal the following note on
FOgner's Lexicon Livianum^ Fasciculus III^ s, v. ady cum gerundio vel gerun^
divoy which seems to belong to the black list of Brief Mention :
** The following incorrect references have been noticed : 28, 9, i for 28, 29,
I, p. 432. 8 ; 44. 19, 4 for 41, 19. 4. p. 44M ; 10. 55, 4 for 10, 35, 4. p. 447, 16 ;
25, 35. 4 for 25, 36. 4, p. 448, 24 ; 31, 47. 2 for 31, 46. 2, p. 448. 38 ; 23. 34, 9
for 29, 34, 9, p. 457, 23. In a few instances the Lex. fails as a guide for the
Weissenbom ed.: 4, 11, 5 triumviri ad colon iam Ardeam deducendam is not
given p. 428, 2 (creo), nor p. 457, 40 (triumviri). 40, 24, 5 ad quod celebrandum
is not given p. 434, 39. 42, 10, 8 ad quam pestem frugum tollendam . . .
missus, ingenti agmine hominum ad colligendas eas coacto. The first gerun-
dive is not given s. v. mitto ; the second is not given p. 426, 19, where is given
9, 21, 3 magno exercitu coacto ad eximendos obsidione socios."
Brief Mention has received the following note from Dr. J. KEELHOFFt of
Antwerp: **Sur Texpression tl fi^ 6ia cf. Rost, Griech. Gram., 7te Aufl., p. 641,
note: *Zu erg&nzen (Plat. Gorg. 516 E) wk iviireoev^ also der reine Gegensatz
des im Hauptsatx enthaltenen Praedikates, wie immer bei dieser fVendung*
Votre explication [A. J. P. X 124, XVI 396. XVII 128] se rencontre done avcc
celle de Rost, ce qui augmente encore les chances de probability. On trouve
de bien bonnes choses dans cette syntaxe qu*on ne consulte plus gu^re." To
my mind the explanation is so evident that it only needs to be stated, and I
am not surprised that so sensible a grammarian as Rost was had reached the
same formula, which, however, does not occur in the earlier editions, to which
alone I had access.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NECROLOGY.
The double blow that has fallen on Harvard University in the last few
weeks will be felt throughout the scholarly world, will be felt with peculiar
poignancy by those who were privileged to know personally the two masters
whose names are henceforth to be a memory. The forces they set in motion
will never die, but their living presence is to inspire and to guide us no more.
The thirtieth of June closed the career of America's greatest Latinist, George
Martin Lane. The end was not unexpected, yet when it came, it came with
a sudden pang to those who had watched the bulletins of his failing health.
It seemed a hard fate that he was not to bestow on the world with his own
hands the summary of his long life of keen observation, of loving study. And
yet to those who can sympathize with the temper of the man, who understand
as he did the inexorableness of the ideal, his life as a rebuke to pretentious
ignorance, to hasty performance, to rash generalization, has served a high
purpose. The best text-books must pass away, but the lessons of a great
teacher become incarnate in generations of living men. Lane faded out of
life. Five short weeks afterwards, Aug. 4, his dear friend, Frederic De
Forest Allen, fell without warning, struck down in a moment, snatched
rudely from the midst of an active career, at an age when the intellectual
faculties are in their happiest balance and most successful play. Born to a
time when American classical scholarship was ripe for advanced work along
the whole line, Allen had taken his place at once among the leaders in
university study, and what he wrought for his wide domain as teacher and as
author showed the mind and the will of a true master. There is no space in
this number of the Journal to set forth the work and the character of these
departed scholars. In the next issue a more fitting tribute will be paid to
their great services. Standing, as I do, between the two in years, the one
who was intimately associated with my own student life in the dear GOttingen
days, the other for whom I foresaw the accomplishment of ever greater work
for classical philology in its widest, highest, noblest sense, I look backward
and forward with a sense of bereavement which all the teaching of old
experience will not school into resignation.
Basil L. Gilderslbbve.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
RECENT PUBLICATIONS.
Thanks are due to Messrs. Lemcke & Buechner, 8x2 Broadway, New
York City, for material furnished.
AMERICAN.
Cicero (Marcus TuUius). The Correspondence of; arranged according
to its chronological order ; with a revision of the text, a commentary, and
introductory essays, by Rob. Yelverton Tyrrell and L. Claude Purser. In
7 V. V. 5. (Dublin University Press Series.) New York, Longmans,
Green &* Co., 1897. 75 + 4^2 pp. Svo, cl., net $4.
The Fourth Verrine; ed. for schools by F. W. Hall. New York,
The Macmillan Co,, 1897. 60+ 187 pp. i6mo, cl., net 90 cts.
Collar ( W. C.) Via Latina. Boston, Ginn &* Co,, 1897. c. 6+ 203 pp.
Map, i2mo, cl., 85 cts.
Comba (T. £.) Compendium of Italian Pronunciation. New York,
Truslove &* Comba [1897]. 2 + 47 pp. Sq. i2mo, cl.f 75 cts.
Hall (J. R. Clark). A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. New cheaper
ed. New York, TAe Macmillan Co,, 1897. 369 pp. 4to, cl., reduced to
net 11.75.
Jackson (E. Hilton). Law Latiiu Washington, D. C.,/. Byrne &* Co.,
1897. c 14-I-219PP. X2mo, shp., |2.
Thucydides. Book 6 ; ed. by E. C. Marchant. New York, The Macmil-
lan Co,, 1897. 54 + 299 PP* x6mo, cl., net |x.io.
Xenophon. The Fifth Book of Xenophon's Anabasis ; ed. by Alfred G.
Rolfe. 'Boston, Ginn &* Co,, i^*j, c. 5+ x 15 pp. Map, x6mo, cl., 45 cts.
ENGLISH.
Barrire (A.) and Leland (C. G.) Dictionary of Slang, Jargon and Cant.
2 vols. London, 1897. Svo, 950 pp. 15s.
Evans (D. L.) Welsh Dictionary. Geiriadur Cymraeg. Pt 4. D-Dd.
London, 1897. 8vo, 564 pp. S. 1893, ^r* 1062. 14s.
Kohut (G. A.) Semitic Studies in Memory of A. Kohut. London, 1897.
Svo. £1 4s.
MacCauley (C.) Japanese. An Introductory Course. London, 1897.
Svo. los. 6d.
Morfill ( W. R.) A Short Grammar of the Bulgarian Language. London,
1S97. Svo. 5s.
Murray (J. A. H.) A New English Dictionary. Vol. IIL Distrustfully-
Doom. Vol. IV. Flexuosity-Foister. London, 1S97. 4to. 2s. 6d.
Northall (G. F.) A Warwickshire Word-book. London, 1897. Svo,
300 pp. 15s.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
RECENT PUBLICATIONS, 249
Papyri, Greek. Series IL New classical fragments and other Greek
and Latin papyri. Edited by 6. F. Grenfell and A. S. Hunt. London,
1897. 4to. I2S. 6d.
Pegge (S.) Two Collections of Words and Phrases peculiar to the
Natives and Inhabitants of the County of Derby. London, 1897. 8vo,
162 pp. I2S. 6d.
Petrie Papyri. The Hieratic Papyri from Kahun and Gurob. Edited by
F. L. Griffith. Autotypes, Kahun, plates 1-37, Gurob, plates 38-40. Part I.
London, 1897. 4to, x8 pp. Compl., £2 12s. 6d.
Temple (G.) Glossary of Indian Terms relating to Religion, Customs,
Government, Land, etc. London, 1897. 8vo, 332 pp. 7s. 6d.
Thimm (C. A.) Egyptian Self-Taught (Arabic). London, 1897. 8vo,
71 pp. 2S.
Wyatt (A. J.) An Elementary Old English Grammar (Early West
Saxon). London, 1897. 8vo, 170 pp. 4s. 6d.
FRENCH.
Harlez (de). Le Yi-King, traduit d'apr^s les interpr^tes chinois avec la
version Mandchoue. In-8. E, Leroux. 7 fr. 50.
Henry (V.) La relation locative dans les Ungues italiennes. In-8.
Maisonneuve. i fr. 50.
Houdas (O.) Precis de grammaire arabe. In-8. J, Andr/ et Cie. 6 fr.
Lexique de la langue de Moli^re. T. Ill et dernier. In-8. II. Welter.
Les 3 vol., 45 fr.
McCarthy (R. P. Laurent). Capucins. Grammaire Hindoustani-fran-
^aise. In-8. i vol. l^i^ixoWt^^ SoeiA/ beige de Librairie. 4 fr. 50.
Meillet (A.) Recherches sur I'emploi du genitif accusatif en vieuz slave.
Gr. in-8. i vol. E, Boullon, 6 fr.
Nouveau Larousse illustr^. Dictionnaire encyclop^dique aniversel en
six volumes. In-4. Hollier- Larousse et Cie. Prix de souscription, 150 fr.
Passy (J.) et Rambeau (A.) Chrestomathie frangaise. In-8. H, Le
Soudier. 5 f r.
Rousselot (Abbe). Principes de phonetique ezp^rimeqtale. ire partie,
avec fig. In-8. II. Welter. 15 fr. en souscrivant.
GERMAN.
Aristophanis equites, recensuit Adph. v. Velsen. Ed. II, quam curavit
Konr. Zacher. gr. 8. xxii, 109 S. L., B. G. Teubner. m. 3.
Beitiage, Berliner, zur getmanischen u. romanischen Philologie. Ver-
Offentl. V. Emil Ebering. XIII. Romanische Abtlg. Nr. 7. gr. 8. B.,
E, Ebering. — 7. Schayer (Siegb.) Zur Lehre vom Gebrauch des unbe-
stimmten Artikels u. des Teilungsartikels im AltfranzOsischen n. im Neu-
franzOsischen. viii, 152 S. m. 4.
^■^ Milnchner, zur romanischen u. englischen Philologie. Hrsg. v. H.
Breymann u. J. Schick. XII. Hft. gr. 8. L., A. Deichert Naehf. ' m. 2.80.
—XII. Klein (Frdr.) Der Chor in den wichtigsten TragOdien der franz<5-
sischen Renaissance, xx, 144 S. m. 2.80.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
250 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Bibliothek, assyriologische, hrsg. v. Frdr. Delitzsch u. Paul Haapt.
XIII. Bd. 2. Hft. gr. 4. L., /. C. Hinrichs' VerU^z. Craig (James A,)
Assyrian and Babylonian Religious Texts, etc. Vol. II. With corrections
to vol. I. xi S. tt. 21 Bl. m. 7.
romanische, brsg. v. Wendelin Foerster. XIV. 8. Halle, M.
Niemeyer, — XIV. Estoria, La, de los quatro dotores de la santa eglesia.
Hrsg. y. Frdr. Laucbert. xiv, 443 S. m. 12.
Brock (Artb.) Quaestionum grammaticarum capita duo. gr. 8. 184 S.
Jurievi (Dorpati). l^^ JC, F» Koekler Sert, m. 3.
Brugmann (Karl) u. DelbrUck (Berthold). Grundriss der ver^eichenden
Grammatik der indogermanischen Spracben. i. Bd. Einleitung u. Laut-
lebre. i. Halfte. Von Karl Brugmann. 2. Bearbeitg. i. Bd. Einleitung
u. Lautlebre. x. HSlfte (§1 bis 694). gr. 8. xlvii» 622 S. Strassburg,
X. J. TrUbner Verl. m. 16.
4. Bd. Vergleichende Syntax der indogerman. Spracben v. B.
DelbrQck. 2. Tbl. gr. 8. xvii, 560 S. Strassburg, AT. /. TrUbner Verl.
m. 15.
Callimacbi bymni et epigrammata. Iterum ed. Udalr. de Wilamowitz-
Moellendorff. 8. 66 S. B., IVeidmann, m. —-80.
Commentaria in Aristotelem graeca. Edita consilio et auctoritate acade-
miae litterarum regiae borussicae. Vol. XIV, pars 2. gr. 8. B., G,
Reimer, — XIV 2. loannis Philoponi in Aristotelis libros de generatione et
corraptione commentaria. Ed. Hieron. Vitelli. x, 356 S. m. 14.
— ^ Vol. XV, gr. 8.— XV. loannis Philoponi in Aristotelis de anima
libros commentaria. Edidit Mich. Hayduck. xix, 670 S. m. 27.
Corpus inscriptionum graecarum Graeciae septentrionalis. Vol. III.
Fasc. I. Fol. B., G, Reimer. Kart. — III x. Inscriptiones graecae Phocidis,
Locridis, Aetoliae, Acarnaniae, insularum maris lonii. Ed. Guil. Ditten-
berger. vii, 212 S. m. 22.50.
Denssen (Paul). Sechzig Upanishad's des Veda. gr. 8. xxvi, 920 S.
L., F. A, Brockhaus, m. 20.
D6rwald (Paul). Die Formenbildungsgesetze des Hebraischen. gr. 8.
vii, X23 S. B., Mayer A* Mailer, m. 2.40.
Eranos. Acta philologica suecana. Ed. Vilelm. LundstrOm. Vol. II.
1897. 4 fascc gr. 8. i. fasc. 48 S. Upsaliae. Leipzig, O, Harrasscwitt
in Komtn. m. 6.
Gassner (Armin.) Das altspanische Verbum. gr. 8. viii, 208 S. Halle,
M. Niemeyer. m. 5.
Grdber (Gust.) Grundriss der romanischen Philologie. II. Bd. 3. Abtlg.
2. Lfg. gr. 8. S. X 29-256. Strassburg, K.J, TrUbner Verl. m. 2.
Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie u. Altertumskunde. Hrsg. v.
Geo. BQhler. IIL Bd. i. Hft. A. u. 2. Hft. gr. 8. Strassburg, K. J.
TrUbner Verl.—lU I. Macdonell (A. A.) Vedic Mythology. 176 S. m.
9. — 2. Hillebrandt (Alfr.) Ritual-Litteratur. Vedische Opfer u. Zauber.
189 S. m. 9.50.
Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-Wissenschaft, hrsg. v. Iwan v.
Mttller. IIL Bd. 3. Abtlg. i. Halfte. gr. 8. MUnchen, C. H. Beck
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
sgn
RECENT PUBLICA TIONS, 2$ I
III 3, I. Jung (Jul.) Grundriss der Geographie v. Italien u. dem Orbis
romanus. 2. Aafl. Mit alphabet Register, viii, 178 S. m. 3.50.
Heusler (Andr.) Zwei Islfinder-Gescbichten, die H^nsna-JxSres a. die
Bandamanna saga, m. Einleitg. n. Glossar hrsg. gr. 8. iv, Ixii, 164 S.
B., Weidmann, m. 4.50.
Homeri Odysseae carmina cum apparatn critico ediderunt J. van Leeuwen
J. F. et M. B. Mendes da Costa. Ed. II. Accedunt tabulae III. Pars I.
Carm. I-XIL gr. 8. xxvii, 292 S. Leiden, A. W, Sijthoff, m. 3.
Jacob] (Herm.) Compositum u. Nebensatz. Studien Ub. die indoger-
man. Sprachentwicklg. gr. 8. z, 127 S. Bonn, F, Cohen, m. 3.
Koschwitz (Ed.) Anleitung zum Stodium der franzOsischen Philologie.
gr. 8. viii, 148 S. Marburg, N. G. Elwerfs Verl, m. 2.50.
Lamer (Joa.) De choriambicis Graecorum poetarum versibus. Diss,
gr. 8. 142 S. L., E, Gr&fe, m. 2.
Lexer (Matthias). Mittelhochdeutsches TaschenwSrterbuch. 5. Aufl.
8. vii, 4x3 s. L., 5". Hirul. m. 5.
Litteraturdenkmaler, lateinische, des XV. u. XVI. Jahrh. Hrsg. v. Max
Herrmann. 13. 8. B., Weidmann, — 13. Macropedius (van Langveldt)
(Georgius). Rebelles u. Aluta. Hrsg. v. Jobs. Bolte. xlii, 104 S. m. 3.
Martin (E.) u. Lienhart (H.) W6rterbuch der elsassischen Mundarten.
Im Auftrage der Landesverwaltg. v. Elsass-Lothringen. (In ca. 6 Lfgn.)
I. Lfg. gr. 8. xvi, x6o S. Strassburg, K. J. Triibner Verl, m. 4.
Neue (Frdr.) Formenlehre der lateinischen Sprache. 3. Bd. Das Verbum.
3. Aufl. V. C. Wagener. 10. u. 11. (Schluss-)Lfg. gr. 8. ii o. S. 577-664.
B., S, Calvary &* Co. Subskr.-Pr., m. 2.40; 3. Bd. kplt., m. 21.
Parmenides* Lehrgedicht. Griechisch u. deutsch v. Herm. Diels. Mit
e. Anh. ab. griech. ThQren n. Schl5sser. gr. 8. 164 S. m. 49 Fig. B.,
G, Reimer, m. 5.
Pedersen (Holger). Aspirationen i Irsk, en sproghistorisk unders^gelse.
I. del. Med et tillaeg : Thesen til den indoevropaeisk sproghistorie. gr. 8.
viii, 200 S. L., M, Spirgatis, m. 4.50.
Philonis Alexandrini opera quae supersunt, edd. Leop. Cohn et Paul.
Wen^lland. Vol. H. Edidit Paul. Wendland. gr. 8. xxxiv, 315S. B.,
G. Reimer, m, 9.
Ed. minor. Vol. IL Recognovit W. 8. xiii, 306 S. Berlin, G.
Reimer, m. 2,
Rerum normannicarum fontes arabici, edidit Alex. Seippel. Fasc I,
textum continens. Progr. gr. 4. 148 S. m. 4 farb. Karten. Christiania,
UniversitdtS'Bibliothek, m. 22.20.
Simon (Joh. Adph.) Exoterische Studien zur antiken Poesie. i. Tl. Zur
Anordng. der Oden, Epoden u. Satiren des Horaz. Lex. -8. iv, 80 S.
Koln, Kolner Verlags-Anstalt u, Druckerei, m. 2.
Studien, romanische, ver6ffentl. v. Emil Ebering. i. u. 2. Hft. B., E,
Ebering, — i. Pillet (Alfr.) Die neuprovenzalischen SprichwOrter der jttn-
geren Cheltenhamer Liederhandschrift. gr. 8. 131 S. m. 3.60. — 2. Erd-
mannsdOrffer (E.) ReimwOrterbuch der Trobadors. 8. vii, 199 S. m. 5.
Testamenti, Veteri8,prophetarum interpretatioistro-croaticasaeculi XVI.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
252 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Ed. V. Jagic. Lex. -8. vii, 316 S. Wien, A, Holthausetu B., Weidmann,
m. 10.
Trombetti (Alfredo). Indogermanische u. semitische Forschungen. gr. 8.
vii, 78 S. Bologna, Fratelli Treves, m. 3.20.
Winckler (Hugo). Altorientalische Forschungen. V. Zur babylonisch-
assyr. Geschichte. Zur phOnicisch-karthag. Geschichte. Zur Geschichte
des alten Arabien. gr. 8. iii u. S. 371-468. L., E, Pfeiffer, m. 6.
Zupitza (Jul.) Alt- u. mittelenglisches Uebungsbuch, m. e. Wdrterbuche.
5. Aufl. V. J. Schipper. gr. 8. viii, 311 S. Wien, W. Braumaller, m. 6;
geb. in Leinw., m. 6.40.
ITALIAN.
Angiolini (Francesco). Vocabolario milanese-italiano. Torino. 8vo,
109 X pp. L. 6.50.
Borsari (L.) Topografia di Roma antica. Milano, 1897. i6mo, 442 pp.
Con 7 tav. L. 4.50.
Caruselli (G.) Sulle origini dei popoli italic!. I. Italianismi della lingua
greca. Palermo. i6mo. L. i.
Decia (G.) Florilegio greco. Parte II-III. 2a impressione. Firenze.
x6mo, pp. 275-797. L. 3.
De Sanctis (Fr.) La letteratura italiana nel secolo XIX. Napoli. i6mo,
619 pp. L. 5.
Librandi (V.) Grammatica albanese. Milano, Man. Hoepli, i6mo,
214 pp. L. 3.
Monaci (Ernesto). Crestomazia italiana dei primi secoli. Citt& di
Castello. 8vo. Fasc. II. L. 10.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
254 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
Hill (G. F.) Sources for Greek History between the Persian and Pelo-
ponnesian Wars. Oxford, Clarendon Press^ 1897.
Huizinga (J.) Die Vidflsaka in het indisch toonell. (Proefschrift.)
Groningen, P, Noordhoff^ 1897.
Journal of the American Oriental Society. Vol. 18, second half. New
Haven, 1897.
Jung (Julius). Grundriss der Geographie von Italien a. dem Orbis
Romanus. 2te umgearb. u. vermehrte Aufl. (Handbuch der klass. Alter-
tumswissenschaft herausg. von I. v. Miiller. Dritter Bd. 3. Abt. i. Halfte.)
Mttnchen, Oskar Beck^ 1897. 3 m. 50 pf.
Kuhns (L. Oscar). The Treatment of Nature in Dante's Divina Corn-
media. New York and London, Edwin Arnold^ 1897. I1.50.
Macdonell(A.) Vedic Mythology. (Grundriss der indo-arischen Philo-
logie u. Altertumskunde. HI. Bd. x. Heft. A.) Strassburg,^./. TrUhner^
1897. 9 m. Subscript* 6.50.
Merrill (Elmer T.) Fragments of Roman Satire from Ennius to Apuleius.
New York, Cincinnati, Chicago, American Book Co, 75 cts.
Mooney (W. D.) A Brief Latin Grammar. New York, Cincinnati,
Chicago, American Book Co,^ 1897. 75 cts.
Muret-Sanders. Encyclopadisches Wdrterbuch der englischen u. deut-
schen Sprache. Teil H (Deutsch-Englisch.) Lfg. 2 : Anbau-anpragcn.
Berlin, Langenscheidtsche Verlagsbuchkandlung, New York, The Interna^
iional News Co, 24 Lfgn. ii i m. 50 pf.
Neuc (Friedrich). Formcnlehre der lateinischen Sprache. Dritter Band.
3te Aufl. von C. Wagener. lote u. iite Lief. Berlin, Calvary 6r» Co,^ 1897.
2.40 m.
A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles. Edited by James
A. H. Murray. Doom-Dziggetai. (Vol. IH.) Oxford, Clarendon Press,
Ss.
Rambeau (A.) et Passy (J.) Chrestomathie fran^aise avec prononciation
figuree. New York, Henry Holt et Cie,^ 1897.
Ramsay (W. M.) Impressions of Turkey during Twelve Years' Wan-
derings. New York, G, P. Putnam^s Sons, London, Hodder 6r* Stoughton,
1897.
Schmid (Wilhelm). Der Atticismus. Registerband. Stuttgart, W,
Kohlhammer^ 1897. 6 m.
Spencer (Frederic). Chapters on the Aims and Practice of Teaching.
Edited by F. S. Cambridge, University Press, New York, Macmillan dr»
Co. I1.75.
Talmud, Babylonian, New edition of. By Michael L. Rodkinson. Vol. IV.
New York, New Talmud Publishing Co,
Thucydides. Book VL Edited by E. C. Marchant. London, Macmillan
&* Co., 1897.
Toepffer (Johannes). Beitrage zur griech. Altertumswissenschaft. Ber-
lin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung^ 1897. 10 m.
Williams (Ralph Olmsted). Some Questions of Good English. Henry
Holt 6r* Co,, 1897.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
AD VER TtSEMBNTS.
LeMCKE & BUECHNER,
Formerly B.WMtMiiuinn A Co.,
Publishers, Booksellers
and importers,
812 Broadway, New York,
With Offices at London^ Leipzig and Paris.
Just Published — the American Edition of
FLUEQEL-SCHMIDT-TANQER'S
School- and Hand-Lexicon of the Qerman and English Languages.
2 vols., large 8vo, half leather, $4.50.
The German-English part separately, I2.60.
Destined to replace the venerable Adler and, more or less, all other
German-English Dictionaries now used in Colleges and High Schools. It
is JQSt the book which Professors of German have been asking us to
supply for many years. When it was not promptly forthcoming, there
was a project considered by these gentlemen for a time to compile a
dictionary here. Happily Fluegel now is ready, and orders for Schools
can be filled. Professors will please communicate with us direct.
Special Notice.
The stock of complete sets in the hands of the management of The
American Journal of Philology was exhausted some time ago, but a
few sets have been made up of late by purchase and exchange. These sets
will be sold at the regular price, $51 for the seventeen volumes, cash to
accompany the order. Of single volumes (I3) Volumes IV and VI cannot
be furnished. Of single numbers (|i) 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, 49, 50, 52 are
wanting. No. 40, which contains the Index to Vols. I-X, is not furnished
separately, but a small edition of the Index itself is for sale at |i.oo a
copy. Address,
B. L. GiLDBRSLEBVK, Baltimore, Md.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
The Macmillan Company's
New Books in Foreign Languages, etc.
An Aid of Great Importance to Students of Early English^
Student's Dictionary of Anglo-Saxon (The). By Henry Swket, M. A.,
Ph. D., LL.D., Corresponding Member of the Munich Academy of
Sciences. Small 4to, cloth, pp. xvi + 217. Price, |i.7S net.
The Anglo-Saxon Primer and Reader by Henry Sweet are so well known
that this needs no introduction; they rank at once among the books
necessary to every student of Anglo-Saxon.
FRENCH.
BIART. — Quand J'etais Petit. Histoire d'un Enfant racont^e par un
Homme. By Lucien Biart. Adapted for Use in Schools, with Notes
and Vocabulary by James BoIelle, B. A. Part I. i6mo, cloth. Pitt
Press Series. Price, 50 cents net.
MOLIERE — L'Avare. Par J.-B. P. MoLiiRE. Edited with Introduc-
tion and Notjcs by E. G. W. Braunholtz, M.A., Ph.D., University
Lecturer in French. i6mo, cloth, pp. xlvii-l-245. Pitt Press Series.
Price, 70 cents net.
GERMAN.
MACMILLAN*S FOREIGN SCHOOL CLASSICS. Edited by G.
Eugene Fasnacht. LESSINQ. — Minna von Bamhelm. Edited
with Introduction and Notes by Rev. Charles Merk, M. A., Ph. D.,
Leipzig. i2mo, cloth, pp. lxviii-{- 224. Price, 75 cents net.
AMERICANA GERMANICA. A Quarterly devoted to the Comparative
Study of the Literary, Linguistic and other Cultural Relations of
Germany and America. Editor, Professor M. D. Learned, of the
University of Pennsylvania. Vol. I, No. i. Single number, 75 cents.
Annual subscription, $2.00.
ENGLISH.
BARRERE and LELAND.^A Dictionary of Slang, Jargon, and Cant.
Embracing English, American and Anglo-Indian Slang, Pidgin English,
Gypsies' Jargon, and other irregular phraseology. Compiled and
edited by Albert Barr^re, Officier de IMnstruction publique; Pro-
fessor R. M. a. Woolwich, author of 'Argot and Slang,* etc, etc.;
and Charles G. Leland, M. A., Hon. F. R. S. L., author of *The
Breitmann Ballads,' *The English Gypsies and their Language,' etc.*
etc. In 2 vols. Vol. I, A-K, pp. xix-f-soo; vol. II, L-Z, pp. 415.
Crown 8vo. Price, $4.00.
In Preparation.
GERMAN.
HEINE.— Selections from Heine. Edited with Notes and Introduction
by C. A. BucHHEiM, Professor of German Literature in King's College.
Uniform with Deutsche Lyrik, Golden Treasury Series.
The Macmillan Company, 66 Fifth Ave., New York.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
AD VER TISEMENTS,
THE FRIEDENWALD
COMPANY,
Printers,
Lithographers,
Book Binders,
BALTIMORE, EUTAW AND GERMAN STREETS,
BALTIMORE, MD.
THE LEADING HOUSE,
Printers of the American Journal of Philology, American
Journal of Mathematics, Memoirs from the Biolog-
ical Laboratory, Studies in Historical and
Political Science, issued by the Johns
Hopkins University.
ESTIMATES CHEERFULLY SUBMITTED.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
INDISPENSABLE TO EVERY LATIN TEACHER.
OILDBRSLEEVE'S LATIN ORAMMAR.
THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND ENLARGED.
By B. L. GiLDBRSLSEVE, Ph. D., Professor of Greek in the Johns Hopkins
University, Editor of the American Joarnal of Philology, and Gonzalez
Lodge, Ph. D., Associate Professor of Latin in Bryn Mawr College, Pa.
550 pp. Cloth, 9x.ao.
For school and college use^ the new edition of Gildenleeve's Latin Grammar, in point of
fulness, accuracy and convenience, rivals, if it does not surpass, all Latin grammars with
which I am acquainted.— J. P. Postgatb, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, England.
It is a superfluous compliment to praise any work of Prof. Gildersleeve, who never does
any which is not praiseworthy.— W. W. Goodwin, Ph. D., Eliot Prof, of Greek Literature,
Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass.
CAESAR'S CIVIL WAR,
With Maps and Vocabularies. Edited for the use of Schools, with refer-
ences to the Latin Grammars of Gildersleeve, Allen and Greenough,
and Harkness. By B. Perrin, Ph. D., Professor of Greek in Yale
University. i2mo, 348 pp. Price, Cloth, $z.oo.
Prof. Tract Pbck, Yale University. New Haven, says: "It is matter for congratulation
that at last, and so auspiciously, the 'Civil War' has been made available and attractive for
American schools."
Prof. W. A. Packard, College of New Jersey, Princeton. N. J., says: "Perrin's 'Civil
War' is thoroughly and skillfully edited, and is a welcome addition to our preparatory text-
books in Latin."
UNIVERSITY PUBLISHING COMPANY,
Boston, 352 Wathington St. 43, 45, 47 E. Tenth St., NEW YORK.
Nkw Orleans, 714-716 Canal St, [4T.
ESSAYS AND STUDIES
BY
BASIL LANNEAU GILDERSLEEVE
J20 pages, small quarto, bound in cloth. Price, tj-SO («^0«
Educational Essays: — i. Limits of Culture. 2. Classics and
Colleges. 3. University Work in America. 4. Grammar
and Aesthetics.
Literary and Historical Studies: — i. Legend of Venus.
2. Xanthippe and Socrates. 3. ApoUonius of Tyana.
4. Lucian. 5. The Emperor Julian. 6. Platen's Poems.
7. Maximilian ; his Travels and his Tragedy. 8. Occa-
sional Addresses.
N. MURRAY,
The Johns Hopkins Press,
Oct., 1890. Baltimore, Md.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
AD VER TISEMENTS,
HELPS IN CLASSICAL STUDY.
HARPER'S CLASSICAL DICTIONARY.
Harper's Dictionary of ClasAical Literature and Antiquities. Edited by Hakkt Thur-
STON Pbck, M. a.. Ph. D.p Professor of the Latin Languages and Literature in Columbia
University, City of New York. With the cooperation of many special contributors.
Pp. xvi, 1 701. with about 1500 illustrations. Royal 8to, cloth, $6.00; half leather, $8.00.
Tvro-Tolume edition, cloth, $7.00.
Unquestionably, in many respects, the most authoritative work of the kind that has vet
been published. ... In short, this is what the editor claims for it— a classical encyclopaedia.
There is no one volume on the market at once so complete and so succinct, and whose vast
collection of information is so readily and immediately accessible. — N, V, Hgr€Ud,
The student of classical antiquity, whether in art, life, religion, or literature, will find the
volume a whole library of information, admirably arranged for practical use. . . . The text is
clear, terse, and pointed. — Chicago Inttr^Octan,
MODERN GREEK MASTERY.
A Short Road to Ancient Greek. By Thomas L. Stbdman, A. M., M. D. Pp. viii, 380.
I^Mt 8vo, cloth, $1.50.
Dr. Stedman has filled a very actual want. ... A work by means of which the mastery of
the so-called modern Greek language will be very greatly facilitated and that of the ancient
will be made more easjr. . . . The parts dealing with the conjugation of the verb, especially
the sections on the aorist and future, are written with the greatest clearness, and are readily
comprehensible. . . . There never has been published in the English language such a practical
method for the mastery of the Greek tongue; and our opinion is that this important and, as
far as that is possible, perfect work of Dr. Stedman is a production of great weight.— ^//aM/tr,
New York.
AN ENQLISH-QREEK DICTIONARY.
A Concise Dictionary of the English and Modern Greek Languages, as Actually Written
and Spoken. By A. M. Jannasis, Ph. D. English*Greek. Pp. xvi, 436. Post 8vo, cloth,
la.50.
The author has endeavored to render this work compact and concise by employing a judicious
system of abbreviation and by omitting all references and quotations. The Dook is of interest
to the student of Classic Greek who possesses any tendency towards philology. The extinc-
tion of the present infinitive, of the optative, and of part of the imperative will be noticed in
examining the verb. Likewise the replacing of the dative by the accusative, the disappear-
ance of rho final, and the abandonment of the reduplication in nouns and participles. Archaic
or learned, colloquial, literary and ecclesiastical expressions are all given, and are marked
with different siens. Careful comparison reveals the Roman, Byzantine, or Turkish influence
in some of the older forms, and the tendency towards learned Greek in the present Restoration
Period of the languages.
PROFESSOR GILDERSLEEVE*S PINDAR.
Pindar: The Olympian and Pythian Odes. With Introductory Essay. Notes, and Indexes.
By Basil L. Gildbkslbbvb, Professor of Greek in the Johns Hopkins University.
Pp. cxvi, 396. xamo, cloth, ft. 50.
Prepared with great exzctneMt.—Brookfyn Union.
Never before did the appearance of an American edition of a Greek poet so nearly approach
an 'event' in scholastic circles as the publication of Gildersleeve's ' Pindar.'— A^tfW York
Times,
Pour ceux qui commencent I'^tude de Pindare rien ne sauraic remplacer ce livre.— i?/vtM tU
Philologie,
PROFESSOR QILDERSLEEVE*S PERSIUS.
The Satires of A. Persius Flaccus. Edited by Basil L. Gildbrslbbvb, Ph. D. (G6t>
tingen), LL. D., Professor of Greek in the Johns Hopkins University. Pp. 73a. ismo,
cloth. 90 cents. By mail, fz.oo.
I discover in it at once ample evidence of the accurate and thorough scholarship which I
expected to find. ... I have myself found instruction and recreation in it. The 'Introduc-
tion' and 'Notes' are as good a whetstone as the 'Satires' themselves. — W. S. Tylbs,
Professor of Greek, Amherst College.
JUSTIN MARTYR.
The Apologies of Justin Martyr. To which is appended the Epistle to Diognetus. With
an Introduction and Notes by Basil L. Gildbrslbxvb, Ph. D. (Gfitt.). LL. D., Professor
of Greek in the Johns Hopkins University. Pp. xlii, 390. zsmo, cloth, ^i.jo. By mail.
Published by HARPER & BROTHERS, New York.
Th* above works art for sale by all booksellers, or will be sent by the Publishers on receipt
of Price, 1/ ordered sent by mail^ lo/er cent, must be added to cover cost 0/ Postage, [at.
Digitized by^
THE JOHNS HOPKINS PRESS,
I. American Journal of Mathematics.
Edited by T. Craig, with tlie co-operation of S. Nswcomb. Quarterly.
4to. Volume XIX in progress. $5 per volume.
II. American Chemical Journal.
I. KsMSBN, Editor. Ten numbers a year. 8vo. Volume XIX in progress.
$4 per volume.
III. American Journal of Philology.
B. L. GiLDSRSLEEVE, Editor. Quarterly. 8vo. Volume XVII complete.
$3 per volume. Index to Vols. I-X, $1,
IV. Studies from the Biological Laboratory. 8vo. Volume V complete.
$5 per volume.
V. Studies in Historical and Political Science.
H. B. Adams, Editor. Monthly. 8vo. Volume XV in progress. $3 per
volume.
VI. Johns Hopkins University Circulars.
Containing reports of scientific and literary work in progress in Baltimore.
4to. Vol. XVI in progress. $1 per year.
VII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin. 4to. Monthly. Volume VIII in
progress. $1 per year.
VIII. Johns Hopkins Hospital Reports. 4to. Volume VI in progress. ^5
per volume.
IX. Contributions to Assyriolog^ and Comparative Semitic Philology.
(Beitrsige zur Assyriologie, etc.) Vol. Ill in progress.
X. Memoirs from the Biological Laboratory.
W. K. Brooks, Editor. Volume III complete. $7.50 per volume.
XI. Annual Report.
Presented by the President to the Board of Trustees, reviewing the opera-
tions of the University during the past academic year.
XII. Annual Register.
Giving the list of officers and students, and stating the regulations, etc, of
the University. Published at the close of the academic year.
In addition to the serials above named, copies may be obtained of the works
mentioned below :
The Critical Edition of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament.
Edited by Professor Paul Haupt. Prospectus on application.
Rowland's Photograph of the Normal Solar Spectrum. 10 plates.
$20.00.
Description of the Johns Hopkins Hospital. J. S. Billings, Editor.
116 pp. 4to. 56 plates. $7.50, cloth.
The Teaching of the Apostles. Complete facsimile edition. Edited by
J. Rendel Harris, no pp. 4to. 10 plates. $5.00.
Reproduction in Phototype of a Syriac MS with the Antilbgombna
Epistles. Edited by I. H. Hall. I3.
The Oyster. By W. K. Brooks. 240 pp. i2mo. 14 plates. $1.00.
Studies in Logic By members of the Johns Hopkins University. C. S.
Pierce, Editor. 123 pp. i2mo. $2.00, cloth.
The Constitution of Japan, with Speeches, etc, illustrating its significance.
48 pp. i6mo. 50 cents.
BiBLiOGRAPHiA HoPKiNSiENSis. Part I. Philology. Parts Il-in. Chemistry,
Mineralogy and Geology. Parts IV-V-VI. Physics, Astronomy and
Mathematics. 8vo. 30 cents per part.
A full list of publications will be sent on application.
Communications in respect to exchanges and remittances may be
tent to The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, Maryland.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY
Vol. XVIII, 3. Whole No. 71.
I.— THE ETHICS AND AMENITIES OF GREEK
HISTORIOGRAPHY.^
The great Bishop of the fourth century, the Christian Hero-
dotus, ''making it his object to show that heathen lore was
generally false and foolish," quotes first from Clement of Alex-
andria proofs that Greek literature was full of plagiarism (Praepar.
Evang. X 2). He then more gladly draws his proofs from
Porphyry, the great antagonist of Christianity in the third
century. Porphyry describes a symposium to commemorate
the name of Plato, held in Athens at the home of his master, the
great Platonist, Longinus. The literjury chat at this symposium
may well give"u§*"th«>^best Athenian opinion of the third century
of our era. As the symposium advances a lover of Ephorus and
a lover of TheopQmpus get by the ears in advocacy of their
favorite historians. The heated debate proves that both Ephorus
and Theopompus were wholesale thieves, Theopompus particu-
larly. He stole a good story about Pythagoras from Andron of
Ephesus, merely changing name and place. He stole large
material from Xenophon's HelUnica, changing only for the
worse. "Yes,** said ApoUonius the grammarian, and he surely
.knew, "Ephorus and Theopompus, being lazy men, stole as a
matter of course. But catalogues have been made of the thefts of
such men as Sophocles and Menander. Hyperides stole from
Demosthenes, Hellanicus took chapters of barbarian customs
from Herodotus, as Herodotus had taken much from Hecataeus
^ President's Address at the 28th annual session of the Am. Phil. Ass., Bryn
Mawr, Pa., July 6, 1897.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
256 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
with trifling changes. Hesiod's primal testimony — * Nothing
better than a good woman, nothing worse than a bad one,' is
stolen by Simonides and Euripides. Nay," said Apollonius,
** there is a library of writers on literary theft — " a library of
klopediaSy "that I may not be found out to be a thief myself
on theft. There is Lysimachus — two books on the thievery of
Ephorus, Polio — a book on the thievery of Herodotus," etc.
Then up spake the banqueter Prosenes, "Ye have shown all the
rest to be thieves," said he, "but I declare that even the divine
Plato himself, whose memory we honor in this banquet, made
great use of his predecessors, not to call it thievery." "What
sayest thou ! " cried one aghast. " I not only say," replied the
sacrilegious Prosenes, " but I can prove what I say, though Plato's
predecessors wrote few books." And he does so by many
instances.
To a company of Platonists, then, gathered at a banquet in
Athens towards the middle of the third century of our era, the
most salient feature of Greek literature in general, and of Greek
historiography in particular, was its klepHcistn. And this opinion
of Athenians of the third century is urged by Christian writers of
the fourth century in their crusade against pagan literature as such.
Lucian will represent for us the opinion of a versatile and gifted
cosmopolitan Greek of the second century. His criticisms apply
mainly, it is true, to the historiography of his day. But his his-
torians are Greek, with Greek models and literary inheritances.
And Lucian*s attitude toward the great models of his victims is
seen incidentally. He brings very serious charges against the
historians of his own day (Quomodo Hist. Conscr. passim).
First, servile flattery of generals and leaders, encomium instead
of history, whereas — and here sounds the oft-recurring Thucy-
didean tone in Lucian — posterity should be the approvers of a
historical work, not contemporaries.
Second, poetical instead of prose canons;, one law, viz. the
pleasure of the author and his audience, and in obedience to this
law every species of poetical embellishment; epic invocations to
muses; such dangerous Homeric comparisons as that of the
Roman general to Achilles, and his Parthian antagonist to Ther-
sites ; tedious epic descriptions.
Third, self-praise, exaltation of the historian's native city, and
of his opportunities as a historian.
Fourth, indiscriminate appropriation of the successful compo*
Digitized^yVjOOQlC
GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY, 257
sitions of predecessors ; Herodotean and Thucydidean exordia \
the funeral oration of Pericles adapted to a new funeral.
Fifth, invention of extravagant exploits; false statistics of
armies engaged and of losses in battle, altogether regardless
of official reports.
Plagiarism and falsehood, then, are prominent in Lucian's
charges against the historians of his day. Theopompus he calls
a general viliiier, Ctesias a general liar. Ctesias is blamed, how-
ever, not for lying, but for supposing that people would not know
that he was lying (Vera Hist. 4).
Josephus, the learned Hebrew warrior, statesman and historian
of the first century, whom Jerome calls the Greek Livy, whom
we may call the Hebrew Polybius — ^Josephus had occasion to
review critically the historiography of the Greeks (Contra
Apion.). Their lack of agreement on the same subject is what
he specially emphasizes, and the acrimonious correction of each
by his successor. Hesiod is accused of falsehood and corrected
by Acusilaus, he says, Acusilaus by Hellanicus. Then Ephorus
shows that Hellanicus lies in most that he says, Ephorus in turn
is attacked and corrected by Timaeus, Timaeus by his successors,
and Herodotus by everybody. Not plagiarism or klepticism^
then, is the burden of the arraignment which Josephus makes of
the Greek historians, but falsehood. They are not only xXcirrat,
but ^vtrrai, and Herodotus is the arch-liar. The Atthides^
Josephus says, all differ from each other, so do the Argolic annals,
and the histories called ktIqw. Above all, in the histories of the
Persian wars the most famous historians are widely at variance.
Even Thucydides, he says, is accused by many of lying.
This sweeping charge of Josephus is only an echo of charges
made by the Greeks themselves. Strabo complains (p. 341) that
the ancient writers, like Hecataeus, "say much that is false,''
because they were reared on £adsehood in their mythography.
Therefore they do not agree with one another on the same
theme. This is significant from a man who regarded Homer
as an epitome of all knowledge. But we find no better agree-
ment among the later writers whom Strabo uses. They not
only do not agree with one another, but each in turn accuses his
predecessor of falsehood. Starting with Timaeus, the arch-
censor, Timaeus 'Epitimaeus, — Timaeus says that the greatest
fault in history, by which he means the Greek historians, is want
of truth. And he accordingly advises all whom he has convicted
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
258 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
of making false statements in their writings, to find some other
name for their ,books, and to call them anything they like except
history (Polyb. XII 12). Now Timaeus convicted all his pre-
decessors of falsehood, to say nothing of other faults, and seems
to have spared no contemporary. " He makes such a parade of
minute accuracy," says Polybius, "and inveighs so bitterly when
refuting others, that people come to imagine that all other histo-
rians have been mere dreamers, and have spoken at random in
describing the world" (Polyb. XII 26, Shuckburgh's translation).
But this arch-censor found his own censor, judge and executioner,
all in one. What historical sin is not charged upon Timaeus in
that fearful book which Polybius devotes especially to him?
Malevolent, deliberate falsehood ; mendacious omissions ; coarse,
partisan abuse; simulated veracity; manufactured evidence;
childish ignorance; neglect of personal inquiry; incomplete
study of his subjects ; great professions and scant performance.
He is inaccurate and untrustworthy even when reporting the
evidence of his own eyes ; he is ill-informed and easily misled
about localities where he was born and bred; he is uncritical,
undignified, swayed by personal jealousies and animosities; he
is a carping, false, impudent, unphilosophical, paradoxical, obsti-
nate, vituperative word-juggler.
Polybius may have found a severe judge in his successor, Posi-
donius, and Posidonius in Strabo. Plutarch may say of Duris of
Samos (Pericles, 28) that he lied even when he had no conceivable
motive for lying, and much more when he had personal griev-
ances. But surely the grand climax in the critical depreciation
of a predecessor is reached in this twelfth book of Polybius. All
else of this nature in the long line of further historical transmission
has the diminishing intensity of a dramatic exodos.
It is the culmination of a long practice, so long as to have
become a literary tradition. To the Hesiodic poet, the Homeric
poet is a liar. He sings of what never was. Didactic poetry
must teach men the truth. But the truth is just what Acusilaus
and the earliest logographers miss in Hesiod and didactic poetry.
They will therefore tell the truth in prose. But their effort seems
to have been vain, for Hecataeus begins his genealogies with a
scornful reference to their lack of veracity. "These things I
write, as I think them to be true. For the stories of the Hellenes
are many and ridiculous." By "the Hellenes" he means Acusi-
laus particularly, his predecessor and main source, a literary
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY, 259
mannerism which can be traced from Hecataeus through Hero-
dotus to Pausanias.
But Hecataeus in his turn is found ridiculous by his great suc-
cessor, Herodotus, for whom he served as an important source.
How the Father of History makes merry at the expense of the
Father of Chartography. and of his absurd theory of ocean cur-
rents! "It makes me laugh," he says (IV 36), "to see so many
people drawing maps of the world, and not a man of them
describing it sensibly. They draw Oceanus flowing round the
earth, which is a perfect circle, and they make Asia and Europe
of the same size." It is well that Herodotus had his laugh before
his successors took hold of him. For everybody corrects and
ridicules Herodotus, as Josephus says, and "everybody," for us,
includes Professor Sayce.
And who does not know the magnificent scorn which Thucy-
dides has for Herodotus? The great trait of the jcr^/ia h ati
should be its truth, even though it lacked the charm of the mythic
falsehood. But neither Thucydides, the father of what the
modern world calls history, who invented the art of determining
from what is handed down what really was, nor his great con-
temporary Hellanicus, the founder of scientific chronology, escape
the charge of falsehood from their successors, Ephorus and
Theopompus, who, in their turn, as we have seen, come under
the sweeping censures of Timaeus-Epitimaeus. And of him
Polybius says (XII 25), "Those who are most ready at finding
fault with others are most prone to error in their own life."
This general principle may safely be applied to the long line of
celebrities in Greek historiography, especially since we find
Polybius sharply criticising Fabius Pictor, Philinus and Phylar-
chus for the very defects which are most conspicuous in himself.
To the early Christian scholars, then, to the cosmopolitan
Lucian, to Josephus, Greek historians are thieves and liars, and
the successive Greek historians themselves have this same opinion
of their predecessors. On the ethical side, therefore, Greek
historiography, judging from the opinions of those who knew it
best, left much to be desired. The studies of our own later times
lengthen this list of its ethical shortcomings, and find in it,
besides, a surprising lack of the fine amenities which characterize
modern historical transmission, even when it is polemical or con-
troversial.
This constant depreciation, this contempt for a predecessor, is
always most pronounced when that predecessor is most generously
Digitized by
Gangtr-
260 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Utilized. Hecataeus treated with bold and harsh scepticism the
oral and literary tradition on which he based his genealogies.
Herodotus could hardly have written his second and fourth books
had it not been for the pioneer work of Hecataeus, and yet he
mentions Hecataeus only once by name, and that to mock at
his aristocratic lineage. He refers to him often by vague plurals
or gentile adjectives, but then only to correct, complete, or ridicule.
The note of obligation is never sounded. The tone of con-
temptuous superiority is never absent.
So Thucydides makes his stately introduction a labored depre-
ciation of the great work of Herodotus, by which, more than by
anything else, his survey of the history prior to his own point of
departure is made possible. That great work was the tale of a
chronicler who sought to please the ear rather than to speak the
truth (I 20). Thucydides will not so much as write the name of
Herodotus, but denies the greatness of his theme, and refuses to
admit the essential truth of his narrative. He protests also against
the seductive charm of his manner. He does once break this
contemptuous silence about his literary sources, and scornfully
accuses Hellanicus of insufficiency and inaccuracy, but at just the
point where he is obliged to use Hellanicus most freely (I 97, 2).
Ephorus and Theopompus in their day and generation despise
both Herodotus, Thucydides and Hellanicus, and yet they often
merely rewrite the material furnished them by these predecessors.
And so on down the line. Even Polybius devotes a book to the
crushing of Timaeus-Epitimaeus at just the point where his obli-
gations to Timaeus become greatest. Polybius can rise to a much
higher level, it is true. He can even approach the best modern
• sentiment of obligation toward a predecessor. "Judging from their
lives and principles," he says of his sources Philinus and Fabius
(I xiv), " I do not suppose that these writers have intentionally
stated what was false ; but I think that they are much in the same
state of mind as men in love. Partisanship and complete pre-
possession made Philinus think that all the actions of the Cartha-
ginians were characterized by wisdom, honor, and courage;
those of the Romans by the reverse. Fabius thought the exact
opposite." "One must not shrink, however, either from blaming
one's friends or praising one's enemies ; nor be afraid of finding
fault with and commending the same persons at different times."
" For it is impossible that men engaged in public affairs should
always be right, and unlikely that they should always be wrong."
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY, 261
And yet this same Polybius speaks in his polemic against Timaeus
as though the profit one got from one's predecessors was the
malicious joy of detecting their errors. "Study of documents,"
he says, "involves no danger or fatigue, if one takes care to lodge
in a city rich in such records, or to have a library in one's neigh-
borhood. You may then investigate any question while reclining
on your couch, and compare the mistakes of former historians
without any pain to yourself" (XII 27). But it needs no further
citation to show that the fine sentiment of obligation to pioneer
predecessors, a sentiment which permeates the best modern
writing, and which we find also in Pliny, Jerome, and Plutarch, is
wholly lacking in Greek historiography. The note of obligation
is never sounded ; the tone of contemptuous superiority is seldom
absent.
Aggressive ingratitude, like that now described, is of course
more striking, but perhaps no more objectionable to the best
modern spirit than the ingratitude of silence. In Greek historio-
graphy, before as well as after the days of compilations and com-
pends, there is steadfast reluctance to name a source at all. This
is one thing that makes source-criticism at once so fascinating and,
in the main, so fruitless. The feeling is even more than mere
reluctance to name, it is desire to conceal a source. And the
charge must not be laid at the doors of Herodotus or Pausanias, or
other great scape-goats of criticism alone. It is equally true of
Aristotle. '* Seinen Autor zu verschweigen," says Diels, " das ist ja
antike Sitte." Herodotus treats Hecataeus in this matter exactly
as Aristotle treats Herodotus. The great chronographers built
further on the system of Eratosthenes, giving him either no
thanks at all, or blame. The practice has been found to be so
fixed and constant, that what Ernst Curtius said of Pausanias
early in the century must now be exactly reversed, till it takes on
paradoxical form. The fact that Pausanias does not mention
certain authors, instead of proving that he did not use them,
proves rather that he did.
Having thus noticed the tendency in the Greek historians to
depreciate or conceal the literary sources to which they are most
largely indebted, it is natural to refer next to the tendency to
parade special sources, oral, written or monumental, which do
not exist, perhaps never did exist, or at least did not exist when
the author claims to have used them. Fictitious witnesses are
quoted, impossible documents are cited, long-vanished monu"
Digitized by
Go6gIe
262 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
ments are restored by the magic formula In Ka& ^fias — "down to
my day." Instances abound from Herodotus to Plutarch.
Cephalion in Hadrian's time cites a letter from Priam to the
Assyrian king Teutamus, begging for succor now that Hector
was slain (Eusebius, Chron. p. 41, apud Miiller, F. H. G. HI, p.
626). This we may perhaps explain as a bold extension of the
demegoric principle which developed the speeches of Thucydides
and Livy. But Dio Chrysostom, writing at Rome toward the end
of the first century (Or. XI 148 f.), tells us that he heard a Mede
say that the Persians do not agree at all with the Hellenic accounts
of the Persian wars. The Persians say that Darius sent Datis and
Artaphernes against Naxos and Eretria, and they took those cities
and retiurned straightway to the king. As they lay at anchor near
Euboea, a few ships— not above twenty in all — straggled off toward
Attica. Their crews had a skirmish with the people who lived
on shore. Such was the Persians' Marathon. After this, they
say, Xerxes made an expedition against Hellas, conquered the
Spartans at Thermopylae and slew their king, then took Athens,
destroyed it, and sold its inhabitants into slavery. Then he
imposed tribute on the Hellenes, and returned to Asia. For the
Persians, then, there was no Salamis at all.
Now who was this Mede, the informant of Chrysostom ? An
imaginary person, and his version of the Persian wars is the
version Dio imagines that a Persian might give. But here is a
rather startling parade of oral source.
So when Plutarch tries to solve that great puzzle of Athenian
wisdom, from what teacher did Themistocles get his wonderful
training? he takes refuge from two dubious answers which he
finds proposed — Anaxagoras, Melissus — with "those who say
that Themistocles was a disciple of Mnesiphilus, who was a
sort of practical, natural statesman, inheriting from Solon and
bequeathing to the Sophists" (Them. II 4). Now who are these
who say this of Mnesiphilus, that malicious invention of Athenian
local tradition to rob Themistocles of the glory of Salamis, whom
Herodotus all too willingly adopts ? None say this save Plutarch.
It is his own delightful yvii\i.i\ which he here parades before us
under the cloak of a vague " they say."
Akin to this parade of fictitious authorities is the ostentation of
entire originality, like that so suspiciously claimed by the Father
of History. "Others have written of this," he says (VI 55), "I
will therefore omit it. But what others have not touched upon,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
■ ^^^ ,i^ <
GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY. 263
of this I will make mention." Had not others "touched upon*'
Egypt and Scythia and Libya, how would the Father's great
geographical excursus have looked? In just this way, if we may
trust Clement, Acusilaus translated Hesiod into prose, Kai va tdta
cgiyw^Kev, "and published it as his own" (Strom. VI, p. 629 A).
Here belongs also in our list of literary sins the constantly recur-
ring claim of autopsy by the historian, where we know that
autopsy was impossible. Here, too, the claims of special advan-
tages never enjoyed, of extensive travels never undertaken, of
long periods of time never spent upon the work. A typical
example will suffice. Diodorus begins his immense bibliotheca
with a long elaboration of the theme of the great lack of general
histories and universal compends, in spite of their great useful-
ness. He claims to have spent thirty years of unremitting toil
upon the work, and to have journeyed over Asia and Europe, pro-
tected by the aegis of the Roman Empire, in order to secure the
advantages of autopsy. But thirty years is a fabulously long time
for the preparation of such a work as that of Diodorus is seen to
be, there is no trace of autopsy in the work, and no claim to it
elsewhere, except in the borrowed words of his sources, and the
whole is a mechanical copy of a famous passage of Polybius
(III 59). "Ctesias," says Lucian (V. H. I 3), "wrote many
things about India and its peoples which he had never seen him-
self, nor heard another tell." But Ctesias claimed both to have
seen himself and to have heard from others.
When quotations and citations are made by the Greek histo-
rians, how unsatisfactory to modern ethical standards, which are
perhaps never too high, the procedure is ! The practice of citing at
second or third hand confuses all our science. Even the encyclo-
paedic Aristotle takes quotations from Plato, or at least alludes
to them because Plato had. He mentions Herodotus only once
in the 'KBi\vaUv iroUrtla, but either uses him freely elsewhere
without citing him, or quotes him here only because his imme-
diate source so quotes him. Citation is made, as we have seen,
for unimportant details, or else for controversial minutiae, when
the whole context as well is borrowed. Specific authors are
hidden behind nebulous plurals or gentile adjectives. Real
sources are concealed, and others suggested. Eldest sources of
late compends are cited from the compends, with archaistic effect,
ignoring the compends. This may be a valuable practice for us,
and the fruit of a learned and scholastic spirit, but it is contrary
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
264 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
to our ethics. And when at last we come to the compilers, and
to Diodorus their chief, how the ethics and amenities stagger
us ! Large inheritances of questionable practice from original
sources are here employed without attempt at concealment.
''The only privilege of the original man," says Lowell, "is that,
like other sovereign princes, he has the right to call in the current
coin and reissue it stamped with his own image/' In this sense
Herodotus is original. He restamps before reissuing. So do
Ephorus, Timaeus, and Poly bins, to great extent. But the com-
pilers simply reissue. They reissue with the personal judgments,
local colors, political combinations, and architectural monuments
of bygone centuries still intact and unchanged. And over all the
gaping seams they try to cast the mantle of some master's grand
manner.
On either side of this long list of what, from the modern point
of view, seem to be literary malpractices, let us hang the two
portraits of the true historian drawn by Poly bins and Lucian.
The true historian, says Polybius (XH passim)^ will be a man
of action, versed in political and military affairs. He will not con-
fine himself to the study of documents and monuments merely,
although he will not neglect these. He will study carefully and
in person the topography of the actions he describes. He will
ask questions of as many people as possible who are connected
in any way with the events or places which he is describing, and
he will believe those most worthy of credit, and show critical
sagacity in judging all their reports. He will be a man of dignity
and good sense. When he resolves to retaliate upon a personal
enemy, he will think first, not of what that enemy deserves, but
of what it is becoming in himself to do to that enemy ; what his
self-respect will allow him to say of that enemy.
The true historian, says Lucian (Quomodo Hist. Conscr. pas-
sim) ^ will be a man of natural gifts, with an interpretative power
cultivated after the best models. He will have acquaintance with
politics and armies. He will be fxiyvvnyf rather than rroiTnJff, trans-
mitter rather than producer. He will not try to determine what
it was that happened, but how it happened, inasmuch as it has
already happened (Wfrpajcrai yap ^diy). He will aim to be under-
stood by the many, and will therefore call figs figs and spades
spades^ but he will aim to be praised by the cultured. The best
preparation for his work will be persona] experience; but if this is
impossible, he will follow the best and most incorruptible narra-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY, 265
tors. Above all things he will be iXtvdfpog in spirit — a freeman,
knowing no fear and courting no favor. He will convert the v\rj
of historical material into the fair shape of history, as Phidias
his gold and ivory and wood into the Athena Parthenos.
Of the Polybian standard Josephus may have thought when he
said of his own qualifications for writing a history of the Jewish
war, " Of many things I was myself the cause, of most the eye-
witness, and I am ignorant of nothing said or done." Before
Lucian the great work of Thucydides seems to have stood as
model. And at the very opening of scientific Greek historio-
graphy we have that great master's severe conception of the work
and calling of the true historian. " If he who desires to have
before his eyes a true picture of the events which have happened,
and of the like events which may be expected to happen here-
after in the order of human things, shall pronounce what I have
written to be useful, then I shall be satisfied. My history is an
everlasting possession, not a prize composition which is heard
and forgotten" (I 22). This conception surely was in the mind
of Mommsen when he closed the introduction to the fifth volume
of his great history with the words : " mit Entsagung ist dies
Buch geschrieben, und mit Entsagung mochte es gelesen sein."
Greek historiography, then, constantly alleges against itself
falsehood and theft while professing truth and originality. It
uniformly depreciates the predecessor and main literary source.
It labors to conceal or openly denies obligation to predecessors
when obligation is the strongest. It assumes qualifications,
advantages, originality, sources and methods which are fictitious.
And yet early in its development it presents, and it constantly
reverts to, the loftiest ideals. How can this anomaly be explained ?
No one can claim that the sense of truth and the instinct of
obligation for benefits received were as keen in the best ancients
as they are in the best moderns. With the increased richness of
content in modern life and thought has come also increased
sensitiveness in matters regarding truth and honor. We have
plagiarisms still : whole sermons in the New York pulpit, whole
books in the New York publishers' lists, thoughts and expressions
consciously and unconsciously appropriated everywhere. But
the practice is not tolerated, much less is it canonized, and the
practitioner is pilloried when detected. We have historical
frauds still, as all will admit who remember the elaborate paper
on "The Secession of Jones Co., Missouri," in the Magazine of
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
266 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
American History for October, 1886 (pp. 387-90), exposed in the
New York Nation six years later (March 24, 1892, March 31,
1892). But such frauds are not common, and are certainly not
encouraged. They do not add to the reputation of a historian
who perpetrates them. But it would be gross injustice to attribute
the superiority in the ethics and amenities of modern historiography
over the ancient Greek' merely and wholly to the higher ethical
tone of modern life and its increase in justice and politeness*
There were certain special causes, no longer existing, which pro-
duced in ancient Greek historiography features which seem to us
so reprehensible.
In the first place, Greek historiography was rooted and grounded
in poetry and mythography, as Strabo says in a passage already
quoted (p. 341). Between the epos and Thucydides came
logography, which to us seems hardly more than a transfer of
poetical to prose narration. To the logographers themselves,
however, it was evidently much more. It was truth as opposed
to fiction, fact rescued from overwhelming fancy. Indeed, that
development of epic poetry which we call Hesiodic was itself an
appeal from the exuberant fancies of the Homeric poems to a
soberer truth. Not -^M^a voWa \iy€iv €TVfioiaiif Sfuna, but oKrfBta
Xeyciv was its aim. This desire to speak the truth must have been
the leading motive in the early logographers, taking the place to
a great extent of the poet's desire to please, or, better, they
sought to please by telling the truth rather than by telling fanci-
ful inventions. Hence they could abandon the poetic form for
simple prose. Their reliance was upon other charms than those
of rhythm. But Dionysius of Halicarnassus tells us (de Thuc.
jud. V 4) that even their simple prose had a "nameless grace.'*
The stern appeal to pleasing truth as opposed to pleasing fiction,
made already in the Hesiodic poems as they competed for favor
with the Homeric, made by Acusilaus and Hecataeus as they
attempted to improve upon both — this reliance upon the charm
and value of facts as opposed to the charms of fancy, coupled with
annalistic form and neglect of dramatic evolutions, culminates in
Thucydides. His mechanical "summer and winter" remind us
of the Hesiodic principle of composition by annexation. But the
"nameless grace" of early logographic prose was brought into
the service of the Homeric spirit by Herodotus. Upon vast stores
of fact and fancy gathered alike from the speech and the writings
of men he imposed the Homeric principles of artistic narration.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY, 267
The form of narration became again in him the chief thing, but
the truth — "I am obliged," he says (VII 152), **to say what is
said to me, but I am not obliged to believe it in all cases, and I
wish this remark to apply to my whole work."
Gradually, then, and very slowly, Greek historiography emerged
from poetic, fictitious narrative in prose and verse — from myth-
ography. What corresponded to our Saxon Annals began with
the mythical foundings of cities. Myth was the soil of history,
and exhalations from this soil cover the initial periods of history.
It was impossible for any generation before Aristotle to draw the
line between myths and facts. It is impossible for us. "The
better Greek history is known," says Wilamowitz, "the later it
begins." Each generation accused its predecessor of credulity
and blindness, each claimed to know and speak the truth. Heca-
taeus was a radical sceptic. Diels calls him the "enlightener of
the sixth century." But to Herodotus, Hecataeus is a laughable
old pedant, and to Thucydides merely a credulous logograph.
To him as well as to Herodotus and the whole class he applies
the same scornful characterization — omission of research, accept-
ance of what comes ready to hand, admixture of the fabulous,
aim at effect first and truth afterward. Scepticism and enlighten-
ment thus go hand in hand with the severest depreciation of the
predecessor, till such depreciation becomes norm and sign of
progress. Two great quests also become dominant in historio-
graphy, the quest of form, with Homeric traditions, and the quest
of truth, with Hesiodic traditions. Each quest becomes dominant
and classic in the work of a master, the form-quest in Herodotus,
the truth-quest in Thucydides. In neither is either quest entirely
exclusive of the other, though in each the one quest is supreme.
The gradual emergence of Greek historiography from myth-
ography in verse and prose, together with the lack of the finer
sentiments of obligation to a predecessor whose standpoint may
have been outgrown, will account for much of the falsehood
charged upon Greek historians down to Herodotus and Thucy-
dides. The charges of plagiarism in the same period may be
accounted for in the same way. For, through most of the period,
it is not new facts or fancies which are stated by successive his-
torians, rather the same facts or fancies are stated in a different
way. Whether the daughters of Proetus were afHicted with
madness because they refused to honor Dionysus, as Hesiod
says, or because they offended Hera, as Acusilaus says, is imma-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
268 AMERICAN JO URNAL OF PHIL OLOGY.
terial. They were punished, if at all, for impiety. But just such
items of mythography led to charges both of mendacity and
plagiarism.
A second special reason for many of the peculiar phenomena
we have noted in Greek historiography is the fact that earliest
Greek tradition was almost wholly oral, in the time of Herodotus
and Thucydides was both oral and written, and never became so
' capable of literary and documentary control as in modern times.
Josephus contrasts scornfully the age of the Hebrew sacred
records with the comparative youth and dearth of Greek records.
Thucydides and Polybius lay far more stress on oral testimony,
especially the oral testimony of eye-witnesses, than the modern
historian will consent to do. For the Homeric and Hesiodic
poets, tradition was originally wholly oral, and the persistence
of oral renditions and oral publication of literature even long
after the introduction of writing, together with the late and slow
growth of reading, a reading class, and libraries, kept the air and
mannerisms of oral tradition natural and even necessary in an
attractive literary style. The great dramatic literature was long
meant for public oral rendition rather than for reading. At some
early period of necessarily oral tradition, the first reducer to
writing might have expressed himself toward his various and
indefinite oral sources much as Hecataeus in his genealogies
expresses himself toward Acusilaus and Hesiod. Demosthenes
and the orators luar the history they quote. Aelian, in the Varia
Historia (XII 43) hears that Darius the son of Hystaspes was a
quiver-bearer of Cyrus. The remove from this literary mannerism,
this reminiscence of oral tradition, to Dio Chrysostom's Median
informant, is not a violent one. The freedom of transmission
which characterized oral tradition imparted itself to literary
tradition. Plato's citations of Homer often have the ^\x oivw&
voce reminiscence. Even Polybius recasts the spirited reply of
the Greeks to Gelo (Hdt. VII 161 = Polyb. XII 26). They do
not say as Herodotus makes them say — *' Hellas sent us to thee
for troops, not for a leader," but rather — *' Come to our aid and
the logic of events will give the command to the bravest."
We find proof of the awakening of a sense of accountability for
romantic oral testimony as early as the 12th book of the Odyssey
(389-90). The conversation between Helius and Zeus about the
slain cattle of the sun-god Odysseus claims to have heard from
Calypso, who heard it frOm Hermes, who was presumably present
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY. 269
in person. And far down into the age of literary tradition we can
trace the feeling that oral tradition \vas really superior. The
ideal historian of Polybius will ask questions of as many people
as possible, will believe those worthy of credit, and will show
critical sagacity in judging their reports. A phraseology of
original oral transmission, kept natural and effective by oral
renditions and reminiscences even in the literary period, explains
much apparent falsity of claim. Continuity of method and
apparatus is eagerly sought by the historian under the impulse of
a keen love of form. Old formulae are superimposed upon new
material, until we can have a Pausanias collecting oral and ocular
evidence like a Polybius, amassing literary evidence like a
Timaeus, and clothing the combination with Herodotean manner-
isms.
Thirdly, the agonistic spirit in Greek literary production
accounts for many of the amenities which we find so questionable.
Greek life had no word of sympathy for the vanquished. Suc-
cess was not so much the success of positive achievement as the
glory of comparative personal triumph over rivals. The court
bard of Odysseus (a 351) found that his audience liked the
newest things best, and the standing of rival bards must have
depended largely on their ability to present novelties in matter
or form. And must not Homer and Hesiod, Pindar and Corinna,
vie with one another in prize contests ? Did not Aeschylus and
Sophocles, Sophocles and Euripides, Cratinus and Aristophanes
contend with each other for a prize? So the Xoyon-oior competed
with the tnonoMs, truth-quest with form-quest, Thucydides with
Ephorus, for popular acceptance. As enlightenment spread and
knowledge increased, they led to contempt of previous stadia, as
the victor and his admirers despised the vanquished. ''All the
Greek historians," says Josephus, "seek not truth, but Xoyw dvvafiiv
-—powerful expression^ and each writer applies himself to eclipse in
fame his predecessor." " In rhetoric," he says, "all must yield to
the Greeks, but not in truth about antiquity." "The reason for
their ignorance is lack of travel and intercourse. The reason for
their lying is their desire to get the reputation of telling more
history than their rivals." "The abuse of their predecessors is
due to the repute of their victims, to jealousy of that repute, and
desire to eclipse it" (contra Apion. passitn). The scorn which
Thucydides feels for Herodotus was due not only to a natural
dislike of the broad and flowing Ionian narrative, but also to the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
270 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
influence of a literary tradition of long standing. If Thucydides
yielded to this influence, much more all following historians, who,
able to correct details, proclaimed their superiority to their great
source. And so Herodotus is criticised by everybody because
used by everybody, and the degree to which he is criticised is a
fairly safe criterion of the extent to which he has been used.
The sense of obligation toward even the imperfect achievements
of the past is one of the choicest flowers of modern life.
Fourthly, with Herodotus and Thucydides, and for all histo-
rians after them, whether given chiefly to the quest of form or the
quest of truth, certain literary conventions were established.
Dramatic conventions must be understood before we can mount
a play. They become bolder and more startling as we go back in
the history of the drama. " What's bad unless it seem so to the
spectator ? " asks Dionysus in the Frogs, In dramatics certainly,
if not in ethics, the pleasure of the spectator is the commonest
standard of right and wrong. So in all literary compositions,
but particularly in the historical, the pleasure of the hearer or
reader is to a great degree the writer's standard of right and
wrong. This attitude of superiority over his predecessor on the
part of each succeeding ancient Greek historian; this correction
of error under the form of accusation of falsehood, while merely
recasting a material already furnished, became literary conven-
tions. In the presentation of new historical material also, the
accumulations of the advancing centuries, other great literary
conventions were tacitly assumed. They are all more or less
distinctly traceable to the domination of the old form-quest. For
the Greek after all was more concerned for the manner than the
matter. Herodotus, according to Dionysius of Halicarnassus
(Epist ad Cn. Pomp. Ill 7), did not avoid the same material as
Charon and Hellanicus, but he believed he could produce some-
thing better than they had, and he did so. Ephorus and Theo-
pompus recast the material of Herodotus and Thucydides, not in
the interest of truth but of form. Like Curtius Rufus, they used
their historical basis as a corpus vile on which to practice their
rhetorical art. They could say the same things in a better way.
And since the Greek public cared not so much for correct report
as for free and effective description of the writer's personal impres-
sions, the rhetorical age impressed upon their work all the con-
ceits of reflned rhetorical craft. So epic and heroic influences
had triumphed in Herodotus, political and diplomatic oratory in
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY. 2/1
Thucydides, as later the Alexandrian imperial sentiment dominated
in Callisthenes, the Roman imperial sentiment in Polybius — all at
the sacrifice of the strictest truth. The testimony of hearsay was
less sure and true than that of an eye-witness, but often pleasanter,
according to Polybius (XII 27). And just as Timaeus chose the
pleasanter testimony, so the successive generations of Greek his-
torians strove to please. The great protests of the Hesiodic poems
and of Thucydides did not prevail. The form-quest as exemplified
in Herodotus carried the day, till even truth-quest became largely
matter of form, always excepting Polybius, and the severer truth-
seekers, on whom Herodotus and Livy both relied, were relegated
to oblivion by the very triumphs of these great artists.
Other literary conventions might be enumerated which grew
up in consequence of the mythical beginnings of Greek history,
its originally oral tradition, its agonistic spirit, and its quest, in
the main, of form rather than of truth.
Foremost of all, and most prolific in minor devices of a similar
nature, is the literary embellishment of the set speech — demegoria.
It is already a great feature of epic poetry, we find traces of it
in the fragments of the logographers, it is dramatically developed
by Herodotus, adapted to the political spirit of his time by Thucy-
dides, and it becomes a historical mannerism ever after, reflecting
the dominant influences of each succeeding age. But it tends even
in its simplest form to distort history, as most reflection distorts,
and it is a breeder of inferior devices subversive of the truth of
tradition, such as the citation of impossible letters and documents.
No sooner therefore do genuine historical documents begin to
abound in the period of Alexander, than spurious documents yet
more abound. The modern feeling toward this literary device of
the set speech is well shown in a citation from Voltaire's preface
to his History of Russia, made by Professor Jebb. " If one put
into the mouth of a prince a speech which he had never made,
the historian would be regarded as a rhetorician. Set speeches
are a sort 0/ oratorical lie **
"A lady once told me," wrote the late Master of Balliol, "that
Lord Weslbury was an esprit faux^ but I do not think that this
was true, although, like Plato, he could invent Egyptians, or any-
thing else." The great convention of the set speech, itself
designed to promote the sense of verisimilitude, led, as has been
said, to numberless other devices of a similar nature. But the
writers who used them were not necessarily esprits faux. They
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
272 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
are not deceiving, are not trying to deceive their readers. And
it is only fair to say that charges of deceit on these scores come
mainly from modern critics, for whom such literary conventions
no longer exist. The professions of superior truthfulness, or
superior advantages ; claims of autopsy, travel, study, discovery ;
the use of fixed schemes for descriptions of battles, scenery, or
speeches ; the adaptations of great models of historical achieve-
ment to new surroundings — all these become conventional.
"Former historians," says Polybius (XII 25), "showed their
sense of the necessity of making professions of personal expe-
rience in matters about which they wrote. When the subject
was political they were careful to state that the writer had of
course been engaged in politics, and so had had experience in
matters of this sort." A historian who, as Lucian knew, had
never set foot out of Corinth, began his history of the Parthian
wars with the sententious phrase which had already done duty
for Heracleitus and Herodotus — " Eyes are more trusty than ears ;
I shall write therefore only what I have seen, not what I have
heard" (Quomodo Hist. Conscr. 38). And Lucian ridiculed
merely for barrenness of invention another historian who borrowed
Thucydides* description of the plague at Athens in order to tell
about the disease which afflicted Nisibis in Mesopotamia for
closing its gates to the Roman armies. The historian omitted
the Pelargikofif and the Long Walls of Thucydides, but his plague
started in Aethiopia, then descended upon Egypt and Persia,
exacdy as Thucydides had made his plague behave, and Lucian
left this poor historian " burying Athenians in Nisibis," and knew
by heart all the rest of his description.
The step from the invention of ornamental details to the inven-
tion of vital facts is a natural one — in the course of human
nature an inevitable one. The oldest of the younger school of
Roman annalists, we are told (Wachsmuth, Alte Geschichte, pp.
622 ff), was true to matters of fact, did not invent his facts out-
right, but did invent speeches, documents and letters, not to
deceive, but to enliven. Later annalists, however, invented their
facts outright, invented statistics corroborative of their invented
facts, and reported the actual words of legendary characters.
They deceived no one, it is true, u e. no one for whom they wrote.
But it is hard for us moderns to differentiate them from Cato's
Ligurians, who were "uneducated liars, with no power of recol-
lecting facts." Duris of Samos, whom Plutarch never tires of
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
GREEK HISTORIOGRAPHY. 273
discrediting, criticises his predecessors, Ephorus and Theopompus,
in words which seem to our modern ethics rather praise than
blame. They fell far behind their predecessors, he says, **for
they did not cultivate the art of dramatic imitation and of pleasing
invention, but devoted themselves to the mere recital of what had
happened" (Photius, 176, as cited and emended in Schaefer's
Quellenkunde, I, p. 83).
Another, and the last literary convention to be here mentioned,
is the borrowing of famous mots or phrases, and weaving them
into new narrative, mutatis mutandis^ for fresh conquests. The
practice is as early certainly as Herodotus. Some maladjustment
of context, or lack of perfect application to the new situation,
reveals the device. How ill the exquisite Periclean funeral meta-
phor of war's robbery of the spring from the year is put by Hero-
dotus in the mouth of Gelon of Syracuse when he declines to
reinforce the allied Greeks (VH 162)! How imperfectly the
capital parable of the assorted evils of mankind is applied by the
same historian to the malevolent charges of Argive Medism (VH
152)! One is even tempted to believe that his famous story of
the wife of Intaphernes and her choice is skilfully adapted to
Persian context from the Antigone of Sophocles, instead of vice
versd as is generally held. But the audience were well aware of
the real ownership in all these cases. There was no deception,
rather a confident and flattering appeal to the literary culture of
the hearer, such as those which so amaze us in Aristophanes.
Polybius finds this same literary device in Timaeus (XII 26).
Timaeus puts into a great speech of his Hermocrates such well
known literary gems as — " In peace sleepers are waked by cocks,
in war by trumpets" — "In peace the old are buried by the
young, as nature directs, in war the young are buried by the old."
Such arguments, Polybius says, would have been employed by a
youth who had devoted himself to scholastic exercises and studies
in history. Precisely so. They are borrowed literary finery.
But every one knew their owner, even in an age when the sense of
literary ownership was not keen. And we should remember
when we consider the wholesale charges of plagiarism among the
ancients, that literary productions are the last form of property
for which the modern world is devising adequate safeguards.
A word should be said of the great safety-valve for modern
historiography afforded by the distinctive literary form of
romance. Romance existed in Greek poetry and historiography
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
274 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
long before it became a distinct species of composition. Even
after mythography came to be dearly distinguished from history,
the romantic tendencies which had produced an epos and
a Sage remained imbedded in historical composition. Both
romantic history and historical romance were classed as history.
Imagine the safety-valve of modem fiction closed. What would
become of our historiography ?
Another word should be said of the immense relief to modern
historiography afforded by the footnote. The ancient artist
knew not this form-conserving device, and yet most ancient
artists had their hearts set mainly on form. Imagine a Busolt's
History of Greece with footnotes artistically blended with the
main text !
The oppressiveness of accumulated historical material has been
felt by the world many times before this age of compends and
encyclopedias and handbooks and "Libraries of the World's
Best Literature." The great Alexandrian scholars felt it. Marius
the Epicurean felt it under Marcus Aurelius. The great Byzan-
tine compilers felt it in the tenth century. Periodical attempts
will always be made to strip off from historical tradition the accre-
tions due to fancy and the desire for pleasant form. But each age
must do its own work here. It will not be satisfied with the work
of any previous age. Even the ultimate facts of history will be
constantly restated. If this were not so, where were the charm
of historical research ? What would become of source-criticism ?
Toward historical truth, as toward the higher truth which Lessing
so bravely sought, we may feel as he felt — " If God held all truth
shut in his right hand, and in his left nothing but the ever restless
instinct for truth, though with the condition of for ever and for
ever erring, and should say to me, * Choose!' I should bow
humbly to his left hand and say, 'Father, give! Pure truth is for
Thee alone/ *'
B. Perrin.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
II.— THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN INDEPENDENT SEN-
TENCES IN PLAUTUS.
II.— Forces.
The presentation of the facts of usage in the preceding part of
this paper should make upon any reader who may have patience
to follow it the same impression that is made by the facts them-
selves, the impression that, in the last analysis, the subjunctive use
consists of a great variety of more or less specialized usages, differ-
ing often but slightly, yet distinct and deserving separate treatment.
Some are narrow in range and clearly defined, like hand dicam
dolo, egone austm, ueniat uelim ; others are broader and of more
general application, like the use of the 2d singular of the present,
and have scarcely crystallized into definite meaning. These
varieties of usage are, it is true, connected not only by the unity
of the mode, but also by resemblances which justify somewhat
more specific terms: jussive, hortatory, deliberative. But it
must, I think, be acknowledged that the study of resemblances,
the grouping and re-grouping of usages which are for the most
part ill-defined, has not greatly advanced our knowledge of
syntax during the last quarter of a century. The search for a
GrundbegriffhAS not been fruitless in suggestion, but it has been
less productive of real advance than might have been hoped.
What we call *the subjunctive' is not an entity; it has no objec-
tive existence. Only the individual subjunctive forms — sim^
dicam^^existt and the term *the subjunctive' is the result of a
generalization by which we endeavor to include in a single idea
all that is common to the many individual forms or the narrow
and clearly defined usages. No single form or usage exactly
corresponds to the type ; each falls short of the type in some
particulars and in other particulars each may have acquired
suggestions of meaning which are not found in the type. By a
process analogous to natural selection, a process pardy of exclu-
sion, partly of acquisition, indiscriminate and therefore shifting
applications of the modal forms have crystallized into definite
and therefore expressive usage. The understanding of this
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
276 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
process— and this is the true work of the student of historical
syntax — must begin with detailed and precise description and
definition of usage, such as I have attempted to give above ; the
second step is the discussion of the forces which have been at
work to produce such usages.
These forces are of two kinds :—yfrj/, each subjunctive has
person, number, tense, voice, and the stem of the verb has its
own proper meaning. Secandy each subjunctive stands in a
particular setting, in a sentence of a particular kind, interrogative
or not, with particles or adverbs which limit it and at the same
time suggest additional meanings, often in a paratactic relation
to another verb, sometimes with a negative, preceded by other
sentences and conditioned by all the preceding course of thought,
and, in the spoken language, made definite by the circumstances,
by inflection and by gesture. Of these two kinds of forces, the
first are of course inseparable from the form ; the influence of
person and number upon the modal meaning, whatever it may
be, must always have accompanied and modified the subjunctive.
In part this is true also of the forces of the second kind, but the
additions to the subjunctive, especially the paratactic verbs, are
later and are at the same time definitions of the subjunctive and
evidence of the need of definition.
In the study of these forces I have two objects in view. Firsts
a conscious and deliberate weighing of the various elements
which make up what we call the * context' ought to give greater
precision to our interpretation. Second^ in so far as it can be
shown that the usages described above are the result of known
forces, working along traceable lines, the necessity and, indeed,
the scientific propriety of referring such usages to supposed I.E.
functions falls away. If, for example, any other forces can be
found which of themselves are sufficient to limit ^///^/^r^/ufn/ to
a curse or saluos sis to a greeting, then it is not permissible to
explain them as survivals of an I.E. optative function or to
attempt to show how the optative function extended to the
subjunctive forms di ie perdant and ualeas.
The discussion of these forces is not in any case complete, but
I have hoped that it might be suggestive of a point of view some-
what different from the usual one. Only the more salient points
are brought out under each head, and no attempt has been made
to trace the influence of each force upon every kind of subjunctive
usage. Thus, under person and number the hypothetical cases
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 2/7
and the questions are not touched, because they are chiefly
influenced by other forces.
I. Person and Number.
Four acts are connected in thought with every subjunctive:
speaking, willing, hearing and performing the action expressed
by the verb. These four acts may be done by one, two, three or,
rarely, by four persons.
In the ist person singular ihese acts may be performed by one
person ; the speaker may express his own will to himself about
an act which he is to do. These cases, however, are rare, partly
because the occasion is rare, partly because other expressions
like the periphrastic are more precise. Where such forms do
occur, it is evident that the function of the mode is much
restricted. The will of the speaker cannot take the form of
command or entreaty; it is limited to ideas of propriety or
necessity or determination. And even for these ideas the bare
subjunctive form is an inadequate expression, needing to be
supplemented by a paratactic addition like opiumumsty necessest.
In general, either the speaker divides himself and by a Action, a
dramatic doubling of his personality, addresses himself in the
forms of the 2d person, which can express command or entreaty,
or else the sentence is addressed to another person. In the latter
case the verb is not really an expression of will, but a statement
to the other person of the speaker's determination — that is, it is a
future. This is, of course, a very common situation, and most of
the 3d-conjugation forms in Plautus show by their context that
they are of this kind. The line of division, however, is faint.
Asin. 605, sermoni iam finem face tuo : huius sermonem accipiam,
is like Trin. 11 36, quid ego cesso hos conloqui? sed maneam
etiam, opinor, in expressing desire rather than determination, but
it shades toward the future because it is half addressed to the
other person. So also in Asin. 719 ecastor ambae sunt bonae. ||
sciam, ubi boni quid dederint.
In the large majority of cases in ist sing, the wilier is the
person addressed, the speaker and actor being one person.
These cases are in questions and will be treated below.
The very fact, then, that a verb is used in ist sing, of the
subjunctive restricts the possible meaning of the mode within
narrow limits and tends to produce a well-marked though infre-
quent usage. So strong, in fact, is the force of person and
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
278 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
number in this case that it, as it were, compels the subjunctive to
express ideas of necessity and propriety which are more naturally
expressed by other forms.
In the 2d pers. sing, the speaker and wilier is one person, the
hearer and actor another person, who is present. The relation of
wilier and actor is the most direct and simple possible. It needs
no definition ; its definiteness even helps to define the nature of
the will. For the kind of will exerted, though it is not defined
by the verb, is of necessity fixed by the relation of the persons —
father to son, master to slave, friend to friend — and by the circum-
stances, which are, so to speak, visible to both and unconsciously
taken for granted in the selection of expressions. Definiteness of
language is unnecessary where the hearer must understand suffi-
ciently the sense in which the speaker, standing before him, wills
the action. On the one hand, therefore, the use in 2d sing, is
limited to the more direct expressions of will, and on the other
hand there is no need of distinct forms to differentiate advice
from command or entreaty from demand, because this distinction
is implied in the circumstances. The wish without uiinam is
almost unknown ; the two cases, in the marriage song in Cas. and
in the curse in Trin. 351 (if malum be read, with GSO> are only
half-wishes.^
In the 3d sing, three persons are involved, the speaker and
wilier, the bearer, and the actor, not present or treated as not
present. The bare subjunctive (without paratactic additions) is
therefore indefinite in two respects. First, in all cases where the
subject of the verb is not a definite person, and occasionally even
when the actor is definite, there is nothing in the relation of the
persons to define the mode, either by the exclusion of many
kinds of will, as in ist sing., or by a direct and evident relation
of wilier to actor, as in 2d singular. Second, the separation of
hearer from actor leaves the part which the former is to play
undefined. For the details I will refer to what has been said
above in describing the uses of the 3d sing, present. The vary-
^ It may be noted in passing that the gap in meaning between ist sing. fut.
and 1st sing. pres. subj. is much less than in 2d sing. In 1st sing, determin-
ation runs into futurity (English wili into shall\ and many futures like ibo
express 'determination. But in the 2d pers. the subjunctive expresses clear
forms of will, while the future expresses futurity with little trace of will.
Therefore, while dicam serves for both modes, the 2d person selects the two
differing forms dUas and dices.
Digitized by VjOOQIC^
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 279
ing relations of the hearer to the action are of course not expressed
in the mode; they are indeed not expressed at all in language
except in the paratactic uses, but the fact that they exist and are
in the mind of both speaker and hearer tends, by a common law
of language, to associate them with the form. In other words,
the 3d sing, vaguely suggests to the hearer that he also is to act.
\{ ferat alone is used in the sense oiiubeferat^ it comes to mean
iubeferai. And this comes out more plainly when the subject is
a thing and the verb is passive; by necessary implication effe-
rantur omnia means /^^ efferantur}
Further evidence of the way in which the meaning of the mode
seems to be shifted by causes which lie outside the mode may be
had from the cases of 3d pers. where the subject is not a definite
person. With an ideal or typical person (Amph. 960 proinde eri
ut sint, ipse [the slave] item sit; Pers. 125 cynicum esse egentem
oportet parasitum probe : pallium, marsuppium habeat) the sub-
junctive expresses only propriety, the direct forms of will being
excluded. So when persons of a class are the subject {regesy
inimici^, especially if they are in the audience and are addressed
indirectly (matronae tacitae spectent, tacitae rideant, Poen. prol.
32). When the subject is a thing and the verb is passive, the
hearer becomes the real actor, and the direct forms of will
reappear, as in the 2d person.
In one class the 3d pers., sing, as well as plur., is rather
narrowly defined. The wishes containing the word di or the
name of a god are definite in respect to the nature of the desire
and to the actors* The nature of the desire is partly fixed by
the meaning of the verb, which will be discussed later, but the
fact that the gods are to be the actors, not only in wishes like di
me ament, but also in the impersonal expressions male sit tibi^
quod bene uoriaty excludes advice or command and confines the
mode to the expression of that kind of desire whose attainment
is beyond human power. The fact, also, that the gods are not
directly addressed excludes prayer and entreaty.
^ It is perhaps not speculating too freely to hazard the guess that it is the
vagueness of the 3d pers. which rendered possible the wide extension of usage
in the subordinate clause in narrative Latin. I am very sure that in tracing
the origin of subordinate clauses careful attention should be paid to the person
of the verb. Clauses in the ist or ad pers. are more likely to be idiomatic
and to be directly connected with independent uses, while it is the 3d pers.
which swings away most widely from independent uses and develops special
subordinate functions.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
28o AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Of all the varieties of subjunctive, none is more clearly defined
than the ist plural. In it the speaker and wilier is an actor and
the person addressed is also an actor ; it combines, as has often
been remarked, the ist person with the 2d, and can therefore be
used only in those senses which are common to both. This
excludes almost entirely all uses like command, permission,
entreaty, advice, and leaves only the special sense which we call
exhortation. No name in all our imperfect grammatical nomen-
clature is more suitable and more precise than Hortatory, if it be
confined, as I think it should be, to the ist pers. plural.
In a few cases in ist plur. the subjunctive has somewhat the
effect of a command, where tu (True. 840 eamus tu in ius) or a
vocative (Poen. 1342 leno, eamus in ius) is expressed. That is,
where the 2d person is brought forward into prominence, the
direct shades of will which are associated with the 2d person also
appear.
The forms of the sigmatic aorist afford a striking proof of the
effect of person upon mode. All cases in ist sing, are hypothet-
ical, all in 2d pers. are prohibitive, all but one in 3d pers. are
optative. It seems certain that the force which produced this
curious difference \i^\.\^^txifaxim,faxis and faxii can have been
nothing else than the person. It is true that the ist sing, in
general is not always hypothetical, but it leans more strongly that
way than the 2d or the 3d, while the 2d pers. in general leans
toward the direct forms of command and the 3d pers. contains by
far the largest number of wishes. These general tendencies,
working upon forms which were becoming obsolete and were
therefore preserved only in idiomatic uses, brought about an
absolute uniformity of usage in the sigmatic aorist, which would
be impossible with forms which were in free and general use.
These illustrations will, I hope, show sufficiently how greatly
the modal meaning is influenced by the force of person and
number, and how necessary a recognition of this force is to
precise interpretation. It is in the main an exclusive or selective
forced Of the whole range of possible applications, certain ones
are excluded when the speaker addresses himself about his own
action, certain others when the hearer is to be the actor. But it
is also capable of leading to an expansion of modal meaning by
association and suggestion. The idea of propriety or conformity
to an ideal implied in some of the 3d-pers. uses is such an exten-
sion, and in the forms of the sigmatic aorist these added concep-
tions have become permanently associated with the mode.
Digitized by
Google
P«M!
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 28 1
2. Tense.
The influence of tense-force upon the modal meaning is slight.
Tense-force in the subjunctive is in general less clearly marked
than in the indicative, partly because the very nature of the
subjunctive removes it somewhat from time limitations (e. g. in
the hypothetical uses, which are often timeless), partly because
in a considerable number of cases the will and the act belong to
different times. So Ps. 131 ostium lenonis crepuit. || crura mauel-
lem modo. Cure. 512 tacuisse mauellem ; in neither case is mauel-
lent parallel to malebam. Pers. 710 eras ires potius is an extreme
case; it means 'You ought (some time ago) to have decided to
go to-morrow,' i. e. the obligation is past, the act future.
In one respect, however, the tense-force is well marked and
strongly affects the meaning of the mode. The impf. 2d sing,
(and in some cases in other persons) expresses an obligation
which should have been felt in the past ; e. g. Rud. 842 caperes
aut fustem aut lapidem 'you should have taken . . .' The same
thing is true of several questions in the ist sing., the connection
of which with 2d sing, is close. Obligation is one of the many
meanings of the subjunctive in the present, though it is some-
what infrequent, and it is the only one which has, so to speak,
survived the transfer from present time to past. The other shades
of will or desire cannot be used of a past feeling. Command,
entreaty, advice, permission, determination are excluded; only
obligation remains. The influence of tense, therefore, though it
is not wide, is especially clear and, when put into comparison
with other influences, especially instructive.
The use of nan with these cases will be considered later.
It is worth while to note, also, in connection with the question
of tense, how infrequent the subjunctive of the past is in Plautus.
There are 77 instances of the impf. and 7 of the plupf., against
1366 of the present. The subjunctive in the spoken language is
a direct and simple expression of desire, dealing with the present
or the immediate future. It is only in a complicated style, in the
complexity of the conditional sentence or the subordinate clause,
that the plupf. flnds a place.
3. Voice.
The simplicity and directness of the feeling which lies behind
the subjunctive is also shown by the infrequency of passives.
They occur as follows: pres. ist sing. 4, 2d sing, i, 3d sing. 17,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
282 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
3d plur. 5, impf. 3d sing, i, 3d plur. i. Of these, 6 are hypo-
thetical, 4 are in parataxis, 4 are in the statement of a plan (a
kind of half-paratactic use), 4 are in the peculiar phrase mos
geratur, two or three are without context or are doubtful in text,
and not more than half a dozen are in ordinary expressions of
desire. It is impossible to tell without more trouble than the
point is worth whether this proportion (29 out of 1600, less than
2 per cent.) is smaller than in the indie, but it seems probable
that Plautus found the mode to some extent inconsistent with the
passive voice, as it was inconsistent (though to a less degree)
with the past tenses. It was a living expression of desire, not a
mere symbol, as it became, for example, in the cum clause. Of
these 29 cases, all but 5 are in the 3d pers., where the personal
relations are least direct. And where the passive uses are nearest
to the directness of the active, it is because a 2d-pers. use really
lies behind the 3d pers., 2&facproferantur is almost the same as
proferas.
4. The Meaning of the Verb.
In Amph. 928 ualeas, tibi habeas res tuas, reddas meas, the
three subjunctives are evidendy, so far as the mode is concerned,
identical; the close connection makes any other interpretation
impossible. But if ualecLS stood alone, as it often does, it would
be called a wish, while habeas in 10 out of the 15 passages where
it occurs expresses a permission, as here, and reddas is a demand.
In modal force the three verbs are alike ; the difference in effect
is due to the difference in the meaning of the verbs.
The same thing appears in a few other cases where two verbs
are used together: Cas. 611 missurun es ad me uxorem . . .? ||
ducas (permission) easque in maxumam malam crucem (curse);
Pers. 352 inimici famam non ita ut natast ferunt. || ferant eantque
in maxumam malam crucem; Ps. 1015 quid nunc? || argentum
des, abducas mulierem, a demand or expression of will and a
permission or expression of willingness. A few other cases occur
here and there, the difference growing slighter as the two verbs
approach in meaning.
The classification of acts of will according to the nature of the
action willed appears to rest upon a good psychological basis.
The attitude of the mind in willing that another person shall
retain an object which belongs to him is different from the
attitude of willing that he shall give up what is not his. Through
all the long succession of choices and determinations, the mind is
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 283
constantly changing its tone by slight and almost imperceptible
degrees. Language, it is true, does not find distinct expression
for each of these varying shades of will, but they exist in the
mind of the speaker and are felt, by suggestion, by the hearer,
and therefore become a restricting and modifying force, shaping
the modal meaning.
The same conclusion follows from the modal behavior of single
verbs, mereo {-or) is used 5 times, all in the limited sense nan
{quid') merear (mereat), like the English *I would not do it for
the world.' The meaning of the verb inclines it, though it does
not necessarily confine it, to expressions of hypothetical determin-
ation, excluding the ordinary jussive uses, patiar is found only
in 1st sing., in repudiating sentence questions ; Asin. 810 egone
haec patiar aut taceam ?, Men. 559 egone hie me patiar esse in
matrimonio . . . ? In these cases it is an insertion, like uin or
like dicam in quis questions. Its sense does not exclude it from
other uses {perpetiare is used once in advice), but it makes it
peculiarly fitted for a single use. habeas is usually an ironical
permission, though it is also used in other ways, dicam occurs
33 times, but only twice in expressions of will, both in repudiating
sentence questions. It is inserted in quis questions 16 times, is
used in parataxis 8 times and 7 times in hypothetical (or perhaps
here I may say potential) uses, dicai is used once and dicant 4
times in hypothetical senses ; that is, out of 55 cases of dicere in
the subjunctive, 12 are hypothetical, much beyond the ordinary
proportion, which is about i : 50. This tendency toward the
hypothetical may be like the English 'I should think'; but I am
not concerned here with the explanation ; whatever that may be,
the fact of the tendency of dicere away from the ordinary uses is
plain. The verbs used in the ist person plural are all verbs of
activity ; there are no cases of esse^ scire, dicere, habere, uelle.
The marked subjunctive force of this person almost excludes
verbs which are strictly verba sentiendi et declarandi. The verb
esse might be expected to show an equal distribution over the
whole range of subjunctive use. It is, however, limited in three
directions : — a) It is essentially passive in meaning and therefore
unfitted for the more direct and vigorous expressions of will.
Among the 1 1 cases where it is used of desire, there is no case of
demand or command. The two cases in 2d sing, are the mildest
kind of permission ; the seven cases in 3d sing, are either conces-
sions {sii per me quidem) or expressions of propriety, of the
Digitized by^
284 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
character that a type should have (improbus sit cum improHs).
b) Its general and vague sense calls especially for paratactic
additions, which are used in 29 of the 92 cases and by which
greater directness and force can be given to the verb (J'ac sis
frugi). Other defining words, adverbs and particles, are also
unusually frequent wiih it. c) The fact that esse combines with
a predicate shades its sense in various ways and gives rise to
some narrowly restricted idioms, especially in wishes like saluos
sis J male sit tibi.
No single usage of the subjunctive is more distinctly marked
than the wishes which contain di or the name of a god : di te
perdanty luppiier te perduit, iia me di amenty etc.; they have
been given above in some detail. One of the forces which bring
about this distinctness has been spoken of above, under person
and number ; the fact that the gods are to be the actors shuts out
many kinds of will. To this restricting agency another is added
by the meaning of the verbs. The situation in which it would be
natural tcTexiiCic or command or entreat a person to destroy
himself would be very rare, and the natural result of the working
of two restricting forces is to produce a group of sharply defined
idioms.
One verb, uelUy is so remarkable in its modal behavior as to
call for special notice, although the uses are not due so much to
its limiting force as to its peculiar adaptability to the subjunctive
mode. It is used in the present tense 78 times, of which 73 (or
74) are uelim and compounds. All other verbs together are
used in ist sing. pres. of desire or will not more than 20 or 30
times. In the impf. ist sing, uellem and compounds are used 17
times, while other verbs are not used at all except with utinam or
in questions or parataxis. That is, uelle is used three or four
times as often as all other verbs together in expressions of will in
the ist person singular. The cases are classified above according
to their syntactical relations, and the meaning of each group
is given, uellem differs from uelim only in tense, expressing a
present wish about a past act; it is never the subjunctive of
uolebam.
As to the force of uelim, the following points deserve notice :
i) uelim is not in Plautus a subjunctive of 'mild assertion' or
of * modesty.* The proof of this is in the cases themselves, of
which full lists are given above. In most cases any such meaning
is absolutely excluded, for example, in the cases which express a
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 285
curse {pulmoneum edepol nimis uelim uomitum nomas; perii, ||
uerum sit uelim; in anj^inam ego nunc me uelim uorW), In a
few cases, taken alone, such an interpretation is not impossible,
though it is not anywhere necessary. As all these cases must be
essentially alike, we are bound to adopt that interpretation which
is possible for all, not that which is possible for only a part of the
cases. The instances which seem most like a mild assertion are
those with malim, which are really influenced by the comparative
deg^ree (cf. potius).
2) There is no stronger evidence that uelim is potential. The
closest parallel should he faximj which is always hypothetical,
huifaxim regularly has a protasis either in the same sentence or
in the immediate context, while uelim has a protasis in only 5
cases (these are not included in the lists above), 4 with sipossim
(possit). In the large majority of cases the sense excludes a
potential meaning just as clearly as it excludes the idea of
modesty or politeness.
3) uelim is in Plautus a sign of a wish, an optation, parallel in
the main to uiinam. This usage is mentioned in some of the
grammars,^ as a secondary use of uelim. It may have been
secondary in classical Latin, but in Plautus it is the first and the
prevailing use. I should explain it as having arisen by attraction
through parataxis. The simple subjunctive, ueniat for instance,
is frequently so indefinite as to call for a defining addition (see
below, on parataxis). Alone ueniat might mean *tell him to
come,* Met him come/ 'make him come,* *I desire (will) that he
should come* or *I wish he would come.' Of the various para-
tactic additions which supply the needed definition, uolo empha-
sizes the will, while uelim, repeating the mode of ueniat, empha-
sizes the modal force, the optative, and differentiates {uold) ueniat
• I will that he should come,' from {uelim) ueniat ' I wish that he
would come.' In the same way paiiar is inserted into a repu-
diating sentence question, assuming the mode of the verb, which
then becomes an infin., and dicam is inserted into quis questions.
OS, Verg. Aen. IV 24 sed mihi uel tellus optem prius ima dehiscat,
X 443 cuperem ipse parens spectator adesset. In this way uelim
became, like utinam, a sign of the wish. In contrast with uolo it
is a milder word, and it became finally almost a separate verb,
meaning ' I wish,* and is used in this sense increasingly in later
Latin with scarcely any feeling of its original optative force. But
* A. and G., 267, c ; Gildersleeve, 261, 546, 2.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
286 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
the continuance of its paratactic use in familiar style (uelim exis-
times, Cic. ad Fam. I 9, 24 ; uelim uerum sit, ad Att. XV 4, 4) is
a reminder of its origin.
If this hypothesis as to the origin and use of iulim is correct,
the meaning of lulle determines its modal use, not, as in the case
of some verbs, by its unfitness for certain uses, but by its peculiar
adaptability to other (the wishing and willing) uses.
A further illustration of the effect of the meaning of the verb
upon the modal force may be found by comparing the similar
influence of verb-meaning upon other constructions. Blase,
Geschichte des Plusquamperfekts im Lat., pp. 9 f., 35 f., has
shown how the shifted sense of the plupf. tense extends along the
line of verbs of obligation, oportuerat^ debuerat, aequam erat
Foth, Verschiebung lateinischer Tempora, in Boehmer's Roman.
Stud., 1876, pp. 243 ff., shows that the peculiar present sense of
the perfects fui ' I am no more,' habui * I have no longer,' is the
result of verb-meaning. A still better, because more distinctly
independent, support may be found in the discussion of Greek
tenses by Hultsch, Die erzahlenden Zeitformen bei Poly bios,
which I know only through the review in A. J. P. XVI 2 (62),
by C. W. E. Miller. Exactly as the inherent temporal force of
Greek verbs modifies and limits the meaning of tenses, so that
the aorist of one verb is not the same as the aorist of another, so
does the different modal meaning of verbs modify and limit the
modal force.
From these suggestions, imperfect and superficial as I am
conscious that they are, I draw two conclusions. In the first
place, it is obvious that a consideration of the effect of the verb-
meaning upon the mode, intensifying or lessening or shifting the
modal force, may be of considerable service in accurate interpre-
tation. In the second place, though the verb- meaning alone may
not be the cause of idioms or of restricted and precise usages, it
may combine with other forces to produce such usages. The
most marked illustration is in the wishes like saluos sis, di ie
perdanL And when several forces are thus combined, a very
distinct influence may be exerted upon a great number of
subjunctive usages.
The influences thus far considered, from person, number, tense,
voice and verb-meaning, are inherent in the form. No subjunctive
can exist without feeling some or all of them. The forces which
remain to be considered are exerted upon the subjunctive by
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 287
Other words in the sentence. These are apart from the subjunc-
tive form, but, as a bare subjunctive, without other words, is of
rare occurrence, and even then the preceding sentences influence
the mode, we may say that the form of the sentence, which is to
be treated next, is almost as necessary and inherent an influence
as person and number.
5. The Interrogative Sentence.
The first and most striking fact is the difl*erence in extent of
usage between the subjunctive in questions and the subjunctive
in non-interrogative sentences. Omitting uelim and cases with
uiinam, but including the hypothetical uses and the indefinite 2d
pers., the statistics stand thus :
Non-interrog.
Interrog.
I St sing.,
34
212
2d sing.,
177
24
3d sing.,
179
20
These figures, with the ratio of i : 6 in ist sing, more than
reversed in the 2d and 3d sing., are in themselves proof that the
relation of the subjunctive to the sentence diflers with the form
of the sentence, or, in other words, that the interrogative form is
a force which favors the use of the ist sing., while it partially
excludes the 2d and 3d sing. The diflerence is in the changed
relation of speaker and wilier in the question. In the non-inter-
rogative sentence in ist sing, the speaker, the wilier and the actor
are one person ; in the question the speaker asks (or exclaims)
about the will of the other person in regard to his (the speaker's)
action. The speaker and the wilier are two difl*erent persons.
sed maneam etiam means, in full, * I will (judge, decide) that I
should remain'; maneam f means 'do you will that I should
remain ? * The first situation is rare, the second is very common.
We must therefore note that in questions in ist sing, we are
dealing with a subjunctive which seems to be the same as the
ist sing, in non-interrogative sentences, but which is in reality
different in the very important point of the relation of speaker
and actor to wilier. The situation in questions in ist sing, in fact
corresponds (with some exceptions, which will be noticed) rather
to the 2d sing, in non-interrogative sentences. And, on the other
hand, the question in 2d sing, corresponds to the non-interrogative
ist sing., in that the wilier and actor are one, though the speaker
288 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
is a different person. That is, abeam? may be said to be the
interrogative form of abeas, and abeasf *you want to go away ?*
the interrogative oi abeam *I want to go away.*
But beside this general effect produced by the interrogative
form, the particular kind of question also affects the mode in
narrower but equally distinct ways.
The sentence question with simple subjunctive (without para-
taxis) is largely exclamatory. Of the 77 sentence questions, all
but six or eight are repudiating. The repudiation is not a matter
of mode; questions of the same form, with egone^ etc., or exclam-
atory repetitions without a particle are always repudiating, even
with the indicative. When the previous sentence contains a
statement, the statement is rejected ; when it contains an expres-
sion or implication of will, the repudiation is directed upon the
will. Occasionally special emphasis leads to a separation of the
will and the repudiation, as in Poen. 149 egone istuc ausim facere ?,
where faciam is expanded into ausim facere^ in order to make
the repudiation stronger, as ' I should not wish (venture) to do
that' is stronger than ' I would not do it.'
In these cases the subjunctive is not dubitative or deliberative.
It is a simple subjunctive of will or desire, repeated with the
necessary change of person and corresponding in general to the
2d sing, non-interrogative.* There are, however, a few cases
which correspond to the ist sing, in soliloquy in non-interrogative
sentences. They are the disjunctive questions in Cist. 641, Cure.
589, Merc. 128 (but this is better taken as an indirect question) ;
in form Pers. 26 deisne . . . aduorser? cum eis belligerem . . . ? is
deliberative and in soliloquy, but the sense is repudiating. In a
few cases, where quid agam {Jaciam)? precedes, there is a
slight pretence of deliberation. But the whole number is small^
certainly less than one-twelfth of the sentence questions.
It has been said that the repudiating exclamations reject the
expressed or implied desire of the other person. But will can be
repudiated only by will. In the brief and typical form abi, ||
abeam f the exclamation means * You want me to go away !,' but
it also implies * I don't want to go away.' The will of the person
addressed is repeated in the mode, the will of the speaker is
indicated by the form of the sentence. Now, in many cases the
previous implication of will is not strong, while the repudiation is
^ Cf. the latest and best discussion of these questions by Wilh. Gathmann,
Ueber eine Art unwilliger Fragen im Lat., NUrnberg. 1891.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 289
definite and positive. In such cases the force of the mode is
weakened to a claim or an expression of obligation, so that it
might, at first sight, be overlooked entirely, and the sentence
might be called deliberative because only the will of the speaker
is apparent. E. g., St. 297 nunc ultro id deportem ? is in a
soliloquy ; the idea has occurred to the speaker, as if it were a
suggestion from without, that he might offer his good news
unasked. But he at once rejects the idea by the form of the
exclamation, and makes the rejection plainer by the next words,
hau placet neque id uiri ofBcium arbitror. It is only when the
suggestion is faint and there is no rejection in the form of the
sentence, that the question can properly be called deliberative.
There are few cases as near the line as St. 297 ; usually a fairly
careful examination of the context makes the case plain. The
will of the speaker, in all such exclamations, is suggested by the
form of the sentence and has nothing whatever to do with the
mode.
None of these forms is a true question, asked in order to have
a reply. The subjunctive alone was too vague, too liable to
confusion with repudiation or deliberation. For a true question,
clearly expressed, the will must be separated from the act willed.
A question in regard to the act would be either a simple form of
sentence question (with -ne appended to the verb) or a quis
question ; a question in regard to the will was expressed by the
insertion of uin in parataxis, as in Men. 606 uin hunc rogem ?,
Poen. 990 uin appellem hunc Punice ? This form of question
occurs 26 times (lists above). It must of course be supposed
that there was a time when the bare subjunctive, appellem or
perhaps appellemne^ was capable of expressinjg^ this sense, but the
form uin appellem expressed it so much more clearly that appellem
alone fell back into the more restricted function of repudiation,
and the intermediate forms {appellemne^ fell out of use.
With the quis question the matter is somewhat more compli-
cated, since the variety in the form of the question is greater. In
general, there are here also two lines of usage, differing according
as they relate to the will of the speaker or to the will of the
person addressed. They are well illustrated in the quidfaciamf,
quid agamf forms, which are given in some detail in the lists.
quidfaciam is usually a question for advice or direction, following
an impv. or its equivalent, and answered, if at all, by an impv. or
equivalent. At the other extreme quid ego nunc faciamf is
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
290 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
usually in soliloquy and deliberative, and quid ego nunc agam f
is invariably so, with no reference to the will of another person.
Between these extreme uses quid ego faciam {agam)f and quid
nunc faciam {agam)f are used either way, perhaps leaning a
little more toward the deliberative. There is but one explanation
of these facts. They illustrate the gradual advance of language,
by the formation of special idioms, from a single widely inclusive
expression to more specialized and precise expressions, quid
faciam f was once used for both functions, to ask for advice or
to express deliberation. But as the difference between these
functions was felt, quid faciam f was expanded into quid ego
nunc faciam t for the deliberative, and quid faciamf retained
only the more direct function. For the most precise expression
of a question in regard to the will of another person it was
expanded, as the sentence question was, by the insertion of uis
into quid uis faciamf or, as in Most. 556, into quid nunc faci-
undum censes f That these are all one and the same 'subjunctive'
seems to me beyond question, and that subjunctive use is the
same that is found in all exclamatory repetitions of an expression
of will, i. e. is itself a subjunctive of will. It is modified, first, by
the fact that it is in a question and therefore is concerned with the
will of the person addressed, and, second, by the use of a question
that is originally meant for dialogue in monologue, where the
speaker addressed the question to himself, quid faciamf 'What
do you want me to do ? ' then becomes ' What do I want myself
to do?,' and, as in soliloquy in non-interrogative sentences, the
self-address eonfines the will to narrow limits, to ideas of deter-
mination or choice or propriety, as in sed maneam etiam or
taceam opiumvmsi. Further, such a question, 'What am I to
do?,' spoken in soliloquy, suggests ideas like 'What can I do?,'
which have sometimes led to the use of the term potential for
this kind of subjunctive ; not improperly, if the fact is kept in
mind that it is directly connected with the subjunctive of will.
The name deliberative also applies well to these questions,
though not so well to the mode. The deliberation is in the
question more than in the subjunctive, and is expressed even in
questions which have the indicative (jquid agof)^ where we do
not speak of the ' deliberative indicative.'
The same general distinction between questions of will addressed
to another person and questions of deliberation in soliloquy runs
through all the quis questions. The forms are not so well marked
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 29 1
as in the idiomatic quidfaciamf, nor can the connecting forms be
pointed out so distinctly. In questions like quern ie diucm auiem
nominemf, guam ob rem ego argentum enumerem forasf the
force of the mode is obscured by various other ideas and is not
so easily felt as in an empty form like quid faciamf The
number of questions that can properly be called deliberative is
small, but the distinction is a real one. It is supported, too, by
the usage in indirect quis questions. These, omitting the cases
where a question is not asked, but the statement is made that a
question was asked (Becker in Studemund's Stud. I, p. 211 f.),
depend either upon an inserted uis or upon nescio or its equiv-
alent (Aul. 730, nunc mi incertumst quid agam. abeam an
maneam an adeam an fugiam : quid agam edepol nescio.
Beside these general characteristics, common to all quis
questions, there are certain peculiarities which are due to the
form of quis. These have been given in the lists, and I note here
only the more striking.
quo modo is in all cases but one an appeal implying nulla modo^
e. g. M. G. 1206 quo modo ego uiuam sine te?, and this runs
easily into a translation by can, as in some cases oiquid fiuiamf
Cf. Ps. 236 quonam uincere pacto possim animum ?
Questions with quid 'why ' and quor regularly imply a negative
answer. A question in regard to the motive or reason for acting
is of necessity argumentative, and the argumentative tone excludes
command, so that the subjunctive expresses only a vague sense
of obligation, imposed by the person addressed and repudiated
by the speaker. Cf. the same tendency in repudiating sentence
questions.
In qui ego isiuc credamf (the only use of ^i *how*) there is
the same argumentative and rejecting sense, but it is here
modified by the meaning of the verb credere. Belief is not
under the control of the will ; credos would inevitably slip into
* You should (ought to) believe*; even crede mihi is an appeal.
And qui . . . credamf rejects the implied obligation to believe by
the implied answer ' I cannot.'
On the other hand, the forms quern, quo * whither,' quid as
object, do not modify the force of the subjunctive, except in the
general ways noted above for all questions.
From what has been said I hope it may be clear that the
interrogative form of sentence is a most potent force in influencing
the meaning of the mode. That mode is the same, in origin and
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
292 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
in essential meaning, in questions as in non-interrogative sen-
tences, but the question form excludes or greatly restricts the
more direct expressions of will, introduces the reference to the
will of another person, and implies by the repudiating form an
exertion of the speaker's will. In certain idioms with specialized
forms of quis^ the idea of will is diminished to a sense of obliga-
tion, and by association and suggestion the subjunctive so far
approaches the potential meaning that it may be translated by
can and negatived by non.
With the following sections I come to consider the meaning
and effect of added words, not at all a part of the mode, which
help out the mode where it lacks clearness and add related
meanings.
Looked at historically, the sentence is the result of gradual
accretions gathering about a nucleus. The single cries or words
which were the primitive signs of emotion and thought corres-
ponded in their vagueness and inclusiveness — in their applica-
bility to a wide range of different occasions and objects — to the
vagueness of primitive thought. The words which gradually
added themselves to the nucleus were the signs of the gradual
rise into consciousness of one or another modifying or defining
aspect of the general idea. Such new features of the thought
and the new words which represented them were on the one
hand related to the original germ and had elements of likeness
to it, and on the other hand they added something which was
not contained in the original sentence. This process of sentence-
growth, which must have been infinitely complex, still continues
in language as long as the language is in a formative stage,
repeating itself on a small scale in the growth of idiomatic
phrases. The expansion of quid faciamf to quid ego nunc
faciamf is of this sort. And along the line of this general
principle is to be found the explanation of nearly all subjunctive
parataxis in Plautus.
6. Parataxis,
There are some 315 or 320 cases of paratactic use of the
subjunctive, occurring as set down in the accompanying table.
The group at the end, mainly of verbs of saying and causing,
comprises the cases of indirect quotation, in which the leading
verb states that an expression of will has been used. The
remaining cases, about 300 in number, are all of one kind. The
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS.
293
leading verb is rarely modified by adverbs or phrases ; it usually
stands next to the subjunctive, either before or after it, and it
frequently comes in the middle of the sentence. An examination
of a few of these cases, of which full lists have been given, will
make it entirely clear that what is called the leading verb,
syntactically, is not the leading verb in thought, but an addition,
Present,
3 X
sine, 18 I 14
fac, facito, facite, 9 20 10
3
I
8
iabe,
3
2
uide,
2
I
roga,
I
cedo,
2
da. date,
I
I
mane,
I
caue.
I
10
I
I
I
uolo.
8
7
2
3
I
malo,
I
I
nolo,
5
3
I
opsecro, etc..
3
credo, etc.,
I
nil interdico.
I
faxo.
8
4
2
faciam.
2
I
uelim.
4
7
malim,
I
I
uellem.
mallem,
<si) exoptem.
I
faxim.
I
I
5
<utinam) faxint.
I
optumumst,
6
I
necessest,
I
decretumst,
I
certumst,
5
nil opust.
I
licet.
4
2
decet,
I
censen.
I
(quid) uis,
8
uin, uis.
26
I
2
credin.
I
potin,
2
Other indie.
4
2
I
8^
6^
61
7
10
28
Pcrf. 2d sing., I.
Perf. 2d sing., 16 ; 3d sing., I ; Sigm. aor. 2d sing., 16.
Lists entirely incomplete.
Incomplete. Impf. 2d sing., 2; 3d sing., i.
Perf. 2d sing., 2 ; 3d sing., 3.
Perf. 3d sing., 2 ; 3d plur., 2.
Impf. 3d plur., I; Plupf. 3d sing., I ; 3d plur., I.
Impf. 3d sing., I.
Scattering, 8.
Present, 259 ; other tenses, 58. Total, 317.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
294 AMEKJCAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
an insertion, into a sentence already formed. The germ of the
sentence is the subjunctive verb ; to it almost all the modifying
words — subject, object, adverbs — belong, and the sentence would
be intelligible, though not equally precise, without the indicative
verb. In many cases sentences very similar or even absolutely
identical occur without the added verb. With the few exceptions
spoken of above — and I think it could be shown that these are
not really exceptions — all cases of paratactic subjunctive in
Plautus are of this kind.
It has been said above of the sentence in general that the
additions to it have always something in common with the germ
out of which they come, some element which is a repetition of an
element in the central idea, and that they also bring something
new, which was not before in the sentence. This is true also of
the added paratactic verbs ; they both repeat and amplify.
The idea which is taken up from the subjunctive verb and
repeated may appear in the form of the added verb or in its
meaning or in both. It appears in the form when an impv., sine^
f<Uy uide, is used with a subjunctive in ist or 2d pers. Thus
amem means * I want to love you,' and sine repeats and empha-
sizes the expressed desire; uideas expresses a command which
the impv. /a^ repeats; ^nd so \n fac sciam, fac sis frugt, prae-
cepia sobrie adcures face, linguam conpescas face, and many
more. Any of these subjunctives might stand alone, but the
jussive force would be less clearly expressed than it is when it is
strengthened by the impv. verb.
The meaning of the subjunctive is repeated in the meaning of
the leading verb by uolo, maio, nolo (together about one- tenth of
all the cases), by opsecro, quaeso, oro (the lists of which, I regret
to say, are entirely incomplete), used with the 2d and 3d pers.
chiefly, where the speaker is emphasizing or defining his own
will, and by licet, nil opusi, decet, which define the nature of the
desire. Thus animum aduortas may stand alone as an expression
of will, but the will of the speaker is doubled when uolo is added.
So taceas malo quam . . ., habeas licet, hoc agas uolo, iuris
iurandi uolo gratiam facias, and many more. The phrases in
the impersonal group, optumumst, necessest, decretumst, certumst,
are used almost exclusively with ist sing, and repeat those
modified kinds of desire which are latent in these infrequent
forms, sed maneam etiam might perfectly well have been
explained by optumumst^ as sed taceam (Epid. 59) would have
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 295
been intelligible without optumumst\ or quod perdundumsi pro-
per em perdere might be glossed by necessesi. These all belong
to the subjunctive of will. The subjunctive of view or opinion is
occasionally repeated in censeo, credo, scio, though these verbs,
used with the subjunctive, may express an opinion as to what is
best, as in sed maneam eHam, opinor, where opinor is nearly the
same as optumumst As the more direct expressions of will
imply a determination on the part of the speaker to see that the
command is obeyed, they are emphasized \>y faxo.faciam.
. In a few cases the idea of the mode is repeated both in the
form and the meaning of the added verb. So especially sine,
and also roga, iubey though these have more to do with defining
the relation of persons. The group of subjunctives, uelimy maitm,
ueUetHy mallemy also belong here, repeating by their meaning the
will-force of the mode and by their form defining the will as a
wish, faxim is used only in apodosis, where the subjunctive
verb was or would have been the apodosis M faxim had not been
thrust in; e. g. Pers. 73 si id fiat, faxim nusquam appareant,
Amph. 511 si sciat . . ., ego faxim ted Amphitruonem esse malis.
The hypothetical idea is doubled. The one case oi faxint is
perhaps clearer; Amph. 632 utinam di faxint infecta dicta re
eueniant tua, where the added thought, di faxint^ is a wish
because utinam eueniant alone would have been a wish. These
cases afford, I think, some independent support to the explanation
of uelim given above. The use of uis in quis questions and of
uin in sentence questions may also be mentioned here. The verb
by its meaning repeats the meaning of the mode and by its
combination with quis or -ne repeats the question.
Repetition, however, is not the function of these added verbs ;
it is only the condition which makes their close union with the
subjunctive possible. Their function is to define, to bring out
more clearly the particular kind of will or desire which is
expressed too vaguely in the mode, or to express with precision
something in the relation of the persons involved which the
subjunctive merely suggests.
As to the meaning of the mode, to illustrate the definition of it
by examples would be to repeat the lists already given. Will in
its more direct forms is defined by uolo, uis, uin ; wish (optation)
by uelim \ preference by maio\ determination and choice by
faxOf decretumst, certumst ; entreaty by opsecro, oro ; permission
by licet \ propriety by decet\ necessity by necessest\ decision and
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
296 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
sense of obligation by opiumumst ; belief, opinion by credo ^ censeo^
scio. The expressions of desire which appear infrequently or not
at all in parataxis are those which are in themselves most explicit,
the ist plur. and the 2d sing, of command : the latter, however,
is frequently intensified by fac or uolo. The variety and extent
of these uses, defying precise classification, indicate the variety of
application of which the subjunctive was capable.
It is chiefiy in the 3d person that the relation of the persons
involved needs definition, because here the hearer may be con-
cerned with the action, though his part is left to suggestion. In
many cases this makes no difference. When the subject is in the
plural or is one of a class, and, generally, when the hearer is
merely a bystander, other forces, chiefly due to person and
number, limit the range of the mode so that further definition is
unnecessary. But when both hearer and actor are definite
persons, it is often necessary for the sake of clearness that the
hearer's part should not be left to suggestion. The varieties of
usage and the corresponding paratactic forms have been suffici-
ently illustrated above. Am ph. 951 euocate hue Sosiam : ...
Blepharonem arcessat, suggests the same idea which is definitely
expressed by the addition of iube^ in Most. 930 die me aduenisse
fillo . . . iube in urbem ueniat. Most. 920 hodie accipiat implies
that the slave is to attend to the matter, and in Pers. 445 facito
mulier ad me transeat, this idea is important enough to find
expression va facito. But, as has been said, many verbs with/ac
are passives and have few or no parallels outside of parataxis.
Compare also M. G. iioo aurum habeat sibi . . . : sumat, habeat,
auferat, with M. G. 1244 sine ultro ueniat, quaeritet, desideret.
In all these cases it is the need of more precise expression of the
hearer's part in the action which has led to the addition of the
imperative.
Some of the sporadic cases of defining parataxis are especially
interesting. Of the nine cases in ist sing, with fac^ all are with
verbs of knowing, noscam^ uidcam^ sciam ; a phrase meaning ' I
desire to know ' and addressed directly to another person is in
effect an appeal for information. The phrases da cLbsorbeam
^Occasionally iube loses its proper sense, as in Ter. Adelph. 914 f. iube
nunciam dinumeret ille Babylo uiginti minas; see SpengePs note. So in
Most. 426 iube uenire nunciam, like Engl, slang *now bring on your man,*
and this is the sense once with a paratactic subjunctive, Rud. 708 iube modo
accedat prope.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 297
(Cure. 313), cedo bibam (True. 367, Most. 373, where the MSS
give ut bibam^ which may be right), mane sis uideam (Most. 849),
and perhaps concede inspiciam (Cure. 427) illustrate a eonnection
between the added verb and the subjunctive in which the amount,
so to speak, of addition greatly exceeds the repetition. That is,
mane uideam is a brief expression for mane et sine uideam, and
cedo bibam is for cedo ei fac bibam. Cf. Most. 344 da illi quod
bibat, where the thought is somewhat more expanded, and Verg.
Aen. IV 683 f. date uolnera lymphis Abluam et extremus siquis
super halitus errat Ore legam. Capt. 961 quod ego fatear, credin
pudeat quom autumes ? is an expansion by the insertion of credin^
as uin is inserted with a slightly different meaning ; cf. also M. G.
614 quodne nobis placeat, displiceat mihi? In the same way
potin is prefixed to abeas in Pers. 297, Cas. 731, a phrase which
later expands into potin ut abeas. In Most. 679 f. euocadum
aliquem oeius, roga circumdueat, roga is substituted for the more
common iube because the aliquis was not the speaker's slave.
The group of cases in which the leading verb is an indicative
(other than uolo, credo^ f<^X0y etc.), in all about a dozen cases,
differ somewhat from the ordinary parataxis and have been
passed over in the foregoing remarks. They approach more
nearly the usual conception of parataxis as the joining in thought
of two sentences, each of which is complete in itself. Yet in
most eases a distinct relationship to complementary parataxis can
be traced. Thus in Amph. 257, uelatis manibus orant ignoseamus
peccatum suom, the mode is repeated in the meaning of orant.
In M. G. 54, at peditasteUi quia erant, siui uiuerent, there is
combined a quotation of a past thought (''I said to myself
^uiuanf') and a repetition of the subjunctive in sino. So in
nearly all the verbs which quote a subjunctive, uoltis^ suadeSy
impetraui, rogarat, coniurauimus, accuratum habuit, there is an
element of meaning which harmonizes with the mode. In Stich.
624, dixi in careerem ires, there is no repetition of the mode,
such as would be expressed by iussi, but simple quotation. The
greatest expansion of the prefixed verb, so great that it would
perhaps be correct to speak of it as an independent sentence,
appears in St. 177 hoe nomen repperi eo quia paupertas fecit
ridieulus forem, and Rud. 681 quae uis (the noun) uim mi
adferam ipsa adigit.
I have said nothing thus far of the negative verbs, nolo, nil
inierdico (jnterduo)^ nil opust, or of caue. The process of accre-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
298 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
tion cannot have produced the negative sentence out of the
affirmative ; every negative sentence must have been negative in
thought from the beginning of its conception. Such a phrase,
therefore, as nolo antes (Cas. 233) does not begin with antes and
then prefix nolo\ it begins with the prohibition, ne ames, and
expands that by the insertion of uoio into ne-uolo antes. With
caue the matter is more complicated. It is used 47 times; 10
times with pres. 2d sing., 16 with perf. 2d sing.« 16 with the
sigmatic aorist 2d sing., the rest scattering. These are the forms
which are also largely used with ne in prohibitions, and in many
uses caue and ne are exactly parallel. Thus Capt. 439 caue
fidem fluxam feras (^geras GS.), and 443 infidelior mihi ne fuas
quam ego sum tibi; Capt. 431 horunc uerborum causa caue tu
mi iratus fuas, and Amph. 924 ignosce, irata ne sies ; Pers. 816
caue sis me attigas, ne tibi . . . malum magnum dem, and True.
276 ne attigas me. So ne feceris and caue feceris^ ne dixeris
and caue dixeris^ ne istuc dixis and caue tu istuc dixis. On the
other hand, there are no cases oi caue parallel to the frequent ne
posiules {censeaSyfrustra sis) and none like ntolestus ne sis, which
is common. The sentences with caue are generally longer and
are more frequently accompanied by sis (si uis). It would
appear that while caue has in a considerable number of cases
sunk to a mere negative, not to be distinguished from ne, it has
also retained enough of its proper verbal force to prevent its use
in certain forms of prohibition. It is not likely that the sinking
to a negative force can have occurred except through the use in
combination with another verb, for a prohibition implies an action
to be prohibited. As long as it was used alone, caue would mean
* take care ! ' or ' beware ! * It could mean * don't* only when some
definite action was proposed. The prohibition with ne must be
older than the prohibition with caue, and that in its turn is
probably older than caue ne, which is rare in early Latin (only
half a dozen times in Plautus). All this would be explained if we
suppose that caue was prefixed to the subjunctive, chiefly in 2d
sing., on the analogy of other impvv., sine,fac, iube, uide, as a
periphrasis of the ne prohibition, but with a slightly different
force, emphasizing the watchfulness and the activity of the person
addressed, in accordance with the proper meaning of cauere.
This would be analogous to the prefixing oiuelint to differentiate
the wish from the expression of will by means of uoio. The
natural sphere of such a use would be in the more elaborate and
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 299
formal prohibitions, but it would tend to degenerate into an
equivalent of ne^ though never so far as to be used at all
frequently in blunt prohibitions like molesius ne sis}
The term parataxis, which has been used above of the prefixing
of a verb to a subjunctive, is commonly employed to designate
the dependence of a sentence complete in itself upon another
complete sentence, without any sign of the subordination. It is
in this sense that the word is used by Draeger, §§368-75, and by
Stolz-Schmalz, §208, and this is sometimes regarded as the only
proper use of the term.' But this kind of parataxis is only the
most obvious form of dependence without subordinating sign,
which has been accepted as representative of parataxis in general.
It needs to be broken up, to be analyzed, so that the different
varieties of the process which has produced all subordinating
words may be more accurately understood. The program of
Weissenhom (Parataxis Plautina, Burghausen, 1884) and the
dissertation of Weninger (de parataxis in Ter. fab. uestigiis,
Erlangen, 1888) follow the lines of Draeger, and the fuller work
which seemed to be promised by Becker's program (Beiordnende
und unterordnende Satzverbindung, Metz, 1888) has not yet
appeared. Lindskog (de parataxi et hypotaxi ap. prise, lat.,
Lundae, 1896) deals chiefly, though not wholly, with what may
be called correlative parataxis, where the two sentences are
balanced by the repetition of like words or by some other simi-
larity in the structure (Tac. Ann. I 28 tarda sunt, quae in com-
mune expostulantur : priuatam gratiam statim mereare, statim
recipias). This variety of parataxis must be fully studied in
order to reach an understanding of the relative or of protasis and
apodosis. In what has been said above I have dwelt upon the
facts at greater length because the prefixing of the verb seems to
be a different and hitherto little noticed variety of the subordin-
> It is possible that caue ne may have an independent origin from caue: ne
facias^ but it is also possible (and to me it seems more probable) that it is an
expansion oicaue facias by the insertion of n^, after ne had acquired conjunc-
tional force. So I should explain some phrases with ut (e. %^fac utualeas as
an expansion of fac ualeas), though doubtless in many cases both ne and ut
were a part of the subordinated sentence. Another explanation of, e. g., caue
eatlas as meaning originally *look out ! you may fair is difficult because codas
alone in Plautus would never mean * you may fall/ and, if it had that meaning,
would not take a prefixed imperative.
'So Earle, Proc. Amer. Phil. Assoc, Dec. 1894, p. 50. The prefixing of
Pui'^t, deXeig, which is like the insertion of uis, uin^ he calls verbal preposition.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
300 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
ating process, and to be of some value for the explanation of
certain subordinate clauses. It will explain, in part, the limitation
of the ut clause to certain kinds of leading verbs, the presence of
the negative in the leading clause upon which a quin clause
depends, and it has been largely instrumental in producing the
indirect question. Any process through which subordinating
force is acquired may fairly be called parataxis; this variety
might be called defining or complementary parataxis.
Nothing could show more clearly than these constructions the
wide applicability of subjunctive forms, or — if we attempt to
group them and to speak of the meaning of the subjunctive —
the inherent vagueness of the mode. In spite of the effect of
person and number, of tense, voice, form of sentence, verb-
meaning, all working more or less effectively toward precision,
a paratactic addition is needed in about one-fifth of the cases in
Plautus to bring out clearly the latent meaning. And the more
one examines the cases, the more will the variety and beauty of
this means of attaining to precise expression be apparent. They
are a running commentary on the meaning of the mode, showing
both by what they repeat and by what they add how the mode is
to be interpreted. They show where aijd how the mode seemed
inadequate to those who used it, and for correct interpretation, at
least in colloquial Latin, they are of more service than any other
means at our disposal.
Of other words, adverbs and particles, which limit and define
the meaning of the mode it is not necessary to speak in detail.
Most of them are well known, and for the present purpose it is
necessary only to allude to the need of distinguishing between
the function of the mode and that of the particle. In Pers. 542,
uideam modo mercimonium. || aequa dicis, the restrictive force is
not in the mode; uideam alone might have any one of the
meanings possible in the ist sing., 'I want to,' 'I had better,' 'I
must,' but modo adds a restrictive idea which is contained, it is
true, in the mode, but not expressed by it. So ita in ita dime
ament may be taken to be a sign of the asseveration. With
utinam the precise steps by which it became a sign of the wish
are unknown, but its use shows the need and function of such
defining words. With the most distinct and vehement forms of
wish it is used very rarely or not at all. Thus in the 3d plur. it
is used three times, but not at all with the 118 cases which
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 3OI
contain the word di. With these «/, a less distinct sign of the
wish, is used four times and at, guin, qui still more frequently.
In the 3d sing, the forms quae res bene uortat, bene {maW) sit,
luppiter te perdat, never have utinam^ though ut ie Mercurius
perdat occurs once. The function of utinam is to distinguish
wishes of a general character, not already specialized by verb-
meaning or by direct mention of the gods, from other uses of the
subjunctive with which they might be confused. The reference
of proin, proinde to the preceding thought gives it a certain
argumentative force, which makes it unfitted for use with the
more intense expressions of will. It is found especially with the
2d sing., though somewhat with other persons, in advice or
direction, and may be said to be to some extent a mark of such
uses of the subjunctive. In the same way other words, especially
comparatives, are associated with the potential uses, which will
be discussed below.
E. P. Morris.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
III.— CAECILIUS OF CALACTE.
A Contribution to the History of Greek Literary
Criticism.
In the time of Augustus the two leading critics in the literary
world of Greece and Rome were Dionysius of Halicarnassus and
Caecilius of Calacte. Of the merits of the former it is easy to
judge from his extant works. The task is more difficult in the
case of the latter, whose remains are few and fragmentary. Yet
the figure of Caecilius is so interesting, and in some ways so
significant, that it seems worth while to review the scattered'
notices of his life, and to form such general notions as we can of
the nature of his writings. In this work of reconstruction not a
litde help may be obtained from a careful examination of the
Treatise on the Sublime, a book attributed, by a tradition long
since challenged, to Longinus, the minister of Queen Zenobia.
Suidas, our principal authority with regard to the life of
Caecilius, tells us that he was a Sicilian rhetorician who practised
at Rome in the time of Augustus Caesar, that he was according
to some accounts of servile birth, that his original name was
Archagathus, and that he was *in faith a Jew.*^ Suidas, it will be
seen from the extract given below, adds (if the words are to be
regarded as genuine) the surprising statement that his life
extended till the advent of Hadrian, whose reign began more
than a century after the death of Augustus. This inexactitude
has led Blass to assume that Caecilius, the rhetorician, has here
been confused with Q. Caecilius Niger, the quaestor of Verres,
about whom Plutarch makes statements similar to those of
'Suidas, s. v. Ka/xi7tof Y.cukxKlo^ {KtKihjjo^ codd.) ItLKthLrri^ KaXavriavdc^
KdXavTig 6e irdXtg 2</ceX/ac, Mr^Pt ooi^iOTEhaaq h 'Vufii) kirl tov le^currov Kaiffopoc
KOI Eug *A6piavov^ Kai aTro doh^uv, wf riveg laropffKcuJi, /cat irpdrepov fuv Kokohfievog
'Apx&yadoi, T^ 6^ 66§av 'lovScuoc. There seems little doubt (cp. Athen. VI
272,/; XI 466, a) that Ka?MKTivoc and KaMtcnj should be read for KaXavriavdc
and KdXavTic. Archagathus^ it may be added, seems to have been a specially
Sicilian name: see G. Kaibel, Inscriptiones Graecae Siciliae, 210, 211, 212,
330 (conjecturally), 376.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
CAECILIUS OF CALACTE. 303
Suidas.^ It has led an earlier writer to go further still, and to
assume the identity of the rhetorician and the quaestor.' But
however much or however little truth there may be in these
hypotheses, or in C. Miiller's conjecture (F. H. G. Ill 331 a)
that his ancestors had been brought as slaves from Syria to
Sicily, it is not disputed that Caecilius Calactinus taught rhetoric
at Rome, wherein he resembled Dionysius, of whom he was in
fact an inlimate friend.'
The biographical notes thus given by Suidas reappear, almost
without variation, in the *i»vid ( Violarium, bed of violets) attributed
to Eudocia, who flourished in the eleventh century, and was suc-
cessively the wife of the emperors Constantine XI (Ducas) and
Romanus IV (Diogenes). There is a like correspondence also
in the lists of Caecilius' writings as supplied by Suidas and by
Eudocia. The same works are mentioned, and in the same
order.^ Departing from this order for the sake of convenience,
we may classify the productions of Caecilius under the two heads
of history and literary criticism.
Of the historical writings of Caecilius we know little. But the
fact itself that he attempted history is not without an interest of
its own, quite apart from the further point of contact which it
affords between him and Dionysius. Athenaeus, who is here our
principal informant, says that a history of the Servile Wars in
Sicily was brought out by Caecilius the rhetorician of Calacte.*
When we remember that Caecilius was himself, according to the
story, of servile origin, and when we remember, further, that his
town of Calacte had been founded by the rebel leader of an
earlier era, Ducetius, we can imagine that he would recount the
exploits of Spartacus with peculiar zest. Athenaeus also refers
to a treatise of his on history, which contained an anecdote of
* Plut. Cic. VII : ai:tkj£vBtpuu^ ivOpumo^, ivox^ ^V tovdiUl^eiVy bvofia KeiuXto(, —
Friedrich Blass, Die griechische Beredsamkett in dem Zettraum von Alexander
bis auf Augustus, p. 174. But cp. Th. Reinach, Revue des £tudes Juives,
XXVI 36.
*G. Buchenau, De scriptore libri irepl v^»ovf, pp. 41, 42.
» Dionys. Hal.. Epist. ad Cn. Pompeium, p. 777 (ed. Reiske) : tfioi fUvroi luu
r^ ^i7jTdTi,i KcuKtXiif) doKci ra kvdv/i^fiaTa avrov (sc. OovKvdidov) /tdXurrd yt nal
*On the spuriousness of the 'lufid see Pulch, Hermes, XVII 177 ; A. J. P.
Ill 489. IV 109. V 114 f.. VII 104.
^Athenaeus, VI 272, /: a<ryypafifjid re kKSidcMu irepl tuv dovXiKctv nuXkfuiv
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
304 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
the Sicilian tyrant Agathocles.* Whether the work in question
was theoretical or practical we cannot say. It may have been
identical with one given under a somewhat different title in
Suidas' list.'
And now we approach Caecilius in his special rdle, that of a
literary critic. And first of all it is worth notice that his more
purely literary, or aesthetic, judgments rested on a sufficiently
solid foundation of verbal scholarship. He was not wanting on
the technical, philological, grammatical side. The key-note of
his literary activity was sounded in his «cora ^pvyw^ which was, as
its title indicates, a kind of Antibarbams^ His energies were
chiefly spent in waging war against the licence of the Asiatic
school, and in inculcating a pure Attic style. As a means to the
same end he prepared that 'select glossary' of Attic phrases to
which Suidas refers, and also a lexicon of rhetorical terms (Xf(iic6v
pfrropiK6v). Both of these were destined to have many subsequent
imitators, the latter being the prototype of Harpocration, from
one of whose articles, indeed, its existence is ehiefly inferred.
Caecilius seems also to have written an ar/ of rhetoric^ and a work
on figures.*' The latter is frequently quoted by other Greek
rhetoricians and by Quintilian.*
* Athenaeus, XI 466, a : KaMciXiOf cT b {iifrup^ 6 airb Ka?.^c fl«^. fv r^p nept
icTopiac ^AyaBoKXia ^rial tov ripawov^ eKw^fiara XP^^^ ImdeiKvhifTa, roi^ iraipotg
if>AaKeiv, e§ aw tKEpdpevae KartOKtvaKkvai ravra.
' Suidas, 1. c, nepl rwv Koff laropiav fj irap* laropiav tipijukvuv toI^ jji/ropatv.
This title would seem to show that Caecilius was well aware that the rheto-
rician did not always make an ideal historian.
'Suidas' enumeration of Caecilius* writings may be conveniently given here
in full from Imm. Bekker's edition, p. 555 : pipXia 6k avTov wo^2a, Kara ^puyuv
fi'' iari 6e Kara aroix^lov airddet^/g tov elpyaOat naaav /.i^iv Ka^XipprfpoavvrfC eon
6e fxAoy^ Xi^euv Kara (rroixf^lov • avyKpiat^ AfffioaOevov^ Kal KiKipovo^ • rivt diat^tpei
6 'Xttiko^ ^tl"^ TOV 'Aaiatfov • nepi tov x^P^^^VP^ ''wv / prjrdpuv ' ffiyKptat^ ^rifio-
aBkvovq Kai AitJx'tvov ' irtpl ArfpoaBivovg^ noiot avTov yvijoiot Adyoi koI iroioi v6fhi •
irepl TCiv Koff laropiav [^ nap* itnopiav, codd. et G. Bernhardius] Elprjptvuv Toi^
piiTopat, Ka\ &X?ja ^r^Zcrra.— >In the section at present under consideration Blass
suggests: koto, ♦pvywv p'' Iqti 6i anddei^i^ tov (delv) eip^aOai naaav M^iv ev
Ka7Juppr]uoaivi)' Iti de c/cAo)-^ A/fe&w Kord OToixeiov. M. H. E. Meier (Opuscula
Academica, 1 131) proposed fUTa KdX?dpprfpo<rit'r;g, By /ca?.?./pp^/«M76w7 * elegance
of diction ' seems to be meant.
*Tixvv priTopiKij and "rrtpl (T;t7?/idrwv. For the former cp. Quintil., Inst. Orat,
Hit, 16.
*By the rhetoricians Alexander mpX ffxVf^aTiJv (Spengel, Rhetores Graeci.
Ill 7-40), Phoebammon ax^^a nepi axn/^oTuv /jrfTopiKov (ibid. Ill 41-56), and
Tiberius nepl axffpaTuv (ibid. Ill 57-82). By Quintilian, IX 3, 89: haec
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
CAECILIUS OF CALACTE. 3OS
Next come two works of a more distinctly literary cast, one
illustrating the differences of the Attic and the Asiatic style, and
the other characterising the ten (Attic) orators.* In both these
writings Caecilius was on ground which he had made specially
his own. Atticism as opposed to Asiaticism was his great pre-
occupation, and it is in him that we find the first specific reference
to the so-called canon of the ten Attic orators. That he was the
first to frame the canon, we are hardly entitled to assert, though
many good authorities have held that view. The probability,
rather, seems to be that it should be referred neither to Rome and
Caecilius, nor yet (as the traditional opinion among scholars since
Ruhnken's time has been) to Alexandria, but to Pergamus and the
end of the second century B. C* Pergamus, like Alexandria, was
a notable centre of learning. Rhetoric in particular flourished
greatly there, as in Asia Minor generally, whereas at Alexandria
it was but little studied. Over and above this general treatise on
the distinctive features of the ten Attic orators, Cae(:ilius wrote
separately on the authenticity of the speeches of Demosthenes,
on Antiphon, and on Lysias.'
omnia (viz. the whole question of rhetorical figures) copiosius sunt exsecuti,
qui non ut partem operis transcurrerunt, sed proprie libros huic operi dedica-
verunt, sicut Caecilius, Dionysius, Ruttlius, Cornificius, Visellius aliique non
pauci, sed non minor erit eorum qui vivunt gloria. The same treatise is
probably indicated in Quintilian, V 10, 7 ; IX 3, 38, 46, 91, 97.
* SuidaSi 1. c: rivi SuujtlpeL 6 'Arr</cdf C^^^f ^<w 'Aatavov and Trepl tov ;t'a^a\r^/>of
ruv i prrrdpuv, Liddell and Scott interpret C^Aof of Asiatic extravagance. But
the title of Caecilius* book seems to suggest a more general meaning, such as
emulation^ imitatum^ manner. At the same time the word appears to be used
specially of the Asiatic school. Cp. Plut., Anton. Vit. 2 : exPV^o ^^ tu /caPjw-
fUWf) fiEv *Aaiav(f) 'C.ifh^ tCjv X6yuv aiSmnm fiakuna Kof SKeivcv Tbv XP^^^t kxovri 6i
TTo?^^ 6fjioi6T7/Ta TTpbg TOV P'tov avTov KOfiir66rf Kai ^pvayfiariav dvra Kal kevw
yavpidfMTo^ Kal (U7joTifiiaq avQfjLah}v fuOT&v, and Strabo, 648 : '^yrjaiag h inirup^ bg
yp^e /idAiara tov 'Aaiavoif Xey'O/xivov C^Aov, ^^rapaKpdeipac rd KaOeaTTfKog Idoq to 'Attikov.
'See Brzoska's learned and ingenious dissertation, De Canone Decem
Oratorum Quaestiones, Vratislaviae, 1883. H. Usener, however, declares for
Alexandria: Dionysii Hal. librorum de imitatione reliquiae, p. 132.
'Suidas, 1. c: irepl AfifioadivovCf iroioi airrov yv^moi Tidyoi xal ttoIoi v66ot,
[Plutarch], X Oratorum Vitae, 832 E: Km«A<of ev r^ wept avToif (sc. 'Avnqcjv
Toc) owTdyfMTi, [Longinus]. ^rtpi 'rVwuf, XXXII 8: 6 KeKiTuoQ kv To'ig vnkp
Xvaiov avyypdfifiaaiv. In this last passage the plural and the preposition are
to be noted. Caecilius, it seems to be implied, often dealt with Lysias, and in
the spirit of an advocate rather than a judge. Cp. Baudat, iStude sur Denys
d'Halicamasse et le Traite de la Disposition des Mots, p. 16.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
306 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
[Photius has preserved a passage from the book on Antiphon in
w&ich Caecilius remarks that that orator seldom uses the 'figures
of thought/ and only where nature herself is his prompter.^ By
'figures of thought' (a;rif"»T" diapoias) Caecilius denoted irony,
rhetorical question, and the like, as distinguished from 'figures of
language' (trxil^'^*^ Xf^cor), viz. assonance, balance of clauses, and
so onr/The whole passage is interesting, and it forms the longest
fragment we possess of Caecilius.'
The consideration of Caecilius' attitude towards another Attic
orator, Lysias, brings us, as we have already noted, into direct
contact with the De Sublimiiate, In the thirty-second chapter of
that treatise we read : ' Fastening on such defects [as have previ-
ously been mentioned], Caecilius, in his writings in praise of
Lysias, ventured to make the assertion that Lysias was altogether
superior to Plato. In so doing he gave way to his feelings,
unlike a true critic, in two respects. Loving Lysias better than
his own person, he nevertheless hates Plato more perfectly than
he loves Lysias. He is carried away by the spirit of contention,
and even his premises are not, as he thought, admitted. For he
prefers the orator, as faultless and immaculate, to Plato as one
who has often made mistakes. But the facts are not of this
nature, nor anything like it.' "
If we accept this passage without qualification, we shall certainly
feel bound to form a poor opinion of Caecilius as a judge of great
literature. But we must not forget that the De Sublimiiaie is a
polemical treatise. As its opening words show, it is directed
against those shortcomings of Caecilius which suggested its
preparation. Moreover, the author of the treatise cannot, surely,
himself wish to imply more, at the most, than that Caecilius
compared the two as writers solely, and not as thinkers and
artists. The author (whoever he was) and Caecilius were, both
of them, opposed to Asianism ; and Caecilius may well have held
1 Phot., Cod. 259. p. 485 B. 29, Bekker.
« Cp. R. C. Jebb, Attic Orators', I 28 ; F. Blass. Die attiichc Beredsamkeit*,
I 118. — The following definition of a figure is attributed by Phoebammon
(Spengel, Rhett. Gr. Ill 34) to Caecilius: ILamOuo^ Si 6 KaAoxr/rjTf (codd.
Ka?MifdiTfjg) (jpiaaro ovtw oxVf^ ^cri Tfxmf^ fif to fiij Kara ^vaiv rd nyf diavoiac kqI
"Xk^ELtq, Is this to be harmonised with the passage in Photius on Shakespeare*s
principle that it is sometimes natural to be unnatural ? ' This is an art | Which
does mend nature, change it rather, but | The art itself is nature,' Winter's
Tale. IV 4.
»7rcpi t)V«wf, XXXII8.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
CAECILIUS OF CALACTE, 307
that, from this and other points of view, Lysias was a safer model
for the young student of composition than Plato. So to hold
would simply be to recognise that average humanity should
choose more modest standards than those presented by the
loftiest and most daringly original genius. But, however inter-
preted, the critic's words can hardly be acquitted of the charge
of exaggeration ; they seem to show that he was himself 'carried
away by the spirit of contention.' At all events, we know from
another source that Caecilius was no such blind and uncritical
admirer of Lysias as is here suggested. On the contrary, he
found fault with him on the ground that he was less skilful in the
arrangement of arguments than in invention.*
It will be well here to quote, without abridgment, from the De
Sublimitate its opening sentence, for in the original it is all one
sentence, though rather a long one: 'You will remember, my
dear Postumius Terentianus, that when we examined together
the treatise of Caecilius on the Sublime, we found that it fell
below the dignity of the whole subject, while it failed signally to
grasp the essential points, and in consequence conveyed to its
readers but little of that practical help which it should be a
writer's principal aim to give. In every systematic treatise two
things are required. The first is, to indicate what the subject is.
The second in order ranks higher in importance. It concerns
the means and methods by which we may attain our end. Now,
Caecilius essays to show the nature of the sublime by countless
instances, as though our ignorance demanded it, but the consid-
eration of the means whereby we can avail to bring our own
natures to a certain pitch of elevation he has, in some strange
way, passed by as unnecessary. However, it may be the man
ought not so much to be blamed for his omissions as praised for
his happy thought and his enthusiasm.'
It is clear from this preface that Caecilius had written a treatise
— ^apparently a short one — of which the subject, and probably the
title, was ircpi v^rovr. This treatise his successor in the same field,
a writer who is now generally supposed to have belonged to the
first century of our era rather than to the third, had examined in
conjunction with his young Roman friend Postumius Terentianus.'
^Phot., Cod. 262, p. 489 B. 13.
'It should be noted that the MSS, in this passage, gire the name as
IloaTobfue ^Xupevriavi. I hope to discuss this reading elsewhere, in cob-
nexion with the general subject of the authorship of the nepl v^fnv^.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
308 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
They had found in it much to desire, but due credit is given to
its author for originality in his choice of theme.*
The work of Caecilius on the Sublime has been lost entirely,
and that of his successor exists only in a mutilated form, about
one-third of it having disappeared. It is therefore impossible to
speak with any certainty about the two books and their relation
to one another. But it seems open to question whether the later
treatise was not guilty, to some extent, of the omission which, in
its proemium, it imputes to the earlier. In any case, it seems to
have trodden closely in the footsteps of Caecilius, especially
when treating oi figures and tropes. The references to Caecilius
are either direct or indirect. The direct references, besides those
already mentioned, are the following. In the eighth chapter we
are told that he had omitted some of the five sources of elevated
speech, passion {ytoBoi) being specially mentioned. Towards the
end of the chapter we have the same criticism driven home thus :
* If, however, Caecilius considered that passion never contributes
at all to sublimity, and if it was for this reason that he did not
deem it worthy of mention, he is altogether deceived. I would
affirm with confidence that there is no tone so lofty as that of
genuine passion, in its right place, when it bursts forth in a wild
gust of mad enthusiasm, and fills the words, so to say, with
frenzy.' Inc. XXXI Caecilius is again taken to task: 'In this
way, too, that original expression of Theopompus merits praise.
Owing to the correspondence between word and thing, it seems
to me to be very expressive ; and yet Caecilius, for some unex-
plained reason, finds fault with it. "Philip," says Theopompus,
"had a genius for stomaching {dvayKo<l>ay^trat) things." Now, a
homely expression is sometimes much more telling than eloquent
language, for it is understood at once, since it is drawn from
^ There seems no valid reason for questioning this originality, though from
the nature of the case we cannot demonstrate it. At first sight it might seem
likely in itself that a man with Hebrew inclinations should conceive the idea.
But we do not know precisely what was Caecilius' attitude to his theme. It
would, however, appear probable, from the character of his own fragments
and from his known regard for Lysias, that he favoured a plain rather than a
heightened style. But we suffer everywhere from want of information. For
instance, we cannot tell whether he confined (as he might almost seem to have
done) his investigations to prose- writers, and excluded the poets, who figure
so largely in the De SubUmitau, Nor yet can we assert that he did, or did
not, agree with so many of his Greek and Roman contemporaries and
successors in associating literary criticism with art-criticism.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
CAECILIUS OF CALACTE. 3O9
common life, and the fact that it is familiar only makes it the
more convincing. So the words 'stomaching things' are used
most strikingly of a man who, for the sake of attaining his own
ends, patiently and with cheerfulness endures things shameful
and vile.' In the next chapter it is mentioned, apparently in an
approving rather than in a merely critical spirit, that 'with regard
to the number of metaphors to be employed, Caecilius seems to
assent to the view of those who lay it down that two, or at the
most three, should be ranged together in the same passage.'
Finally, when in c. IV the author is illustrating the vice of
frigidity from the writings of the historian Timaeus, he excuses
himself from a lengthy enumeration of examples on the ground
that 'most of them have already been quoted by Caecilius.'
Thus the direct references are, as usually happens when a new
writer is treating a subject previously handled by some one else,
of a rather controversial nature. But this is not all. The general
contents of the treatise, and its sequence, or want of sequence,
seem to be influenced by the fact that the author had the book of
Caecilius before him, and assumed the same of his reader or
readers. This is probably also the explanation of the rather
abrupt way in which some of the literary illustrations make their
appearance. And we may possibly include among indirect allu-
sions to Caecilius such expressions as rhv ypa^vra in c. XXXVI 3,
where the passage runs: 'In reply, however, to the writer who
maintains that the faulty Colossus is not superior to the Dory-
phorus of Polycleitus, it may be readily said, among many other
things, that,' etc.; and the words 6 rols xpi^^'^ofiaBovaiif imrifi&p in c.
II 3, where the complete sentence is: 'If, I say, the critic of
those who desire to learn were to turn these matters over in his
mind, he would no longer, it seems to me, regard the investigation
of the subject as unnecessary and useless.' It has also been
maintained that in c. II i the word (^i/cri should be understood of
Caecilius, but this does not seem altogether probable. There is a
more likely instance in XXIX i.*
^On the whole question see M. Rothstein in Hermes, XXIII 1-20; L.
Martens, De Libello Uepi "TV'ovf, Bonnae, 1877; Morawski, Qaaestiones
Quintilianeae, Posnaniae, 1874, and De Dionysii et Caecilii Studiis Rhetoricis
in Rheinisches Museum, XXXIV, pp. 370 seqq.; Burckhardt, Caecili Rhetoris
Fragmenta, Basileae, 1863; Weise, Quaestiones Caecilianae, Berolini, 1888;
F. CaccialanzE, Cecilio da Calatte e V Ellen ismo a Roma nel secolo di Augusto
(Rivista di Filologia, XVIII 1-73).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
3IO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
Suidas, it will have been noticed, ascribes to Caecilius a com-
parison between Demosthenes and Aeschines, and another between
Demosthenes and Cicero. On the subject of the latter compari-
son, Plutarch in his Life of Demosthenes has some caustic
remarks. We will forego, says he, the task of contrasting the
two orators, and of pronouncing upon their superiority in charm
or intensity. We must remember, he continiyes, the proverb
about a fish out of water ^ which 'the all- accomplished Caecilius
overlooked when he had the hardihood to publish a comparison
between Demosthenes and Cicero. However, it may well be that
if the saying Know thyself were always present to everybody's
mind, it would not have been thought a divine behest.' ^
These severe strictures upon Caecilius recall the equally severe
remark, already quoted from the De Subltmiiaie, that 'although
he loved Lysias better than his own person, he nevertheless hated
Plato more than he loved Lysias.* Clearly, Caecilius was unpop-
ular. He may have been one of those men who are described,
by those who like them, as original and versatile, and by those
who like them not, as self-confident and audacious. We cannot
disregard the mild irony of Plutarch, whose attitude is usually
kindly ; yet neither can we fail to recognise in Caecilius a pioneer
in the fruitful region of comparative literature. And he must
have been doubly a pioneer if there is truth in the suggestion that
the author of the De SublimiicUe owes to him, as being ' in faith a
Jew,* his celebrated reference to the * legislator of the Jews ' and
to a passage 'at the very commencement of his Book of Laws.'*
There must have been originality, and true scientific instinct, in
the man who, probably for the first time, compared, in however
rudimentary a way, three several literatures. The De Sublimiiaie
itself has a comparison — ^this too, very possibly, suggested by
Caecilius — between Demosthenes and Cicero, in which the author
likens the former to a thunderbolt, the latter to a conflagration.
But it is there prefaced by an apology: if we too, as Greeks, are
permitted to form an opinion upon the point? This, seemingly, is
also Plutarch*s doubt. If the doubt were caused by the con-
* Pint., Vit. Demosth., c. Ill : rh 61 rohc Myovc avre^erd^etv koI awo^iveoSat,
x&repoi ^iuv ^ detv&repo^ eiirelv, k&oofJLtv, Kaxel ydp, 6c ^tv 6 'luv, AeX^lvoc
kv x^P^V /5*flf ^ ^ rrepirrb^ ev airaot Kexlhoc dyvofyjac eveavteitaaro aijyKpioiv
Tov AfffJUJoBivovg KaX Kudpuvog k^tveyKtiv, oAAa yap lauc, ei iravrbc ijv rd Tv£)6i.
ffeavrbv Ix^iv irp6xetpov, ovk hv eddKei wpdarayfia Btiov tivai,
«DeSubl. 1X9. "Ibid. XII 4.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
CAECILIUS OF CALACTE. 3II
sciousness of imperfect knowledge of Latin, it was creditable to
those who felt and owned it ; but if it were due to any awe of the
Roman conqueror, it would be spurned by Caecilius, who hailed
from Sicily, the birthplace of rhetoric, and who had chronicled
the intrepid resistance there offered to the Roman power by
Spartacus.^
It is in the indtependence of mind which led Caecilius, if we are
right, to bring three literatures into comparison, that we seem to
detect his true significance and originality. The historian of
ideas— especially of rhetorical or literary ideas — must always
speak with due diffidence. He is not entitled to affirm more than
that, as far as his researches have gone, this or that thinker was
the parent of this or that idea. With this substantial reservation,
it may be claimed that Caecilius inaugurates the era of compar-
ative literary criticism. And this, if it stood alone, would be
enough to make him the man of mark he clearly was among his
contemporaries and successors.
But he was also, together with his friend Dionysius, in the
thick of a great movement for the purification of literary taste,
the movement comprehensively known as Atticism, He was one
of the leaders in the revolt against the tendency to prefer the
florid writers (broadly termed Asiatic) of the age between
Demosthenes and Cicero to the Attic writers of an earlier and a
better time. In this controversy some originality, as well as
much vigour, may safely be attributed to him. It is possible, as
Wilamowitz von MoellendorfT maintains, that the Atticist revival
began with Apollodorus of Pergamus, who was the Jeacher of
Octavianus and probably of Caecilius.' But it would appear that
^ It would be interesting to determine, if we could, what knowledge of Latin
was possessed by Caecilius, Dionysius Halic, Plutarch, and the author of the
De SubtimitaU, Egger's essay De T^tude de la langue latine chez les Grecs
dans Tantiquite (contained in his Memoires d*histoire ancienne et de philo-
logie) may be consulted in the matter. — I do not think it has previously been
remarked that Vancher's elaborately developed theory that Plutarch was the
author of the De Subiimiiate seems to break down (even if there were no other
objections to it) in the presence of the set comparison which the treatise
contains between the oratory of Demosthenes and that of Cicero. At the
same time, the evidently close relation in which the treatise stands to
Caecilius is one of the chief reasons for rejecting the tradition of its third-
century authorship.
* Hermes, XII 333; but see, on the other hand, Rohde in Rheinisches
Museum, XLI 176.— Suet., Aug. 89, and Quint. IX i, 12.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
312 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
ApoUodorus approached the whole question in a somewhat narrow
scholastic spirit. That is, at all events, the impression we form of
the schools headed by ApoUodorus and his rival Theodonis of
Gadara.^ They lost themselves in rhetorical rules and subtleties.'
Dionysius and Caecilius seem to have stood on an altogether
higher plane. They were true men of letters, not mere masters
of technic. Their view of literary criticism was not mechanical,
but aesthetic. They had something of the wide outlook and
sympathy possessed by the best Roman writers, such as Cicero,
for whom the adoption of a pure Attic standard had a living, and
not simply an antiquarian interest.
W. Rhys Roberts.
Univbrsity Collbgb op Nohth Walbs« Banco*.
* Theodoras was the teacher of Tiberius, of whom he gave the famous
definition Tr^^of ai^ri, irefvpafiivog (Suet., Tiber. 57); and probably also of the
author of the Treatise on the Sublime (cf. the use of tKd'Xei in the reference to
him in De SubL III 5).
' Strabo, p. 625 ; koI 'Airo^^^apog 6 p^up 6 rdf Tixvn(: avyypdrJMi^ xai n)v
'A7roXh)66p€ioif aipeaiv irapayay^v, ^ig ttot' kari • TroAAd yap kireKpaTei, fuH^ova 6e
f/ Koff rjfiaQ Ix^"^^ "^^ Kftiaiif, uv ion xal ^ * A7ro?2/}dC)peiog alpeai^ koi // Qeo66peioc.
Tacitus, Dialogus de Oratoribus, XIX : iam vero longa principiorum praepa-
ratio et narrationis alte repetita series et multarum divisionum ostentatio et
mille argumentoram gradus et quidquid aliud aridissimis Hermagorae et
Apollodori libris praecipitur, in honore erat.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
IV.— ARE THE LETTERS OF HORACE SATIRES?
Students of Horace have doubtless often observed that his
allusions to his own satirical muse seem to give it a character of
violence and acerbity which in fact it does not reveal. This is
most conspicuous in those satires which deal more or less directly
with questions relative to his own literary work, notably the fourth
of the first book and the first of the second. The real nature of
this inconsistency is not far to seek. It does not represent so
much the momentary mood of the writer as it does the difference
between the narrow generalizations of the literary criticism of
antiquity and the wider facts of literary practice.* Thus, from
whatever source, whether from suggestions of Lucilius himself
or from the criticism, childishly imitative of Greek models, of
scholars soon after his time, we find in Varro (whether in these
words or not) the fixed formulation of satire as a camun male-
dicum . . . archaeae camoediae charactere campositum (Diom., p.
485).' Horace passes the coin on without change in his allusion
to Lucilius in the beginning of Serm. I 4, but in H i he shows
that he has a very genuine appreciation of other and better
qualities in the earlier satirist than those in which the critics
had comprehended his genius. Yet in the same poem, for the
purposes of the situation he has created, he plays with the tradi-
tional doctrine of the acerbity of satire, and threatens vengeance
on his enemies with a vehemence which is un-Horatian in all but
its sly fun.
The facility with which literary judgments became fixed and
then, regardless of correspondence with fact, went on to affect
subsequent practice, is one of the most remarkable features of
ancient literary history. That only .the smallest proportion
' It is my purpose at another time to consider in some detail the attitude of
Horace toward ^the literary criticism of his time relative to satire.
' In this identification criticism may have been influenced not only by the
ovofxaoTi KUfi^6eiv of Lucilius, like that of the old comedy, but also by the fact
that Lucilius criticised and ridiculed the work of the chief contemporary
tragedian, Accius, in a manner analogous to the parody of Euripides by
Aristophanes. Cf. Horace, Ser. I 10, 53 and scholia ad loc.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
314 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
of the satires of Horace betray even remotely a character
of personal attack did not afiect or modify the theory of satire,
and, living up to it as the times would allow, Persius "broke
his milk teeth on Alcibiades and Dama,"^ and Juvenal would
cause the chills to course through the conscious vitals of the
evil-doer. Though Persius has given us a true and admirable
characterization of Horace, he still pays his tribute to the tradition
of satire (I 107 ff.). Juvenal is not so discriminating, and confuses
the tradition with the poet; for when, after setting forth the
wrongs that burn in his heart and feed his wrath (I 45), he
continues: haec ego nan credam Venusma dig7ia lucerna, haec
ego nan agitemf (vs. 51), he is of course thinking rather of the
stereotyped character and function of satire than of the practice
of the bard of Venusia. In Horace the theory, though frankly
expressed in various places, had least effect on his practice, and
he gradually worked farther and farther away from it in the
development of that mild philosophical humor and playful wit
which culminated in the perfect urbanity and charm of his
Letters. These are so far removed from the tradition of the
censorious nature of satire that it seems to have been forgotten,
for the most part, that they were ever looked upon as represen-
tatives of this department of Roman poetry. Some scholars will
perhaps recall that Casaubon protested with energetic emphasis
against the habit of his time of considering the Letters a form of
poetry separate from satire, but his words were not supported by
sufficient evidence to carry conviction, and apparently the pre-
vailing belief to-day is not different from that which he attacked
three hundred years ago.* The question which I have put in my
title is therefore not a new one, and a warning is due to the
reader of much-abused benevolence, that it would not be sum-
moned into court again if the writer did not hope that the use
of new evidence and a different presentation of some older obser-
vations might lead us nearer to a settlement of the matter.
While editors are not yet agreed whether the first two books of
Horace's poems in hexameters are to be called saiirae or sermones,
^ Gildersleeve, Persius, Int., p. xxii, q. v. See also article * Satire' in John-
son^s Cyclopaedia (new edition).
'Casaubon, De Satyrica Graecorum et Rom. Satira, ed. Rambach, p. 229:
Ferendi non sunt qui epistolanim libros satirarum appellatione ac numero
censerint excludendos. Casaubon does not support his view by appeal to
ancient evidence.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ARE THE LETTERS OF HORACE SATIRES? 315
it does not appear that there is any disposition to designate the
last two books otherwise than episiuUu. To my knowledge,
indeed, only one attempt has been madein recent years to claim
anothe£^^signation for the Letters or a part df them, viz. by' O.
Miiller,^wlio endeavored, with most futile arguments, to prove
that Epp. I '^o was an epilogue to three books of satires or
sermakes. Before him, Heinrich, the celebrated editor of Juvenal,
was wont to claim in his lectures and in some published utterances
that the general title Sermones was the only correct designation
of the poems of Horace in hexameters.* But, though there has
been agreement in practice, it is doubtless generally known that
the oldest evidence on this point has been thought to render
-uncertain the designation of the Letters at the time of their
publication and in the century or more succeeding the author's
death. In consequence, editors have very wisely been content to
follow tradition as embodied in the superscription of the MSS.
The status of the question is given clearly by Ribbeck in his
introduction to the Letters, and what there is of older discussion
is alluded to and reported by Diintzer.'
For the name episiulae no internal evidence is available, and if
there are any allusions by Horace to his Letters, they are included
by him with his earlier works under the designation sermaneSj
chosen to characterize their style, approximating to that of prose.
Of external evidence, the earliest hitherto used includes Sermones
and Epistulae under the term saiirae. Thus Suetonius, in his
life of the poet (early in the second century), confirms his state-
ment that Horace was short and fat by the words ut a semei ipso
in saiiris describiiur^ where his data are derived from Epp. I 4,
15; I 20, 24, and Sat. \\ 3,309. The same view seems to be
shared by Quintilian, who, while alluding to Horace as a writer
of lyric, iambic and satirical poetry, does not make separate
mention of the Letters. Are we to infer that he meant to include
the Letters in his allusion to satire, or did he pass over them
either thoughtlessly or intentionally, as irrelevant to his purpose ? ^
Ribbeck and others have thought that they are included in the
^ Ein Begleitschreiben des Horaz zu seinen Sennonen. Prog. Berlin, 1876.
' DQntzer, Kritik und Erkl. d. Hor., vol. Ill, p. 70 and note.
'Des Q. Hor. Flaccus Episteln, ed. O. Ribbeck, Berlin, 1869, p. 79.
Dantzer, 1. 1.
* Orelli-Hirschfelder, Prolegomena, p. xxxiv: Quintilianns cum carmina
Horatiana recenset satiras iambos lyrica affert, epistulas omittit.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
3l6 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
mention of satire ; to whom Schiitz has made answer, not without
appearance of probability, that Quintilian is not professing to give
complete lists and might well have passed over the Letters, as he
has omitted mention of the Bucolics and Georgics of Virgil.
While it will be granted that this point is incapable of positive
demonstration, I think that a consideration of the matter will
show that Quintilian very probably meant to include the Letters
in his mention of Roman satire. In the first place, he enumer-
ates with needless fulness, from the whole range of classical
poetry, all those writers who will be of service to the orator in
the formation of style. Now, it is obvious that for his purpose
the Letters of Horace were quite as valuable as his Satires, nor
is it likely that, as an avowed lover of the poet {nisi fallor amore
eius), he would have neglected to mention them through over-
sight. That he recognized in them a particular character different,
let us say, from the Sermones, which rendered them unfit for his
purpose, no one would contend. As for Schiitz's observation,
that with equal reason we might argue analogously from the
omission of the Bucolics and Georgics, let us see. Quintilian,
following an Alexandrine canon of scripiares classici more or
less completely, does not admit as serviceable for imitation all
whom he mentions and characterizes. Thus he alludes to The-
ocritus in these words: Admirabilis ifi suo genere Theocritus^
sed musa ilia tustica el pastor alis nan forum modo, verum ipsam
etiam urbem re/ormidat (X i, 55). Now, that Quintilian does
not refer to the Georgics and Bucolics (musa rustica et pastor alis) ^
which must have been dismissed in almost the same words, will
not cause surprise. Of important cla<;sical Latin poetry, only the
minor works of Virgil and, presumably, the Letters of Horace
are not mentioned. The reason for the omission of the former
has been shown : that the latter were also omitted is a priori
improbable ; nor is their omission susceptible of any explanation
analogous to the case of the Bucolics and Georgics. We shall
consider it therefore as highly probable that Quintilian included
the Letters of Horace in his treatment of Roman satire^ From
late antiquity there is finally the harmonious evidence of two
witnesses, the scholiast Porphyrio (third or fourth century) and
the Gallic writer Sidonius Apollinaris (middle of the fifth century).
Porphyrio ad Serm. I i, i : quamvis saturam esse opus hoc suum
Horatius ipse confiteatur, cum ait 'Sunt quibus in satira videdr
nimis acer et ultra legem tendere opus^ tamen proprios titulos
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ARE THE LETTERS OF HORACE SATIRES? 317
voluit ei accamodare. nam has priores duos libros Sermonum,
posteriores Epistularum inscripsit Sidonius carm. IX 221 if.:
non quod per saHras^ epistularum sermonumque sales, . . . voluit
sonare Flaccus.
A word in explanation of this evidence before going further.
If the error had not been made by many scholars, it would
scarcely seem necessary to warn the reader that, because certain
works were looked upon as satires, they did not therefore neces-
sarily bear this title. Now, none of this evidence shows that any
one of these four witnesses believed that the Letters of Horace
bore the title Satirae. It only shows that they considered that
the Letters were satires. Quintilian touches on satire as a form
of poetry. He does not mention separate works, but only writers.
He does not, therefore, concern himself as to whether various
collections of satires were called sermones, epistulae^ Menippeae,
or what not, any more than in his treatment of the elegy he is
concerned about particular titles, which obviously could be chosen
according to the author's fancy, amoresy tristia^ etc. Suetonius
cites with the formula in satiris; but it is significant that the facts,
for the verification of which he makes this reference, are not
contained in a single one of the two groups, i. e. in either the
sermones or in the epistulae (as Ribbeck implies in citing only
Epp. I 4 and I 20), but in both, as pointed out above.* If the
data to which he refers had been contained alone in either the
Sermones 05 the Epistulae, he might have referred to either
group conceivably by its particular title. But because he referred
for verification of his statement to data which were derived from
both Sermones and Epistulae, he writes in satiris. I would not
seem to know the impossible about Suetonius' intention; my
purpose is only to point out that his formula of citation does not
mean that he only knew the Letters as Satirae, nor that, on the
other hand, he thoughtlessly attributed to the Satires what was
due to the Letters; for these have been the two explani^tions
offered. What has already been said in explanation of Sueto-
nius' allusion to the Letters as satires, and of Quintilian's inclusion
of them in his treatment of Roman satire, is expressly given us
by Porphyrio. His words, so far from indicating that both
Sermones and Epistulae bore a common title Satirae, explain
rather the absence of that title. 'Although Horace himself
^ As evidence for the poet's shortness of stature, Serm. II 3, 309 is a much
more emphatic utterance than Epp. I 20, 24.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
3l8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
professes that his works belong to the poetical genus satire,
nevertheless he (did not call them so but) gave them special
titles, Sermones and Epistulae' — a paraphrase of the words of
Porphyrio which I think will not be disputed, and which is
confirmed by his note ad Serm. \\ \, \\ has duos libros cum
Sermonum inscripserii, tamen de his sic loquitur quasi de satura
LucUium sequens. Finally, in Sidonius we have the same point
of view, per satiras^ epistularum sermanumque sales, the generic
name followed by the specific titles, as if he had said of Ovid,
per ele/^os, tristtum epistularumque maesiiiiam. I have stated
the problem and explained the evidence hitherto employed with
perhaps unnecessary fullness, in order to place in intelligible
setting a bit of evidence for the antiquity of the sub-title Epistulae
and the relation of the Letters to the Satires, which has not to
my knowledge been employed in this question.
Statius, in Silv. I 3, describes with elaborate and obscure detail
the charms of the villa of Manilius Vopiscus at Tibur. The
poem is not without Horatian reminiscences, as would be
expected, but I shall not endeavor to point them out in detail.
I will only say that in general the poem is a detailed and diffuse
commentary on Horace's me nee lam peUiens Lacedaeman . . •
percussil . . . quxim damus Albuneae resonaniis (Carm. I 7), which
it recalls and alludes to clearly in vss. 83-9, where other places
famed in story are bidden to yield before its charms: cedanl
TeUgoniy cedanl Laureniia Tumi iugera etc. — this apparently
with conscious allusion to Horace's laudabunl alii^ of the poem
just quoted, in reference to the same place. In this very fact we
have suggested by implication, not very subtle, a comparison
between Vopiscus and Horace. That such comparison lay near
at hand for the poet is obvious. Vopiscus was a man of literary
ambitions who had apparently dabbled in poetry enough to give
some shadow of support to the flattering suggestion, of which
Statius, in writing of Tibur, the favorite country residence of
Horace, could scarcely fail to avail himself.^ It will therefore, I
think, be obvious to every reader that the comparison thus
' Concerning the literary activity of Vopiscus, aside from the passage about
to be discussed, we have only the following mention, Statius, Silv. I, pref.:
Manilius Vopiscus vir eruditissimus et qui praecipue vindicat a situ litteras
iam paene fugientes. And in this poem, vss. 20-33: ipse Anien . . . ponit |
rourmura, ceu placidi veritus turbare Vopisci | Pieriosque dies et alentes
carmina somnos.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ARE THE LETTERS OF HORACE SATIRES? 319
suggested is carried out in the following passage, where after a
series of philosophical reflections in Horatian style, these lines
occur:
99 Hie tua Tiburtes Faunos chelys et iavat ipsum
Alciden dicturoque lyra maiore Catillam ;
Seu tibi Pindaricis animus contendere plectris
Sive chelyn toUas heroa ad robora sive
Liventein satiram nigra rubigine vibres
104 Seu tua non alia splendescat epistola cunu
Digne Midae Croesique bonis et Perside gaza,
106 Macte bonis animi ! ^
In these verses we have first (vss. 99 and 100) a general state-
ment of poetical activity followed by the alternatives of form
which it might assume. The general statement would, it will be
' In explanation of the literary form of this passage, it is perhaps worth
while to point out that it may be a reminiscence of Horace, Epp. I 3> 33 ;
Seu linguam causis acuis seu civica iura
Respondere paras seu condis amabile carmen.
Prima feres hederae victricis praemia—-
an observation which would suggest that in the vss. of Statius a period is not
to be placed after cura^ as is done by all editors, but that a period (or colon)
should be placed after CatiUum (vs. 100), and that the various seu {sive) clauses
should be carried over to the following vss.: digne . . . macte bonis animi.
Statius, with all his versatility, was not able to give much variety to the
same theme, and we are not therefore surprised in Silv. II 3 (Villa Surrentina
Pollii Felicis), among many other resemblances to this poem, to find these
lines (vss. 11 3-1 5):
Hie ubi Pierias exercet Pollius artes,
Seu voluit monitus, quos dat Gargettius auctor,
Seu nostram quatit ille chelyn seu dissona nectit
Carmina sive minax ultorem stringit iambon.
Finally, our passage has been imitated by Ausonius, Commemoratio Profes-
sornm Burdigalensium, I I3 (to Minervius):
Teque canam de te, non ab honore meo.
Sive panegyricis placeat contendere libris
In Panathenaicis tu numerandus eris;
Seu libeat fictas ludorum evolvere lites,
Ancipitem palmam Quintilianus habet.
In this passage the idea of comparison with, or emulation of, illustrious
predecessors, which we have seen is contained by implication in Statius, is
given direct expression. Both are modifications of the motive furnished by
Horace.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
320 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
seen, only suggest epic poetry — a circumstance to which I shall
return. Of the various poetical forms which succeed and with
which the poet imagines Vopiscus as occupied, it will be observed
that the reference to lyric poetry is made with obvious allusion to
Horace's Pindarum quisguis studet aemulari (Carm. IV 2).
Concerning the second form (vs. 102), a word presently. The
characterization of satire in vs. 103 is thoroughly conventional in
content, with phraseology drawn from reminiscence of Serm. I 4,
100 : hie nigrae sucus lolligints^ kaec est aerugo mera, from which
passage (1. 1. 92) the conventional epithet liveniem might also
have been drawn. Verse 104 is a locus vexatus of long standing,
because of the supposed obscurity of the words nan alia . . . cura,
Lindenbrog and Gevartius conjectured nan alta^ which Markland
and many others accepted. Hand ad loc. says: Omnes libri
antiqui exhibent nan alia^ quod non cum Barthio explicuerim,
* non alia cura quam quae epistolarum stilum decet,' sed ita ut
sententia in laudem Vopisci dicta sit: si tua epistola, quamvis
levius carminum genus, eadem diligentia, quam in altiori genere
miramur, adhibita splendescat. Both of these explanations call
for an ellipsis of thought: that of Barth revolving in circular
absurdity, that of Hand unnatural and tortuous, suggested in
well-known philological manner by the conjecture nan alia.
There is, of course, commonly with alius a slight ellipsis of
variable character, yielded by the immediate context. Here it
is simplicity itself, and nan alia is nothing more than a litotes
for eadem, with immediate reference to the characterization of
satire which has preceded, i. e. cura nan alia atque in satira
canscribenda adhibita. But one must have a better opinion of
the latinity of commentators on Statins than to believe that they
have failed to see so obvious a thing. The difficulty, I fancy, has
been that the sense thus naturally yielded seemed to involve them
at once in a literary question of still greater difficulty, viz. the
assumption that satire and the poetical epistle were the same in
stylistic character. That this difficulty is a genuine one we may
grant, if these words are to be thought of as a general character-
ization of the poetical epistle. But, obviously, they are not
general, but make specific allusion to the relation which the poet
(in conformity with our other witnesses from antiquity) under-
stood the Epistles of Horace to bear to the poetical genus satire.
The whole attitude of mind is given for us succinctly enough by
Porphyrio ad Epp. I i, and his words are a sufficient commentary
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ARE THE LETTERS OF HORACE SATIRES? 321
on the passage of Statius : Placet episiularum libri iiiulo iantum
dissimiles a sermonum sunt, nam ei metrum ei materia verborum
et communis adsumptio eadem est Thus, in the correct and
simple interpretation of the words of Statius we have confirmed
the view expressed above of an implied comparison between the
literary dilettante Vdpiscus, in his villa at Tibur, and Horace,
who by his residence and his verse had given the place its
literary associations.
I know that scholars, so far as published utterances are known
to me,^ have universally used this passage as evidence that
Vopiscus was the versatile author of lyric, epic, satirical and
epistolary poems. But to interpret such allusions of the flatter-
ing poet to the trifling literary labors of men, whose petty
attempts ranged the whole gamut of literary forms,* as cold facts
for the reconstruction of literary history displays a singular lack
of imagination. The words are no more than a general and
flattering definition of literary activity drawn from the suggestion
of a comparison with Horace which Vopiscus* residence at Tibur
afforded. That to the literary activity of Horace the epos is
added may have been due to some more ambitious effort of
Vopiscus in this direction which called for special allusion — ^a
supposition which would explain the fact above alluded to, that
we can only understand the first general mention of his literary
work (vss. 99 and loo) to refer to the epos. For the period and
for the circle in which Statius moved nothing would be more
probable.'
From this passage, therefore, we gain with reasonable certainty
an allusion to the designation Epistulae as applied to Horace's
Letters, accompanied by a recognition of their intimate relation
to the poetical form satire. It remains, therefore, to consider
whether this piece of evidence can be put in harmony with the
other data from antiquity bearing on this point and already
considered.
Concerning the original title of the two books of satires,
scholars are not yet agreed as between Satirae and Sermones.
* ForccUini-De Vit, Onam. s. voc. Manilius ( Vopiscus) ; Ddlling, Prog. Plauen,
1838, p. 13; Friedlander, Sittengeschichte, vol. Ill, 453; Teuffel-Schwabe,
paragraph 324, 3.
«Cf. Martial. Ill 20. V 30, XII 94 ; Pliny, Epp. IV 3, VI 21.
'** Von alien Gattungen aber darfte die epische diejenige gewesen sein, der
sich die Meisten zuwandten,*' Friedlander, 1. 1.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
322 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
The MSS of Keller and Holder without exception present
sermonum libri^ while the oldest Blandinian is reported to have
contained the title eclogarum. But, on the other hand, the latest
editors, Kiessling, Orelli-Mewes and Hertz, have chosen the title
Satirae, which is plausibly defended by Kiessling and put in
relation to Sermones thus : " Following Lucilius, Horace entitled
these poems saiirae. The poetical genus to which they belong
he designates as satira by beginning the second book with
suni quibus in scUira videor nimU acer; satira^ are the single
poems: quid prius iUustrem saHris (II 6, 17). Not until later,
when lyric poetry had become the central point of his poetical
productivity, did he designate them, in contrast to his carminay
as sermones, in order to characterize thereby their form, verging
on that of prose" (Hor. Satiren, p. xii). But, clearly, it does not
at all follow that because Horace alluded to his own works as
satirae, that he therefore gave them this title. The truth is that
saiira is a definite poetical genus comparable to other depart-
ments of poetry, such as, for example, the elegy; but it was no
more necessary that a collection of satires should be entitled
saiirae than, for instance, that a collection of elegies should bear
the title elegi. Let us illustrate. The {Epistulae') ex Ponio are
elegies. In the fifth elegy of book four we read He leves elegi
doctas ad consulis aures, and I doubt not if we had no other or
uncertain evidence for the title, we should from this passage
construct elegarum libru Now, the relationship between soHrae
(the name of the poems as representatives of the poetical genus
satire) and sermones (the title chosen to indicate their form) is
exactly the same as, in our example, between eiegi and epishilae
— that is, between the generic and the specific. Horace was at
liberty to refer to his poems by either name, just as Ovid does.
Therefore, while we grant that Horace might have entitled his
satires saiirae, we must deny that this is a correct inference from
the fact that he makes use of the word in allusion to them. But
is sermones better attested ? It seems to me clear that it is. Our
MSS afford it and Porphyrio certainly found it, and no other title,
not only in his MSS, but in the genera] literary tradition of his
time (v. supra, p. 316).
In fact, just as the title (Epistulae) ex Ponto was applied by
Ovid to his last four books of elegies from Tomi because of their
form, so the titles Sermones aM Epistulae may have been given
by Horace to his different books of satires, as indicating in a
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ARE THE LETTERS OF HORACE SATIRES? 323
general way the different forms of the musa pedesiris which he
had chosen.^ Because in his later satires he had chosen a more
personal form of utterance for his reflections on life and literature,
he may have employed for them the name episiulae, the writings
themselves differing, to be sure, in the maturity and perfection of
their thought and execution, from the earlier works, but not
essentially in range of matter or method of treatment.' That
both were considered in antiquity, so far as our scanty record
enables us to determine, to be representatives of the department
of poetry known as saiira, we have seen from the unanimous
testimony of Quintilian, Suetonius, Porphyrio and Sidonius
ApoUinaris, to whom we may now add Statins, who also affords
us the separate designation epistula, for which hitherto Porphyrio.
has been esteemed the earliest witness^ Final confirmation of
the correctness of this view is afforded, I believe, by Horace
himself in a well-known passage (Epp. II 2, 58) :
Denique non omnes eadem mirantur amantque :
carmine tu gaudes, hie delectatur iambis;
iUe Bioneis sermonibus et sale nigro.
Here we have a threefold division of the poet's literary work
corresponding exactly to that afforded by Quintilian. That the
satires (by which I mean the Sermones and Epistulae) are
designated sermones is due to the contrast with carmine which
the antithetical structure of the passage demands, and perhaps
also to the epithet Bioneis^ suggesting an equivalent for diarpifial
or X($yoi. Finally, in the words of characterization, sale nigro, we
have the last, and in the Epistles perhaps the only, expression of
that inconsistency, to which I alluded at the beginning of this
paper, between the conventional phraseology of literary criticism
^ Od the prose serma and epistula Qaintilian has some very good observations
which in many respects afford an admirable characterization of the corres-
ponding works of Horace. Inst Or. IX 4, 19 : Est igitur ante omnia oratio
alia vincta atque contexta, soluta alia, qualis in sermone et epistulis . . . quod
non eo dico, quia non illud quoque solutum habeat suos quosdam et forsitan
difficiliores etiam pedes ; . . . sed non fluunt nee cohaerent nee verba verbis
trahunt, ut potius laxiora in his vincla quam nulla sint.
* Compare the words of Porphyrio above cited: titulo tantum dissimiUs sunt
Ovid in the beginning of the Epistulae ex Ponto (I i, 16) says of them in
relation to the Tristia :
Non minus hoc illo triste, quod ante dedi.
Rebus idem, titulo dififert.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
324 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
relative to satire and literary practice. Certainly, the Letters are
not 'caustic potash' (Greenough), and there is not more than a
bookish suspicion of it in the Sermones. But the characterization
belongs to satire, and since the Epistles and Sermones were
satires, they must therefore, though innocent, bear the opprobrium
of their class.
Our estimate of the literary activity of Horace is scarcely
affected by this result. For him it has mattered little that the
Letters have most commonly been treated as a separate literary
form. But for the history of Roman satire it cannot be without
significance that in antiquity the Epistulae were reckoned with
the Sermones as representatives of the poetical form satira.
G. L. Hendrickson.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
v.— NOTES ON HORACE.
Carm. IV 3. 17-20:
O testudinis aureae
dukem quae strepitum^ Fieri, temperas,
O mutis quoque piscibus
donatura cycni, si libeat, sonum.
The words dukem . . . sirepilum deserve more attention than
they have thus far received from editors. Wickham, Schiitz,
Kiessling, Macleane, Smith and Gow are silent concerning them.
Dillenburger remarks simply that sirepitum is used here ''de
grato citharae sonu, ut Ep. I 2, 31. 14, 26." With this the com-
ment in Orelli-Mewes is practically identical. Page speaks at
greater length : ^^sirepiius being almost invariably used of a 'din/
'noise/ e. g^fori^ Romae, valvarum, januae sirefiiius, there is a
tendency to take dulcem proleptically here, and construe 'that
dost modulate into sweetness the lyre's sound/ but, as Ep. I 2,
31 ad strepitum citharae cessatum ducere curam, the word is
clearly = 'music/ it is perhaps simpler to render here 'that dost
rule the sweet music' " This utterance seems at once inadequate
and erroneous. I believe that Horace's full thought can be felt
only by taking sirepitum in its strictest sense, and dulcem as
strongly proleptic. In this view sirepitum will supply the foil to
mutis in v. 19. The lyre, left to itself, can produce nothing but
inharmonious din, even as the fish in their natural state can make
no articulate sound. It is in reducing this inharmonious din of
the lyre to harmony that the power of the Muse is shown, even
as she might show her power, should she feel so disposed, in
giving voice to the fish.
Let us begin by examining the use of the word sirepiius in
Horace. In Odes, I 15. 18 it is used of the din of battle; in III
19. 23 of the noise of a carouse; in III 29. 12 of the din and
bustle of Rome (cf. Epp. II 2. 79; Verg. Aen. I 422). Cf. also
Odes, III 10. 5 Audis quo strepitu ianua, quo nemus . . . remugiat
ventis; Sat. I 2. 127 ff. Nee vereor ne . . . Ianua frangatur, latret
canis, undique magno Pulsa domus strepitu resonet; Sat. II 6. 112
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
326 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. .
subito ingens Valvarum strepitus lectis excussit utrumque ; Epp.
I 17. 7 pulvis strepitusque rotarum ; Epp. II i. 202 Garganum
mugire putes nemus aut mare Tuscum, Tanto cum strepitu ludi
spectantur ; A. P. 80 ff. pedem . . . populares vincentem strepitus.
In these ten passages sirepiius unmistakably denotes an inharmo-
nious, unpleasant noise. The verb sirepere occurs twice : Carm.
II I. 17 lam nunc minaci murmure cornuum Perstringis auris^
iam litui strepunt; IV 12. 3 nee fluvii strepunt Hiberna nive
turgidi.
Two passages remain, besides the one with which this note is
especially concerned. One is Epp. I 2. 27 ff.:
Nos numerus sumus et fruges consumere nati,
sponsi Penelopae nebulones Alcinoique
in cute curanda plus aequo operata iuventus,
cui pulchrum fuit in medios dormire dies et
ad strepitum citharae cessatum ducere somnum.
Surely sirepHum is * din ' here. Note in proof of this assertion
the irony that marks the whole passage. Cf especially sponsi
* (would-be) spouses,' the colloquial in cute curanda, and pul-
chrum. The same irony appears in Epp. I 14. 25, 26, where
Horace says to his vilicus, "You long for the town, simply
because you can find no meretrix tibicina, cuius Ad strepitum
salias terrae gravis, **to whose clatter you can dance like a lout.'^
In every passage thus far considered we have but one meaning,
that of *din, noise, clatter.' Why, then, should we assume for
this one passage a meaning that Horace nowhere else exhibits ?
Further, there can be no question that by taking strepitum here
as we must take it everywhere else in Horace, we get the most
effective interpretation, strepitum will then suggest the adver-
sative notion which b so clearly present in miUis, and the
proleptic dulcem will be the antithesis to donatura . . . cycni
sonum. The whole thought will then be: "O thou, who dost
attune to sweetness the sounds of the lyre, musicless though they
are by nattu-e, O thou who standest ready to give to the fish,
even voiceless though they are, the swan's song," etc.
If we look to the usage of strepitus in other authors, we find
such phrases as strepitus y fremitus , clamor tonitruum; strepitus ,
crepitus, sonitus, tonitrus; inter strepitum tot bellorum, Vergil's
usage, as that of a contemporary of Horace, is especially inter-
esting. Cf. Aen. I 422 (cited above'), I 725 (of the din of conver-
sation), VI 559 (of the horrid sounds in Tartarus) ; see also VI
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTES ON HORACE. 32/
865, IX 394, G. II 492. strepere occurs in Eel. IX 36; Aen. VI
709. VIII 2, IX 808, X 568, regularly (save perhaps Aen. VI 709
strepit omnis murmure campus, said of bees), of a decidedly
unpleasant noise. How, I ask, could a Roman have understood
strepiium in our Horatian passage save as has been maintained in
this paper ?
In Petronius, §33, there is a phrase which, at first sight, seems
to support Mr. Page's view. The passage runs thus : gustantibus
adhuc nobis repositorium allatum est cum corbe, in quo gallina
erat lignea patentibus in orbem alis, quales esse solent quae
incubant ova. Accessere continuo duo servi et symphania sire-
pente scrutari paleam coeperunt erutaque subinde pavonina ova
divisere convivis. But here again allowance must be made for
the narrator's tone, which is ironical. That Encolpius did not
enjoy the everlasting music in Trimalchio's house appears plainly
from §31, especially the words: Paratissimus puer non minus
me acido cantico excepit . . . pantomimi chorum, non patris
familiae triclinium crederes. We must interpret acido here in the
light of §68: Servus qui ad pedes Habinnae sedebat, iussus,
credo, a domino suo proclamavit subito canora voce : . . . nullus
sonus unquam acidior percussit aures meas (" Nie verletzte ein
widrigerer Ton mein Ohr," Friedlaender). The spirit oi sirepenie
symphania^ §33, is well given by Friedlaender's rendering : **unler
rauschender Musikbegleitung."
Another passage that resembles ours is Vergil, Aen. Ill 69, 70
Inde, ubi prima fides pelago, placataque venti Dant maria et Ufiis
crepitans vocat Auster in ahum, but the idea in crepitans is plainly
that of * rustling, noise,' not * music,' and the emphasis is on
placata and lenis. A far closer parallel is to be found in Sopho-
cles, Ajax 1 199 ff., where it is said of the man '*who first taught
the Greeks to wage confederate war with hateful arms" that
oifrr paB€iav KvktKnv
PUfttV fflOl Tfp^lV 6fu\u>f,
oCt€ yXvKvv aiiXwk Sropoy.
Jebb (edition of 1896) compares Aeschylus, P. V. 574 Krjp6v\aaros
oro/3ct d6pa(. The references in Liddell and Scott show that orofiot
= sirepiius. In language, then, dulcem strepiium (iyrae) is a
* For convenience I give Jebb*s text througliout.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
328 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
close equivalent of yXv#cw (auXSv) 5ro/3ov. Cf. further Pindar, Pyth.
X 39 (Gildersleeve) vam^ dc xop®^ napBtv^y \ Xvpav re /3oai Kapaxai r
ahXStv dov€OVTat ] id. Olymp. Ill 8 fioay avKAp; id. Nem. V 38 KoKafioio
poq, ; Soph. Trach. 640 ff. 6 KoXKifiSat rdx vfuy I avK6t ovK wapaLav \
aX&v Katfoxay firdvttaiv, aXkii Btlat \ dvriKvpov fiov<ras, L. and S. Say
that Kavaxn is used of the lyre in the (Homeric) Hymn to Apollo,
vs. 185.
It is quite possible that Horace had some one of these expres-
sions in mind, adapting it, however, to his own immediate purpose.
He knew his Homer well. He had also some knowledge of
Pindar. On this point it will suffice to refer to Kiessling's notes
on Carm. I i. 3, I 3. 34, 1 12. i ff., and his introductory remarks
on I 35. Some interesting parallels, in language and in thought,
between Horace and Sophocles may be noted. Compare C. I 3.
9ff.:
Illi robur et aes triplex
circa pectus erat, qui fragilem truci
commisit pelago ratem
primus, nee timuit praecipitem Africum, etc.,
with Antlg. 33^ "* ^o^^^ ra dtiva Ko^dtv dvBpinrov dtipdrtpoy ytAci, k. r. X.,
and Ajax 1192 ff.:
^cXr irp6iT9pov aWtpa dvpat piyav tj rhv noXvKoivov "Aiiav
Ktivos Avrfp^ hs arvytpSiv cdri^cy ^ttXaiv *^EXXa(rt KOivhv "Apri
(see Jebb's note) ; C. H 15. 9, 10 fervidos . . . ictus (sc. solis) with
Ajax 877 rffp d<f} ffXiov /SoXtfv k€X€vBop (see Jebb ad loc); C. H 16.
21 ff.:
Scandit aeratas vitiosa naves
Cura nee turmas equitum relinquit,
ocior cervis et agente nimbos,
ocior Euro
and C. Ill I. 37-40:
Sed Timor et Minae
scandant eodem quo dominus, neque
decedit aerata triremi et
post equitem sedet atra Cura
with Antig. 951-4 :
aXX A poipibla rtr ^vvaaii dtivd'
oih-* av i»iv SX^os oCt^ "AprfSf ov nvpyos, ovx dXiKrvnoi
KtXaiyai vacr cm^tryoiri'.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTES ON HORACE, 329
cm 24.31, 32:
Virtatem incolamem odimus,
sublatam ex oculis quaerimus invidi
with Ajax 961-5 :
o\ d* o^k yt\oi>vT»v KawixoipSvrtoy /caicotr
roiff Tovd\ latot rot, ntl fiXtiroyra firj n6Bovv,
BavovT h» oc/x^fctav (V XP^h^ dopds»
ot yap HQKol yyoifiatai rayaBhv x*P^^^
€xovT€S ovK Xcracri, irpiv rtr €KPaKjj.
C. Ill 30. 4, 5 innumerabilis Annorum series et fuga temporum
with Ajax 646 :
&irav6 6 fiaKp6t KapapiBfii]TOg XP^^°^
(fivti T adrjka Koi (fxuftyra Kpxmrrrai
(cf. also Hon Epp. I 6. 24, 25) ; C. IV 7. 16 pulvis et umbra
sumus (said of the dead) with Ajax 1257 ff.:
6ap<ray v/Spt^rir KafcXcv^cpoaTo/xcif
(see Jebb's notes) ; and finally C. IV 13. 6-8:
lUe virentis et
doctae psallere Chiae
pulchris excubat in gents
with Antig. 781-3 :
"Epms aviKart fiaxaVf "Ept^f, tf tv KrrifMai mjmiSf
ts (V fuzXaKaU nap^ials yedyidor (Vyv;^cvfir*
Satires, I i. 9:
Agricolam laudat iuris legumque peritus,
sub galli cantum consultor ubi ostia pulsat
Wickham calls sud galli cantum an exaggeration, comparing
Cic. Mur. 22 Vigilas tu de nocte ut tuis consultoribus respondeas
. . . te gallorum . . . cantus . . . exsuscitat. Kiessling takes the
same view, remarking, among other things, that ''die salutaiio
begann doch erst nach Sonnenaufgang ; (prima salutantes atque
altera continet hora. Martial. IV 8)." Mewes, in his revision of
Orelli, characterizes sub galli cantum as a ''ridicula hyperbole."
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
330 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Similarly Greenough. Schutz and Palmer evidently regard the
words as seriously meant, but their notes are very brief. Kirkland
is silent on the point.
Several considerations may, I think, be urged against the view
that there is any great degree of exaggeration here, (i) There
is proof that the regular saluiaiio might begin before daylight.
Cf. e. g. Cic. Cat. I 9 dixisti paulum tibi etiam nunc morae, quod
ego viverem. Reperti sunt duo equites Romani, qui te ista cura
liberarent et sese ilia ipsa node paulo a^iie lucem me in nieo
lectulo interfecturos pollicentur. Put beside this passage the
words of Sallust, Cat. 28 constituere ea node . . . sicuti salulahim
introire ad Ciceronem. Had calls before daylight been glaringly
unusual, any attempt to visit Cicero at such an unheard-of hour
would have awakened his suspicions at once, and so have defeated
its own end. The conspirators would hardly have been likely
(stupid though they proved themselves in other ways) to frustrate
this particular scheme themselves by essaying a call at an hour
not sanctioned, to some degree at least, by common custom. If»
on the other hand, calls even ante lucem were not unusual, the
conspirators could rest assured that, unless Cicero's suspicions
were aroused in some other way, there would be nothing in so
early a visit itself to excite him and afford him a chance to
frustrate their designs. (On the subject of very early calls see
Mayor's notes on Juvenal, III 127 and V 19-23; Becker-GoU,
Gallus, II 194 ff.; Marquardt, Privatleben, p. 228, n. 2, and p. 259.)
(2) It might be fairly held that the reference in our passage is
not to the regular saluiaiio, but to extraordinary business calls
made upon the lawyer by distressed clients. By this supposition
the case of the lawyer is made more closely parallel to that of
the merchant, whose encounters with severe storms are somewhat
out of the line of his ordinary experiences, and to that of the
farmer whose experience with the law's vexatious processes are
quite foreign to the ordinary tenor of his existence. If this be
granted, it follows that no hour would seem too early to a
thoroughly frightened client.
(3) The exaggeration postulated by the editors named above
would be wholly out of place. Horace is dwelling on the univer-
sality of human discontent. Four men, distributed into pairs, are
taken as types of all mankind. Each is brought before us when
the hardships or disadvantages of his lot press most heavily upon
him. In speaking of the first, second and fourth characters.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTES Oy HORACE. 33 1
Horace is unquestionably keeping to the facts, real or potential,
of their experience. Why assume that he is exaggerating in
connection with the third ? Such a proceeding would have been
inartistic, and would have weakened, needlessly, the whole
passage.
Sat. I I. 93-6:
finire laborem
incipias, parto quod avebas, ne facias quod
Ummidius quidam — non longa est fabula—- dives
ut metiretur nummos
Bentley's qui tarn for quidam is indeed tempting, but I cannot
forbear to enter a protest against Palmer's method of supporting
it. He declares that " Hon never uses quidam with his proper
names.'' This statement is, of course, a peiitio principii^ for it
becomes true only when Bentley's emendation is accepted. If
we emend Palmer's statement to read "Horace nowhere else uses
quidam with proper names," it will still be in order to ask "What
of it ? Is the fact that he nowhere else uses the word in this way
sufficient proof that he cannot have so used it here ? " The truth
is that the emendation must be supported on other grounds —
those, for instance, urged by its author.
The same sort oi peiitio principii is perpetrated elsewhere in
commentaries, e. g. by Kiessling on Hor. C I 26. 3 quis sub
Arcto Rex gelidae metuatur orae . . . unice Securus. He takes
quis as nominative, giving as the ground of this declaration the
statement that Horace uses "die veraltete und darum vulgare
Ablativform quis^^ only in the Epodes and the Satires. This
statement ought not to be made at all, much less cited here as a
convincing proof, until it has been shown on good evidence that
quis does not stand here for quibus.
Now, if Vergil could use quis for quibus in the Epic style (e. g.
Aen. I 95, V 511), the form was surely not too commonplace or
Wulgar' to be admitted by Horace into his Odes, especially in
view of the fact that he is not always at the pains to keep the
language of those poems clear of a prosaic or even vulgar tone
(see Teuffel, §238, 6). It is the part, therefore, of the critic to
show that it is preferable, even if not absolutely^^necessary, to
take quis here as nominative. This successfully done, it is
allowable to remark that Horace nowhere uses quis as = quibus
in his Odes.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
332 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Sat. I I. io6:
Est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines,
quos ultra citraque neqidt consisiere rectum,
Cf. Cic. Cato Maior, §41 : Nee enim libidine dominante tempe-
rantiae locum esse, neque omnino in voluptatis regno viriuiem
posse consisiere.
Sat. I I. 108:
Illuc unde abii redeo, qui nemo ut avarus
se probet ac potius laudet diversa sequentis
There can be no doubt that qui nemo is the right reading.
How shall we interpret it ? Palmer's view, that Jiat is to be
supplied after qui^ is, at the first blush, the most tempting. Its
great advantage lies in the fact that by assuming such a construc-
tion we make Horace go back, in form of utterance at least, to the
point whence he started. But it is extremely doubtful whether
such an ellipsis is possible. Jio is not the kind of verb to be
easily omitted, especially when, as here, the context in itself gives
no hint of such an ellipsis. Again, the ellipsis of the subjunctive
mood is uncommon. If the omission oi fiat is to be justified at
all, it must be done, I think, by the argument that since Horace
is so manifestly referring back to the opening line of the Satire,
he can omit here the essential verb of that line, which the reader
or auditor would inevitably recall. But, admitting the ellipsis to
be possible, we meet another and more serious difficulty. We
must then render either ** I come back to my starting-point, and
ask why no avaricious man praises himself,'* or **why no man,
because he is avaricious, praises himself." Neither view gives
the point from which Horace started. Palmer, who adopted the
former, saw this point, and so wrote: ''the insertion of this word
(javarus) is necessary to fuse Hor.'s two subjects into one. At
the beginning Hon simply said nemo; but having developed
discontent altogether from the example of the avarus, he here
adds that word as a sort of correction to his exordium." The
other interpretation is even feebler, since it makes Horace answer
his question actually before he has fully asked it. Precisely the
same objection applies to the view (held by Orelli-Mewes, Miiller,
Kiessling, Kirkland) which takes qui nemo directly with probet^
and regards ul avarus as a causal phrase to be compared with ui
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTES ON HORACE, 333
capitis minor, Carm. Ill 5. 42, ut neque . . .porrectus . . . nee . . .
prodigus^ Epp. I 7. 41, or tUpote pluris culpari dignos, Sat. I
4. 24.*
Since I have objected to all the proposed solutions of the
problem presented by our passage (all, at least, that can be said
to have any degree of plausibility), it devolves upon me to
venture to offer a substitute. For the past four years I have
suggested to my classes that qui nemo se probet= qui omnes se
improbent — that is, that the clause, though negative in form, is
affirmative in sense. If this be true, we shall have to supply
improbai'se with*«/ avarus^^xA we shall thus have merely an
example of the ordinary comparative {^/-clause which is so
common in connection with affirmative clauses. I am inclined to
think that this explanation is tenable. The fact that ac, not sed,
is the connective seems to afford it support.
Recently I noted the following passage (Cic. Fin. II, §18) : Sed
dum dialecticam, Torquate, contemnit Epicurus, quae una con-
tinet omnem et perspiciendi quid in quaque re sit scientiam et
iudicandi quale quidque sit, et ratione ac via disputandi, ruit in
dicendo, ut mihi quidem videtur, nee ea, quae docere vult, ulla
arte distinguit, ut haec ipsa, quae modo loquebamur. Only two
explanations of ui haec ipsa are (to me, at least) conceivable.
One is that nee . . . distinguit is in spirit affirmative : " he fails to
distinguish ... as, for instance, in the case just mentioned"; the
other is that with ut haee ipsa we must supply neque or non
distinguit If we take the latter course, we get the very construc-
tion which has been declared — e. g. by Palmer — impossible for
our Horatian passage. In either case the passage from Cicero
seems to me to be a complete parallel to that in Horace. The
explanation applying to the one will apply, then, to the other. It
goes without saying that none of the explanations of Horace's
words, rejected above, could be forced to apply to Cicero's
sentence.
Another general parallel, as it seems to me, to our Horatian
passage is to be found in Terence, Phormio, 279-81 (Demipho is
the speaker) :
^ If we read nemo tU avarus seprobei^ we are confronted by two difficulties :
(i) the harsh hiatus in nemo ut^ and (2) the difficulty of satisfactory interpre-
tation, for we must take ui as ' how,' and closely join nemo and avarus. Such
an interpretation would be practically identical with Palmer*s and so be open
to the objections urged above against that view.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
334 AMERICAN JO URNAL OF PHIL OLOGY,
An quisquam iudex est, qui possit noscere
tua iusta, ubi tute verbam non respondeas,
Ita ut ille fecit ?
Here fecit = non respandit Had the sentence concluded with a
simple iia ut Hie, its close resemblance to our passage would be
more immediately apparent.
With either of the proposed explanations, we get a view simple
in the extreme. The framework of Horace's question here, qui
nemo . . . se probet, will be identical with that of the query with
which the Satire opens, qui fit . . . contentus vivai, and the illus-
tration, "just as the miser fails to praise himself," will be entirely
in point, since for seventy or eighty lines he has been using the
avarus as the most typical example of discontent.
Sat. I 5- 43 :
O qui complexus et gaudia quanta fuerunt.
No editor (at least in recent times) has made any comment on
complexus. It may be interesting, therefore, to compare Cic.
Acad. Post. I I In Cumano nuper cum mecum Atticus noster
esset, nuntiatum est nobis a M. Varrone venisse eum Roma pridie
vesperi . . . Itaque confestim ad eum ire perreximus, paulumque
cum ab eius villa abessemus, ipsum ad nos venientem vidimus;
atque ilium complexi, ut mos amicorum est ... ad suam villam
reduximus. See Reid ad loc.
Sat. I 5. 7 :
Hie ego propter aquam, quod erat deterrima, ventri
indico bellum
Neither Schiitz, Kiessling, Kirkland, Wickham, nor Greenough
makes any comment directly on the words ventri indico bellum.
Mewes defines them by cena abstineo, comparing Cicero, Cato
Maior, §46: ne omnino bellum indixisse videar voluptati. Does
not indico bellum, here as elsewhere, mean *I make a formal
declaration of war against/ and was it not meant tp suggest to
Horace's contemporaries the fetial ceremonies traditionally con-
nected with such a declaration, as described later by Livy, I 32.
5 tf. ? If this is right, we get added humor in the ridiculously
exaggerated tone of the passage. The mock heroics will then
run through four full verses, and the drop to the ' Dutch picture '
(Wickham) in Tum pueri nautis, etc., will be all the more
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
N07'ES ON HORACE, 335
marked. The mock heroic tone is resumed in vss. 51 ff.: Nunc
mihi paucis Sarmenti scurrae pugnam, etc., and in vss. 73, 74:
Nam vaga . . . tectum. Cf. also Sat. II 6. 100 lamque tenebat
Nox medium caeli spatium, etc. See also Juvenal, e. g. IV 29-
39, and Friedlaender ad loc, also his Einleitung, p. 57. One
cannot help thinking that Juvenal had in mind the passages of
Horace quoted above.
Sat. I 5. 51 ff.:
Nunc mihi paucis
Sarmenti scurrae pugnam Messique Cicirri,
Musa, velim memores
The mock heroic character of these verses (of. preceding note)
has often been remarked by editors. To their comments, how-
ever, something can be added. Horace pretends to be here the
mere recorder of the strains sung by the muse. Cf. then the
thought of Carm. I i. 32 Si neque tibias Euterpe cohibet neque
Polyhymnia Lesboum refugit tendere barbiton, and the language
of Carm. I 12. i ff., I 24. 2-4, and III 4. i ff. This fiction,
whereby the muse is represented as the real singer and the poet
as merely her mouthpiece, is the true Homeric or Epic attitude.^
Cf. the Iliad, 1 1, Odyssey, 1 1, and the opening of Paradise Lost.
Though Vergil begins self-consciously with Arma virumque cano
(see Conington on cano), he nevertheless comes back in vs. 8,
Musa, mihi causas memora, to the Homeric model and throws
himself, as it were, wholly on the muse. We may compare also
appeals to the muse for special help in special connections, e. g.
Iliad, II 484 ff., and its imitation in the Aeneid, VII 641 ff.; also
Paradise Lost, VII i ff. Now, Horace's careful adherence to the
highest poetic models emphasizes the intentional burlesque of the
^description that follows, by making the language out of all
proportion to the subject-matter.
Sat. I 5. 77-80 :
Incipit ex illo montis Apulia notos
ostentare mihi, quos torret Atabulus et quos
*The New York Herald of Dec. 27, 1896, contained an account of a mosaic
tablet, recently discovered in Tunis. The tablet represents Vergil as reading
the Aeneid, while behind him stand two Muses. Part of the description
seems worth quoting: *'With head erect, eyes intent, expression as of one
inspired and with his right hand placed upon his breast, the index finger
being raised, the poet listens to Clio and Melpomene, who stand behind him
and alternately dictate the melodious lines of the poem.*'
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
336 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
numquam erepsemus, nisi nos vicina Trivici
villa recepisset
"For this construction of vicinus L. S. only quote Lucan,
9. 432 ora vicina perusti aetheris." So Palmer. Had he seen, as
did Wickham, that vicina is here a noun, he might have noted
Cic. Off. Ill 104 Fidem . • . in Capitolio vicinam lovis, and Ovid,
Fasti, VI 399 anus vicina loci, both cited by L. and S. Add
Vergil, Aen. Ill 500 Si quando Thybrim vicinaque Thybridis
arva Intraro. Cf. finally the use of the genitive with amicus
when construed as a noun, and the dative with the same word
considered as an adjective.
Sat. I 9. 11:
^ " O te, Bolane, cerebri
felicem/' aiebam tacitus, cum quidlibet iUe
garriret, vicos, urbem laudaret.
Most editors follow Porphyrion in thinking of Bolanus as some
hot-headed individual, who would long ere this have taken the
law into his own hands, and have forcibly rid himself of so
disagreeable a companion. The same view was taken by Ben
Jonson, Poetaster, III i, in his imitation of this Satire. Schiitz,
after mentioning this view, continues: "Aber Hor. nennt sich
selbst reizbar und heftig sat. II 3, 323. 7, 35 und 44. epist I 20,
25. Vielleicht besser : Bol. hat ein solches Phlegma, dass er sich
nicht leicht erhitzt." He had been anticipated in this view by
Gifford, who, in his edition^ of Jonson's works (18 16), writes:
"But no one could show more fretfulness and impatience than
Horace himself does. Surely the felicity of Bolanus must have
consisted in an impenetrable, rather than a ticklish and tender
scull : a comfortable indifference to all attacks ; a good-humoured
stupidity that dosed over all impertinence; this, indeed, was to
be envied.*'
Sat. I 9. 22 ff.:
Si bene me novi, non Viscum pluris amicum,
non Varium facies ; nam quis me scribere pluris
aut citius possit versus ? quis membra movere
mollius? invideat quod et Hermogenes ego canto.
The attempts to identify the bore of this Satire — e. g. with
Propertius — are well known. For myself, I am inclined to believe
^11. p. 435.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTES ON HORACE,
337
that the four verses quoted above are enough of themselves to
show that all such attempts are but a waste of time, for they seem
to prove conclusively that Horace had no one person particularly
in mind. The unknown bore prides himself on the very three
things which were Horace's pet aversions. His estimate of the
credit to be accorded to rapid and voluminous composition
appears from Sat. I i. 120, 121, I 4. 8-21, I 10. 50, 51, and I 10.
64-71. Such writing formed the opposite pole to the ideal which
he set before himself, as suggested in Sat. I 10. 72-74, and more
fully in Carm. IV 2. 25-32. Cf. Netdeship's Vergil, p. 17 : "For
the first time in the history of Italian literature they (Vergil and
Horace) practically laid down the principle that no amount of
labour could be too great to expend upon poetical expression ;
that genius, power, freedom of utterance, were not enough to
make a perfect poet. Like Cicero in the sphere of oratorical
prose, Vergil and Horace are never satisfied with the form of
their work; they know no end to the striving for perfection."
See also Sellar's Horace, pp. 182 ff.
How Horace valued the bore's second accomplishment, skill in
dancing, is shown (i) by the invidious mollius] (2) by Sat. II i.
24 Saltat Milonius, ut semel icto Accessit fervor capiti numerus-
que lacernis; and (3) by Cicero's well-known words in Mur., §13,
especially the clause nemo fere saltat sobrius, nisi forte insanit.
Horace's attitude toward Tigellius requires no illustration.
We thus, as already suggested, find the bore seeking to curry
favor with Horace by the aid of the very things which would
have been sure to earn him Horace's hearty dislike. A man who
combined the attributes of a Crispinus, a Milonius, and a Her-
mogenes Tigellius would have had no chance whatever to secure
the poet's favor. My point, then, is that the description is obvi-
ously made to order, to paint the bore in as ludicrous a light as
possible, and that it therefore of itself proves that Horace had no
real individual especially in mind, since it is hardly likely that
any individual would have possessed such a curiously composite
character, or have been so dull of perception, so utterly a stranger
to the likes and dislikes of the man whose favor he was seeking
to win as to endeavor to commend himself to that man via his
pet aversions. Such a coincidence is, indeed, possible; yet it
hardly seems probable.
I should rather hold that Horace has in mind more than one
individual, that he is dramatizing in the form of a single incident
Digiti
338 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
his experiences with numerous personages who sought his aid to
further their social or literary ambitions. I am inclined to believe
also that, if we regard the fifth, sixth and ninth Satires of this
book as parts of one whole, our interpretations of these poems
will be materially assisted. The sixth Satire tells how naturally
and honesdy the friendship between Maecenas and Horace arose,
the fifth gives a glimpse of the real nature of that friendship, and
the ninth tells us what that friendship is not. This view will
account satisfactorily for the absence of all political allusions (save
that in vss. 28 and 29) from the fifth Satire. Horace would hint
that such matters form no part of the friendship, which is one
between men allied, the one to the other, by similarity of tastes
in matters wholly removed from the sphere of politics and
statecraft.
barkakd coiLBOB. Charles Knapp.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTE.
On Lucian's Nigrinus.
The difficulty of distinguishing between the formal and the
spontaneous in Lucian's work leaves commentators grotesquely
at variance in regard to the intention of certain of his writings,
and notably of the Nigrinus. From Wieland to Croiset there is
a series of critics who accept it as a serious document, either a
'confession' or a tract for the times. On the other hand, Ant.
Schwarz will have it pure satire, a parody of the sudden conver-
sions aimed at by certain philosophers. P. M. Boldermann, in a
really valuable contribution to Lucianic doctrine,^ by misappli-
cation of a fruitful theory, classes the dialogue among those in
which Lucian imitates comedy in the manner of Menippus:
Nigrinus is a comic character, but his talk is pure Cynic doctrine.
E. Schwarz, reviewing Boldermann's essay in the Philologische
Wochenschrift for March 21, 1896, refutes this notion easily
enough, but sets up in place of it one of his own which will
hardly be more satisfactory to Lucianic scholars. "Die Schilde-
rung des Klientenelends im Nigrin," he says, "ist nichts als eine
kurze Wiederholung der ausfiihrlichen Darstellung in den
Klienten, sie gipfelt hier wie dort in einem scharfen AngrifTe auf
die Philosophen, welche sich freiwillig, nur durch den Glanz des
Reichthums und der Vornehmheit geblendet, zu solcher Mis^re
hergeben, nur mit dem Unterschiede, dasz die Klienten nur eine
scharfe Invective gegen solche, die hellenische Philosophic
diskreditierenden Philosophen sind, der Nigrin das positive
Gegenstuck liefert in dem Bilde des Platonikers, der zwar das
stille und feine Athen mit dem larmenden, groszstadtisch rohen
Rom vertauscht hat, aber gerade hier ein leuchtender Exempel
fiir echthellenische Weisheit ist. . . . er ist ebenso zu der Klien-
tenschrift das Gegenstuck wie die Entlaufenen Sklaven zum
Peregrinus, wie der Fischer zu der B/»y npaau, wie der Ikaro-
menipp . . . zum Al^ lean^yopov/icyor."
^Diss., Leyden, 1893.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
340 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Now, it is undeniable that the discourse of Nigrinus gives a
shorter description of the matters set forth at length in De
Mercede Conductis, but if it was intended as a pendant and in
some degree a corrective thereof, it is unfortunate that while De
Mercede Conductis was written in a realistic spirit, with the
author's eye on the object, the Nigrinus was composed on a
palpably sophistic plan with argumentation that will not bear
scrutiny. The comparison of Athens and Rome is manifestly ad
captandum. Of the generations of critics that have taken it as a
serious contribution to Sittengeschichte, not one seems to have
noticed that, with the exception of their undue interest in horse-
racing, the Romans are not charged with a single vice or folly
which is not also laid at the door of the Athenians in other of the
Lucianic writings. (Cp. Nig. 23 with Epist. Cron. 35 and Gall.
9 ; 30 with Charon 22 and De Luctu passim ; 31 with Navig. 23 ;
etc.) The dialogue is interesting as proving that it was fashion-
able once more to write in praise of Athens ; but if it be com-
pared with Navigium and Gallus, we must admit that, as far as
Lucian's evidence goes, we have nothing to prove that society in
Athens differed more widely from society in Rome than the
province always differs from the capital.
The mystery of the Nigrinus, as of other Lucianic works, has
remained unsolved because critics find it hard to believe in
Lucian as a sophist. Few casual readers take the trouble to
study the contemporaries whom he outshone. Even Lucianic
scholars, after formally crediting the sophistic with their author *s
early training and first success, are wont to state that he broke
with the system midway in his career, and to treat of him there-
after as though he were as completely a law unto himself as
Thucydides or Plato. We find even recent commentators like
Croiset speaking of him as returning to rhetoric in his old age, as
though there were any evidence to show that he ever abandoned
it The famous passage in Bis Accusatus cannot be pressed to
mean more than that he substituted the composition and delivery
of dialogues for that of meletae. The other part of the sophistic
programme, the prolalia, he apparently retained ; the Prometheus
in Verbis is such a work and was designed, by internal evidence,
as the introduction to a dialogue recitation. It is my belief, then,
that the Nigrinus not only shows traces of the sophistic style, as
all allow, but is actually a sophistic work. I conceive that Lucian,
having occasion to address an Athenian audience, determined on
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTE. 341
two points : that he would give them a sort of Panathenaic oration/
and that he would do it in the Platonic manner, of which he had
made a special study. In pursuit of inspiration for the first point
he read Pericles' funeral oration in Thucydides' and Plato's
Menexenus. Catching from the Menexenus the tone of ironical
admiration which aptly secured the lightness of touch called for
by the occasion, he enforced it by dipping into the Protagoras.'
We are accustomed to dismiss as pedantic and futile the methods
by which the later sophists studied the great classical writers and
aimed at reproducing their effects, assigning to Lucian's 'sophistic
period* none but works of hopeless frigidity. The Nigrinus
should save us from such blunders. We can hardly doubt its
success with the audience for whom it was written; still more
gratifying to the author would have been the knowledge that
posterity would, on the strength of it, write him down a moralist,
a patriot, and sometime a Platonist.
Emily James Smith.
' When the sophist Alexander visited Athens, ^ f^ Si^ dtdXe^ig Ittoivoi ^oav
Tov A<rrcof . . ., TLavadrfva'iKOv yap T^yav iiriTOfiy elKoaro, Philostratus, Vit. Soph.,
d, 78, 13 ff., ed. Kayser. Cp. Aristides' Panathenaic Oration.
' Besides the explicit quotation in the preface, cp. Nigr. 13 with Thuc. II
37, Nigr. 14 with Thuc. II 40,
»Cp. Nigr. 35 with Prot. 328 D.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES.
A Literary History of the English People. From the Origins to the Renais-
sance. By J. J. Jusserand. G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York and London^
1895.
This volume forms Part I of a work to be completed in three volumes^
Part II extending "From the Renaissance to Pope," and Part III, "From
Pope to the Present Day." The author is particular to call his work not " a
• History of English Literature,' but rather a * Literary History of the English
People.'" It is thus distinguished from Taine's work, a brilliant essay on
English literature, though often mistaken in its critical fudgments, rather than
a history of English literature.
M. Jusserand has devoted much labor and study to the composition of his
work. He has gone to original sources, and not the least valuable portion of
the volume is that containing the numerous bibliographical notes which he
has appended to almost every page. These are what we miss in ten Brink,
with whose valuable history of English literature this volume invites com-
parison. It is true that ten Brink intended to add a very full bibliography,,
but his most unfortunate death prevented it ; it is better to give the bibliog-
raphy in the course of the work, for the reader desires to know the authorities
as he progresses in his reading.
The impression produced upon the mind of the impartial reader after a
careful perusal of the volume, is that it is well done. If he should not, in all
cases, have adopted the same perspective, and if he considers that some
writers deserved a less cursory treatment, that is a matter of private judgment.
The volume is divided into three books treating respectively the Origins, the
French Invasion, and England to the English. These are subdivided into
chapters, whose titles deserve mention, both as giving a summary of the work,
and as illustrating the author's statement, " To be easily understood one must
be clear," and throughout the volume one is reminded of the French adage,.
" Ce gut rCestptLs clair, n*est pas franfois,**
The first book contains four chapters: Britannia, the Germanic invasion,
the national poetry of the Anglo-Saxons, and Christian literature and prose
literature of the Anglo-Saxons. The second book has also four chapters:
Battle, literature in the French language under the Norman and the Angevin
kings, Latin, and literature in the English language. The third book
includes seven chapters : The new nation, Chaucer, the group of poets, Wil-
liam Langland and his visions, prose in the fourteenth century, the theatre,
and the end of the Middle Ages. The several chapters are subdivided into
sections with separate headings, so that at no moment is one at a loss to know
what the author is talking about, for each subject, however briefly or fully
treated, is kept separate and distinct from every other subject. This analytical
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
warn
HEVIEIVS AND BOOK NOTICES. 343
subdivision should not be disregarded, but it is specially senriceable in a his-
tory of literature.
In any work by a French writer we naturally look for an exaltation of the
Kelts, their brilliancy, their power of imagination, their fertility of invention.
Granting all that may be said on this subject by Keltophilists, we have always
thought that the Keltic literature of Britain, and the Kelts them»dlyes, before
the Norman Conquest, had as little to do with English literature proper as the
Greeks and Greek literature of the Byzantine empire. Whatever views we
may hold as to the greater or less extermination of the Kelts by the Germanic
invaders, and the greater or less incorporation of them into the body of the
English, — and we are ready to grant, as the author holds, that this incorpora-
tion was greater than was formerly thought, — the literature does not seem to
us to have had one particle of influence on the Old English, or Anglo-Saxon
literature, and we see no advantage in beginning with it a literary history of
the English people. English literature begins with " the national poetry of
the Anglo-Saxons,'* and here we see its true genius and spirit, allied to that of
other Germanic and Scandinavian tribes. The author is very right in saying
that the Anglo-Saxons ** did not allow the traditions of the vanquished Celts
to blend with theirs, and in spite of their conversion to Christianity, they pre-
served, almost without change, the main characteristics of the race from which
they were descended" (p. 36), We must come down to the twelfth and thir-
teenth centuries before we find Keltic traditions beginning to infiltrate
English literature, and then through the Normans as intermediaries. What-
ever Keltic blood may survive in the present English people, it did not affect
the Old English people, and whatever Kelts survived the Germanic invasion
became hewers of wood and drawers of water, and the oil and water of that
day did not mix.
The sketch of Old English poetry is all too brief, and the account of the
versification is quoted from Sweet's "Sketch" in Hazlitt's Warton, but that
was belore the days of Sievers, so the student must revise the account given of
it, and not take as literal truth the statement, " The rules of this prosody, not
very difficult in themselves, are made still easier by a number of licenses and
exceptions " (p. 37). The dispute as to the works of Cynewulf is mentioned*
but the works themselves receive scant treatment, the doubtful Andreas being
the only one of which a brief outline is given. The conjecture of Earle that
he " lived in the eleventh century " is quoted as on a par with that of ten
Brink that " he was born between 720 and 730" (p. 39) ; but Earle's mere con-
jecture is utterly untenable. While the Brummbnrh^ or Athelstan^ is found in
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle under the year 937, the MaUon or Byrkinoth (991)
is not found therein, and this should not have been so stated (p. 47, note i).
As was to be expected, an outline of the Beowulf is given, but Beowulf did not
** return to his own country " after the fight with Grendel and before that with
Grendel's mother (p. 52) : he simply slept elsewhere, and so was not on hand
when the latter came to Heorot and devoured Aeschere. The author in his
Preface laments " misprints," and it must be acknowledged that there is quite
a number of them, which even the best of eyes cannot avoid, but ChlochilaUus
occurs three times in note at foot of p. 50. M. Jusserand thinks that Beowulf
is ** very different from Roland, the hero of France, he too of Germanic origin,
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
344 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
but living in a different milieu " (p. 54) ; but surely some allowance should be
made for chronology.
The introduction of Latin letters and their effect upon Old English writing,
as seen in the works of Baeda and in the poems of Caedmon and Cynewulf, is
noted ; also, the contributions of Alfred to a dissemination of a knowledge of
literature am^g his people in the first revival of learning, and the later works
of iElfric and of Wulfstan, receive mention ; but fault is found with this Old
English literature in that it is " almost stationary; it does not perceptibly move
and develop ; a graft is wanted '* (p. 92). This graft was to come from the
Norman invasion.
Notwithstanding the comparatively brief sketch of Old English literature, —
for, in a work of this compass, we cannot expect the treatment given by ten
Brink, Stopford Brooke, or Morley, — the author appreciates highly what has
been handed down to us from the Anglo-Saxon period, and well says : " The
English country can thus pride itself upon a literature which for antiquity is
unparalleled in Europe " (p. 79). This has not always been realized even by
English writers, and although a knowledge of this literature is easily acces-
sible, it does not seem to have penetrated beyond scholars.
The Norman Conquest and its effects follow. William the Conqueror is
highly exalted. ** The qualities of which William gave the example were rare
in England, but common in France ; they were those of his race and country,
those of his lieutenants ; they naturally reappear in many of his successors *'
(p. 106). The Normans are duly praised, perhaps over-duly. " Their match-
less strength and their indomitable will further one particular cause: the
infusion of French and Latin ideas in the Anglo-Saxon people, and the con-
nection of England with the civilization of the South." The fact that '* the
chiefs of the nation are French,*' and "their wives are mostly French too"
(p. 108), is put prominently before us, so that one would infer that all the
good in England came from France. Now, while the impartial historian will
readily acknowledge the good accruing to England from the Norman invasion,
he should never forget the heroic qualities lying at the basis of the English
people, qualities seen in other Germanic peoples, which asserted themselves
two hundred and fifty years later in that composite Saxon and Norman, that
is, English people, almost as distinct from the French of that day as were the
Saxon and Norman at the time of the Conquest ; the development had been
different, and the Saxon had predominated.
The diffusion of the French language and the rise of Anglo-French literature
are quite fully treated. The French language and French ideas were undoubt-
edly prevalent in England for three hundred years. The author rightly says :
" It matters little whether these ideas went across the Channel carried over by
poets or by manuscripts. What is important is to see and ascertain that works
of a new style, with new aims in them, and belonging to a new school of art,
enjoyed in England a wide popularity after the Conquest, with the result that
deep and lasting transformations affected the aesthetic ideal and even the
way of thinking of the inhabitants" (p. 120).
The different kinds of this literature are enumerated and discussed. His-
tories, romances, religious works, fabliaux^ prose and poetry, all are found
and in great numbers. Geoffrey Gaimar, Wace, Benoit de Sainte-More, the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
HE VIE IV S AND BOOK NOTICES. 345
Chanson di Roland^ " the national song of the Normans as well as of all French-
men** (p. 125), the authors of the Alexander, Charlemagne, and Arthur cycles
of romances, — ^all show the activity of the Anglo-Norman intellect, and the
avidity of Anglo-Norman society for literature of all kinds. As a specimen of
these romances one may take the Arthurian cycle. ** One thing, however, was
lacking for a time to the complete success of the Arthurian epic : the stamp of
authenticity, the Latin starting-point . . . Geoffrey of Monmouth makes up for
this deficiency*' (p. 132). Here comes in the Keltic influence on subsequent
English literature. These legends had developed in Wales, Brittany, and
Cornwall. '* The Briton harpists had, by the beauty of their tales, and the
sweetness of their music, early acquired a great reputation," and the great
service of Geoffrey of Monmouth was that he collected these tales in Latin
form, and passed them on to Wace and other Norman-French writers, whence
they were taken by Layamon first, and after the lapse of more than two
hundred and fifty years by Sir Thomas Malory, and so have been perpetuated
as the only well-developed cycle of romance in English literature. What
difference does it make if William of Newbury says that Geoffrey made
"Arthur's little finger bigger than Alexander's back," that he "lies about
almost everything"? Welcome the Jies, if we take them at their true value !
They were *' turned into Latin verse, into French alexandrines, into Welsh
prose *' ; " the finest poems the Middle Ages devoted to them were written on
English ground" (p. 134). But while the chief one, this romantic cycle was
not the only one, and romance was not the only literary form that these Anglo-
French poets and prose-writers cultivated. '* They have also shorter narratives
in prose and verse, the subject of which is generally love, drawn from French,
Latin, Greek, and even Hindu legends" (pp. 141-2). A very modem spirit
pervades these love-poems. Human nature was not so very different in the
thirteenth century from what it is in the nineteenth, but it has progressed
since the eighth. "To sum up in a word which will show the difference
between the first and second period : on the lips of the conquerors of Hastings
odes have become chansons"
In addition to the love-literature, the literature of wit and humor was
developed. ** The French who were now living in England in large numbers
introduced there the taste for merry tales of trickery and funny adventures,
stories of curious mishaps of all kinds" (p. 155). "All this literature went
over the Channel with the conquerors." Thus new ideas were introduced
among the English people, which, prevalent for a time in a distinct grade of
society, gradually permeated the mass and aided the development of English
thought.
The Latin literature of the Anglo-Norman period is next treated, the
period of the lengthy Chronicles of English history written during the twelfth,
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, from Henry of Huntingdon to Ralph Hig-
don. These have been made accessible of late years in the Rolls series, and
constitute a unique possession, furnishing very full materials for the history of
the times. M. Jusserand gives an interesting account of the Latin education of
the time, the establishment of monasteries, and of schools and libraries under
their walls. Paris was the literary capital, and its University in the twelfth
century was a great resort. After its model the universities of Oxford and
346 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Cambridge were formed, " but their celebrity was chiefly local, and they never
reached the international reputatipn of the one at Paris" (p. 173).
English writers were great Latin scholars. " They handle the language
with such facility in the twelfth century, one might believe it to be their
mother-tongue; the chief monuments of English thought at this time are
Latin writings. Latin tales, chronicles, satires, sermons, scienti6c and
medical works, treatises on style, prose romances, and epics in verse, all kinds
of composition are produced by Englishmen in considerable numbers" (p. 176).
The poem of Joseph of Exeter on the Trojan war, long attributed to Cor*
nelius Nepos, is aa example of the facility with which Englishmen wrote
Latin verse. Mr. Wright has made the works of these Anglo-Latin poets
accessible in the Rolls series, and has given an account of them in his Bi^
grapkia BHtannica LiUraria^VoX, II, the Anglo-Norman period. A most
interesting satire is the S^eulum SiuUortim of Nigel Wireker, in which the
stupid monk is taken off in the person of Burnellus the ass, who visits many
nniversities, finally that of Paris, where he matriculates among the English
nation, and after seven years study has learnt nothing but " ya" :
*' Cum nihil ex toto quodcunque docente magistro
Aut socio potuit discere praeter ya."
Finally his master, who has been searching for him far and wide, carries him
back to his usual duties.
Geoffrey de Vinsauf writes his Nova Poetria^ in which he lays down new
rules for the art of poetry. Latin prose writings are more abundant than
poetry ! witness the PoHcrtUicut^ sive de Nugis Curialtum of John of Salisbury,
whose alternative title is taken by Walter Map for one of his witty works.
Much has been fathered upon Map, which he most probably never wrote,
particularly the so-called Apocalypse and Confession of Golias.
The last chapter of the second book treats the literature in the English
language, and here we have a succinct account of the revival of the vernacular
literature after a long repose. It had never been extinct, but for a hundred
and fifty years after the Norman Conquest there had scarcely been more than
enough to preserve the continuity. ** The twelfth century, so fertile in Latin
and French works, only counts, as far as English works are concerned, devo-
tional books in prose and verse " (p. 205). We may add the later entries in
the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, but these, with the modernisations of the Gospel
version, the series of Homilies, the so-called Moral Ode, and a few other poems,
constitute all that we have in English before the year 1200. The native
English mind, as distinguished from the Norman mind, was repressed, felt no
impulse to produce, and time was needed to amalgamate the two. The
thirteenth century saw the beginning of this amalgamation, and before its
close we find the first English king on the throne in the person of Edward I,
and the beginnings of an English literature consequent upon the fusion of the
two races. This is the century of Layamon's Brut, the Ormu/um, the Anavn
RiwU, the Genesis and Exodus, the Owl and NighHngaU, the most original
poem of the century, the romances of ffavelok the Dane, and King Horn, and
the continuation of chronicle history in English in the work of Robert of
Gloucester. The Pialier is paraphrased in English verse, and metrical lives
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 347
of saints in both Northern and Southern English abound. While not much
originality is manifested, English authors can write in their own language as
well as in Lathi and French, and the demand for such works shows the
increasing prevalence of the language, but we must wait until the fourteenth
century before the preponderance is on that side. *' Most of the religious
treatises in English that have come down to us . . . belong to the first half of
the fourteenth century. In the thirteenth . . . many Englishmen considered
French to be» together with Latin, the literary language of the country ; they
endeavored to handle it, but not always with great success. . . . These
attempts become rare as we approach the fourteenth century, and English
translations and imitations, on the contrary, multiply'* (pp. 2I3~4). This
represents the true state of affairs. In the first half of the fourteenth century
we have Robert of Brunne's Handfyng Synne and his Chronicle, both transla-
tions of Anglo-French works, the English version of Robert Grosseteste*s
CasUl of Love^ the voluminous Cursor Afundi, the great repertory of legends,
Dan Michel's Xemarse of Conscience, and Richard RoHe of Hampole's Prick of
Conscience and other works, issuing from Kent and Yorkshire respectively,
and both about the same year, 1340, and many others. Thus at the time
of Chaucer's birth there was an English people, and an English literature
in embryo, and the time was ripe for a great English poet. *' In the course
of the fourteenth century, under Edward III and Richard II, a double
fusion, which had been slowly preparing during the preceding reigns, is com-
pleted and sealed forever; the races established on English ground are
fused into one, and the languages they spoke become one also. The French
are no longer superposed on the natives, henceforth there are only English in
the English island '* (p. 236). It had taken a long time, about three hundred
years, but it had been finally accomplished. M. Jusserand sets this well before
us, and not the least interesting fact stated in this connection, on the authority
of Bracton, is that, in the thirteenth century, if a murder had been committed,
an inquest was necessary to determine whether the murdered man was an
Englishman or of French birth ; in the former case no fine was imposed. The
statute of 1340 abolishes the " presentement d'Englescherie," showing that by
this time no distinction was made as to the genealogy of the slain, French-
man and Englishman being on a par.
The chapter on ** the new nation " is one of the most interesting in the book
and brings before us the life of the fourteenth century. The disappearance of
French and the rise of English is traced : the race as well as the language
is transformed. A real English Parliament is constituted, and *' from the end
of the fourteenth century an Englishman could already say as he does to-day :
' My business is not the business of the State, but the business of the State is
my business.' The whole of the English constitution, from the vote on the
taxes to the Aa6eas corpus, is comprised in this formula." This is a compendium
of the principles of liberty, and is very different from the French king's dic-
tum : "Z'//a/, c^est moi** A nation in which political liberty had been thus
developed, in which trade, commerce, architecture, art, social life, had pro-
gressed, must needs have a progressive literature. The sense of beauty that
had been manifested in other directions must manifest itself in literature, and
the touch of a great poet was wanting for this purpose. The hero is the pro-
348 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
duct of his time» but the hero too carries forward his time to a greater perfec*
tion. The first half of the fourteenth century was preparatory to the efflor-
escence of literature in the second half.
The leader in this movement was, of course, Geoffrey Chaucer, the poet of the
new nation and the representative of the new age ; " he paints it from nature
and is a part of it " (p. 267). We have a full chapter on Chaucer and his works
treated chronologically, based on the publications of the Chaucer Society.
His early reception of French influence is noted, his acquaintance with the
works of Deguileville, Machault, Des Champs, and Granson, but we do not
find him regarded, with Sandras, as a mere imitator of the French trouvhrs.
The critical question as to his authorship of the existing version of the Romauni
of the Rose is barely touched upon. '* The first fragment alone might, on account
of its style and versification, be the work of Chaucer, but this is only a surmise,
and we have no direct proof of it '' (p. 278, note 2). That M. Jusserand is very
doubtful about it is shown by his statement in the text that *'this trans-
lation by Chaucer is lost." The spurious works are duly enumerated (p. 279,
note i). Very brief outlines of the Boke of the Duchesse and of the House of Fame
are given, and a much fuller one of Troilus and Criseyde^ in which poem ** he
surpasses now even the Italians whom he had taken for his models, and writes
the first great poem of renewed English literature." The Canterbury Tales
are duly described and commented on with sympathetic appreciation. ** There
appear in perfect light his masterly gifts of observation, of comprehension, and
of sympathy ; we well see with what art he can make his characters stand
forth, and how skilfully they are chosen to represent all contemporaneous
England " (p. 334). With respect to Chaucer's skill as a poet and its effect
upon the undeveloped language, M. Jusserand remarks: "The brilliancy with
which Chaucer used this new tongue, the instant fame of his works, the clear
proof afforded by his writings that English could fit the highest and the lowest
themes, assured to that idiom its definitive place among the great literary
languages *' (p. 338). " Chaucer's efforts were not exercised in vain ; they
assisted the work of concentration. After him the dialects lost their import-
ance ; the one he used, the East Midland dialect, has since become the language
of the nation" (p. 309). It is impossible to over-estimate the position of
Chaucer in a history of English literature. His influence is seen throughout
the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries down to the new impulse given by the
study of Italian and classical literature in the reign of Elizabeth. The poets
immediately succeeding Chaucer are simply his imitators, and serve to per-
petuate his influence for a hundred and fifty years. In " the group of poets "
authors are included who preceded, as well as those who were contemporary
with, and those who succeeded, Chaucer, as witness the author of Sir Gawayne
and the Green Knight and The Pearl, Lawrence Minot's poems on the French
and Scottish wars of Edward III are touched upon, and the later romance of
The Bruce by John Barbour, circa 1375. Gower comes in for some considera-
tion, but " he is aristocratic and conservative by nature, so that he belongs to
old England as much as to the new nation, and is the last in date of recog-
nizable representatives of Angevin Britain " (p. 364).
A much greater poet than Gower, William Langland, has a chapter devoted
to him and his visions. Professor Skeat has made us well acquainted with him.
Digitized by
Google
REVIEIVS AND BOOK NOTICES, 349
and M. Jusserand has devoted one of his works to a study of Piers Plowman^
some extracts from which are included in this chapter. They may be distin-
guished by the more rhetorical style, and serve to acquaint the reader still
further with the contents and value of Langland's great work, for he stands
next to Chaucer, and gives us a view of another side of life in the fourteenth
century. Chaucer takes things easy and simply makes merry over abases:
Langland is the genuine reformer, who scores abuses in Church and State with
the spirit of Elijah or John the Baptist, and is the defender of the rights of the
people. M. Jusserand places the revision of the third text " in 1398 or shortly
after," correcting Professor Skeat, who places it in 1393 (p. 375, note 2). A
slip of ** Shrewsbury " for '* Shropshire " on p. 375 maybe noted in passing.
Langland's work is Indispensable for a knowledge of the times, and serves as
a complement to the works of Chaucer. " Chaucer and Langland, the two
great poets of the period, represent excellently the English genius, and the two
races that have formed the nation" (p. 402), the former representing *'the
latinized Celts " ; the latter, *• the race of the Anglo-Saxons."
A chapter on the prose of the period follows, and here we have Sir John
Mandeville relegated to the region of myth, a conclusion that is a step beyond
the results reached by the investigations of Col. Yule and Mr. Nicholson in
their Encyclopedia Britannica article, and is founded on the work of Warner
(1889), and later discoveries of Mr. Nicholson. Maetzner long since showed
that the English version conld not have been written by the author of the
French one, and its language plainly shows that it is much nearer 1400 than
1350. The French version is now assigned to Jean de Bourgogne, or ** Joannes
ad Barbam," a physician, who died in 1372 at Liige, "where his tomb was
still to be seen at the time of the French Revolution" (p. 407). This is the
tomb that was formerly considered to be that of Sir John Mandeville. We
give up Sir John with regret, but we keep his Travels as " one of the best and
oldest specimens of simple and flowing English prose,** even if we do not know
who wrote the English version, which *' was made after 1377, and twice revised
in the beginning of the fifteenth century." This investigation leaves Wyclif
as the true "father of English prose," and his life and works, in both Latin
and English, which are very numerous, are next considered. His unfortunate
death postponed the Reformation in England for a hundred and fifty years,
but perhaps the time was not yet ripe for it.
An interesting chapter on the stage, with accounts of the ancient Mysteries
and a brief notice of the Moralities^ succeeds, and the volume closes with too
brief an account of fifteenth and early sixteenth century literature. It pro-
duces the impression of having been written in a hurry. While Lydgate and
Hoccleve, and even James I of Scotland, are re-echoes of Chaucer, and Hawes
and Henryson but continue the literary tradition, Douglas and Dunbar,
especially the latter, deserved fuller consideration, and to' these Sir David
Lyndsay might have been added, but perhaps he is only postponed. Bishop
Pecock too was a man of mark, even if he was not the stuff of which martyrs
are made. Sir Thomas Malory is barely named, and we miss any treatment
of the important ballad literature of this century. We shall, however, await
with interest the succeeding volumes, for M. Jusserand has given us a very
readable book.
James M. Gaknett.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
350 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Alfred Hillebrandt. Ritual-Literator. Vedische Opfer und Zauber. Being
volume III, part 2 of Grundriss der Indo-Arischen Philologie and
Altertttmskunde (Encyclopedia of Indo- Aryan Research), edited by
Georg BOhler. 'Strassburg, Karl J. Trflbner, 1897.
The philological status of no less than six important sections of the
Indo-European community of peoples has been summarized, or is being
summarized, by groups of competent scholars. Greek and Latin philology
took the lead, and Iwan MttUer's Handbuch der klassischen Altertums-
Wissenschaft stimulated the production of no less than four other *Grund-
risse,* all of which were undertaken by the enterprising firm of Triibner in
Strassburg : one of Germanic philology, edited by Hermann Paul ; another
of Romance philology, edited by Gustav GrOber ; next that of Iranian
philology, edited by Wilhelm Geiger and Ernst Kuhn ; and finally one of
Hindu philology, in so far as it concerns the * Aryan' peoples of India,
edited by the eminent Vienna Indologist, Professor Georg Bflhler, with the
aid of about thirty scholars, German, Austrian, English, Dutch, American,
Indian (both native and Anglo-Indian). Thus far there have appeared, in
addition to the work at the head of this notice, the parts containing
Speyer's Vedic and Sanskrit Syntax, Buhler's Indian Palaeography, Jolly's
Laws and Customs (Recht und Sitte), Macdonell's Vedic Mythology,
Garbe's Samkbya and Yoga Philosophy, and Kern's Manual of Indian
Buddhism. These treatises exhibit fairly the scope of the work which
proposes to deal with the languages, literatures, history, religion, laws and
customs, science and art of the Aryan Hindus. Of the more important
Indo-European philologies, Indian philology is the most recent, and stands
in need of concinnate treatment. Indeed, rather more than half of the
subjects outlined in the prospectus have never before precipitated them-
selves from out of the amorphous state of article and dissertation into a
connected form of treatment. The freshness of the subjects had invited in
the past rather the edition and elucidation of the difficult texts, the state-
ment of strong, salient, interesting points, and the striking of the paths that
were to be the familiar exercise-ground of the enquirer. Of this there is
still a vast deal to do. We need but mention the gaps in the list of even
the first editions of important texts ; but there is plenty of good timber for
the rearing of a provisional house. The present work is timely and being
executed by strong and deft hands. The Sanskritist by profession, as he
glances over the compact pages of these encyclopedic treatises, realizes
that his knowledge has been enlarged and the basis of his researches
broadened ; were there nothing but the sifted bibliographies in orderly
array, which are one of the regular requirements of each contribution, these
treatises would not have been written in vain.
But if we mistake not, this series is destined to exercise an unusual
amount of influence in broadening and solidifying historical and institu-
tional sciences in general. India, on account of the singular nature of her
literary tradition, is destined to remain a very permanent source of knowl-
edge, as indeed she has in the past proved herself to be the originator of
important branches of historical and institutional science. The compara-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
RE VIE WS AND BOOK NO TICES. 3 5 1
tive absence of disturbance from the oatside has ensured her continuous
development with little foreign admixture ; her own unrivalled systematic
presentations in formal treatises of her religions, laws and customs have
preserved a relatively perfect and unbroken record of that development.
India is largely responsible for the new so-called Science of Religions
which is at this moment profoundly and wholesomely modifying men's
minds in their views of religion and philosophy. Students of comparative
and historical jurisprudence have also been long accustomed to turn in the
same direction for materials and for organic correlation of the tissue and
bones of law. Professor Jolly's work, * Kecht und Sitte,' catalogued above,
offers an invaluable digest of Hindu law, and points the way in the intricate
maze of native literature, and now Professor Hillebrandt's contribution
distinctly, for the first time, assembles and summarizes the exceedingly
systematic and painfully painstaking Vedic treatises on home-life and
house-customs, on the ritualistic practices of the Brahmans, and on witch-
craft, incantation, exorcism and superstitions in general.
No student of India will say that a more ideally competent scholar than
Professor Hillebrandt could have been called to this particular task. He
is to begin with an all-round Vedic scholar of the first rank. But his
special qualification is found in his prolonged, patient studies of the
so-called ^rauta-literature, the literature of the great Vedic sacrifices,
having himself edited one of the most important texts of that ciass, the,
^ankhayana-^rautasutra, and having elaborated a number of connected
treatises on special phases of this literature — witness, e. g., his essays on
the New-moon and Full-moon sacrifice, on the Solstitial Festivals (Sonn-
wendfeste), and others. His sketch, as he modestly calls it, of the contents
of the ^rautasutras (pp. 97-166), though based to a considerable extent on
Professor Weber's pioneer labor in the same field (Zur Kenntniss des
Vedischen Opferrituals, Indische Studien, X and XIII), is the piece de
resistance of the entire work. To this Vedic scholars will turn most
frequently for information on the literature of the subject, for guidance
through the intricate performances of the numerous priests, for explanation
of the well-nigh countless technical terms, and for correlation, where
possible, of these rigid technical performances with the living world; in
other words, for an account of their development out of popular (ethno-
logical) needs and beliefs.
One wish connected with this very part of the work is not easily
suppressed. The general plan of the series follows the native division of
the Vedic literature into revealed texts (^ruti\ and traditional texts {smpt).
This division is both mythical and unpractical, and it is to be regretted
that it has been introduced at all. Mantra and Brahma^a (fruti)^ as far as
their subject-matter is concerned, are not nearly so closely allied as Brah-
mana and Qrautasutra (xmi*/!). The separation of the last two is in reality
impossible. Professor Geldner has in charge the fruti of the three Vedas,
and, if we mistake not the temper and the trend of his previous investi-
gations, he will deal with the Brahma^as of the three Vedas from the point
of view of literary history rather than from the point of view of ritualistic
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
352 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
detail. The character of the Brahmanas as a mixture of sacrificial prescript
with legendary illustration — hallacha and haggada^ as they are called in the
Talmudic systematic view — is likely to engage his attention and to preempt
the space allotted to him so much that he will lack the opportunity to
present a complete sketch of the various sacrifices as treated in the Brih-
manas with any detail whatsoever. Indeed, were he, after all, to do this,
he would be doing over again what Professor Hillebrandt has done so
excellently upon the basis of the closely allied ^rautasutras. It is not
unlikely that this encyclopedia will pass into subsequent editions : would
it be too much, then, to ask Professor Hillebrandt to take courage and break
down the artificial barrier, and to treat each grauta-sacrifice both in its
Brahmana and Sutra form ? At least he might add to his citations, without
great trouble to himself and without the need of great additional space, the
places in the voluminous Brahmanas in which each sacrifice is treated,,
even though he restricted himself, in the main, to his original expositions
in the first edition.
The entire work is divided into four parts. The first deals with the
beginnings, the literary sources, and the significance of the ritual practices ;
the second with the practices of home-life (Grhyasutras); the third with
the Vedic sacrifice (^rautasutras) ; and the fourth with Vedic witchcraft.
All four are products of scholarship so profound and judgment so nice as
to leave one well satisfied that this compact treatise presents a picture
whose general outline will never be altered materially. A little more
breadth might have been desirable for the last chapter. The literature of
Hindu superstition is so extensive, it is so largely dominated by transparent
symbolism and by concomitant explanatory circumstances as to ensure for
it that same basic importance in general ethnology and folklore which
confessedly belongs to Hindu religion, law and house-customs. The
subject of omens and portents alone ^ would justify an independent treatise,
as would also the subject of Vedic physiology, anatomy and medicine.
But even in these matters a gratifying beginning has been made.
A few details may be added to this notice. P. 36, 1. 4 : the fdunakayaina
is after all not original with the Vaitana-sutra, since it is found also KB. iv.
6 ; ^^. 3. 10. 7 ; AQ. 9. 7. i. But its correlation with the abhicdrakdma
remains interesting as illustrating the probably apocryphal name of the
redactor of the vulgate version of the AV. — On the same page near the
end the author Upavar^a must be identical with the one mentioned JAOS.
XI 376; Kaugika, Introduction, p. xvii. — On the same page, note i, the
Yajfiaprayagcittasutra is doubtless identical with the six prayagcittadhyiyas
of the Vait.; see Garbe, Introduction to his edition of that text, p. v;
Weber, Verzeichniss der Sanskrit-Handschriften, vol. II, p. 83. — P. 41 (cf.
also p. 71) : for the division of the sacrifice into pdkayajna^ etc., see Gop.
Br. I. 5. 7, and 23. — P. 64, middle : for an attempt to explain the so-called
Indrapl-rite as a practice to prevent the death of a husband and consequent
widowhood, see the present writer, ZDMG. XLVIII 553, note 2. — P. 76,
1 Add to the litenture on the subject (p. 184) Hatfield's treatment of the Aufanasadbhutani
(JAOS. XV, pp. 907 ff.), and the adbhuu-texts at the end of Athanra-Pari9Utas.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 353
bottom : Qveta of course is = Paidya, the white horse of Pedu that kills
serpents from the time of the RV. on. — P. 80, I. 10: the practice of
slaughtering a cow in honor of a guest (obviously obsolescent in the
Grhyasutras) is embalmed in the Vedlc proper name Atithigva ; see AJP.
XVII, pp. 424 ft. — On the same page, middle : To the practices connected
with the building of a house add the so-called fyenaydga or fyenejyd,
unearthed by the present writer, JAOS. XVI, pp. 12 £f. — P. 90, middle :
for a somewhat more precise explanation of the word frdddha see AJP.
XVII 411.— P. 169, middle : see SBE. XLII, pp. 20 ff.
Maurice Bloomfield.
Sophokles Elektra. ErkUrt yon Georg Kaibel. Leipzig, B. G. Teubner,
1896.
The new Teubner Sammlung wissenschafilicher Commentare zu grie^
chisehen u, rSmischen Schriftstellern challenges attention by its title and
still more by its programme. No concession is to be made to practical
needs. The commentaries are to address themselves to mature scholars,
and consequently invite the most rigorous scrutiny. To teach teachers is
a perilous task, and the publishers have made a wise selection in the
editor of the first commentary, and the editor a wise selection in the choice
of his text Apart from his long and close association with Wilamowitz,
Kaibsl's independent work would lead us to expect a penetrating treat-
ment of his author, and the Elektra of Sophokles is just the play to bring
out the value of the principles that Kaibel advocates. By a rare kindness
of fortune we are able to compare the dramatic methods of the three great
coryphaei of Attic tragedy in handling the same theme, and interpretation
necessarily plays a conspicuous part in the Elektra. True, textual criticism
will never cease from troubling, but exegesis must come to the front when
so many problems of tragic psychology are involved as one finds in this
play of Sophokles. ** Exhaust interpretation before you attack the text '^
is a wise rule of a great teacher, but, unfortunately, the interpreter too
often becomes exhausted before the interpretation and conjectural criticism
is summoned to the relief. To be sure, what is sometimes called conjec-
ture is not, properly speaking, conjecture. It is a manner of proof-reading
for which modern slaves of the vernacular press take no credit to them-
selves, as every man that has served in the humble capacity of reader
makes daily * emendations ' that would be the fortune of some scholars, if
the operations were performed on the body of the classic texts. It is
purely a matter of familiarity with the range of thought and expressioni
and is less a wonder, the more one is at home in a given language.
Indeed, it is very questionable whether Hellenists of the old time plumed
themselves to much on their corrections as do men of our day, and the
praises that have been showered on some of Keiske's work in that line
would doubtless have astonished that large-limbed scholar himself. But
a homily on the abuses of conjectural criticism would be sadly out of place
in a review of Kaibkl's Elektra, for in the very first lines of his prelimi*
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
354 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
nary observations he gives us to understand that he does not favor a ready
resort to conjecture. * Emendation,' he says, * is a rare flower, which grows,
if anywhere, on the rock of interpretation, and the longer one pursues this
flower, the better does he know how hard it is to find or to pluck.' The
application of this remark to the text of Sophokles is near at hand, and
Kaibel's protest against * the flood of conjectures by which the text of
Sophokles has been marred' will be more readily echoed to-day than it
would have been twenty or thirty years ago. Especially to be taken to
heart are Kaibel's words about the patching of texts by parallel passages,
a kind of skin-grafting to which critics are prone ; and he is very emphatic,
as emphatic as was the late Mr. Matthew Arnold, on the rights of poetic
individuality. 'Every great poet,' he says, * himself creates his language
and bis art. Developed with him, they grow with him» and die with him as
his daifiuv. He has not inherited them and cannot transmit them.' And
yet these words must be taken with some reserves. In Greek the type of
each form of art, of each sphere of language, is more potent than is
commonly supposed, more potent against other forms of arts, other spheres
of language, than any amount of individual sympathy. The lyric poet is
nearer to the lyric poet, no matter how diverse bis temperament, than he
is to the tragic poet of kindred genius. Self-ravelling is the best material
for darning the poet's text, just as a poet is always bis own best interpreter,
but in default of that one may well resort to rival looms.
After Kaibel's frank statement of his attitude towards conjectural
criticism, the student of this edition of Sophokles' Elektra will not expect
to encounter a host of irritating and inconclusive conjectures, and at least
one old fellow-student of Vahlen's has read with a certain satisfaction the
tribute that Kaibbl has paid to the sound methods of that eminent scholar,
by whose example conservative souls have been strengthened in their,
adherence to the precept of the great master already cited.
I have given at some length this confession of faith because Kaibel's
Elektra is the initial volume of a series that seems destined to have a
decided influence on the editorial work of classical scholars. At first, as I
have intimated, the veteran student may not be willing to grant that so
much remains to be done for the interpretation of Sophokles, may resent
the assumption of superior insight into the meaning of a poet who has
claimed the study of so many gifted scholars; but there is, after all, no
arrogance in Kaibel's claims, as there is no arrogance in any form of
devotion. The secret that is revealed to kindred genius at a glance may
be won by lesser spirits through steadfast and loving contemplation. That
a new Elektra has emerged from this study of Kaibel's would be saying
too much, but passage after passage, scene after scene, has received
welcome light and fresh color.
It is to be regretted that Kaibel has not followed Wilamowitz in accom-
panying his edition with a translation. A translation is often the best
commentary, and this Kaibel recognizes. If Christ had given us a Latin
rendering of Pindar, we should not be in doubt as to his judgment on
moot-points without number. But Kaibel evidently subscribes to Wilam*
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 355
owitz's doctrine that a poet must be translated into poetry, and for this he
professes not to have the necessary 'gift, and Jebb's illustrious example
has not induced him to attempt a prose version.
The editor's judgment as to the MS basis of the text may be given in a
few words. A theoretical A and a theoretical 11 are the ultimate sources
of L and P. L' presents a very faulty text, corrected by L' after a member
of the P family. Whoso admits the indispensableness of the corrections
of L' admits the value of 11 and the consequent value of P. No new
collation has been found necessary, and Kaibel does not attach any
countervailing importance to the facsimile.
The Introduction is largely taken up with an analysis of the drama and a
suggestive comparison of the Elektra of Sophokles and the Elektra of
Euripides, in which the idealism of the elder poet is not extolled at the
expense of the naturalism of the younger. * Euripides,' says Kaibel in
substance, *has shown wonderful power of invention in creating a heroine
of which no representative of the modern school, of the "experimental
romance," need be ashamed.' He had no * documents'; he was hampered
by a mass of traditions, which had to be respected and yet so reinterpreted
and so readapted as to explain out of the environment the character of the
heroine, which he conceived and created in his own way. The thought of
evolving Elektra as a necessary product of her milieu was not his. It was
due to Sophokles. But Euripides felt that Sophokles had not made the
most of it, that the fruitful idea had not been made to yield all its dramatic
possibilities, and the Euripidean Elektra was the result — not separated far
in time from that of Sophokles.
This, it will be observed, is a very different tone from that of the
traditional criticism of the Euripidean Elektra. The * dramatic possi-
bilities' of the life of an old maid in Greek antiquity cannot be measured
by modern standards. Nay, unless the process of transformation is
arrested, fifty years hence Americans will need a learned apparatus in
order to understand the old maid of the nineteenth century, and perhaps
even Frenchmen will be at a loss to comprehend the vieilhfiUe of Balzac.
As has been intimated, the commentary shows on almost every page the
value of fresh, independent study, but the character of the work precludes
the production of specimens. More open to comment are the grammatical
notes. Indeed, the admissibility of grammatical notes in an edition of so
high a reach as this will be questioned by some. Assuredly, trivial
matters ought not to be treated, but what is trivial, what not, is always
doubtful. However, the points that are taken up are usually despatched
in a few words with Wilamowitzian resoluteness. And yet the conclusion
reached is not always self-evident. For instance, some note on ^poifietf
(v. 58) seems to be necessary. Yet the explanation given, which is credited
to Vahlen, is not satisfactory. To say that the optative makes the action
designed depend on circumstances is too vague. The irregular sequence
might be explained by the intrusion of the wish, but a more simple expla-
nation is at hand. KeKpv/i/ihov involves an action prior to that of the leading
verb, so it is at once a perfect and a pluperfect, and these intercalated
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
356 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
clauses are responsible for many such shifts, "kafiuv re koI rrrraadat (v. 274)
is not happily interpreted by hipelv re koI /i^ hipeiv. Like all verbs of priva-
tion, TTfTdaOcu is much more than fi^ ^Belv (see on Find. Pyth. 6, 22), and
there is bitter emphasis in the article hipelv 9 dfwioc koX rd TfrraaOatf the
same bitter emphasis that Kaibel himself recognizes in the article flse-
where, v. 166 ; rdv avffWTw \ olrov i;fOMTa KwcStv. On v. 318 : tov Koaiyv^ov ri
^^r* V^ovTo^ ij fjiTJkovTdq^ K. explains the genitive as a partitive. ' Nicht das
ganze Wesen oder Handeln des Bruders kommt in Betracht, sondem nur
cin Theil.' rot) KaaiyviiTov is equivalent to rb tov k., and if any one chooses
to call that a partitive, he is welcome. But a parallel with irulv tov olvov
does not commend itself, and rd TCnfd' ebvow ndpa (v. 1203) is possessive
rather than partitive, as is shown by parallels with the possessive pronoun.
On v. 590 : EKpakowf ix^ic, Kaibbl decides the moot-point as to the transi-
tiveness or intransitiveness of ix^ with a positiveness hardly justified by
recent surveys of the history of this construction. *Ueberall kann und
muss ix^ intransitiv "sich verhalten" sein.' The quarrel is one between
historical growth, which favors the transitive view, and logical consistency,
which favors the intransitive view, and is not to be settled by a ukase.
These are a few of the various grammatical points in which agreement
with Kaibel is not inevitable; nor am I inclined to subscribe to the
sweeping sentence (p. 90) that the ethical character of Greek metres
cannot be determined by universal rules, that it depends on poetical
handling, and especially on the environment. This is what Wilamowitz
maintains for Glyconic verses, and the flutter of the Glyconic metres may,
indeed, serve to express a variety of emotions, but there are certain
logaoedic measures — notably those in which syncope abounds — which have
a more uniform tone, and Kaibel is somewhat inconsistent with himself
when he remarks on v. 171 = 192 that the bitter blame at the close is well
marked by the strongly syncopated iambic verses. There is no reason to
me discernible why similar checks to movement should not produce the
same results in logaoedic measures.
B. L. GiLDBRSLEEVE.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS.
Romania, Vol. XXIV (1895). First half.
Janvier..
Victor Friedel. Deux fragments du Fierabras. Etude critique sur la tra-
dition de ce roman. 55 pages, with facsimile of one of the fragments. Two
.scraps, consisting of a single leaf from each of two separate MSS, are made
the basis of an elaborate investigation, valuable as a showing of method rather
than of results.
C. Boser. Le remaniement proven^al de la Somme U Rot et ses derives.
30 pages. The Somme le Roi (i. e. ' Summa' Regis), otherwise entitled in the
French texts Mirdr du Monde and Livre des vices et des vertus^ exists in
Provencal in three different forms, the relations of which to each other and to
the French are here elucidated, with copious comparisons.
J. Bedier. Fragment d'un ancien mystire. '* On ne saurait se representer
ce mystdre si modeste que compost, monte, joue dans quelque petite et pauvre
ville. Cela m£me est significatif et prouve que le genre ^tait ixhs repandu,
Xxhs aime. Que les manuscrits de ces myst^res, si nombreux qu'on les
suppose, se soient tous perdus, c'est encore ce que notre fragment nous fait
comprendre: c'etaient des po^mes d'occasion, rimes sans nuUe pretention
litteraire : la f6te pass^e, nul ne s*en souciait plus."
R.-J. Cuervo. Los casos enclfticos y proclfticos del pronombre de tercera
persona en castellano. 19 pages {it stdvre). An admirable historical study. —
Illam^ ilium, illas, ilhs gave la^ lo, las, los ; fV/t , illis became K, lis^ and later le,
les. Accordingly, lo (masc. and neut.), la, hs, las are, etymologically, accusa-
tives and le, les datives ; but the case-forms began early to be confused, le
being first substituted for lo, then les for los, and finally la^ las and lo, los for le,
les. From a long statistical list chronologically arranged, giving the usage of
numerous authors in regard to this point, it appears that el leismo (the substi-
tution oile for lo in the accusative) culminates in the i6th and 17th centuries,
among the writers of Madrid and the surrounding provinces. The usage
found in a given work does not always correspond to that of the native region
of its author. If we were to judge from Saavedra of the usage of Murcia in
the 17th century, or from Valera [lately Spanish Minister at Washington] of
that of Cordova in the 19th, we should be completely deceived; modem
writings of a local character reveal to us that the peasants of the author of
Pepita Jim/nez are to-day as devoted to lo as were, in earlier centuries, Feman
Perez de Oliva and Juan de Mena.
Melanges. J. Cornu. Combre et derives. Refers the group of words to
which belong Fr. encombrer, decombrer and their congeners, usually connected
Digitized by ^
358 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
heretofore with Lat. cumulare, Fr. combUr (but cf. A. J. P. XVII 500), to Lat.
cumera^ cumerus, 'grand panier d*osier pour conserver le ble/ "mot qui a fort
bien pu avoir aussi le sens de nasse ou de tel autre engin semblable servant k
prendre du poisson. A combre od s'encombrent les poissons peuvent dtre
aisement ramenes les difFerents sens qu'ont pris ses derives.'* — A. Thomas.
Fr. cormoran [= Eng. carmorani], 4 pages. '* Je considire cormarant {cartn»ran
est une alteration inexpliquee de cormaratty qui est pour cormarant) comme
representant un plus ancien corp marenc, et je n'hesite pas k admettre en ancien
frangais I'existence d'un adjectif marenc^ tire du latin mare k Taide du sufHxe
germanique -ing,^* — A. Thomas. Fr. girouette, '^ Gyrovagum^ passant par
gyrovaoy gyrovo a d(i aboutir 4 *giroUy d'oii les diminutifs girouet^ girouette** —
A.Thomas. Yx,hampe\ prov, mod, gamo^gamoun. Littr^ gives to the word
hampe five different meanings, the first three of which are closely related to
each other (shaft of halberd, etc.). " Aux sens 1-3, hampe est une alteration
recente de karute^ qui s*emploie encore, sous la forme haiite ou ante, dans les
deux premieres acceptions. Je considire les sens 4-5 [* breast of stag,' in
venery, etc.] comme appartenant 4 un mot different. Le dictionnaire frangais-
allemand de Mozin traduit * la hampe du cerf ' par * die Wamme oder Brust des
Hirsches.' Or Wamme presente en allemand la forme parall^le wampe . . .
M. Godefroy a recueilli deux anciens exemples de wampe^ vampe au sens de
' empeigne de Soulier': c*est une extension toute naturelle du sens de 'ventre,
peau de ventre.* *' M. Thomas is apparently unaware that this O.Fr. word
vampe survives with its ancient meaning in the Eng. vamp, and that he has
here brought incidentally to light, for the first time, the true etymology of a
word which the English lexicographers refer, awkwardly enough, to the Fr.
avant'pied (which, however, itself means 'vamp'). Avampi^ as a gloss to
antipodium occurs in a MS of the second half of the 13th century (cf. Rom.
24, 171). — J. J. Jusserand. Les contes 4 rire et la vie des recluses au XII^
siicle d'apr^s Aelred, abbe de Rievaulx. 6 pages. " ' Vix aliquam inclusarum
hujus temporis solam invenies, ante cujus fenestram non anus garrula vel
nugigerula mulier sedeat, quae eam fabulis occupet, rumoribus aut detractio-
nibus pascat, illius vel illius monaci vel clerici vel alterius cujuslibet ordinis
viri formam, vultum moresque describat. Illecebrosa quoque interserat, puel-
larum lasciviam, viduarum, quibus licet quidquid libet, libertatem, conjugum
in viris fallendis explendisque voluptatibus astutiam depingat.' Et il s'agit
bien de contes 4 rire, de vrais fabliaux 4 I'etat embryonnaire, car Aelred
ajoute: Os interea in risus cachinnosque dissolvitur, et venenum 6um suavitate
bibitum per viscera membraque diffunditur."— P. Meyer. Guillem d'Autpol
et Daspol. Identification. — G. Paris. La Dance Mctcabri de Jean le F^vre.
** Ce qui est certain, c'est que le po^me de Jean Le Fivre portait le nom de
Dante Macabre', J'ai dej4 indique que c'est cette forme, et non macabre, qui
est la seule authentique . . . Mais qu'est-ce que ce Macabre, dont le nom
etait accole 4 celui de dance^ pour signifier la danse de la mort, dds le XlVe
si^cle? On ne pent 14 dessus que faire des conjectures. Le nom de MacabrJ
est une prononciation populaire de MacabS-=. Macchabaeum ... Je serais plus
port^ 4 voir dans Macabre le peintre qui avait, le premier peut-fitre, represenie
sous la forme d'une danse menee par la mort I'appel fatal qu'elle adresse 4
tous les humains."
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. 359
Comptes rendus. Vicenzo Crescini. Manualetto provenzale (P. Meyer).
**Cel utile manuel nous apporte une nouvelle preuvc du developpement que
les Etudes proven^ales prennent en Italie . . . Tel qu'il est, le Manualetto est
un ouvrage fort recommendable." — ^Joseph Bedier. Les Fabliaux, a* Edition
(Ch.-M. dcs Granges). 8 pages. A penetrating review, devoted chiefly to a
scrutiny of Brier's somewhat startling attempt at a refutation of the Orien-
talist or 'Indian' theory of the dissemination of folk-tales. "Toute une
partie de la discussion contenue dans les chapitres suivants est done excel-
lente. Abondance de documents, sOret^ d'interpretation, rien n'y manque ;
une seule chose y est de trop : la perpetuelle demangeaison de vexer les orien-
talistes, qui am^ne M. B. i mesurer ses conclusions beaucoup moins d'apris
leur valeur rdelle qu'en proportion du depit qu'elles peuvent causer aux autres
. . . Sur la forme m^me du mot fabliau adopte par M. B., on pourrait faire
quelques reserves. M. B. s'autorise d'une raison ^^usage: on a dit, on dit, on
ecrit partout fabliau. Soit. Mais cet ouvrage est le plus approfondi et le
plus complet qui ait ete consacre au genre ; il va faire desormais autorite : son
titre se fftt impose, avec la forme correcte fableau^ sMl avait plu 4 I'auteur de
heurter de front un prejuge." Even the philologists (it is Gaston Paris that
stands sponsor for the new form fabUau) — who know so much better than any
one else that human speech, even at its highest and best estate, is fairly
honeycombed with so-called errors and with real inconsistencies — are only
too much like the every-day language-tinkers and authors of Dites — ne dites
pas and DonU^ in their proneness to forget, in dealing with questions of
linguistic correctness, that, in face of the gentle yet imperious authority of
established usage, the * etymological argument ' ought to have about as little
weight in orthology (the word is needed) as in logic. — D. Merlini. Saggio di
ricerche suUa satira contro ii villano (G. Paris). ** La partie la meilleure de
son livre est consacree k cette litt^rature (de I'antagonisme, k peu pr^s restreint
k I'ltalie, entre les citadins et les campagnards) ; il a montre notamment avec
succ^s, k ce qn'il me semble, le rapport o{i elle est avec le developpement de
la Gftnmedia delV arte et la creation du type du Zanni (= Gianni = Giovanni),
divis^ plus tard en Arlequin et Brighella: Zanni est primitivement lefaccAino
venu des montagnes bergamesques qui faisait k Venise, aux XV« et XVI«
siicles, tous les gros ouvrages du port et s'attirait les railleries des gens de la
ville (quelque chose comme TAuvergnat k Paris [and the Gallego at Madrid])."
Chronique. Thor Sundby, professor of the French language and literature
at the University of Copenhagen, died Nov. 19, 1894, at the age of 64 years.
His chief works were a study of the life and writings of Brunetto Latino
(1869; translated into Italian, 1884), ^ study of Pascal (1877), ^"d a Diction-
naire danois-fran^ais et fran^ais-danois^ 2 vols., 1883-84). He is succeeded in
his chair by Kr. Nyrop, the eminent Romance scholar, who was adjunct
professor in the same university. — W. Borsdorf has been appointed professor
of Romance philology at the recently founded Welsh * University College * of
Aberystwyth. — For the marriage (October, 1893) of Vittorio Cian, the young
Italian literary historian, his friends inaugurated a newly devised sort of /rr
ncBU. Twenty-five of them combined in the publication of a magnificent
quarto volume of more than 450 pages, in which their contributions, relating
chiefly to Italian literature, were printed in the chronological order of the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
360 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
subjects treated. — G. Weigand, author of Nouvelles recherches sur h roumain de
ristrie and of Die Aromunen^ has organized at Leipzig, with the support of the
Rumanian Government, an Institut fUr romdnische Sprache. — On the occasion
of the fourth centenary of the death of Matteo Maria Boiardo (December 19,
1894), the commune and province of Reggio d*£milia published, under the
editorship of N. Campanini, and with the collaboration of a number of the
leading Italian litterateurs, a handsome volume devoted to the life and work
of the Count of Scandiano (Bologna, pp. 479). — The Societe de Thistoire de
France has published the first volume of a new edition of x)\^ Journal de Jean
de Roye^ commonly known as *la chronique scandaleuse' of King Louis XL
Livres annonc^s sommairement. 16 titles.
Avril.
P. Meyer. Anciennes gloses frangaises. Two sets of glosses of Latin
terms, numbering respectively 117 and 55 items, indexed and instructively
annotated.
H. Morf. Notes pour servir i Thistoire de la l^gende de Troye en Italic
(suite et fin). IV. La version venitienne. 23 pages. "C'est un texte tr^s
interessant au point de vue linguistique et tris curieux au point de vue de
I'histoire litteraire, et qui, 4 ce double titre, meriterait bien que quelque
editeur intelligent lui donnat ses soins."
P. Meyer et N. Valois. Po^me en quatrains sur le Grand Schisme (1381)-
** Ayant eu la curiosite de le lire, je le jugeai assez interessant pour meriter
d'etre public. Je le copiai, et M. Noel Valois, mieux prepare que personne,
par ses travaux sur le Grand Schisme, i apprecier un po^me qui reflate les
sentiments de TUniversite de Paris sur ce grand evinement, voulut bien, 4
ma demande, rediger la preface qu^on va lire.'' The poem consists of 73 four-
line strophes, in monorime.
Ou nom de Yhesucrist qui fut vray Dieu et homme
Je weil ycy dieter et compter une somme
Ou sera recite le fait et la voie comme
Est tires et sachez le saint siege de Romme.
Berthelemieu du Bar si se dist estre pape,
Et Robert de Geneve lui veult oster la chappe.
Chascun comme saint pere lez biens de Tautel happe,
Et pour lez soustenir Tun fiert et I'autre frappe.
R.-J. Cuervo. Los casos encliticos y procliticos t/J«). 45 pages. '* Resu-
miendo esta disertacion ya demasiado larga, dire que en gran parte de los
dominios del castellano se ha conservado y se conserva con precision el uso
etimol6gico de los casos de //; que habiendo nacido la confusi6n entre el
acusativo lo y el dativo le por causas morfologicas, se ha extendido por causas
sintaticas, y al fin por extension abusiva hasta predominar notablemente el le
en el lenguaje comun de Castilla ... A esto [la distinci6n de oficios] han
encaminado sus esfuerzos Salva y posteriormente la Academia proponiendo 6
preceptuando que le se aplique a personas y i^ a cosas : al tiempo toca declarar
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS, 361
si por ahf va en Castilla la corriente del uso/* In an appendix the author
establishes once for all the correct doctrine of the pronoun, reflexive and
personal, in impersonal phrases. *'Las f rases se les eastiga^ se Us admira^
nacidas de la analogia con se les dice 6 se les ruega esto 6 lo otro^ se les aplUa el
casHgOt ' • • conservando el dativo, aparecen sin sujeto. Para hacerlas entrar
en la sintaxis normal, es preciso descubrir el sujeto, y aquf entra la diver-
gencia, variando las opiniones segiin la manera de estimar el complemento.
Los que, habituados al uso etimol6gico, distinguen sin vacilaci6n alguna los
casos, sientan en le les un dativo, y naturalmente buscan el sujeto del verbo
pasivo : de ahi las explicaciones de Salva y de Bello. Los que estin hechos d
decir y ofr le les en lugar de lo, los, toman aquellos primeros como acusativos, y
no pueden menos de buscar el sujeto en el se^ y de darle en consecuencia el
cali6cativo de pronombre indeterminado, como se hace con nuestro uno, con el
on de los franceses y el putn de los alemanes (Acad. Gram,, p. 349, ed. de
1880V'
Melanges. A. Thomas. Etymologies frangaises: Aockier, This word is
used to translate the Lat. suffocare in the parable of the Sower, and is
probably an agricultural term corresponding to a type ^adoccare, composed of
ad and the well-known word oecare *to harrow \a field and 'to dress with
earth' the foot of a tree. From this to • stifle, choke* " il y a moins que rien."
— Artiller, artilleur, artillerie [= Eng. artillery]. The only question is as to
how artem has produced arfiller, O.Fr. artillier is simply an alteration, by
folk-etymology (under the influence of the word art), of the verb atilKer, the
precise etymology of which is not yet established. — Goupilhn [holy water
sprinkler]. Menage was the first to connect goupillon with goupil [vulpeculum]
* renard.' The etymology is rather to be sought in a stem vi^ or wipp, not
furnished by the Latin; cf. Dutch wip 'rocking motion,* Eng. whip, wisp,
wipe, — Hausse-col, Not, as Littre would have it, from hausser and col^ but an
alteration, by folk-etymology, of hauscot, halscot * neck-coat' (cf. haubert,
halsbere), — Penture [part of hinge]. Derived from pendre (cf. Eng. hinge and
hang\ — Rature =.*raditura, from radere^ through a participle *raditus, — G.
Paris. Fr. dSme, It is here for the first time pointed out and conclusively
proven that the two meanings *dome' and 'cathedral' are of entirely distinct
origin and history. In the former sense the word is the Lat. doma, borrowed
from the Greek dcifia, which had acquired the general meaning of ' roof* ; in
the latter it is the simple reproduction of the Ital. duomo, German Dom,
answering to Latin domum.
Comptes rendus. L. Hervieux. Les fabulistes latins depuis le si^cle
d'Auguste jusqu'4 la fin du moyen ftge. 2^ Edition, entiirement refondue
(L. Sudre). 8 pages. " Si M. H. n'a pas toujours la rigueur scientifique qui
est k desirer en des ouvrages de ce genre, 11 a la patience d'un benedictin et
an flair incomparable de chercheur. Quelque imparfait que soit encore le
monument qu'il a eleve k Phidre et k ses successeurs, il imposera toujours
I'admiration et la reconnaissance." — E. Etienne. Essai de grammaire de
I'ancien fran^ais (IX«-XIV« siicles) (G. Paris). "Marque un tris grand
progr^s." — G. Schlaeger. Stud i en Uber das Tagelied (dissertation de docteur)
(A. Jeanroy). '*Cette etude est certainement la plus complete et la plus
richement documentee qui ait etc ecrite sur le sujet ; mais le resultat est loin
Digitized by ^
!ogIe
362 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
de repondre k reffort." — Thomas A. Jenkins. L^Espurgatoire seint Patriz of
Marie de France. Published with an introduction and a study of the language
of the author. Johns Hopkins University dissertation (G. Paris). "Avec
r impulsion fdconde qui a ete, dans ces derniers temps, donn^e aux etudes
romanes en Amerique, surtout gr^ce a M. A. Marshall Elliott, 11 faut nous
attendre a voir arriver prochainement des Etats-Unis des flottes de* disser-
tations' dans le genre de celles que nous envoie si abondamment, — un pea
moins abondamment depuis quelque temps, — rAllemagne. Nous ne pourrons
que nous en fdliciter, si beaucoup ont, comme celle-ci. un reel merite et sont
le fruit d*un travail intelligent, consciencieux et bien dirige." — H. Oskar
Sommer. The Recuyell of the Historyes of Troie (G. Paris). A reproduction
of the first work printed in English, though not in England, Caxton having
printed his translation of Raoul Lef&vre's Recueil des histaires de Troye at
Bruges or at Cologne about 1474, while it was not until 1477 that he set up at
Westminster the first English printing press. Dr. Sommer has provided the
work with a valuable introduction, glossary and index. — F. Araujo. Est'udios
de Fon^tica castellana (J. Sarol'handy). 5 pages. " J'eprouve quelque embar-
ras 4 conclure. M. Araujo est I'un des premiers, en Espagne, k s*etre tenu au
courant de la philologie moderne; il y a deploy^ une grande activite, et il
m*est penible de constater que, dans le travail dont j'ai passe une partie en
revue, ses efforts n'ont pas ete suivis d'un succds complet." — L. Sainepu.
Basmele romslne [the Rumanian folk-tales] in comparatiune cu legendele
antice clasice, pp. xiv, 1114 (G. Paris). " Le titre de cet ouvrage, la dimension
du volume et le nom de Tauteur en indiquent suffisamment I'importance."
Periodiques.
Chronique. M. Kawczynski, author of a remarkable work on the origin and
history of rhythms (cf. A. J. P. XI 358-71), has been appointed professor of
Romance philology at the University of Cracow. — On the 17th of February,
1894, was appropriately celebrated, in the Aula of the University of Vienna,
the sixtieth birthday anniversary of the distinguished professor of Romance
philology, Adolph Mussafia. — Twenty-one former students of Professor Adolph
Tobler have signalized his twenty-five years' incumbency of the chair of
Romance philology at Berlin, by presenting him with a memorial volume of
510 pages, devoted exclusively to Romance studies.
H. A. Todd.
Hermes, XXXI (1896).
J. Kromayer, Die MilitSlrcolonien Octavians und Caesars in Gallia Narbo-
nensis. Plancus' legio veterana (Cic. ad Fam. XII 2) was the Legio X dismissed
by Caesar and enrolled again by Lepidus. Caesar in the autumn of 45 had
settled the tenth legion in Narbo and the sixth in Arelate, and these cities
were called Julia Patema to distinguish them from the colonies founded by
Octavian (Dio IL 34, 4), Baeterrae in 36, Arausio between 35 and 33, and
Forum Julii in 30. This meets the objections raised by Mommsen (IIP 553,
N. I), and shows that here as elsewhere Octavian completed the work begun
by his father.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS, 363
L. Ziegler, Zur Textkritik des Scholiasta Bobiensis, gives a collation and
restoration of the Milan palimpsest for Pro Flacco, Cum senatui gratias egit,
Pro Plancio, Pro Milone, Pro Sestio.
J. Kromayer, Zur Geschichte des II. Triumvirats. IV. Der Partherzug des
Antonins. His roate was from Zeugma to Melitene, NNE to Satala, £ through
Caranitis to Artaxata, through the Araxes vall^v to Atronatene. This is safer
than Mesopotamia (where the Parti
able, is the right distance (8000 st
Pompey and by Caesar. (2) The p
mended by Artavasdes and had be
approach and the retreat. (3) Ante
for he must have been two months
that he would leave Zeugma in i
Zeugma was intended to draw atter
neither energy nor strategic skill, '
was not supported by Artavasdes.
J. Toeppfer, Die Liste der Athen
only historic kings, Codrus and Mi
office was as old as Akastus, it was
that time, whereas the archons me
(777-754) was the last hereditary
Cbarops begin the ten-year kings,
family. After Hippomenes the ofl
but we do not know whether the
kings. The archon*s power was
account (FHG. Ill 536) is alone co
though Chalkedon was the more
Apollo, a lobster and an anchor poi
Ankore. The city was destroyed a
U. Koehler, Attische Inschriften
favor of Potamodorus and Euryti<
Thuc. IV 76). The second decree
ment of a tribute list from 439/I
recently ceded lands to Athens, foi
little fragment which fits in betwei
between CIA. I 190 and 191. (4) a
15, was inscribed under a statue oi
by his son (cf. CIA. II 151a). (8)
1299, is older than the Peloponne
astronomical use.
W. Soltau, P. Scipio Nasica als i,
Aem. Paul. 1 5) was written to Mas
Liv. 44. 35, 14), who was the friend
only from Juba's history, which c<
by antiquarian notes.
C. G. Brandis, Studien zur R5m
consuls governed Bithynia under
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
364 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Marcus Aurelius, we may conclude that during the latter's reign this province
became imperial territory, and Lycia-Pamphylia was ceded to the senate.
(2) Pontus had a separate legislative assembly established by Pompey and
reorganized by Augustas. Its early existence is attested by the presence of a
special Pontic magistrate throughout the Mithridatic territory, while only in
the time of Pompey were the cities E and W of the Halys so well united that
they could form such an assembly.
E. Assmann, Nautica. (i) A mediaeval parallel in H. Yule's Marco Polo
(Introd., Ixix) confirms the statement of Livy (30. 34) that conquered ships
were towed stem-foremost, (a) Ships with several beaks are attested by
Athen. (V 204), by coins and vases, so that SeicifipoXoc must mean ' ten-beaked.'
(3) In Hdt. II 96 iT7uvdrj66v refers to the use of small boards edge to edge.
The hurdle before the bow warned the sailor of danger, the stone at the stem
aided him in quickly checking his course.
R. Reitzenstein, Properz-Studien, sets forth, with detailed interpretation of
the context, the poet's use of parenthesis and digression in II i. 47-56 (not a
separate poem), 10. 7-8, 34. 47-50, 3. 2^31 1 35-8. 7. 15-18. 30. 31-32. I 16. ^
12, 15. 39-33, 14. 5-6, 8. 15 (keep Ei), The parenthesis is not formal, but a
free and conversational use of brief explanatory clauses which are outside the
logical sequence of thought, a usage found more often in Propertius than in
any other poet. Recognition of this principle will often prevent transposition
or the assumption of a lacuna, yet we find a gap after v. 34 in II 6. This
poem is intended to rival Hor. Od. Ill 6. In II 34. 31 he defends memorem^
nam in 33, and, rejecting Maass* ascription of 34-40 to Callimachus and
Philetas, refers the whole passage to Antimachus' Thebais. II 15. 25 goes
back through some unknown Alexandrian to PI. Sym. 192 D.
M. Wellmann, Aegyptisches. Plutarch's version of the Osiris myth goes
back to Manetho, who, consistent with the desire of the Ptolemies to unite
the Greek and Egyptian religions, identified the Orphic worship of Dionysus
and Demeter with the cult of Osiris and Isis, divinities similar in many
details of life-history, attribute and ritual, which are here enumerated. A
study of the symbolic interpretation of Egyptian totemism found in Ael.,
Plut., Porph. and Macrob. shows their dependence on a common source. By
a fondness for marvels, by a use of Stoic doctrines and of Homer, and by a
wide range of reading, this is proven to be Apion ; through him the myth
reached Plutarch. The combination of Pythagorean theories of number with
Egyptian legends is taken from Eudoxus.
J. E. Kirchner, BeitrSge zur Attischen Prosopographie. An examination of
epigraphic testimony regarding the personal history of a dozen Athenians.
We learn the family-tree of Kleon, of Dikaiogenes (Isae. V) and of Kallippus,
pupil of Plato. Ankyle was the deme of Kallias and Hipponicus.
G. Kaibel, Zu den Epigrammen des Kallimachos. V interpreted. XIII.
With HeTikaldv sc. )3o6r, meaning the ox on a coin of Pella. XLII alludes to
Archinus* Stoic studies. Propertius and Ovid imitate this naiyvtov, XLVIII
interpreted by comparison with Anthol. Pal. VI 308.
W. Dittenberger, Antiphons Tetralogien und das Attische Criminal recht.
The law cited by Antiphon, III (B) p 9, et al., which forbids and punishes
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. 365
justifiable homicide, is a mere fiction of the author, and the tetralogies cannot
be used as an independent source of Athenian law.
L. Ziegler, Zur Textkritik des Scholiasta Bobiensis, concludes his detailed
study of this subject.
F. MQnzer, Die Zeitrechnung des Annalisten Piso. A study of Dionys. I
74, Plin. VIII 16, and frag. 26, 27 of Piso shows that the annalist adopted the
era of Cato, which placed the founding of the city 751 B. C.
J. Ziehen, Epencitaten bei Statins. Silv. I a. 213, III i. 71 ff., 3. 179, V 2.
113 ff. show that the poet borrows his similes and allusions because of their
literary excellence, although not especially adapted to his context.
Miscellen.— F. Bechtel in the Stratos inscription (BCH. XVII 445) reads
(1. 9, 10) pMjopx^ ik" (i. e. ^i*) 27r<vftipof (?). The datives t«<, ^LaKkLirKm instead
of locatives may be due to Athenian influence. — W. Dittenberger reads
Aj^r^dupoc in Diodor. XVIII 7, 5.
M. Pohlenz, Ueber Plutarchs Schrift i^tpi aopyifaiai. The source of this
treatise is Hieronymus of Rhodes, who as a Peripatetic opposes Plato (ch. 9
rd vevpa r^ in/xv^f cf. Rep. Ill 41 1 6) rather than Aristotle. In ch. 4 and in
the introductions to ch. 6-10 Plutarch presents his own views and uses his
own phraseology, hence some obscurity. The same source appears in irepi 1%
tfOuc^ dperiK and in the Vita Coriolani.
H. Diels, Alkmans Partheneion. This consisted of ten strophes, written in
four columns of c. 34 lines each, but these were not sung by single maidens.
Diodorus (IV 33, 6), like Alcman, mentions bnt ten Hippokoontidae ; v. 29-35
refer to the Giants and conclude the first half of the ode. The simile in 43 ff.
is justified by the contrast between the coarse Spartan humor and the lofty
tone of the poem. Moreover, aytTji was the Laconian word for chorus.
Agesichora is the pupil and kpufUvff of Agido, as Kleis of Sappho. She leads
one of the hemichonises consisting of ten maidens, while Agido guides the
other, which numbers eleven with the coryphaea. There is also an antichorus,
called Pleiades (1. 59) by the poet, which was trained and led by Aenesimbrota.
The ode was dedicated to Artemis (Orthia in 60, Aotis in 87) and to Helen.
In many places new readings are proposed, e. g. in 39, bptjp* uif (= &aTe).
E. Maass, Untersuchungen zu Properz, interprets the design on a Berlin
vase (Furt. 2642) as Dionysus Musagetes with Muses who bear the lyre and
thyrsus. I. This function of Bacchus as god of poetry (cf. Hor. Od. I i, 29,
etc.) appears in many allusions of Propertius, as in IV 3. 28, where the tympana
are called orgia Musarum^ and in III 30. 25-39 (cf* Orph. Hymn 76). In IV
3. 25 ff. the two fountains belong to Ennius and to Philetas, while in III 10
the source of Permessus is Aganippe, one of the springs struck out by the
hoof of Pegasus (a Hippocrene, v. Ov. Fast. V 7), and here again sacred to
Philetas and to the Muses, nymphs of the mountain spring. Indeed, inscrip-
tions show that the Muses were honored at Aganippe. In Verg. Eel. VI 64
ad flumina must follow duxerit, for Permessus and Aonia are one locality,
while Linos gives the pipe to Gallus as an imitator of Euphorion. There
were two traditions regarding the springs of Helicon ; the older, followed by
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
366 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Hesiod and Vergil, considers Aganippe alone as the fountain of the Mases.
the later distinguishes Aganippe as sacred to the elegy and Hippocrene as the
source of the epos. This version appears in Philetas and Ennius. II. Brief
interpretation of III 32. 33 ff., IV i. 27 ff,, 5. 39 ff.
P. Wendland, Philo und Clemens Alexandrinus. The de fort.^ de car., de
paen, and de nobil, belong to Philo's treatment of the Mosaic law. A detailed
comparison of Clement's citations from Philb with Philo's text supplies
lacunae in the latter and shows the true order of the writings as given above.
The constant agreement of Clement with S makes this MS the most important
authority for Philo's text.
E. Thomas, Das Janiculum bei Ovid, defends in Fast. I 245 the reading ara
mea est colli^ quern volgtu. Janus may well have had an altar on the Janiculum,
for his son Fons was thus honored (Cic. de leg. 2. 22. 56 and Dion. Hal. 2. 76. 6).
Miscellen. — E. Lattes shows that the inscriptions of Novilara are Etruscan
in alphabet and vocabulary. Only 6 and U are new, and they are, at least,
not Greek. — Th. Gomperz reads in Emped. 21 (Stein) /zJ^e rv\f hf^u nianVf 131
ra vvv kaop€»fji£v anain-a^ 183 ^upa re -^a^ irpiv KiKpr/ro. — B. Keil. The 'OAari^df
irdXefiog of the inscription published in Arch.-Epigr. Mitth. aus Oest. XI 66 ff.
shows that'OAof in CIA. I 274, 7 is the name of a slave taken from a Thracian
tribe living near Apollonia on the Pontus. — P. Stengel cites other passages to
support his definition of niXavoc (Herm. XXIX 281 ff.), and also shows that in
divination from the entrails of animals the seers observed the bursting of the
gall and the intensity of the flame, not the movements of the victims.
B. Niese, Zur Geschichte des Pyrrhischen Krieges. Trogus, preserved in
Justin, is the only reliable authority, since other writers distort the facts in
their desire to praise Rome. This falsification was begun not by contemporary
Romans, but by later Greek historians, and was continued by the Augustan
writers. It appears from Justin, with whom Diodorus and Cicero agree, that
the only visit made by Cineas was after the battle of Asculum, when the
Romans had more power in Italy. The speech of Ap. Claudius was an early
invention, for it was really the embassy of Mago that brought the Romans to
a decision. The battle of Beneventum was no overwhelming defeat, nor did
Pyrrhus entirely give up the war. Tarentum was not taken by storm, for it
remained independent till Hannibal's time, nor was it betrayed by Milon, for
he had returned to Pyrrhus.
B. Keil, Zur Delphischen Labyadeninschrift, reads ev veura in 12, in D 31
ff. interprets ^pav as *day* and GVfiirpriiaKtif as *burn' (sacrifice), in D 13 takes
"kcKxol as dative and irap^ from napitjfu, in D 26 writes dp;f6w and supplies
avTuv with ttolSvtuv^ in C 33 explains arpw^^ as * turning-places,' and in C 38
writes h^vre Ka ha BifKa knl yav anoTdsQfji^ where rd is due to progressive
dissimilation.
K. J. Neumann, Polybiana. The historian was led to place the first treaty
between Rome and Carthage in the first year of the republic by the general
feeling that Punic treachery went back to the earliest times, a feeling reflected
in Naevius and Ennius and promoted by Cato. He does not mention the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS, 367
treaty of 306, simply because it was lost and forgotten. Polybius wrote books
1-15 before 151 B. C, and, on resuming work soon after 144, he revised i and
2, inserted the discussion oi Punica fides and the digression in 3. 21, 9-32, lo,
and then published 1-15. So this portion of his work could not be altered
(v. 16. 20). Books 4-7 of Cato*s Origines were written between 154 and 149,
whereas 1-3 were published in 168.
H. F. Kastner, Pseudodioscoridis De herbis feminin is, publishes this treatise,
prefixing a description of the MSS (two Laur., one Par.) and a discussion of
the sources, Dioscorides and Ps.-Apuleius. The meaning of the title is a
mystery.
C. Robert, Die Scenerie des Aias. der Eirene, und des Prometheus. In the
Ajax the protagonist took the parts of Ajax and Teucer. The change of
scenery was effected by projecting up from 'Charon's stairs' a platform
covered with earth and stones, and up these steps came Tecmessa (891), like
the ghosts in Bum., Hec. The covering of Ajax with a mantle (915) allows
the actor to slip down the stairs, while a lay figure is put in his place. Here
again in the Pax is the cave where Eirene is buried, and into this descends
Trygaeus (726). This underground passage was originally larger, and was the
oldest scenic contrivance of the Greeks. The wooden skene (the hill in
Aesch. Suppl., the temenos in Sept.) covered the rear of the orchestra, yet left
abundant space for the chorus to dance. The skene did not develop from the
dressing-room. The wooden houses of Zeus and Trygaeus were on different
levels, and were placed one in front, the other at the side (cf. Ach. Nub. Ran.
Thes. 657). A large kicKijKXiffM in Thes. 277 bears the chorus, but not the
actors nor the altar. Over the stairway was built the hill on which Prome-
theus lay, and into this it sank at the end. The actor entered the image
through the passage-way, and through this the chorus came to ascend the
winged chariot on which they floated in the air. They did not dance at all,
hence no dance-measure in the poem. That the flying-machine is as old as
Aeschylus appears from Eum. 403-5 and the irvxoaTcuria (Poll. IV 130), and
the 6eoh)yeiop is equally ancient (Plut. de aud. poet. 17 A). The Prometheus
is played mainly in the air, and no other tragedy makes such large use of
machinery.
Miscellen. — P. Stengel defines Oveiv as 'sacrifice for the sake of the gods'
(to honor them) and dveaffcu *for man's sake' (to get help). The middle is
common in the historians, but very rare elsewhere. Upcxrwa are the perqui-
sites of the priests in general, yipo only their share of the flesh. Oeo/iopia is
the part consecrated to the gods, though sometimes taken by the priests. —
W. Dittenberger proves by the use of arpifceia and of ireidapxeiv c. gen. that
the letter of Darius I in BCH. XIII 529 was composed in the Ionic dialect
and later changed to Attic. — F. Skutsch shows that Firmicus was a Syracusan.
— -C. Turk cites the Delphic inscription in BCH. XIX i to support the
meaning of eviavrd^ as • anniversary.'
Barker Nbwhall.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BRIEF MENTION,
Professor Michel 6r£al's Essai de Shnantique^ which bears the subtitle
Science de significations (Hachette), seems destined to make both the name
and the subject popular. * Semantic * or * Semantics ' is better than * Semas-
iology' on the one hand or * Meaning-lore ' on the other, and the wider
public will welcome a book which unfolds some of the most interesting
lessons that the study of language has to teach. There is something, says
M. Br£al, in linguistics besides phonetics, *by which the study is reduced
to a secondary branch of acoustics and physiology,' something besides *an
enumeration of the losses undergone by the grammatical mechanism,' an
enumeration which produces 'the illusion of a crumbling structure.' Spec-
ulations on the origin of language only add, without great profit, chapter
after chapter to the history of systems. The object of * semantic' is to
extract from linguistic study food for reflexion and rules for the vernacular.
Each one of us is a collaborator in the evolution of human speech, and
* semantic' appeals to practice as well as to theory. Such is the programme
of the Essai de S^mantique, which cannot fail to attract attention in profes-
sional circles as well as in the larger world for which it seems to be
primarily destined.
In the introductory chapter, which gives the scope of the work. Professor
Br£al clears the way by protesting against the abuse of metaphors, which
leads people not only to say but to think that language goes its own road
and that words — form and sense — lead an existence of their own, inde-
pendent of man. Words are spoken of as being born, as. coming into
conflict with one another, as propagating their species, and as dying out.
There is no great harm in these phrases, if there were not those who take
them literally, and hence this prefatory protest against a terminology which
is apt to efface the real causes of things. It is not the words that live, but
the men that make the words. Languages are not mothers, \ior do they
have daughters. Verbs do not borrow certain tenses from other verbs.
They are neither borrowers nor lenders. Nouns do not take on such and
such a termination in the plural. Let us get rid of these fanciful expres-
sions. Let us * study the intellectual causes that have presided over the
transformation of our languages.' And yet a critic might say that causes
do not preside and that there is danger of conjuring up some such image
as Akj7 ^iveSpog Z^vdc apxcUoic vdfioiQ, In point of fact, personification is too
much for us. The inheritance from our imaginative forefathers determines
our thought. We woo an abstraction, and the pure creature is no sooner
won than it reveals itself as a shrewish goddess. But such a book as this
incites on every page to reflexion and comment, and further notice is
reserved. The exigencies of the Journal compel the postponement of an
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
SXi
BRIEF MENTION. 369
elaborate review, and this preliminary mention is intended only as an
announcement of a work in which the eminent author has gathered up in
an attractive form the results of long and deep study.
When in the account which he gives of the first Persian invasion (Legg.
3» 698 C) Plato says of Dareios : Qavarov cnjrif (sc. T<f) Adridi) npoemcjv fi^
npd^avri ravra there can be little doubt that ft^ npd^avri is a conscious
abridgment of a conditional clause, whether edv fi^ irpd^y or el fifj izpd^eie.
If Plato had not been in such a hurry he might have employed the finite
verb and have used el uti np&^ei (Kpd^ot)^ on account of the threat. In the
more leisurely story of the Menexenos (240 A) we read : elirev tjkciv dyovra
*EpeTpUac Koi *ABijvaiovg ei pobh)iTO rrjv kavrcv Ket^a^^ i^eiv. But in the Laws
Plato is rushing on with his participles, and in this very passage indulges
in a curious participial anacoluthon. Now, this use of the participle with
fi^ as the conscious shorthand of a conditional is post-Homeric (A. J. P.
XVrti 244), and Dr. Callaway's laborious dissertation On the use of fiij
with the participle in classical Greek exhibits in detail the evolution of the
usage. Of course, it was well known that Homer does not combine fifj
with the participle freely, and Monro (H. G.', S360) cites but one passage, Od.
4, 684, where it is clearly part of a wish. However, he has overlooked II.
i3» 48, where Faesi-Franke explains fiij with partic. as conditional, and the
same explanation is given by Paech, Ueber den Gebraueh des Ind, Futuri
alt modus iussivus bei Horner^ p. 14, to which Ameis-Hentze refers. The
passage runs :
AZavrc, er^w ^v re aa^aere Aadv *Axai»v
dh(^C fivtfaafiivu fiTfSi Kpvepoio i^poio.
True, Dr. Gallaway is not satisfied with the explanation of the fin^e as
conditional, but he does not mend matters by connecting it with Kpvepoio,
for fiv^k assuredly belongs to fivrfaafitvu, and as a conditional clause firi6h
fivr/aafihu would make sense in Attic. Of course, Eustathios has no diffi-
culty with the finSi ; it is the natural negative of the participle with him
(A. J. P. 1 55), and he calls the passage dy6pe(i)onf irratvoc,znd makes it declar-
ative, and not hortatory. So does the paraphrast, whose version is espe-
cially interesting, o Alavreg, he writes, vfjieic dv Siaa^oijre rdv Xabv tuv
*^'kfyvuv Tfj^ laxhoc dnofiVTfadevTec xai ov ryg ^pt^rm ^vy^Ct the negative ov
showing the declarative conception and dv diaaCxrfrre that the writer had
before him the reading of Apollonios, ice diaaoaeref and as dv with fut. ind.
would have no terror for a Greek! ing (see my note on £p. ad Diogn. 4,
17), we may read here for 6uia6a7fTef 6iaff6aeTe, and not dtae^oaire. In his
commentary (1888) Monro gives the future in II. 13, 47 'a hortatory force,'
but in his H. G.* (1891) he does not accept the 'gentle imperative' (§326)
theory. Moreover, the hortatory force of the future does not explain the
negative fjiv^i, as Paech has pointed out (1. c.) ; and compare further
A. J. P. XV 117, where I have shown that an imperative future with fi^/
has very doubtful warrant The trouble is that aa^aere has not been recog-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
370 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
nized by the authorities as a thematic form of the aor. imperatiye. Gehring
still classes it as a futare, and it does not keep ocrrere company in the
lists usually given. If Dr. Gallaway had consulted Leaf, he would haye
found what seems to be the true solution of the problem : ^aaLatrt is the
imperative of the sigmatic aorist, as is shewn by the following /ii^,' for
fivTfGafiivii clearly represents the imperative. Compare the phrase II. 6,
112: fiv^aaOe 6k dohptdoq ahajg. The point is a small point even for Brief
Mention, which is a manner of pin-cushion for small points, but it is not
altogether uninteresting as a specimen of the progress of doctrine.
Mr. £. F. Benecke * met with his death in Switzerland, on July i6th,
1895, in his twenty-sixth year,' and his friends have published for the use
of scholars a fragment which he left behind, Antimachus of Colophon and
the Position of Women in Greeh Poetry (Swan Sonnenschein], in the hope
that the material may.be of service to those engaged in similar studies,
as it undoubtedly will. And, furthermore, there will be no lack of fhose
engaged in similar studies, for the subject has a fatal fascination, especially
for young men. So there is an essay in the Harvard Studies, vol. I, by
another young scholar, entitled The Position of Women in Aristophanes^
which covers part of the ground traversed in Mr. Bsnecke's posthumous
book. Under the sad circumstances, criticism would be out of place, and
yet one who has studied the subject enough to despair of attaining may be
allowed to remark resignedly that Greek and women, apart or together,
are lessons never learned to an end. Dies diei eructat verbum may answer
for the one, nox nocti indicat scientiam may answer for the other. No better
average woman, Greek or other, than the seawoman of the old iambist of
Amorgos. Find out the attitude of the Greek to the sea, and you have
the answer to the other problem.
Apart from the contents of his writings, Josephus may be made to render
good service as a specimen of the kind of Greek that ought not to be
written, and as we want the best texts attainable for all samples, whether
good or bad, we welcome the completion of Niese's monumental edition
of Josephus in the closing volume, Flavii losephi An{t)iguitatum ludaiearum
Epitoma (Weidmann).
Professor Gudeman*s handy little manual. Outlines of the History of
Classical Philology (Boston, Ginn & Co.), has vindicated its usefulness by
reaching a third edition, and it is to be regretted that the * thorough
revision' claimed for it has not extended to a number of eccentric Greek
accents.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NECROLOGY.
George Martin Lane.
On the last day of June, George Martin Lane ended his useful and noble
life in Cambridge. He was born in Charlestown on Christmas "Eve, 1823,
but his parents removed to Cambridge during his infancy, and he never
knew any other home. His early education was in the common schools of
the town, but in his seventeenth year a new bent was suddenly given to his
life. A circular left at his father's house described the Hopkins bequest
for a classical school to fit Cambridge boys for college, and on reading it,
young Lane said at once, **I must go." Two years later he entered
Harvard, and upon his graduation. Dr. Beck, who then went to Europe for
a year, selected him as his substitute, saying that he had never had a pupil
who could write Latin so well. As tutor he did excellent work, and then
went to GQttingen, where he received his degree of Ph. D., in 1851, pre-
senting a thesis which is still an authority upon the history and antiquities
of Smyrna. He was at once appointed Professor of Latin in Harvard
College, and continued the active work of his chair until 1894, when he
was made professor emeritus with the degree of LL. D.; but until his
strength failed, in 1896, he still gave instruction to advanced classes in
the graduate department.
Dr. Lane was one of the greatest teachers of his time. All who knew
him felt in his society the presence of an intelligence at once broad and
acute, profound and lively, richly famished with acquired knowledge
which had been assimilated and organized by original thought. But his
pupils found in him more than this : a mind with the peculiar power of
stimulating other minds to do their best, a perpetual source of impulse and
zeal in the search for truth. The least dogmatic of men, the most modest
in asserting even cherished convictions, he was always found to have deep
and strong foundations for his slightest suggestions of belief or doubt A
controversy in which he engaged always took the form of unprejudiced
inquiry. No tradition, no doctrine, no belief, in scholarship or in life, had
any value for him save as it could endure the most rigid examination of
proofs. His catholic welcome of every new idea, even if it challenged his
life-long habits of thought, might suggest to strangers a feeble grasp of
principles ; but not to his friends, who knew that none was more tenacious
of his reasoned beliefs, though none was more free from prejudice, or more
abhorrent of the influences of feeling upon mental processes. Hardly
surpassed in minute accuracy of learning within his special province, he
was yet more remarkable for the instinctive and indomitable habit of
linking the whole with every detail ; of finding analogies between the dust
and the stars of thought; of illuminating and ennobling what seemed
trifling, by side-lights from high places. This peculiar perception of
likeness and of contrast, ever playing upon the stores of a wonderful
Digitized by^
372 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
memory drawn from a vast range of reading and observation, enlivened
his class-room and his conversation, and made his wit famous far beyond
the college circle. Indeed, if any passion ever threatened his equanimity
and disturbed his judgment, it was the love of fun, and the only cruelty
with which he could ever reproach himself was when his perfect courtesy,
so kindly sensitive for all around him, was for a moment qualified by his
vivid sense of the ludicrous in some expression of dullness or ignorance.
Yet even then his sympathy was keen, and he suffered more than the
victim of his epigram. Throughout a life which, though not exempt from
burdens and deep sorrow, was yet one of the happiest, his most unfailing
pleasure was to indulge and foster the sense of the ludicrous, and had he
not been the first Latinist, he might have been the first humorist of
America. No other shade could give him so fraternal a welcome to the
spirit land as Desiderius Erasmus.
The works he has left, the fruits of his life, are to be found almost wholly
in the minds he helped to form. He made important contributions to
Latin lexicography, but only as gifts to a friend, and to the cause of sound
scholarship, and with no personal stamp upon them. The one book to
which he gave many years of labor, the Latin grammar which he left
unpublished, will mark an epoch in the study of the laws of the language,
by its clearness, completeness and accuracy, while excelling its prede-
cessors above all in felicity of expression. But Professor Lane's published
and posthumous writings together were but a meagre product for such a
mind. On the other hand, no one ever studied under him but found in
after-life the pathway of truth smoothed and the best use of his own
faculties made easier by that companionship and guidance. A large
proportion of the graduates of Harvard for the last half- century, gratefully
recognize his contributions to whatever of culture and of power they have
acquired. And in them, and most of all in those among them who have
carried on his methods and spirit as a teacher for the benefit of yet another
generation, is his true monument.
It has seemed needful here to speak only of his professional career and
of his work for mankind at large. But any tribute to these, were it even
far less inadequate, would seem to the large but rapidly diminishing
number of those in whose life he was for many years a valued part, to be
less than the shadow of the man. It is as the brightest of companions,
the most generous of hosts, the wittiest and cheeriest of talkers, the most
sympathizing of counsellors, the most affectionate of friends, that they
remember him and will ever cherish his memory. His teachings and
writings have well merited his fame, but we have known something far
greater than they are — himself.
Charlton T. Lewis.
Frederic De Forest Allen.
Frederic De Forest Allen, whose sudden death on August 4, 1897, was
the heaviest affliction which classical philology in our country has suffered
for nearly a quarter of a century, — since the death of James Hadley in
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
wwmmmm9^9^T^
NECROLOGY. 373
1872, at about the same age, — was born in Oberlin, Ohio, on May 25, 1844,
of true New England stock. His father, George N. Allen, set out for Ohio
as a young man in 1832, under the influence of his pastor, Lyman Beecher,
who went to live in Cincinnati in that year. Being taken ill on the
journey, and kindly cared tor at Hudson, Ohio, where the Western Reserve
College had been recently established, he remained there and spent five
years in study in the preparatory school and college, but at the close of
his junior year went to the new college at Oberlin, where be graduated in
1838. Three years later he married Miss Rudd of Stratford, Conn., who
had just received the degree of bachelor of arts at Oberlin, — being with
two classmates doubtless the first women of the world to receive this
degree in course, — and was appointed instructor in the college, where he
taught music and (for many yearsj natural science, until 187 1. Mrs. Allen
had great strength of mind and of character, with marked scholarly tastes,
and maintained a deep and close interest in her son's philological studies.
Frederic Allen graduated from college in 1863, a few weeks after he was
nineteen years of age. In his undergraduate days his philological tastes
were not awakened ; he was still immature, and had not come to his own ;
but he read widely in the best French literature and gave indications of
unusual tastes and powers. Soon after graduation he seems to have
turned with eagerness to classical studies, and was appointed professor of
Greek atid Latin in the University of East Tennessee before he was
twenty-two years old. He soon felt the need of better training for his
work, and in 1868 took a leave of absence in order to study in Leipzig with
Georg Curtius, who was then the leader in the application of the results of
the study of comparative philology to the older science of classical phil-
ology. In Leipzig Allen remained two years, taking an active part in the
work of Curtius's Grammatische Gesellschaft, and winning the hearty
respect of the scholars of the university. His dissertation for the degree
of doctor of philosophy, de DiaUcto Locrensium^ was highly commended by'
Curtius, in public and in private. Returning to Knozville, he resumed his
former place, but in 1873 he was called to Harvard as tutor in Greek.
There he had his first opportunity of giying instruction to advanced
students, since Professor Goodwin, who spent that year abroad, left part
of his work in his care. The philological companionship which he found
there, and the treasures of the Harvard library, were a peculiar delight to
him after his comparative isolation in Tennessee; but his sojourn in
Cambridge at this time was only for a single year, for he was called to the
chair of ancient languages in the newly-founded University of Cincinnati,
and felt obliged for pecuniary reasons to decline overtures to remain at
Harvard. His new work in Cincinnati interested him greatly. He was
pleasantly associated with other well-trained young scholars, and all
worked together in harmony. There he made his excellent edition of
Enripides's Medea for the use of college classes, and prepared his
Remnants of Early Latin, which not only has been used in this country
and England, but also has been the basis of university lectures in Germany,
and wrote his important tract on Homeric Verse, which was published in
Kuhn's Zeitschrift. In 1879 ^^ received with pleasure a call to the chair
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
374 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
at Yale College which had stood vacant since the death of Professor
Hadley in 1872, bat he was hardly yet habilitated at Yale when he was
invited in the spring of 1880 to do more congenial work at Harvard.
According to the custom of the time and the constitution of the depart-
ment, he had at Yale fifteen hours of instruction each week with sopho-
mores and very limited opportunities for giving instruction to advanced
students. At Harvard he was to have fewer hours in the classroom, and
most of these were to be with graduate students. Yale has the honor of
being the first institution in this country to offer systematic instruction to
graduate students in philology, and in the early seventies, with Whitney^
Hadley, Thacher, and Packard, stimulating lectures were given and good
work was done, as a partial list of the students would testify, — I. T. Beck-
with, M. W. Easton, C. R. Lanman, Jules Luquiens, I. J. Manatt, B. Perrin»
W. R. Harper, H. P. Wright, J. P. Peters, R. B. Richardson. But the
death of Hadley and the ill-health of Thaeher and Packard had broken up
the well-laid plans and the possibilities of such work at Yale for the present*
while President Eliot was then giving special prominence to graduate
work in philology at Harvard. Allen was attracted also by the call to be
professor of Classical Philology ; he had recently published his Remnant»
of Early Latin, and always enjoyed maintaining his Latin and his Greek
studies side by side. Some of his more important courses of lectures at
Harvard were : Religion and Worship of the Greeks ; Roman Religion
and Worship; Greek Grammar with study of dialectic inscriptions; Latin
Grammar : sounds and inflexions ; Elements of Oscan and Umbrian ;
History of Greek Literature; Roman Comedy; Homer's Iliad, with an
elaborate introduction. For some of these courses the MS is so carefully
prepared and complete that we may hope that no wrong would be done to
the author's memory by publication. In addition to his published works
to which reference has already been made, the following deserve mention :
a revision of Hadley's Greek Grammar, 1884 ; a translation and edition of
Wecklein's Prometheus of Aeschylus, 1891 ; Greek Versification in Inscrip-
tions (100 pp.) in the fourth volume of the Papers of the School at Athens*
1888. He contributed Etymological and Grammatical Notes to the first
volume of this Journal, and in later volumes published some Greek and
Latin inscriptions and an article on * Prometheus and the Caucasus*
(Journal, vol. XIII). He read at least five papers before the American
Philological Association. His papers in the Harvard Studies on * Gains
or Ga![us?,' ^Manus Consertio,' and *Os columnatum' are characteristic
He wrote a few excellent articles for encyclopaedias, and reviews and
notes for the Nation and the Classical Review. He was never in haste ta
publish what he had written, or to put into writing his observations and
discoveries, and doubtless the later years of his life, if he had lived to
"three score years and ten," would have seemed more productive. Per-
haps the most important work which he left incomplete is an edition of the
Scholia to Plato. He gave the better part of his last * Sabbatical year,'
1891-92, to the careful collation of the Clarkianus and Parisinus A MSS,
and found to his surprise that this work had never been done properly
before. The inspection and possibly the collation of the Venetian MSS
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
^m
NECROLOGY, 375
remained, to be undertaken before the publication of the results of his
labor, and for this he was already planning as the chief occupation of his
next Sabbatical year, 1898-99. Another important work in which he was
greatly interested, and for which he had made extensive researches, was
on the history of religions.
The academic year 1885-86 Professor Allen spent in Greece as the
Director of the American School of Classical Studies at Athens, but the
year proved one of disappointment and deepest sorrow : his oldest and
only then-living child died in Athens, and his health was so wretched that
he was obliged to abandon his plans for archaeological explorations.
Professor Allen was never robust. He suffered sadly from sciatica and
asthma in Ohio, from asthma in Greece, from hay-fever for at least the
latter half of his life, and particularly from disabling sick headaches, — but
he performed much intellectual labor. When in this country in the summer
he sought refuge in the White Mountains from the distress of hay-fever.
For many years he spent weeks each summer in climbing and tramping in
northern New Hampshire, visiting repeatedly the summits of the Presi-
dential range, and being specially fond of the summit of Mt. Moosilauke,
where he often sojourned for a week or two among the clouds, with one or
two friends and some philological books.
The chief recreation of Professor Allen, from his boyhood, was found in
music. His knowledge of the art of music was thoroughly scientific, and
probably no other American scholar understood ancient Greek music so
well as he. He found relief from his severer studies not simply in hearing
but also in composing music. In addition to setting occasional verses to
music, he composed the music for a pantomime and an operetta of his
friend Professor Greenough ; and in his desk after his death was found a
MS of which no one knew anything except that he had said it was for this
same friend, — an operetta, with words and music complete.
Professor Allen was married on Dec 26, 1878, to Miss Emmeline Laighton
of Portsmouth. Their eldest child, a daughter, died in Athens, as has been
stated. A son and a daughter, with their mother, survive him.
The scholarship of Professor Allen was admirable. His command of
philological methods was unusual, and his presentation of arguments in
behalf of any thesis was most attractive, — never seeming merely plausible,
but commanding acceptance as necessary truth. Never was mind more
open than his to the receipt of light from any quarter, — like Socrates, ever
glad to be refuted, and abandoning old views without a shadow of regret
when these were shown to be false. His kindly patience, his accuracy, his
absolute sanity, and his clearness of exposition made him a remarkable
teacher as well as a great scholar. His criticisms were absolutely frank,
but assumed so fully that he whom he criticised was seeking the truth like
himself, that they left no sting. Those who knew him well admired in him
the man even more than the scholar. He was ever simple, straightforward,
kindly, affectionate. His friends depended more than they knew on him
and his judgment. With him a great and pure light has gone oat of their
lives.
Thomas Day Seymour.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
RECENT PUBLICATIONS.
Thanks are due to Messrs. Lemcke & Buechner, 8x2 Broadway, New
York City, for material furnished.
AMERICAN.
Caesar (C. J.) The Second Book of Caesar's Gallic War; ed. for the
use of schools by W. C. Collar. Boston, Ginn &* Co,., x^97> 9 + 9^ PP-
Map, i6mo, cl., 40 cts.
Cicero (Marcus TuUius). Pro Flancio ; ed. with introd. and notes by
H. W. Auden. New York, The Macmillan Co,, 1897. 84+150 pp. i6mo,
cl., net 80 cts.
Hempl (G.) German Orthography and Phonology. Boston, Ginn 6r* Co.,
1897. c. 27 + 303 pp. i2mo, cl., $2.10.
Homer. Eight Books of Homer's Odyssey; with introd., commentary
and vocabulary, by B. Perrin and T. D. Seymour. Boston, Ginn fir* Co.,
1897. c. 68+ 107 pp. i2mo, $1.50.
Hutson (C. W.) The Story of Language. Chicago, A. C. McClurg &»
Ctf., 1897. c. 2 + 392 pp. i2mo, cl., I1.50.
Pearson (H. C.) Greek Prose Composition. New York, American Book
Co,, 1897. c. 187 pp. i2mo, cl.,90 cts.
Snider (D. J.) Homer's Odyssey : a commentary. St. Louis, Mo., T^e
Sigma Publishing Co,, 1897. c. '95. 534 pp. 8vo, cl,, $z.
Sophocles. Tragoediae ; ed. by Rob. Y. Tyrrell. (Parnassus Library of
Greek and Latin Classics.) New York, The Macmillan Co., 1897. 25 +
272 pp. i6mo, bds., net $1.60.
Xenophon. Works ; tr. into English by H, G. Dakyns. In 4 v. V. 3,
pt. I. The Memorabilia, and Apology, The Economist, The Symposium,
and Hiero. Pt. 2. Three essays : on the duties of a cavalry general, on
horsemanship, and on hunting. New York, The Macmillan Co,, 1897. 70
+ 130 pp. i2mo, cl., net $1.25.
ENGLISH.
Cicero Correspondence. Revised text, notes, etc., by Rb. Y. Tyrrell
and L. C. Purser. Vol. V. London, 1897. 8vo, 500 pp. 14s. Vol. I-IV,
£2 IIS.
Elliott (W. A.) Dictionary of the Tebele and Shuna Languages. Lon-
don, 1897. 8vo. I OS.
Hill (G. F.) Sources for Greek History between the Persian and Pelo-
ponnesian Wars. London, 1897. 8vo, 434 pp. los. 6d.
Jaschke (H. A.) Tibetan- English Dictionary. English-Tibetan Dic-
tionary. London, 1897. 8vo, 694 pp. £1 ids.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
RECENT PUBLICATIONS, m
Lang (A.) Modern Mythology. London, 1897. 8vo, 238 pp. 9s.
de Larajasse (F.) Somali-English, English-Somali Dictionary. London,
1897. 8V0. I2S.
and de Sampont (F. C.) Practical Grammar of the Somali Lan-
guage. London, 1897. 8vo. 12s.
Larsen. Dano-Norwegian English Dictionary. London, 1897. 8vo,
687 pp. 1 28. 6d.
Robinson (C. H.) Hausa Grammar, Exercises, Readings, Vocabulary.
London, 1897. 8to. 5s.
Wright (J.) The English Dialect Dictionary. Part 3. London, 1897.
4to. S. Nr. 108 1. 15s.
FRENCH.
de Julleville (P. L.) Histoire de la langue et de la litterature frangaise.
Vol. Ill, fasc. 4-1 1. Paris, 1897. 8vo. Vol. Ill cplt., 16 £r.
Masqueray (E.) Observations grammaticales sur la grammaire Touareg
(< Publications de TEcole des lettres d'Alger,' tome XVIII, fasc. 3). Paris,
1897. 8vo, 193 pp. 5 £r.
Vandaele (H.) L'optatif grec. Essai de syntaxe historique. Paris,
1897. 8vo. 8 £r.
GERMAN.
'Arlb, Tabarf continuatus, quem edidit, indicibus et glossario instruxit
M. J. de Goeje. gr. 8. xxvii, 213 S. Leiden, Buchhandlg, u. Druckerei
vorm. E. J, Brill, m. 6.
'AfHGTo^vovc 'Etlpffvri, Cum scholiorum antiquorum excerptis passim emen-
datis recognovit et adnotavit Henr. van Herwerden. 2 partes, gr. 8.
"Ltiden, A, IV, Sij'lAoff. m. 12.50. .
Beneze (Emil). Sagen- u. litterarhistorische Untersuchungen. Nr. i u.
2. gr. 8. Halle, Jif. Niemeyer, — i. Traummotiv, das, in der mittelhoch-
deutschen Dichtung bis 1250 u. in alten deutschen Volksliedern. 82 S.
m. 2.40. — 2. Orendel, Wilhelm v. Orense u. Robert der Teufel. Eine
Studie zur deutschen u. franzds. Sagengeschichte. v, 112 S. m. 2.80.
Bibliothek indogermanischer Grammatiken. Bearb. v. B. DelbrUck, K.
Foy, G. N. Hatzidakis, etc. 6. Bd. i. Thl. 2. Abth. gr. 8. L., Breitkopf
^ Hdrtel, — 6. HUbschmann (H.) Armenische Grammatik. i. Thl.; Ar-
menische Etymologie. 2. Abth.: Die syr. u. griech. LehnwOrter im Alt-
armenischen u. die echtarmen. WOrter. xxiii u. S. 281-575. m. 8.
— phonetiscber WOrtcrbttcher. Hrsg. v. H. Michaelis. i. Bd. gr. 8.
Hannover, C, Meyer, — x. Michaelis (H.) u. Passy (P.) Dictionnaire pho-
netique de la langue fran^aise. Avec preface de Gaston Paris, xvi, 319 S.
m. 4 ; geb., m. 4.80.
Blanckenburg (Curt.) Studien Ub. die Sprache Abrahams a S. Clara,
gr. 8. iv, 87 S. Halle, M, Niemeyer, m. 2.40.
Braune (Wilh.) Althochdeutsches Lesebuch. 4. Aufl. gr. 8. viii, 249 S.
Halle, M, Niemeyer, m. 4.50.
Bursy (Bernh.) De Aristotelis IIoA^rcazc ^Adrfvaiuv partis alterius fonte et
auctoritate. gr. 8. viii, 148 S. Jurjewi. "L,,^ K, F, Koehler'* s Sort, m.2.50.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
378 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Corpus scriptorum historiae Byzantinae. Editio emendatior et copiosior,
consilio B. G. Niebuhrii C. F. instituta, auctoritate academiae litterarum
regiae borussicae continaata. Vol. I (Schluss). loannis Zonarae epitomae
historiarum libri XVIII. £z recensione Maur. Pinderi. Tom. III. Libri
XIII-XVIII. Ed. Thdr. Battner-Wobst. gr. 8. xxi, 933 S. Bonn, E,
Weber, m. 24.
Dienel (Rich.) Untersuchungen ttb. den Taciteischen Rednerdialog.
Progr. gr. 8. 20 S. St. Polten, Selbstverlag, m. — 40.
Dissertationes philologicae Halenses. Vol. XIII. Pars 3. gr. 8. Halle»
M, Niemeyer. — 3. Haym (Conr.) De puerorum in re scaenica Graecorum
partibus. iii a. S. 217-295. m. 2.
Dittmar (Armin). Studien zur lateinischen Moduslehre. gr. 8. xi,
346 S. L., B, G. Teubner, m. 8.
Enneccerus (M.) Die altesten deutschen Sprach-Denkmaler. In Licht-
drucken hrsg. Fol. 44 Taf. auf 18 Bl. m. 3 S. Text. Frankfurt a. M.,
F. Enneccerus. In Mappe, m. 27.
Eudociae Augustae, Procli Lycii, Claudiani carminum graecorum reli-
quiae. Recensuit Arth. Ludwich. 8. vi| 241 S. L.,, B. G. Teubner. m.4.
Grammatiken, altera deutsche, in Neudrucken, hrsg. v. John Meier. IV.
8. Halle, Af, Niemeyer, — IV. Olinger (Alb.) Deutsche Grammatik, hrsg.
V. Willy Scheel. ix, Ixii, 129 S. m. 2 Fcsms. m. 5.
Grundriss der germanischen Fhilologie, hrsg. v. Herm. Paul. 2. Aufl.
3. Bd. I. Lfg. gr. 8. S. 1-256. Strassburg, K.J, TrUbner Verl. m. 4.
der indo-arischen Philologie u. Altertumskunde. Hrsg. v. Geo.
Btthler. i. Bd. 3. Hft. B. gr. 8. Strassburg, K, J, TrUbner Verl,--! 3,
B. Zachariae (Thdr.) Die indischen WOrterbUcber (Kosa). 42 S. m. 2.50.
der iranischen Philologie. Hrsg. v. Wilh. Geiger u. Ernst Kuhn.
2. Bd. 3. Lfg. gr. 8. S. 321-480. Ebd. m. 8.
Jacob (A.) Die Glossen des Cod. S. Pauli D. 82. Diss. gr. 8. vi, 52 S.
Halle, M, Niemeyer, m. 1.20.
JahrbUcher, neue, f. das klassische Altertum, Geschichte u. deutsche
Litteratur u. f. Padagogik, hrsg. v. Johs. Ilberg u. Rich. Richter. i. Jahrg.
1898. I. u. 2. Bd. 10 Hfte. Lex.^. i. Bd. i. Hft. 80 u. 64 S. L., B. G,
Teubner. m. 28.
Jahresbericht des Instituts f. rumanische Sprache (rumanisches Seminar)
zn Leipzig. Hrsg. v. Gust. Weigand. gr. 8. ix, 336 S. L., J, A, Barth.
m. 6.
Jahresberichte f. neuere deutsche Litteraturgeschichte, hrsg. v. Jul. Elias
u. Max Osborn. 6. Bd. (J. 1895). i. Abtlg. Lex.-8. 141 S. L., G, /.
Gdschen. m. 6.
lungius (C. L.) De vocabulis antiquae cumoediae atticae quae apud
solos comicos aut omnino inveniuntur aut peculiari notione praedita occur-
runt. gr. 8. xxiy, 358 u. 6 S. Traiecti ad Rhenum. Amsterdam, J.
Mailer, ro. 10.
Kluge (Frdr.) Angelsfichsisches Lesebuch, zusammengestellt u. m.
Glossar versehen. 2. Aufl. gr. 8. iv, 214 S. Halle, M, Niemtyer, m. 5.
Ktlnstlinger (Dav.) Die Theorie der ZahlwOrter in den semitischeo
Spiachen. gr. 8. 32 S. B., S, Calvary &* Co, m. i.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
■^i
RECENT PUBLICATIONS, 3/9
Laurin u. Der kleine Rosengarten. Hrsg. v. Geo. Holz. gr. 8. v, xWi,
213 S. Halle, M, Niemeytr. m. 7.
LehrbUcher des Seminars f. oriental iscbe Sprachen zu Berlin. Hrsg. v.
dem Director des Seminars. XVI. Bd. gr. 8. B., IV. Spemann, Geb. in
Leinw.— XVI. Viehe (G.) Grammatik des Otjiherero, nebst WQrterbach.
zii, 140 S. m. 12.
Lemcke (Ernst). Teztkritische Untersuchangen zu den Liedern Hein-
richs V. Morungen. gr. 8. no S. Jena, O, Rassmann, m. 1.60.
Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesellschaft. 1897. 2 u. 3. gr. 8.
B., IV, Fetter Verl. in Kotnm, — 2. Rost (Paul). Untersuchungen zur alt-
orientalischen Geschichte. iii, 141 u. 8 autogr. S. m. 8. — 3. Sammelheft.
Glaser (Ed.) Das Alter der minaischen Inschriften u. der Ursprung des
Namens der Ebraer. — Hommel (Fritz). Das graphische T\ im Minaischen
a. das Alter der minaischen Inschriften. — MuUer (W. M.) Geographische
Einzelheiten.— Miiller (W. M.) u. Winckler (Hugo). Pap^hu Hierapolis.
— Winckler (Hugo). OTU nriK'.— Winckler (Hugo). Tel-Amarna 125.—
Winckler (Hugo). Die Istar v. Ninive in Aegypten. — Niebuhr (C.) Die
erste Dynastie v. Babel. 48 S. m. 2.
1897. 4-6 (Schluss). gr. 8. B., W, Peiser Verl, in JKomm,-'^,
Peiser (F. E.) Studien zur orientalischen Altertumskunde. 32 S. m. i.
— 5. Winckler (Hugo). Die sabsiischen Inschriften der Zeit Alhan Nah-
fan's. 32 S. m. 1.50. — 6. Glaser (Ed.) Zwei Inschriften Ub. den Darom-
bruch V. Mirib. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte Arabiens im 5. u. 6. Jahrh. n.
Chr. iii, 128 S. m. 6.
Miinzer (F.) Beitr&ge zur Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius.
gr. 8. zi, 432 S. B., IVeidmann, m. 12.
Neoglottia. Kritische Rundschau auf dem Gebiete der neueren Sprachen
o. Litteraturen. Hrsg. ▼. Adf. Kressner. i. Jahrg. Oktbr. 1897-Septbr.
1898. 24 Nrn. hoch 4. Nr. i u. 2, 16 S. L., Renger, Halbjahrlich m. 5.
Saga-Bibliotheky altnordische. Hrsg. v. Gust. CederschiOld, Hugo
Gering u. Eug. Mogk. 6. Hft. gr. 8. Halle, M, Niemeyer, — 6. Eyrbyggja
saga. Hrsg. v. Hugo Gering. zxxi, 264 S. m. 8.
Sammlung kurzer Grammatiken germanischer Dialekte. Hrsg. y. Wilh.
Braune. VIII. gr. 8. Halle, M. Niemeyer.^Y 111, Noreen (Adf.) Alt-
nordische Grammatik. II. Altschwedische Grammatik m. Einschluss des
Altgutnischen. i. Lfg. (Einleitung, Sonanten). 173 S. m. 3.60.
Schmid (Wilh.) Der Atticismus in seinen Hauptvertretern von Dionysius
V. Halikarnass bis auf den zweiten Philostratus. Registerbd. gr. 8. iii,
234 S. St, IV, Kohlhammer, m. 6.
Stucken (Ed.) Astralmythen der Hebraer, Babylonier u. Aegypter.
2. Tl. LoL gr. 8. S. 81-125. L., E. Pfeiffer, m. 5.
Studien zur englischen Philologie, hrsg. v. Lor. Morsbach. I. u. II. Hft.
gr. 8. Halle, M, Niemeyer. — I. Spies (Heinr.) Studien zur Geschichte
des englischen Pronomens im XV. u. XVI. Jahrh. (Flezionslehre u.
Syntax.) xix, 311 S. m. 8.— II. Herzfeld (Geo.) William Taylor v.
Norwich, viii, 71S. m. 2.
Tibullas (Albius). Untersuchung u. Text y. H. Belling. 2 Tie. 8. B.,
R, Gaertner, m. 9.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
380 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Toepffer (Jobs.) Beitr2i);e zur griechischen AUertumswissenschaft.
gr. 8. xvi, 384 S. m. i Abbildg. u. Bildnis. B., IVeidmann. m. 10.
U8ener(H.) Der Stoff des griechischen Epos. [Aus *Sitzungsber. d.
k. Akad. d. Wiss.'] gr. 8. 63 S. Wien, C. GerolePs Sohn in JComm.
m. 1.50.
Vandaele (Hilarius). Qua mente Phaeder fabellas scripserit. Thesis,
gr. 8. iv, 105 S. Paris, E, Bouillon, m. 3.20.
Winckler (Hugo). Altorientaliscbe Forschungen. i. Bd. VI. gr. 8.
V u. S. 469-573. L., E. Pfeiffer, m. 6; geb., m. 6.50.
Witkowski (Stanisl.) Prodromus grammaticae papyrorum graecarum
aetatis Lagidarum. gr. 8. 65 S. Krakau, Buchn. der poln. Verlags-
Gesellschaft in JComm, m. 3.
ITALIAN.
Cicero (M. Tullius). Actionis in C. Verrem secundae liber quartps [de
signis]. Commentato da Vittorio Brugnola. Torino. 8vo, pagine 151.
L. 1.80.
Fregni (Giuseppe). Studi storici, filologici e letterari. Modena. 8to,
fig'» pagine 164. L. 5.
Pizzi (Italo). Grammatica elementare dell' antico iranico (zendo e
persiano - antico), con antologia e relativo vocabolario. Torino. 8vo, p.
92. L. 2.50.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BOOKS RECEIVED.
Digitized by
Google
382 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Hermes, herausg. v. G. Kaibel u. Carl Robert. XXXII. Band. 2. u. 3.
Heft, Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung^ 1897.
Journal (The) of Germanic Philology. Vol. I, No. 2. 1897.
Journal of Philology (The). Ed. by W. A. Wright, Ingram Bywater and
Henry Jackson. Vol. XXV, No. 50. London and New York, Macmillan
&> Co., 1897. 4s. 6d.
Knauth(H.) UebungsstUcke zum Uebersetzen in das Lateinische. Deut-
scher Text u. Lateinische Uebersetzung. 2te Aufl. Leipzig, G. Freytag.
Leo (Fr.) Die plautinischen Cantica u. die hellenistische Lyrik. Ab-
handlungen der KOnigl. Gesellsch. der Wissenschaften za Gdttingen.
Philolog.-histor. Klasse. Neue Folge. Bd. I, No. 7. Berlin, Weidmann-
sche Buchhandlung^ 1897. 7 ra. 50 pf.
Michaelis (H.) et Passy (P.) Dictionnaire phonetique de la langue
f rangaise. Hannover, Carl Meyer^ 1897. 4 m.
Mnemosyne. Bibliotheca Philologica Batava. Nova series. Vol. XXV.
Partes I, II, III. L.-B., E, J. BrilL Lipsiae, O, Harrassowitz, 1897.
Modern Language Association of America, Publications of the. Ed. by
James W. Bright, Sec'y. Vol. XII, No. 3. N. S., vol. V, No. 3. Contents ;
Literature and Personality (Calvin Thomas); Learned and LearnM (Geo.
Hempl) ; A Study of the Metrical Structure of The Pearl (C. S. Northup) ;
Gaston Paris (H. A. Todd); Pastoral Influence in the English Drama (H.
Smith). Baltimore, y<?A« Murphy &* Co., 1897.
Moore (Clifford H.) Julius Firmicus Maternus, der Heide o. der Christ.
(MUnchener Diss.) (1897.)
MUnzer(F.) Beitrage zur Quellenkritik der Naturgeschichte des Plinius.
Berlin, Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1897. 12 m.
New York, University of the State of. Examination Bulletin. No. 13,
June, 1897. College-Entrance English. Albany, University of the State of
N. K., 1897.
JIpoKTiKa TTjq kv 'ABffvatg apxaioh)yiKf}c iTaipiac tov Itovq 1896. 'Aft^Tfftv, 1897.
Keditus Augusti, carmen praemio aureo ornatum in certamine poetico
Hoeufftiano. Accedunt quattuor poematalaudata. Amsterdam, Muller, 1897.
Sollima (Francesco). Le Fonti di Strabone nella geografia della Sicilia.
Messina, 1897.
Sophokles' Oidipus auf Kolonos. Fttr d. Schulgebr. herausg. v. Fr.
Schuber. zte verb. Aufl. 1897. 60 pf.
Syms (L. C.) Third Year in French. N. Y., Cine, Chic, 1897. I1.20.
Tropea (Giacomo). II mito di Crono in Sicilia e la ragione del nome
Zancle. Messina, 1S97.
Weidner (Andreas). SchUler-Kommentar zu Tacitus* historischen Schrif-
ten in Auswahl. Leipzig, G, Freytag, 1897. i m. 70 pf.
Xenophon's Cyropaedia. Ed. by C. W. Gleason. New York, Cine,
Chic, American Book Co,, 1897. $1.25.
Zeitschrift far franzbsische Sprache u. Litteratur, unter besonderer Mit-
wirkung ihrer BegrUnder, Kdrting a. Koschwitz, herausg. v. Behrens. Bd.
XIX, Heft 5 u. 7. Der Abhandlungen 3. u. 4. Heft. Berlin, W, Gronau,
18. Sept. 1897.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY
Vol. XVIII, 4. Whole No. 72.
I.— THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN INDEPENDENT SEN-
TENCES IN PLAUTUS.
III.— Optative and Potential.
The immediate result of the working of the forces discussed in
the previous paper has been the formation of usages and idioms
in which the meaning of the subjunctive form is restricted more
or less closely, as the usage is narrow or broad, to a particular
function. Therefore the explanation of any particular case of the
subjunctive on historical principles must begin with the determi-
nation of the extent to which one or more of these forces has acted
upon it. The explanation of caperes fustem is that the mode is
limited by the past tense to the expression of obligation ; nan
meream by person and by verb-meaning to negative determina-
tion in regard to a supposed case ; eamus by person and number
to an exhortation, and eamus iUy Una, in ius by the emphasis upon
the 2d pers. becomes a command, egon . . . patiar is determined
by the form of sentence and by the meaning of paiior. The
added words and the meaning of the verb limit sit per me quidem
to an expression of indifference. In saluos sis the verb-meaning
and the person are enough to restrict the phrase to use in greet-
ings, as the same influences restrict salue. Three forces — the
verb-meaning, the passive voice and the 3d pers. (impers.) — limit
Jiat to an expression of assent. The extension of the modal force
by suggestion is illustrated in quo mode ego uiuam sine tef with
its apparent can force, in quor with the accompanying should
sense, and in qui ego isiuc credamf, where^a special form of
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
384 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
interrogation unites with a particular verb-meaning to give the
mode a can sense in a stereotyped phrase.
Between the usages thus fixed it is at times possible to trace, or
at least to suspect, a real historical connection. The various
forms of guid /aciam f which in the movement toward precision
expand along one line into gntd ego nunc faciam? and along
another line into quid uis faciam f illustrate such a connection.
The differentiation of will from wish by uolo and uelim with a
paratactic subjunctive and the subsequent use of uelim with
infinitives and even with an object or absolutely, the optative
sense becoming less marked in the later uses, is another illus-
tration. Some other indications of relationship have been noted
above, but for the most part it is not possible to prove an actual
connection between different usages. Schemes of relationship,
intended to exhibit the many varieties of subjunctive usage in a
kind of modal genealogical tree, are speculations. But two
groups of usage, the potential* and the optative, are so evident
and so generally accepted that they must be recognized in any
discussion of the subjunctive.
The subjunctives which do not express any of the varying
shades of will and desire have been noted in the lists above.
Excluding the questions and the few paratactic cases, there are
about 140 such cases.
About 40 of them have a protasis in the context, though not in
the same sentence. They are found in all forms, mainly in 3d
sing, (about 12 cases) and in 3d plur. (about 20, of which 10 are
in Merc. 407 ff.). They are true potentials, or at least are hypo-
thetical, but most, if not all, are so influenced by the protasis that
they cannot be made the basis of any reasoning about the sub-
junctive in independent sentences. They are material for study
of the conditional sentence.
With these must go a smaller group of cases where a subjunc-
tive clause (with dum^ ubiy quamuis^ qui) accompanies the leading
clause. Thus, qui culpet . . ., shilius sit. It is impossible to
exclude the influence of these clauses, which usually precede the
main verb and may affect it as a protasis would.
In discussions of potential use examples are largely drawn from
the interrogative sentence, especially from quis questions with the
verb in ist sing, of the present. These cases have been suffi-
*I have used the term potential, not because it is correct, but because it is
convenient and in common use.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 385
ciently commented upon above. They are not very frequent,
possibly 30 or 40 cases out of more than 200 ; they are not
hypothetical, except when a definite protasis is expressed ; and
they are connected most closely and distinctly with the subjunc-
tive of will. The meaning of the mode is, however, turned from
direct will to obligation,^ first by the interrogative form in general
and also by the special influences which have been noted above.
In quid ego nunc faciamf it is the self-address; in other cases it
is the special form of qtiis, as quid *why,' quor^ qui. In the
phrase qui ego istuc credamf the verb-meaning helps to give the
can sense, but if it had been quor ego istuc credamf the apparent
sense would have been should, A sense which varies with the
varying form of sentence, instead of remaining fixed with the
fixed mode, is not a meaning of the mode, but of the whole
sentence, including the mode. It is not of great importance to
decide whether these uses should be called by the name potential ;
that depends upon the definition given to the term; but it is
important that we should look upon them rather as a group of
usages which have grown out of the subjunctive of will or desire
in sentences of peculiar form, than as the result of a supposed
potential force, inherited from the I.E. stage.
A fourth group consists of some 16 or 18 cases, aU but one in
pres. ist sing., in which there is an element of will, though they
are negatived by non^ and which relate, for the most part, to a
hypothetical act or situation. Of hand (non) dicam dolo and
deum, (maioruni) uiriute dicam it has been said above that they
are almost futures, used as eloquar is frequently used, to introduce
a statement of determination in regard to a future act (cf. ibo\
But an unmodified expression of determination is, strictly, incom-
patible with haud dolo and still more plainly with deum uiriuie ;
the addition of the idea 'without concealment' or 'thanks to the
gods,' 'by the goodness of the gods,' brings in the suggested
thought ' I am able to say,' ' I may say.' That is, deum uiriute
dicam^ expanded to its full meaning, is 'by the kindness of the
gods I may say and will now say, that . . .,' and so dicam gets in
these phrases a slight potential coloring and lies, as I have said,
between the future and the subjunctive.
The other cases of this group express a determination, usually
negative, in regard to the speaker's action in a supposed case.
There is in non . . . mereamy non duim, an element of will, not
» Cf. Elmer, Prohibitive, p. 36 (= A. J. P. XV 3, p. 313).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
386 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Strong, but sufficient to distinguish them from cases which express
an opinion or even a conviction, like nimis nili tibicen siem. But
a determination is separated from a conviction by so small an
interval that Trin. 758, ab amico . . . mutuom argentum rogem, or
True. 495, sine uirtute argutum ciuem mihi habeam pro praefica,
might be either. But the potential force of all these cases is
shown by the fact that they deal with a supposed situation.
A fifth group is made up of the sigmatic aorists, ist sing., 18
cases. The MSS give only attsim and faxiniy but negassim and
empsim are not improbable conjectures. In use they are of two
kinds, ausim, negassiniy empsim wth a negative expressing deter-
mination, like nan meream^ and faxim in hypothetical sentences,
usually with a protasis. Functionally, therefore, they belong
either in the fourth group or in the first, but they are put
together here because the form, which was already becoming
obsolete with most verbs, doubtless aided in producing a sharp-
ness of definition, a limitation of use, which they would not have
shown if the form had been in free use. Archaic forms survive
in idioms. The same fact would limit their influence upon later
constructions.
The cases of the indefinite second person have been given
above, about 20 in number. This usage is by no means easy to
define, and some of the cases might doubdess be understood to refer
to a definite person. The doctrine of Madvig, that the subjunc-
tive is always used with the indefinite 2d pers., is now known to
be too sweeping,^ since cases exist with the indie, e. g. Asin. 242.
But a general tendency to associate the indef. 2d sing, with the
subjunctive evidently exists. In Plautus the verbs are uideas (5),
censeas (3), audias (2), scias (2), nescias (2), conspicias, cupias^
desideres^ uelis, inuenias^ perdas^ noceas ; but the last two are
used after quom ferias and exorUur opiio^ a situation in which a
verb with definite subject would be subjunctive. The rest are all
verbs of mental action.
This rather specialized idiom, then, is marked by three charac-
teristics— the meaning of the verb, the potential tone of the mode,
and the indefinite subject — and the explanation of it must be
sought along these lines. In the first place, only one of these
verbs occurs in 2d sing, in a direct expression of will, and in that
passage (M. G. 282 tute scias soli tibi) it is distinctly less jussive
^KUhner, II, p. 480; Hoffmann, Das Modusgesetz, 28 fT.; Blase, WOlfflin's
Archiv, IX i, p. 19 f.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 387
than a verb of action like aieas, accipias. The meaning of the
verbs almost excludes them from the jussive uses and confines
uideas, nescias^ if the forms are employed at all, to potential
functions. Only the impv. form could give a direct will-force to
these verbs, and even in this form uide is rather *see!' than
'perceive,' audi is 'listen !' and sciio has a peculiar sense. In the
second place, a potential or conditioned use in the definite 2d
sing, passes easily into the indefinite, because what is true of the
definite 'you' is true generally, especially when the verb is of
mental action. The statement ' If this should be so, yoy would
think thus and so,' is easily extended from the definite 'you' to
the general 'you,' when it means 'Under certain conditions you
would necessarily think in a certain way.' In such reasoning it is
really a matter of indifference whether the 2d person is definite
or general, and only the context would tell whether una opera
postules is definite (as it happens to be in all three cases) or
indefinite.^ But the use of these verbs of mental action with a
general subject still further separated them from the direct will-
force, since the will cannot well be generalized, as it is when it is
directed upon an indefinite 'you,' and still retain its simple force.
It becomes rather an expression of propriety, as in cases in 3d
plur. where the subject is a class of persons. It is to the combi-
nation of these two forces, weakening the meaning of the mode,
with the influence of a preceding thought setting a hypothetical
tone (see below), that the highly specialized idiom of the indef.
2d pers. is due. Or, in other words, the indef. 2d pers. is a
variety of the hypothetical use, made idiomatic by the meaning
of the verb and by the indefinite direction of the will. The
withdrawal of these verbs from ordinary uses leaves four usages
in 2d sing, which supplement each other with little over-lapping :
verbs of physical activity in the various expressions of desire, the
same verbs in potential uses with preceding clause (very rarely
without such introduction), verbs of mental action in the impv.,
and the same verbs in the indef. 2d pers., potential. The last use
is evidently the most specialized and presumably the latest of
them all.
Beside the groups of usage already mentioned, there are about
25 cases: esse is used 9 times {siem^ sif, stent, esses, esset,fuisses),
possiet once, dicat once, duaniimce, auiumeni twice, postules (or
^ There is a like tendency to pass from the particular to the general in
phrases of the m tufrustra sis, ne erres class.
Digitized by^
388 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
iubeas) with una opera 5 times, habeam ' I should consider/ uide--
aiur, ecficiatur, once each, neque mereai (which is like non
meream) and seruareiur (but this may express obligation).
These are chiefly verbs of saying and esse^ and they are mainly
in the 3d person. As to sU^ it is used in direct expressions of will
only in wishes (never in commands) and in expressions of pro-
priety like bonus sit bonis ^ malus sit malis, describing an ideal.
With its passive meaning it is little likely to be used in any
jussive sense, though it is freely used in questions. But the chief
influence in all these cases is not the verb-meaning, but other
words in the sentence which influence the mode. Every word or
phrase which is added to the nucleus of the sentence both brings
into clearer light the germ of the thought and modifies that
thought by its own associations and color. I have tried above to
show how this is true of added verbs and of some adverbs and
particles, which strengthen or weaken or color the idea of will.
In a like manner a sentence may begin with a phrase which is
incompatible with the direct forms of will and therefore excludes
them, but which heightens and fosters a potential force. Thus
sine uirttde ciuem introduces the thought in such a way that the
verb, haieam pro praejica, already by person and verb-meaning^
inclined toward the potential, can mean nothing but 'I should
consider.' In Ba. 312 the father is told that his money is in public
guard at Ephesus; he begins his reply, occidisiis me: nimio hie
priuatim, and into this setting the verb seruareiur must fit with
a potential force. So una opera introduces a comparison between
an ideal and the proposed act ; it is in itself hypothetical, and
when it is followed by posiules (with the Plautine meaning, 'to
expect') the potential tone is doubled. Cf. Cas. 309 ff. una
edepol opera in furnum calidum condito atque ibi torreto me pro
pane rubido, ere, qua istuc opera a me impetres quod postulas,
where una opera is strong enough to give a potential force even
to the imp v., condiio^ torreto. So non par uidetur expresses an
opinion and prepares for the further expression of opinion in
neque sit consentaneum. It is the modifying effect of a compar-
ative which gives to malim a potential force that uelitn does not
have, and potius gives potential meaning to the future i^dic.^ and
even to an impv., Rud. 1048 uos confugite in aram potius quam
^Neumann, de fut. in prise. Lat. . . . ui et usu, Breslau, 1888, p. 28. This
dissertation contains some very acute observations upon the over-lapping of
temporal and modal meanings.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 389
ego. Cf. also the use of the subj. after potius quant. So in Rud.
780 f. utrum tu . . . cum malo lubentius quiescis an sic sine malo
• . . ? the comparative lubentius in the interrogative sentence
makes quiescis almost potential. It is perhaps not fanciful to feel
a modal difference between faciam sedulo and faciam lubens^
though the English phrases which we instinctively recall may
easily mislead us. These illustrations, taken almost at random,
may serve to show how great the influence of the preceding
thought upon the modal sense may be. A force which can
suggest potential meaning in an impv. or a fut. or pres. indie,
might easily be sufficient to confine the subj. to potential func-
tions. This influence of the preceding thought is, in fact, recog-
nized by the phrases * suppressed condition,' 'disguised condition,'
which are sometimes employed ; but these phrases imply that the
conditioning expressions modify the modal meaning only because
they are substitutes for a protasis. This is to explain the simpler
structure by the more complex, fac ualeas by fac ut ualeas^ an
in simple questions by an in double questions. Such simplifica-
tion of language may no doubt take place, but it caii be accepted
only on sufficient evidence. The general trend of thought and
language is the other way, and when a simple structure and a
complex one are surely connected, the probability is that the
simpler form is the earlier. A phrase like una opera is rather a
protasis in embryo than a suppressed protasis. As it becomes
more distinct in thought it takes on more distinct form, as a
clause or a formal protasis, and gives a more fixed and definite
potential sense to the main verb.
The potential in Plautus is not a single and unified usage ; it is
a group of usages, similar but by no means identical in meaning,
and, in this early stage at least, scarcely enough alike to influence
each other through analogy. They have followed distinct lines
of analogical connection, have been influenced in their changes of
meaning by distinct sets of forces, and have assumed meanings
which, on any careful analysis, are also distinct, quid ego nunc
faciam? starts from a subjunctive in which speaker and wilier
are different persons, is turned from its original meaning by being
addressed by the speaker to himself, and results in a meaning
like the English 'What am I to do?' nan meream starts from a
subjunctive in which speaker and wilier are one, is influenced by
person and number and by verb-meaning, and results in an
expression of negative determination. So faxim^ uideas^ qui ego
istuc credamf una opera postules^ sit^ has each its separate
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
390 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
semasiological history and its distinct result. Of all these forces
that which is exerted by a preceding thought, giving a hypo-
thetical or ideal tone to the sentence, is the strongest and
produces the widest departure from the ordinary meanings of the
subjunctive.
It is extremely difficult to say at what point the similarities
between different usages begin to be recognized or felt, so that
the usages exert an influence upon each other through analogy.
It is clear enough that all these developments are part of one
general process, an extension of subjunctive meaning, but it is
difficult to think that in the time of Plautus the subjunctive in
quid fcLciamf can have influenced uideas or that una opera
postules can have suggested the use of nimis 7iilt tibicen stents
And if they were not united into a single group, they can have
exerted no common influence upon later usage, e. g. upon the
subordinate clause. The only kind of potential use which can
have affected the subordinate clause is that in which the mode is
ideal or hypothetical, a rare usage, not more than one-twentieth
of the true independent subjunctives. This is connected by clear
lines with the conditional sentence, but the connection with the
relative clause, which is often assumed, is less certain.
It is generally held that the potential use of the subjunctive^
which is regarded as a single use, is descended from an I.E.
future or contingent future. This would involve the belief that
the potential is an early development. On the contrary, most of
these usages appear to be comparatively late. This is certainly true
of the deliberative question, of the expressions of negative determi-
nation and of the indefinite 2d person. The archaic form oifaxim
might seem to indicate an early use, but the complete separation
olfaxim.faxiSyfaxit into three widely different functions would
imply a long period of slow change from the original single
function or closely related functions. As to the purely hypo-
thetical use, it is probably earlier than the others, since the condi-
tional sentence in the time of Plautus had already advanced so
far, but it is the result of the influence of thought upon thought
and cannot have come into use until language and thought were
somewhat complex. If E. Hermann^ is right in thinking that
there was no hypotaxis in language in the pro-ethnic period, then
the I.E. potential, if any such usage existed, must have been
merely rudimentary. This would of course involve the hypoth-
* K. Z. 33 (1895), pp. 481 flf. Gab es im Indogcrmanischen nebensatzc ?
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS, 39 1
esis that the developments in other languages, e. g. in Greek,
were distinct from the Italic.
I have thus far avoided using the negative as a test of the
potential, not because it is not, in the main, a correct test, but
because it should not be used without some consideration, of its
meaning. The composition of ne with all kinds of words, and
especially with indicative verbs, nescio, nequeo, nolo, can be
explained only on the hypothesis that ne was once the general
Italic negative and that non is a later strengthened or compounded
form of ne. Whatever may have been its original composition or
form, something in the meaning of non made it a stronger word
than ne for statement, and it therefore displaced ne from its use
with the indie, leaving to it only the function of negativing
expressions of will. And by a well-known law of language, ne
then lost the power of serving as the negative of a statement.
Meanwhile, with the general movement of language toward
complexity and precision, the functions of the subjunctive were
extended and new functions were added. Some of these
approached the indicative so closely that there is a common
ground where either mode may be used. Thus oporiet esse is
used as a parallel to sit and aequom fuit disperiisse to dareni ;
the subjunctive is the expression of an obligation, the indicative
is a statement of it. As ne had so narrowed its function that it
could be used only in prohibitions, it was unfitted for use in these
statements of obligation, or in hypothetical or ideal statements.
The use of fion therefore indicates only that to the Roman these
uses were more akin to the statement than to the prohibition.
But a division of all sentences into expressions of will or state-
ments of fact is an extremely rough classification ; between these
extremes lie many shades of meaning, and it should not be
thought that in the choice of non or ne language has been always
precise. There are cases where 9ton is used with a subjunctive of
will or wish (Cist. 555 utinam audire non queas, though gueo is
regularly compounded with ne) occurring all through Lai *
ature (Schmalz*, §31), which, though they usually nej
single word, are yet evidence that the fields of non an
separated not by a sharp line, but by a strip of neutral
Still less is the use of non evidence as to the origin of a p
modal meaning. For non is applied to the result of the
it shows that the shift of meaning has produced a functic
more nearly resembles the indie than the subjunctive, bi
little of the process and nothing of the starting-point.
Digitized by
Google
392 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
can be no doubt that in abi. || abeamf the subjunctive is one of
will, but such a subjunctive is negatived by rum (Capt. 139 ne
fie. II egone ilium non fleam ?). It is likely enough that the use
of -ne in such questions, with a negative force still somewhat felt
in the time of Plautus, may have prevented the use of the nega-
tive ne in the same sentence. The use oini as the negative after
quid, quippe, offers a curious illustration of the persistence of ne
with a subjunctive which is as nearly potential as that of any
quis question. All subjunctives after quid 'why' have this
sense, yet they are negatived by ni (which is here only another
form of ne^ and not conditional) because the use olni is preserved
by the association, almost composition, with quid, quippe. These
cases show that ne was once the negative of such questions, just
as ne-scio shows that it was the negative of the indicative.
While, therefore, the use of non is evidence, in a general way,
of a potential sense and indicates a likeness to the indie, it is
neither a perfect test, since some potentials have ni and some
expressions of will have nan, nor is it of any value for determining
the history of a construction. It is a test which cannot be trusted
implicitly nor used mechanically, as it is not infrequently used in
syntactical work. Least of all can the use of non, a purely Italic
particle and of comparatively late origin, indicate anjrthing as to
the supposed connection between the potential and an I.E. future.
The accepted theory of the Latin subjunctive, that it is the
result of the amalgamation of subjunctive and optative, rests
upon two lines of argument. With the argument from the
comparative stand-point I have nothing to do, except to say that
the existence of the two modes in Sanskrit and Greek may be
perfectly well explained as a separate and later development.
But the argument from the Latin, which, next to these two
languages, has employed the subjunctive (and optative) most
widely, falls within the scope of this paper, and I shall try to
show that it has less weight than is usually ascribed to it.
The optative forms in Plautus are these :
uelim and compounds (74 in ist sing.), 78
sim and compounds (in all persons), 97
duim and compounds (18 in 3d pers.), 21
Sigmatic aorists, 79
Perfect tense, 70
345
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 393
Counting all cases of uelim and compounds as wishes, there are
about 125 wishes in this number, roughly one in three. Not
including uelim there are about 50 wishes, one in seven. If the
forms of the ist conj.,^ amtni, infelicet, etc., were included, the
proportions would not be greatly changed. Of the 1250 subjunc-
tive forms about 1 25 are wishes, one in ten. This preponderance
of optative forms with optative functions is, however, misleading.
With a very few exceptions, the 50 wishes fall into three classes :
saluos sis in greetings, bene (jnale^foriunaiuni) sii, and curses or
blessings with di or the name of a god and the verbs perduity
perduini^faxini and duint. The range of usage is very narrow.
If all significant distinctions were made, there would not be more
than six or eight phrases. Mere number of cases may mean
nothing ; the 17 cases of saluos sis indicate only the frequent
recurreace of a certain dramatic situation, and are no more signi-
ficant of the extent of modal use than is the fact that of the 94
cases in ist plur., 42 are of eamus and compounds. The wishes
with subjunctive forms show something of the same tendency to
run in ruts (jii perdant 30 times, di anient 14 times), but the
variety of phrase is, on the whole, greater than with the optative
forms. These considerations are, I think, sufficient to remove
the impression which the statistics at first make and to justify the
statement that there is no real preponderance of optative forms
in wishes, but only a frequent repetition of a few specialized
phrases.
From the functional side the wish is an expression of simple
desire, unmixed or but slightly mixed with intention or determin-
ation or expectation. But such a definition is general and does
not take into account the minor varieties, in which the optati
force is heightened or lowered according to the nature of tl
wished-for act and the personality of the actor. These elemer
combine in many and somewhat complex ways, but two or thr
main groups may be noted: — a) A simple expression of desi
in regard to the action of another person, such as is expressed 1
the English ' I wish that he would come.' ^) Desire mixed wi
hope in regard to the circumstances or health or prosperity
another person, c) Desire taking the form of an indirect appc
to the gods to act. Further subdivisions might be made, if tl
nature of the act were to be more fully analyzed. E. g., tl
»Cf. Stolz in Mailer's Handbuch, II, §115, 2d ed., p. 378; Bnigmar
Gnindr. II 3, §946, p. 1309.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
394 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
optative force is milder if the desire is that a certain person shall
come, stronger and more easily recognizable as a wish if the
desire is that he shall perish or suffer harm. But these minor
variations of thought, though they affect the language, are rarely
distinct enough to produce special forms of wish, and may there-
fore be neglected.
There are a few cases in which there is nothing in the form to
distinguish the wish from ordinary expressions of will. Thus
Cas. 6ii ducas easque in maxumam malam crucem, M. G. 936
bene ambula, bene rem geras, Cas. 822 uir te uestiat, tu uirum
despolies, Trin. 351 quod habes ne habeas; these and a few other
cases like them lack the element of determination which distin-
guishes the will from the wish, but the optative sense is not
strong, and they illustrate the faintness of the line which divides
the two fields. But for the most part the wish is marked by a
distinct form. The milder expressions of desire in regard to the
action of another person have uHnam or ueliniy which are also
employed (the latter more often than the former) in curses,
usually comic and elaborate curses. Wishes for the health or
prosperity (or the reverse) of another person are expressed by
the impersonal forms, bene (male) sit, marked by the verb and
adverb. The phrases of greeting, saluos sis, ualeas, were origin-
ally of this sort, but became formulaic and lost something of
their meaning. Asseverations, iia me di ament, are still more
distinctly differentiated by iia^ and when the gods are mentioned,
as in these forms and in di te perduint (J>erdant^, the fullest
optative meaning is brought out.
Now, in all these phrases the forces which give the optative
sense are perfectly clear. Except in some of the cases with uelim>
and utinam, the action contemplated is one which it is out of the
power of a human actor to perform and out of the power of the
speaker to influence. The element of determination can have
nothing to do with the action or state of ualere, saluos esse, bene
esse. In other words, these verbs, if they are employed at all
in expressions of desire, must be optative; the verb-meaning
excludes any other sense. So also the actor is, in all the most
distinct expressions of wish, either left out of view entirely, as in
the impersonals, or is superhuman and so beyond the reach of
human determination. These two forces, the verb-meaning and
the actor (person and' number) absolutely fix the meaning of di
te perdant, so that it very rarely takes utinam. But in the more
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 395
elaborate or less formulaic optations, where the force of the verb-
meaning is less clear, and especially in the 2d and 3d sing., where
a definite person is the subject and, in a sense, the actor, some
specific sign of the wish is needed, and here vtinam and uelim
are employed.
The optative function, therefore — ^that is, the capacity to express
a wish — is not so distinct as to require us to explain it by refer-
ring it to an I.E. optative function. Any mode which expresses
desire would of necessity express optation also, if the desire was
that the gods should bring a certain man to ruin. To explain di
ieperdant and ualeas by saying that they got the optative func-
tion from di ieperduini and saluos sis, and that these acquired it
at some remote time in some unexplained way, is to turn away
from simple forces, working under our eyes, to a vague hypothesis
which, after all, explains nothing. The forces which can give an
optative sense to saiu€ or di te amabuni will explain all optative
subjunctives.^
The state of things which we find existing in Plautus as to
optative forms and functions is best explained not by the hypo-
thesis that the Italic had an optative mode, a system of special
terminations applicable to any verb-stem and having as their
most distinct function the expression of a wish, but by the
hypothesis that the two modal formations were along the Italic
line of descent never clearly differentiated. It is unlikely that
both forms were in general use with the same verb-stem, and
there is no evidence to show that they had that universality and
system which would justify the use of the term mode.* Out of
this undifferentiated or but partially differentiated modal material,
the growing consciousness of the wish, as distinct from will,
working through the person and number and the verb-meaning,
produced the optative forms of sentence. In general, these were
not sufficiently specific without the addition of specializing words,
utinam, uelim, but certain forms, still further separated from the
ordinary uses of the subjunctive by being employed as greetings,
^ Compare also the future with the subjunctive in Pers. 160 Sagaristio, di
ament te. | o Toxile, dabunt di quae exoptes ; Capt. 877 ff. ita me amabit
sancta Saturitas, Hegio, itaque suo me semper condecoret cognomine, ut ego
uidi.
'Cf. Streitberg in Paul and Braune's Beitr. 15, p. 116: "damals [in idg.
urzeit] existierten (iberhaupt keine * tempora,* d. h. keine formalen kategorien,
deren ursprtlngliche function es war, zur bezeichnung der relativen zeitstufen
zu dienen."
Digitized by^
396 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
asseverations, curses or blessings, became idiomatic and needed
no distinguishing particle.
The potential and the optative uses are not parallel, though
they are in some respects similar. Both are in part due to the
influence of person and number (the subject) and of verb-
meaning, but these influences are stronger in the optative than in
the potential ; in«4he latter they produce conditions favorable to
the potential, rather than true potential uses. These appear only
when other forces are brought into operation. The optative is
a specialized use, the result of convergence and of increasing^
isolation, whether it be in phrases like saluos sis, di te perdant, or
in uses which require a special optative particle, iiiinam. The
close resemblance to ordinary expressions of desire is most
apparent in the wishes of a general character and content, such
as take uiinam, but it is also plain in the more specialized and
formulaic wishes, and there is no form of optation in which this
connection cannot be clearly seen ; the element of determination
is lessened or dropped out, but the element of desire is intensified.
In the potential uses the tendency toward isolation, which appears
in non meream, quid ego nunc faciam? or deum uirtute dicam^
is one which increases the element of determination and the
meanings allied to the future and which lessens the element of
desire. But desire in some form is the most common meaning
of the subjunctive, the meaning which a subjunctive form at once
suggests, and when it is weakened the form is left to a consid-
erable extent meaningless, emptied of its normal meaning. This
is one of the processes by which a word or a syntactical group is
prepared to assume new meanings, new functions. The form
meream, existing through the analogy of other verbs of the 2d
conjugation, and in part excluded by its meaning from the
expression of desire, is speech-material ready to take on any new
function, not too far removed from the old. The suggestion of
new meaning comes from the context, the preceding thought.
For the subjunctive is never potential — differing in this altogether
from the optative uses — when it is alone. A form like ualeas,
saluos sis, pereat (the last not in Plautus) can convey a wish
without context, except as the attendant circumstances always
supply a context, or a brief phrase like di te perdant with almost
no context; but this is rarely, if ever, true of the potential.
faciam alone, without the help of the interrogative, is not poten-
tial; meream alone might have somewhat more of potential
- Digitized-by VjOOQIC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 397
suggestion, because the suggestion comes largely from the verb-
meaning, but sii^ dicai, postules, duceret do not convey potential
meaning except in a certain context. It is only when these forms,
unfitted or only partially fitted for the expression of desire, are
used with phrases which set a hypothetical tone — the interroga-
tives, deum uirtute, una opera^ a subjunctive clause, a formal
protasis — that they take on new meaning from their surroundings,
and become most widely separated from the usual subjunctive
functions. To a slight degree an optative phrase, ualeas, saluos
sts, may also acquire new meaning from its use in greetings, but
for the most part it is correct to say that the optative function is
only an intensification and isolation of a meaning inherent in the
subjunctive, while the potential force is an acquired function, not
inherent in the mode, but rather, in its extreme development,
showing but slight trace of its connection with the mode of
determination and desire.
^The potential and the optative uses are only the most striking
illustrations of the process which went on over the whole range
of modal expression, and which in the end produced the many
varieties of subjunctive usage to be found in any author or at any
period. Looked at from the functional side, this process, if its
steps could be traced, would be one of constant progress from
vague thinking toward precise thinking, from undiscriminating
and vague desire with reference to all kinds of action under all
varieties of circumstance toward differentiated will, entreaty,
exhortation, command, permission, direction, advice, and so on.
In other words, we must suppose that, though man in the primi-
tive stage entreated, exhorted, commanded, and though these
emotions were really different, the difference . was not strong
enough to find expression in language. But it is not to be
supposed that this movement toward differentiation, though
constant, was regular. The need of expression varied, and was
felt in some directions (e. g. perhaps in curses or in direct com-
mands in 2d sing.) before it was felt in others. The means of
expression, also, would lie near at hand for such a use as ist plur.,
^ The paragraphs which follow I present as a hypothesis merely ; to others
they may seem no more than speculation. And the same thing may be said
of some of the preceding remarks upon the potential and the optative, though
I venture to think that they rest more firmly upon direct inference from the
facts. I have also examined somewhat carefully all the corresponding uses in
a dozen or more of other writers, Cato. Terence, Varro, Lucretius, Catullus,
Vergil, Iforace, Caesar, Pliny, and some others, but not Cicero.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
398 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
but for other uses (deliberative questions, una opera posiuUs)
would have to be shaped by long use. Looked at from the
formal side, the process was equally irregular. The forces of
analogy and assimilation, by which the modal forms were slowly
worked into a systematic mode, afforded at first and for a long^
time an irregular and unsystematized speech-material. Some
verbs had both subjunctive and optative forms, some had only one,
some had neither, and we can hardly doubt that still other modal
formations existed which have not been preserved.* Nor is it to
be supposed that all verbs began to be used in subjunctive forms
at the same instant. I have said above that some verbs were
peculiarly fitted by their meaning for use in expressions of will,
and that other verbs were excluded by their meaning or by tense
or voice or person and number from the expression of the simpler
forms of will. That, of course, does not mean that such forms as
dicaptt meream^ caperes^ ecficiatur existed but were not used, but
only that they may be said to have had a potential existence from
the time when similar forms came into use ; an actual existence,
as a part of the language, they did not have until the modified
and specialized kinds of will, which are all that they are capable
of expressing, came to be felt, mereo had no pres. subj. ist sing,
until the idea expressed in nan meream (or some similar idea)
called for expression; the form dicam was very rare until the
idea of futurity or something like it was felt, uelim is a striking
illustration of this. Unless we suppose that it meant 'I should
wish' — a hypothesis which really rests upon classical and later
usage and is absolutely contradicted by the usage of Plautus and,
indeed, by much of the later, especially the colloquial, usage —
uelim had no proper meaning, and uelle had therefore no modal
form in the ist sing, until the need arose of distinguishing, e. g.
ueniai the will from ueniat the wish. Then uolo ueniat expressed
the one and ueniat uelim the other, the form uelim coming into
existence through the analogy of similar forms under the influence
of the optative force of ueniat Such independent meaning as
uelim has, it acquired from this association with an optation and
carried over into the uses with infin. and ptc. and adjective ; in
fact, the other persons, uelis, uelit^ are rare in ^ny really inde-
pendent use.
*Quintil. I 7, 23 quid? non Cato Censorius * dicam* et 'faciam* *diccin' et
* faciem' scripsit eundemque in ceteris, quae similiter cadunt, modum tenuit?
Di(
igilized by Vj O O^ IC
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 399
Thus upon the formal side, as well as upon the functional, the
spread of the mode was irregular, and the formation of the
specialized usages, which, taken together, are the basis for our
generalizations as to the subjunctive, was for both reasons, the
formal and the functional, irregular and unsystematic. There
was no formation of broad types, like the potential, but only of
restricted usages, and the analogies which determined the direc-
tion of the process, the lines of cause and effect, the retarding
influences, must all be sought in the specialized usages. It is
true that such usages may sometimes be grouped together on the
basis of a functional resemblance, but the separate members of
such a group have no organic connection until they begin to
influence each other; that is, until the resemblance in function
becomes clearer and stronger than the similarity in verb-form, in
sentence-form or in verb-meaning. Such a stage was most cer-
tainly not reached by the various members of the potential group
— the type which is most frequently treated as having an actual
existence — in the I.E. period ; if it was beginning at all in the
time of Plautus, its range was still very narrow. The use of the
term Grundbegriff to describe the sphere of application of a
group of syntactical forms ^ is unfortunate, if it encourages the
belief that the members of such a group exerted a common
influence in addition to the influence of each individual usage.
Common influence can be exerted only when the usages have
become bound together by mutual analogies.
The formation of specialized usages in which the tense or the
verb-meaning or some other force influenced the meaning of the
mode either intensified the subjunctive sense or weakened it;
where will and desire were weakened, the subjunctive form took
on, in part, new meaning. The result was an extension of the
field of the mode, on the one side toward the most explicit
expression of will, the impv., on the other side toward the mode
of statement, the indicative. In the one direction the subjunctive
was extended to uses (e. g. some kinds of prohibition) in which it
is impossible to detect any difference between its force and that
of the impv.; on the other side it was extended until it reached
ideas of expectation, determination, propriety, necessity, obliga-
tion, which could be more precisely expressed by the future, by
modal verbs {pportet^ debet, uelle.posse), by phrases like aequom
^ It is nsed in somewhat this way by DelbrUck in Brugmann's Grundr. Ill i,
p. 81, and by Bragmann, Indog. Forsch. V, p. 93, n. 2.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
400 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
esty by the periphrastic forms or by verbal nouns. For the precise
determination of the meaning of the mode — that is, of the range
of its application — a study of the neutral territory in which these
phrases are employed as parallels to subjunctive forms is to be
desired.^ Within the historical period the competition between
the mode and the other expressions of modality went on until the
modal forms were to a considerable extent driven out by the
analytic forms, and passed over into the subordinate clause or
survived in the Romance languages with changed functions. In
Plautus the competition is just beginning.
An actual historical connection between different usages can be
established by clear evidence in only a few instances. Thus the
expansion oiquidfaciamf in one direction into quid uis facianif
and in the other into quid ego nunc faciamf is clear, and I have
attempted to show above how the use of the indef. 2d sing, with
verbs of mental action is an off-shoot of the ordinary hypothetical
use. In such cases the connection shows which usage is the
older. With somewhat less of probability, it is possible to con-
jecture that the simple and direct expressions of desire preceded
the more complex. The hortatory ist plur. must have begun,
very much as it appears in Plautus, as soon as the analogies of
other subjunctive forms led to the use of the ist plur. ending. It
is still in Plautus used only with verbs of physical action and with
a simple meaning, except where the addition of tu or a vocative
suggests a jussive force ; it shows no signs of the rhetorical uses,
uideamus, transeamus^ which are found in Cicero. It can hardly
be doubted that such a use is earlier than a phrase like qui ego
isiuc credamf or than the entirely distinct uses of the three
persons, faxim, faxis^ faxit, which can have come about only
by a long process of shift of meaning. A still slighter degree of
probability attaches to attempts to prove relationship and com-
parative age by reasoning based upon English auxiliary verbs,
would, should, can, will, shall] such reasoning suggests specula-
tion and may thus become fruitful, but it does not of itself estab-
lish facts. The difficulty of proving relationship between the
different uses of the subjunctive is not due, however, to insuffi-
cient data for the early periods or to inaccurate observation. It
^ Some suggestions bearing npon this kind of definition of the mode may be
found in J. Lattmann, Die deutschen Modalit&tsverba, Progr., Clausthal, 1879;
"iohviXi^oTiytUbere, posse sim., Upsala, 1868 ; Neumann, De futuri . . . usu, Breslao,
1888.
Digitized by
Google
^
THE SUBJUNCTIVE IN PLAUTUS. 4OI
is rather evidence that but few such relationships existed, except
as all uses of like forms are related, and that the specialized
usages grew up separately through the complex working of a
number of different forces.
It is not less difficult to determine with any considerable degree
of probability which usages of the Latin mode go back to the
I.E. stage. That modal forms then existed is clear enough, and
it is plain that the forms were used to express some kind of desire
or will ; just how precise this statement may be made is far less
clear, and the value of it to the student of a single language is
often over-estimated. For to one who is endeavoring to under-
stand the phenomena of a single language, Greek or German or
Latin, the course of that language from the beginning of speech
must be regarded as continuous ; as to the student of the Romance
languages, French or Portuguese presents an unbroken line of
development from Plautus to the present time. The certaifity, if
it could be reached, that a particular special usage dated from the
I.E. stage would make it possible to reason with somewhat greater
exactness from the forms which that usage took in other languages,
but the gain would not be great. The phrase " of I.E. origin,"
which one not infrequently meets in syntactical work, is not in
fact an explanation, but a very vague date. But it is not the
when that is of primary importance in syntax : it is the haw and,
if possible, the why. It is the process of change, the laws, the
forces, the causes, that historical syntax must follow out ; the date
is only a means to the accomplishment of this task.
I have not cared to make in this paper what is called a '' critical
examination " of the theories of the mode current in America and
to some extent in England. The differences between them and
the view which I have been trying to present will, I hope, be
evident, and there is no work in which philologists engage more
useless, in my opinion, than negative criticism. If a theory is
wrong, it can be disproved only by supplying a better theory.
This paper is an attempt to suggest a new and, possibly, more
fruitful method of studying the subjunctive.
E. P. Morris.
Digitized by^
II.— THE USE OF ENIM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE.
In the winter of 1885-86, Goetz, who was busy with his new
edition of the Bacchides, suggested to me, then a student at Jena,
the investigation of the use ofenim in the earlier language. The
following pages present the results of that study, delayed and
postponed for various causes these eleven years. While the
conclusions may not be all that were hoped at the time the
investigation was begun, from over twenty readings and compari-
sons of the entire text of Plautus and Terence, it is felt that the
classification is more thorough and systematic than has been
previously attempted. While my views on minor points have
sometimes changed, my opinions and convictions on the most
important usages have been strengthened by successive compari-
sons of the text Of the numerous conjectures that would intro-
duce enim into the text, only the more plausible have been
noticed. It has not been deemed advisable to cumber the page
with improbable emendations. Only disputed or typical passages
have been quoted in full.
Nearly thirty years ago, Ramsay, in his edition of the Mostel-
laria,^ stated : *'we maintain that in the earlier writers entmvero
always signifies ' for in truth' as emm always signifies ' for/ and
that both are uniformly employed to introduce an explanation.*'
Eleven years later Langen,' who devoted considerable space to
the discussion and gave the most complete classification hitherto
attempted, asserted with equal positiveness (p. 262) : " Ich glaube
behaupten zu diirfen enim ist bei Plautus ausschliesslich Betheuer-
ungspartikel, es wird von ihm iiberhaupt nicht zur Begriindung
eines vorhergehenden Gedankens gebraucht." This latter view
became at once the prevalent one among Plautine students,
although a number of prominent editors and critics have taken
more or less exception to its sweeping conclusions. There is, it
would seem, a position between these two extremes, which we are
warranted in taking.
^ London, 1869, p. 206.
^ Beitrage zur Kritik und Erklarung des Plautus. Leipzig, 1880, pp. 261-71.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
USE OF ENIM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE, 403
I. — The Position of Enim,
The position of enim may best be considered under two heads :
(i) the position of enim in the sentence; (2) the position of enim
in relation to other words.
(i) TAe position of enim in the sentence. — In Plautus enim
stands as the first word in the sentence in the following passages :
Aul. 500/ Capt. 592, Cas. 890, Cist. 777, Mil. 429, 1018, Most.
1 144, Pers. 236, 319, 612, Trin. 1134. In Epid. 701 I should read
enim istaec captiost, as I see no good reason for discarding the
manuscript reading for Brix's conjecture, em istaec captiost^
adopted by Gotz. In Men. 846 I read enim haereo^ with Brix.
This, suggested by Ussing in his note to Aul. 492, is much to be
preferred to enim periculum est, which he adopts in his later
edition. SchoU transfers the words from Menaechmus to Matrona,
and so is compelled to change haereo to censeo. In Trin. 806
enim- is to be preferred to the manuscript at enim.
The two most probable conjectures that would give enim first
place in the sentence are Lachmann*s enim verbis prohus for in
verbis probus in Amph. 838, and Ribbeck's ingenious emendation
of Mil. 1319, which will be discussed more fully below.
Enim vero stands at the beginning of the sentence in the
following passages: Amph. 723, 771, Asin. 688, Capt. 628, Cas.
475, 728, Cist. 519, Cure. 175, 608, Men. 860, 1075, Merc. 739,
Pers. 349, Poen. 296, 435 (where its parenthetical position really
gives it first place), Rud. 1003, Stich. 398, 616, Trin. 958, 989 ;
probably in Capt. 22 and Poen. 280.'
Enim is first* in four passages in Terence: Ad. 168, H. T. 72,
Hec. 238, Phorm. 983, and enim vero in eight : And. 91, 206, H.
T. 320, 1045, Hec. 673, Phorm. 465, 937, 1036.
Enim is found in the second place (when not joined with other
particles) 21 times in Plautus and 7 in Terence. In only one
^ The citations for Plautus (both plays and fragments) are made according
to the edition of GOtz, LOwe and SchoU ; for Terence, that of Dziatzko.
' Compare Capt. 532, Merc. 739.
'Langen's statement (p. 263): **Weit haufiger (am Anfang des Satzes) ist
aber die Verst&rkung durch vero^ mindestens dreissigmal," is incorrect
♦This position oi enim in the earlier language is not noted by the majority
of grammars in general use. Roby, II, p. 22 ; Harkness, §569, III ; Allen
and Greenough, §§156, R, 345, b, and Bennett, §345, are all guilty of the same
omission. Gildersleeve-Lodge, §498, n. i, recognizes the usage. A number
of equally dogmatic and incorrect additional statements could easily be secured.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
404 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
passage does it occupy third place, Cas. 525 em, nunc enim etc,
where its position can be accounted for by its close connection
with nunc.
(ii) The position of enim with reference to certain words. — An
examination of the passages shows that enim^ both alone and in
compounds, is often found associated with certain words. The
following collocations are worthy of note:
(i) Enim with pronouns. — cu With personal pronouns: enitn^
ego, Cas. 280, Merc. 251, Mil. 809, Most. 888, 926, Poen. 604;
mihi, Aul. 500, Amph. 733, Cas. 366; me, Trin. 1134; /w, Capt.
568 ; enim vero ego, Capt. 534, Pseud. 979, Trin. 958 ; certo enim,
ego, Aul. 811; mihi, Stich. 88; at enim mihi, Stich. 738; nos^
Stich. 129; tu^ Epid. 94; quia enim me, Merc. 248, True. 266;
te, Amph. 606, Pers. 592 ; certe enim tu, Asin. 614 ; nempe enim.
tu, Trin. 60 ; verum enim tu. Mil. 293 ; nan enim tu, Rud. 989.
b. With demonstrative pronouns: enim id, Men. 163, Ad. 730;
enimvero id. And. 848 ; verum enim vero id. Ad. 255 ; at enim id^
Bacch. 793, 1080 ; quia enim id. Most. 1098 ; enim ilia, Phorm.
113; illoc. Men. 249; etenim ille, Amph. 266; enim vero ille,
Amph. 771 ; illud^ Men. 860; at enim ille, Cist. 739, Men. 790;
illi, Pers. 569; quia enim ille. Cure. 667; ne enim illi. Most.
1095; non enim ilium, Rud. 922; neque enim illi, Trin. 585;
enim ipsi, Cas. 323 ; etenim ipsus. And. 442 ; enim istaec, Epid.
701, Most. 1 144; ai enim istaec, Eun. 381; isioc, H. T. 699;
enim hie, Bacch. 457; at enim. hoc, Poen. 1197; ^^^ enim haec^
Most. 827.
c. With relative or interrogative pronouns: cerio enim quod^
Poen. 1 182; at enim quod, Pers. 832; quia enim qui, Hec. 311 ;
verum enim vero qui, Poen. 874; quid enim, Amph. 694.
(2) Enim with adverbs, — It is also joined with many adverbs,
especially those of time. Thus, nunc enim, Asin. 598, Cas. 525,
Epid. 162, 648 (non enim nunc), Capt. 534 (nunc enim vero).
And. 823 (immo enim nunc) ; enim iam, Cas. 890 ; verum enim
quando, Ad. 201.
Four examples are found of the combination ita enim vero^
Amph. 410, Asin. 339, Cist. 519 (enim vero ita). Most. 920.
(3) Enim with negative a?id final particles. — It is joined with
negative and final particles : enim non. Cist. 777, Pers, 236, Ad.
^ These lists are arranged for the sake of brevity with enim first, even if it
be postpositive.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
USE OF ENIM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE, 4O5
168, Capt 628 (enim vero non), Merc. 395, Mil. 1139, Pseud. 325
(quia enim non); haud eniniy Capt. 592; enim Tie, Mil. 429, Cist.
235, Most. 922 (at enim ne).
(4) Enim with the first person of verbs. — In mimerous cases it
is joined with the first person of verbs. Examples are : aio enim
vero, Amph. 344, Pers. 185 ; ego enim dicam, Cas. 372.
II. — The Force of Simple Enim.
(i) Enim with corroborative force. — In both Plautus and Ter-
ence enim has in the majority of cases an affirmative or corrobo-
rative force, corresponding to our 'indeed, certainly, to be sure,'
and the German 'fiirwahr, wahrhaftig.'
1. With this corroborative force enim occupies the first place
in the sentence in Aul. 500, Capt. 592, Cas. 890, Cist. 777, Epid.
701, Men. 846, Mil. 1018, Most. 1144, Pers. 236, 319, 612, Trin.
806, 1 134, H. T. 72, Hec. 238, Phorm. 983. I do not find any
passage, resting on manuscript authority, uhere enim in the first
place has any other force. Lachmann's conjecture, Amph. 838
enim (MSS /«, Uss. Id tu) verbis probas, has the same meaning,
with a tinge of irony.
2. It is similarly employed in the second place in the sentence
with no unusual emphasis: Amph. 333, Asin. 598, Bacch. 457,
Cas. 525, Epid. 648, Men. 251, Merc. 251, Phorm. 113.
3. In answers it is frequently employed with the same signifi-
cation : Cas. 279-80 Ch. Te uxor dicebat tua Me vocare. Lys.
Ego enim vocari iussi, 323, 366,* 372, Men. 162, Mil. 429 {enim
first), 810, Most. 888, Pers. 670, Poen. 387, Ad. 168 (enim first),
730-
Nil is sometimes joined with enim in the reply : Bacch. 701-2
Pist. Nunc quid nos vis facere? Chrys. Nil enim (Nihil Uss.,
enim nihil R., Lang.) nisi ut ametis impero; Most. 551, Ad. 656,
921, Hec. 850.
An isolated example that may be quoted here is H. T. 317 CI.
Quid ilia facias? Sy. At enim. CI. Quid enim?
4. The corroborative force sometimes takes an ironical turn
like vero or the German freilich : Capt. 568 Tu enim repertu's,
Philocratem qui superes veriverbio ; Amph. 836-8 Ale. Quae non
' SchSll's arrangement and panctuation of the line removed the objections
to the rare and doubtful use of enim in questions. One other case will be
considered below.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
406 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
deliquit, decet Audacem esse, confidenter pro se et proterve loquL
Amph. Satis audacter. Ale. Ut pudicam decet. Amph. Enim
verbis probas.
5. In Amph. •694 is found the only example of a usage sa
familiar in Ciceronian Latin, quid enim in Quid enim censes ? te
ut deludam coptra lusorem meum ? Langen (p. 267) denies its
genuineness, and declares : " Plautus hat gewiss quidnam censes^
geschrieben." While there is no other example in the writers of
the period based on as good MS authority (^Quid enim, Cure.
273, being a conjecture ; quis enim, Enn. 1 14 (M.), depending oa
the reading of the scholiast, and quis enimf ex inc. inc. fab. i
(R. I), having so uncertain a date), there seems no reason for
making the change. There are other readings of equal authority
and rarity in Plautus.
(ii) Enim with causal force. — Most. 925-6 reads: TV. Quid?
tibin umquam quicquam, postquam tuos sum, verborum dedi?
Th. Ego enim recte cavi. Lorenz, in his note to the passage,
recognizing its causal force, and the implied ellipsis, translates :
^'Ego enim, *nein, denn ich' — eine bei nam und enim wie bei yaf^
haufige und bekannte Ellipse."
In Poen. 604, Milphio exclaims: En, edepol mortales malos!
whereat Agorastocles proudly replies: Ego enim docui. The
passage is similar to the preceding, and the simplest and most
natural way to interpret it is by supplying the evident ellipsis :
'Certainly they are, for I taught them.' To explain enim as
equivalent to profecio is to decidedly weaken the force of the
reply.
I have always been sorely tempted to regard a similar ellipsis
as existing in Cas. 279-80 Lys. Te uxor aiebat tua Me vocare.
Ch. Ego enim vocari iussi, though the causal force does not seem
as strong as in the two preceding passages.
Pseud. 133 seqq. Ballio comes out heaping abuse on the heads
of his slaves : Exite, agite exite, ignavi, male habiti et male con-
ciliati Quorum numquam quicquam quoiquam venit in mentem
ut recte faciant Quibus nisi ad hoc exemplum experior, non
potest usura usurpari, Neque homines magis asinos umquam vidi»
ita plagis costae callent, Quos quom ferias, tibi plus noceas, eo
enim ingenio hi sunt etc. Lorenz, properly regarding enim as
causal, explains the passage: '^noceas, theils weil sie dann an
Diebstahl, Raub und Flucht denken; denn eo ingenio sunt etc.**
-Digife<
odbyGooqt^
3*
USE OF ENIM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 407
There is no necessity of thus straining the meaning of noceas,
Ussing gives, to my mind, the true explanation by regarding the
clause beginning neque homines as parenthetical and referring
etiim to the lines preceding.
Terence furnishes one example, And. 808-9 nam pol si id
scissem, numquam hue tetulissem pedem; semper enim dictast
esse atque habitast soror.
Of the half dozen or more examples of enim that have found
their way into the text of Plautus by conjecture, I shall mention
only one, Ribbeck's emendation of Mil. 1319 Enim pietas sic
hortat. Two objections have been urged against the conjecture,
the use of enim as causal and the active form horiai. The first
has been already disposed of. The second is stronger, though
examples of the active forms of horior are cited by Ribbeck in
his critical notes and the lexicons. It must be admitted from
Langen's statistics (p. 63) as to the forms of horior in Plautus
based on manuscript authority that the active form is improbable,
though possible. Still the strongest argument against the reading
is the position of enim. It has been shown that in all passages, in
both Plautus and Terence, where enim holds the first place, its
force is corroborative. Indeed, we are justified in regarding this
as a rule. Enim, in Ribbeck's text is nothing if not causal, and in
its position lies the gravest objection to its adoption.
It is in place to state Langen's argument as to the non-existence
of causal enim in Plautus. Briefly put, it is as follows : In a large
majority of passages in Plautus enim has the corroborative force
and no other meaning is possible. In the remaining examples a
causal force is possible, though a corroborative force can be given.
Therefore there is no passage in which the corroborative force is
impossible. Let us test this argument with reference to Terence.
It is agreed that the investigation must start with simple enim>
and proceed to its compounds. In Terence there are 10 instances
of simple enim with corroborative force to one with causal.
Applying Langen's reasoning, as the overwhelming majority of
passages are corroborative, all may well be, and the one causal
instance vanishes. But it does not. Langen admits that it is
causal and cannot be otherwise. If one example in 1 1 can be
causal in Terence, is the proportion so great as to make it impos-
sible for 3 out of 37 or 4 out of 38 in Plautus, as shown above ?
It may be answered that the causal meaning is the only permis-
sible one in the Terentian passage, but only one of two and
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
408 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
perhaps not the better in the four Plautine examples. It is no
greater feat of mental gymnastics to read a corroborative force
into the passage from the Andria than into the passages dted
from Plautus. The causal force of enim in a number of passages
in Plautus yet to be discussed is as plain to me as the majority
admittedly so in Terence. Each reading only emphasizes this
view. Tests made with others, who could not be accused of bias
toward either view, favor the causal interpretation as the only
reasonable one, and as the clearest and most emphatic. I can
see no special difference in usage between Plautus and Terence
in this regard. Any preconceived idea, carried out to its logical
result, will be as sweeping in its conclusions as Langen's on this
subject. That the conclusions are always correct, and the process
a laudable one, is deserving of serious question.
III. — Enim with Affirmative Particles.
(i) Enim vero, — From enim we pass to the strengthened form
enim vero^ which simply increases the force of the affirmation.
The view of some early grammarians, that it may have an adver-
sative force like sed^ is not sustained by the examples. Drager^
shows that its occurrence with this meaning is only in later prose.
1. It is found in simple assertions: Amph. 266, 723, 771, Capt
22, Cas. 475, Cist. 519, Men. 860, Stich. 398, Trin. 958, And. 91,
206.
2. It is often used to denote a state or condition, and then is
frequently accompanied by a temporal particle : Capt. 534 Nunc
enim vero occidi; Cure. 175, 608, Merc. 739, Hec. 673.
3. It is used in statements expressing indignation or irony : H.
T. 1045, Phor. 465.
4. It is found in answers. These are of two kinds: (i) where
the answer is suggested by the statements of the preceding
speaker: Capt. 628 Heg. Fuistin liber? Tyn, Fui. Ar, Enim
vero non fuit, nugas agit ; Most. 920, Pers. 349, Poen. 280, 296;
435, Rud. 1003, Stich. 616, Trin. 989, And. 848, H. T. 320,
Phorm. 937, 985 ; (2) where the answer is a direct reply to the
preceding question: Amph. 344 Merc. Ain vero? So. Aioenim
vero; 410, 759, Asin. 339, 688, Cas. 728, Men. 1075, Pers. 185,
Pseud. 979, Trin. 987, Phorm. I036.
'Historische Syntax, II, p. 131.
Digitized by.VjO.Q2l£_
J
USE OF ENIM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE. 4O9
(ii) Certe enim and certo enim, — Langen* in an exhaustive
study and citation of the Plautine and Terentian passages in
which the words occur, reaches the conclusion that in Plautus
eerie expresses 'subjective certainty' and certo 'objective cer-
tainty.' In Terence we find certe in its later classical usage
taking the place of certo in expressions of 'objective certainty.'
The same results apply in the use of the words when strengthened
by entm. The examples are not numerous — six in Plautus and
one in Terence.
1. Certe enim is found Amph. 331, 658, Asin. 614, And. 503.
Aul. 811 the manuscripts read: Certo enim ego vocem hie
loquentis modo mi audire visus sum. This should be changed
to Langen's reading certe^ in conformity to his rule.
2. Certo enim occurs in two passages: Poen. 1182 Certo enim,
quod ad nos attinuit, Pulchrae praepollentesque, soror, fuimus;
Stich. 88 Certo enim mihi paternae vocis sonitus auris accidit.
Terence has no example of the combination.
(iii) Nempe enim. — Trin. 61 Ritschl and SchoU read : Nempe
enim tu, credo, me inprudentem obrepseris. The manuscript
reading Tiamque enim is adopted and defended by Brix, Hand,'
Langen' and others. It must be admitted that Ritschl's conjec-
ture is unusual, it being the first instance of the usage outside of
the writers of the Silver Age. On the other hand, namque enim
occurs nowhere else. Hand would explain it as a colloquialism,
comparing it with neque hand. This explanation is far from
acceptable. Ritschi's conjecture^ has two reasons to commend
it: (i) it is probable from the frequent interchange of nempe,
namque, neque in the manuscripts, and (2) more important still,
it is in perfect harmony with Megaronides' remark.*
IV. — Enim with Adversative Particles,
(i) At enim. — Enim is frequently joined with the adversative
particle a/, having in most cases the affirmative or corroborative
force already noticed. It may then be translated 'but indeed, but
surely.'
I. Examples of such usage are: Bacch. 993, 1080 {et MSS, sed
Acidalius), Cist 235, 739, Epid. 94, Men. 790, Merc, 159, Most.
^ BeitrSge, pp. 22-31. 'Vol. IV, p. 12. ' BeitrSge, p. 261.
* Prolegomena, p. Ixxv (reprinted in his Opuscnla, vol. V, p. 332).
^For other conjectures and discussions of this much-disputed passage, see
Schttll, App. Crit., p. 127.
Digitized by^
4IO AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
808, Pers. 569, 832, Poen. 914, 1197 (twice), Pseud. 436, Stich.
129, 738, Trin. 919, Eun. 381, 751, H. T. 317, 699, 713.
2. In Most 922 At enim ne caption! mihi sit, si dederim tibi is
an example of the common ellipsis of metuo} In Ad. 830 seq.
we have At enim metuas, ne ab re sint tamen Omissiores paulo.
3. It is used in the reply expressing indignation or some other
emotion: Phorm. 487 Ph. Audi quod dicam. Do. At enim
taedet iam audire eadem milia.
4. It is found twice in questions in connection with scin : Pseud.
538, 641.
5. One example is found of a comical play on the particle :
Epid. 95 At enim, — bat enim. With this can be compared Pseud.
236 Cal. At. Ps. Bat; and Pers. 213 P<ug. Heia. Soph. Beia.
(ii) Verum enim. — Langen' shows that verum has only adver-
sative force. Any interpretation (like that of Ussing in his note
to Asin. 790, who translates it by sane) which would regard it as
synonymous with vero is incorrect.
1. Six examples of verum enim are found in Plautus and
Terence: Cist. 80, Mil. 293, Poen. 874, Ad. 201, Eun. 742,
Phorm. 555. In five of these verum has plainly the force oised.
The sixth presents unusual difficulties. It is Poen. 873-4, where
Goetz reads: Syn. I in malam rem. Mil. I tu atque herus.
Syn. Verum enim qui homo eum norit, cito homo pervorti.
Geppert changed the second verse so as to read : Verum enim, si
modo eum noris etc., where verum enim caij only have the force
of enim vero^ and the answer is not in harmony with what
precedes.
Two ways out of the difficulty suggest themselves. Enim vero
can be read, in harmony with the numerous passages where its
Plautine force has been shown, or we can suppose that some
passage or lines containing Synecratus' reply has been lost, and
that the statement of the text is its continuation.
2. A strengthened form of verum enim is verum enim vero.
An example of this is found in each author: Capt. 599, Ad. 255.
(iii) Sed enim.^ — No example oised enim is found in the manu-
scripts of Plautus or Terence. Three conjectures have introduced
^ Lorenz in his note on the passage cites other examples of the same ellipsis.
• BeitrSge, pp. 1 13-21. 'See Brix's note on Mil. 983.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
USE OF ENIM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE, 4II
it into the text. So Acidalius in Bacch. 1080 in place of etenim
(at enim Pareus), Ritschl in Bacch. 1083, while Goetz prefers to
follow the manuscripts, and again in Mil. 983, with Fleckeisen
and Lorenz. Ribbeck, Brix and Goetz, however, read sed ne et
isiam instead of sed enim ne istam^ which removed the faulty
hiatus sed ne isiam. The first example based on manuscript
authority is in Cato, Or. pro Rhod. (Jordan, 23, 9).
(iv) Immo enim. — Immo enim is used whenever an opinion
opposed to what has just been expressed is to be emphatically
stated : Pseud. 31 Call. Lege vel tabellas redde. Ps. Immo enim
pellegam ; Stich. 699, And. 823, Phorm. 337. Enim has in these
examples its corroborative force.
The stronger form immo enim vera occurs with substantially
the same force: Capt. 608, Eun. 329, Phorm. 528.
V. — Enim with Causal and Final Particles.
(i) Quia enim. — Enim is often joined with quia^ strengthening
or intensifying its causal force. It is thus found in answers to
questions introduced by
1. Qui, Amph. 266, 1034, Pers. 228, True. 733.
2. Quiistuc, Phorm. 331.
3. Qui dum, Epid. 299, Rud. 11 16.
4. Qui vero, Merc. 395 (Ritschl).
5. Quid, Capt. 884, Cas. 385, Cure. 449, Mil. 1139, Poen. 1344,
True. 266 Quia enim me truculentum nominas.
6. Quid iia, Pers. 592.
7. Quid iamy Bacch. 50, Mil. 834, Pseud. 325.^
8. Quo argtimento. Mil. looi.
9. Qua istuc ratione. Pseud. 804.
10. Quamobrem, Cure. 443, 667, H. T. 800.
11. CuTy Merc. 648, Most. 1097.
12. Qua propter y H. T. 188, Hec. 311.
(ii) Ut enimy ne enim. — In a similar way enim with its affirma-
tive force is joined with the final particles ut and ne. Thus with
1. Uty Cas. 268, Epid. 277, Poen. 855.
2. Ney Most. 1095.
* Lorenz, by comparing this passage with 318 (qtdapol) and 345 {quia edepol\
shows the connection between enimy polssi^ edepol.
Digitized bT^^^""""
412 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
VI. — Enim with Negative Particles.
(i) Non enim, — There are two distinct usages of nan enim, as
has been found to be the case with simple enim,
1. It has already been shown that in a large majority of the
passages in Plautus and Terence in which it occurs, the force of
enim is merely corroborative. A comparison of the passages
containing non enim in the light of these results will give the
same conclusions. Accustomed as most scholars of Plautus have
been to Ciceronian usage, they have often been led astray by the
discovery that enim with causal force, in negative sense, is not in
place in several passages. To remove this difficulty the archaic
negative noenum or noenu is substituted, as by Ritschl in Trin.
705 and Bucheler in Asin. 808. It is questionable if this is either
necessary or based on good reasons. The examples of noenum
(u) based on manuscript authority are so rare that conjectures
increasing their number must be regarded as venturesome.*
With the corroborative force of enim, so generally admitted, no
change is necessary.
This corroborative force is shown by the following examples:
Aul. 594, Cist. 562, Epid. 162, Most. 1133, Pseud. 1266, Rud. 989,
Stich. 600, True. 309.
Three passages similar in construction are : Mil. 283 Non enim
faciam quin scias ; Stich. 302 Non enim possum quin revortar ;
Trin. 705 Non enim possum quin exclamem.
Non enim is used once in Terence to express a strong, confident
denial : Phorm. 694 An. Quid fiet? Ge, Non enim ducet.
2. In the following passages the causal force of enim is far more
in place than the corroborative ; indeed, in several it is the only
possible one.
Capt. 860 /feg. Non sentio. Ergas, Non enim es in senticeto,
eo non sentis. Brix, striving to reproduce the pun and at the
same time preserve the corroborative force of enim^ translates :
**Ja, du bist auch kein Marker." A correct translation must
bring out the causal force of enim: *You don't feel, because you
are not in the briars.'
Most. 827-8, Tranio says of the door-posts: Atque etiam nunc
satis boni sunt, si sunt inducti pice. Non enim haec pultifagus
^The only cases I have discovered are Aal. 67 and Lucr. 3, 199; 4, 712.
The three passages in Ennius, A. 287, 479 (M) and F. doi (R) are all dae to
conjecture. See L. MQUer, Lucilius, 30, 23 (p. 267) ; Ritschl, Opus, vol. II, p^
242.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
USE OF ENIM IN PLAUTUS. AND TERENCE. 4I3
opufex opera fecit barbarus. Sonnenschein, in his note on the
passage, says: ''This is one of the few passages in Plaut., in
which enim seems to approach very nearly to the meaning of
'for/ but it may be translated 'look you.'" I cannot see how
any translation but the causal can be defended here. Tranio
plainly assigns his reason for the good condition of the posts.
He does not stop and turn to Theopropides with the exclamation
'Look you, no pottage-eating artisan from foreign parts made
them.'
So Poen. 285-6 Nam pro erilei et nostro quaestu satis bene
ornatae sumus. Non enim pote quaestus fieri, nisi sumptus
sequitur scio, and True. 907-8 Numquam uno hoc die ecficiatur
opus quin opus semper siet. Non enim possunt militares pueri
ut alii (Bugge, avis^ Schbll) educier.
Rud. 921-2 Gripus in his monologue says: Vigilare decet
hominem qui volt sua temperi conficere officia, adding as his
reason, not as a parallel statement, non enim ilium exspectare
oportet dum erus se ad suom suscitet.
Bucheler read noenum Asin. 808, where the text has Haec sunt
non nugae : non enim mortualia. Ussing would explain it thus :
" Haec seria sunt, non nugae ; neque enim mortuis haec cantantur,
sed vivis." This explanation is designed to meet Langen's objec-
tion as to its causal force, since anything can be nugae, without
being necessarily mortualia. Ussing*s interpretation has much
to commend it, though I doubt the genuineness of the verse.
Eun. 453 Th. Bene dixti ac mi istuc non in mentem venerat.
Gn. Ridiculum ! non enim cogitaras. We may translate : ' Ab-
surd ! why, you had not thought of it' it is not difficult to see
something of the causal force in the passage.
(li) Neque enim, — The same peculiarities of usage are exhibited
in neque enim.
1. Its corroborative force, in a negative sense, is shown in Cas.
888 Reppulit mihi manum ; neque enim dare sibi savium me sinit.
2. Its causal force is evident in Pers. 63 seq. Neque quadru-
plari me volo; neque enim decet Sine meo periculo ire aliena
ereptum bona, Neque illi qui faciunt, mihi placent; Trin. 584
Les. Nam certumst sine dote baud dare. Sias, Quin tu i modo.
Les, Neque enim illi damno umquam esse patiar.
This force is still more marked in two passages from Terence :
Ad. 647 Habitant hie quaedam mulieres pauperculae ; Ut opinor
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
414 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
eas non nosse se et certo scio ; Neque e;pim diu hue migrarunt ;
Hec. 833-5 Haec tot propter me gaudia illi contigisse laetor:
Etsi hoc meretrices aliae nolunt ; neque enim est in rem nostram
Ut quisquam amator in nuptiis laetetur.^
(iii) Numquam enim. — Numquam occurs with enim in corrob-
orative force in Pers. 489, Stich. 96, 751.
Vll.—Etenim.
Etenim (a word as peculiar and mysterious in its formation as
namque) is foreign to Plautus, the only passage in which it is
retained in the text being in the late prologue to the Amphitruo,
where (v. 26) we read: Etenim ille, quoius hue iussu venio,
Juppiter, Non minus quam nostrum quivis formidat malum. The
two passages Cist. 777 and Baeeh. 1080, in which the manuscript
reading has been changed in our texts, have already been
discussed. The causal force, shown in the Amphitruo passage,
occurs in three passages from Terence : And. 442 Deinde desinet.
Etenim ipsus secum eam rem reputavit via ; Eun. 1074 Ut luben-
ter vivis (etenim bene lubenter victitas); H. T. 546-7 Facile
equidem facere possum si iubes. Etenim quo pacto id fieri soleat
calleo. I see no reason to read with Langen, in the Eunuchus
passage, et enim ("und waHrlich"). The causal force is not as
strong, it is true, as in the other two examples.'
Omitting all conjectures that would introduce causal enim into
the text and all examples of etenim^ there are, at a rough estimate,
14 examples oi enim corroborative to i oi enim causal in Plautus,
while in Terence the prpportion is 13 to i. The causal force in
the examples from Plautus is clear, in most cases as much so as
those of Terence. The percentage of causal examples, though
not large, is respectable enough not to be rejected through mere
devotion to a theory. The proportion, too, it will be noted, is
nearly as large as in Terence. With the exception of etenim^
which leads a peculiar existence in most of the poets before the
Silver Age, the use of enim and its compounds in the two poets
^ Drager's statement (Syntax, vol. II, p. 68) : **Nec enim statt non enim findet
sich zuerst Ter. Hec. V 3, 36/' is shown by the above examples from Plautus
to be incorrect.
2 Drager's statement (Syntax, vol. II, p. 171) that etenim occurs twice in
Plautus and four times in Terence must be corrected.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
USE OF ENIM IN PLAUTUS AND TERENCE, 415
seems to harmonize. Under such conditions, it is impossible to
give any dogmatic assertion regarding the origin and growth of
the causal usage. Had more of the earlier language, outside of
the two dramatists, been preserved, such a statement might be
risked. With the scant remains at our disposal, and these largely
conjectural, no satisfactory results can be gained. It is for this
reason that other writers of the period, though examined, have
not been drawn into the discussion.^
UmvBxsxTT OF Idaho» WiLLARD K, ClEMENT.
Aug. 6, 1897.
^ Remoteness from large libraries and philological centres makes it impos>
sible for me to familiarize myself with more than the names of many of the
German dissertations or programs bearing more or less directly on the theme.
Experiences while a student abroad convinced me that it is often impossible
to secure certain much-quoted pamphlets or articles. Omissions or failures to
make proper reference or give due credit are not always the result of care-
lessness or ignorance.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
IIL—ON THE CHARACTER OF INFERRED PARENT
LANGUAGES.
I. — The idea of inferentially constructing a parent language on
the basis of actually existing cognate languages or dialects seems
to have originated with Schleicher. In his Linguistische Unter-
suchungen, vol. II (Die Sprachen Europa*s in systematischer
Uebersicht), published in 1850 at Bonn, he speaks of 'primary
languages' (^Primdrsprachtn^ e. g. pp. 29-30) such as the Latin
and the Sanskrit, contrasting them with 'secondary languages*
such as the Romance languages and the modem Hindu vernacu-
lars. In some cases, he adds, such primary languages are not
extant, but must be constructed from their descendants (secondary
languages). These primary languages, in turn, he regards as
daughters of one mother, the parent language ( Urspracke). Two
years later, in his Formenlehre der Kirchenslavischen Sprache
(1852), he expresses himself similarly. A Parent Slavonic is
posited there as the common source from which the different
Slavonic idioms must be derived and which may be inferred by a
comparison of these idioms (p. 27). And by way of illustration
he constructs (p. 28) the Parent Slavonic active present participle
on the basis of the Church Slavonic, Serbo-IUyrian, Russian,
Polish, and Bohemian forms.
What is done here for the Slavonic dialects he considers
possible for the Indo-European languages: 'From a comparison
of the oldest extant languages of the different Indo-European
families, with due regard to the laws of historical grammar, we
may form a comparatively clear conception of the Indo-European
parent language from which the mothers of the different families
[= Schleicher's primary languages] developed in a manner anal-
ogous to that in which the Romance languages were evolved from
the Latin' (p. 4, 1. c). All the derived languages, he maintains,
must form the basis on which the Indo-European parent language
is to be constructed, since all of them have originally flowed alike
from this common source. But the varying degree of faithfulness
with which the different languages have preserved old sounds
and forms makes, according to Schleicher, those languages of
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES, 417
especial importance which have remained nearest to the original
home of the Indo-European parent people.
It was nine years later, viz. in 1861, when this plan of recon-
'struction was actually carried out As the subtitle of the com-
pendium 'Kurzer Abriss einer Lautlehre der Indogermanischen
Ursprache, des Altindischen, Alteranischen, Altgriechischeni Alt-
italischen, Altkeltischen, Altslawischen, Litauischen und Altdeut-
schen' shows, 'the attempt has here been made to place the
inferred Indo-European parent language alongside of its really
existing descendants' (', p. 8, note). Summing up the results of
comparative grammar of the preceding half-century, the compen-
dium closes the first period. It opens the second period in that
it endeavors to trace the &cts of the various Indo-European
idioms back into prehistoric times, in order to reconstruct from
the data of the individual languages the parent language from
which all of them are descended.^ For a great deal of the work
of the last forty years has been done along these very lines, and
in the eyes of many the ultimate reconstruction of the Indo-
European parent language has been the ideal of all special
comparative investigation, the more so as it seemed the key to
open to us the mysteries of a prehistoric civilization. * I had
originally intended,' says Fick in the preface to the fourth edition
of his Comparative Dictionary (1890), *a work on a much larger
scale. I had in view to add to the lexicon of the Indo-European
parent language also its grammar, and, furthermore, a sketch of
the civilization of the parent people. But the time for doing this
has not yet come. There is need of more works like J. Schmidt's
Pluralbildungen, before we may dare approach the reconstruction
of the grammar oi the parent language . . .'
To be sure, the parent language as now reconstructed looks
very different from that inferred by Schleicher.
2. — ^We have ceased to look with Schleicher for absolute
simplicity in the parent language. To him the morphological
elements of a word were then still intact, for successive vowels
and consonants had not yet begun to react on each other. The
diversity and manifoldness in sounds and inflection of the various
Indo-European idioms as they appear in historical times are to
Schleicher the results of decay and degeneration. This theory
was gradually abandoned for two reasons.
^ Cf. Bechtel, Hauptprobleme, Einleit., p. i.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
4l8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
First, because such an a priori postulate of simplicity could
only reasonably be made for the very first period of language-
production. But this period is absolutely beyond our reach and
separated by a vast gulf from the periods amenable to recon-
struction.
Second, because this principle conflicts with Schleicher's second
methodological principle, that the parent form must be of such a
character that all really existing forms of the Indo-European
languages may be derived from it by regular laws. The more
consistendy this principle has been applied, the more has sim-
plicity given way to complexity, and in consequence of it the
parent language as now reconstructed is, in some respects, richer
than any of its descendants.
3. — An inquiry into the nature and character of the parent
language, thus reconstructed, will naturally fall into two parts.
First, we must examine the various limitations to which this
method of reconstruction is necessarily subject.
Second, we must determine how these limitations affect the
object reconstructed according to this comparative method;
whether, namely, they imply quantitative imperfections only, or
whether their influence is so vital as to touch upon the very
essence and quality of the reconstructed object.
4. — Philology, like all historical sciences, requires an object
clearly defined in time and in space. It is here that we find our
comparative method most seriously defective.
The chief characteristic of all modem grammatical investiga-
tions is that they are historical, i. e. that they do not treat a
language as if it were fixed and immovable, but as a growth
whose changing phases should be outlined in a connected series
of successive periods. The very attempt to reconstruct a parent
language is due to this historical treatment, for its aim is simply
to extend the continuity of development beyond historical times.
5. — But the question, To which period of the prehistoric Indo-
European does a given reconstructed form belong ? is, unfortun-
ately, unanswerable. 'When we speak of Indo-European forms/
says Brugmann (Compendium, Engl, tr., I, p. 13, §12), *we gen-
erally mean those forms which were in use toward the close of
the primitive period.' But we also often mean such forms as
^ The vagueness of this limit is pointed out below, §10.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
^mm^mmmmmmmmmmmmms^^mmBmmmmmmmmim
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES, 419
belonged to an earlier period of this stage and which had already
undergone a change toward its termination. Forms put down by
us as primitive Indo-European . . . are therefore not to be indis-
criminately regarded as belonging to the same period.^ The
result of this uncertainty becomes glaringly apparent if we
imagine an English grammar or dictionary constructed according
to a method by which Anglo-Saxon, Chaucerian, and nineteenth-
century forms could not be separated but would all stand on the
same plane.
6. — It is only another aspect of the same fundamental difficulty
that we are unable to fix accurately the time and extent of opera-
tion of inferred phonetic laws. Ignorant of the exact time during
which they were operative and of the relative chronology of
different laws, it is inevitable that we must be constantly commit-
ting the gravest anachronisms in our reconstruction of Indo-
European forms, combining in the same form laws which oper-
ated at entirely different periods. As early as 1869 Johannes
Schmidt called attention to this danger. In the preface (p. ix) to
the second edition of Schleicher's Die deutsche Sprache (revised
by him after Schleicher's death) he says : * The forms of the
German parent speech I have left as Schleicher wrote them . . .
It was of no importance to reconstruct here the words in all their
parts just as they actually existed at some one definite prehistoric
point of time, but simply to restore the old endings for the better
understanding of their later forms. Whether, for instance, the
gen. plur. dag&m ever existed in this form, or whether, at the
time when the gen. plur. terminated in -dm, the shifting of mutes
had not yet taken place and the form was, consequently, daghdm^
while after the shifting of mutes the real form was dagd^ is imma-
terial for the purposes of this book. In this respect all forms of
the German parent speech are merely hypothetical.'
If we were to adopt this method in the reconstruction of an
English word we should run the risk of joining to a Chaucerian
stem an Anglo-Saxon prefix and a nineteenth-century suffix,
begetting a monster not unlike the Chimaera, np6a6€ XcW, ^tti^cv dc
dpaxtip, fXfiroTi d« xlfiaipa.
7. — In a very suggestive article on * Relative Sprachchronologie '
(Indogermanische Forschungen, IV (1894)), Otto Bremer, after
aUuding (p. 8) to the chronological difficulties just treated, which
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
420 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
lead us to assign two words, of which one is perhaps much older
than the other, to the same preliterary period, or cause a similar
error by uniting in the same word phonetic changes belonging to
entirely different periods, offers a most excellent illustration of a
third obstacle in the way of reconstruction of parental forms, viz.
that the antiquity of a sound-change cannot be measured by the
frequency of its occurrence in the individual languages.^ This
theory stands and falls with the linear theoiy of the disintegration
of the Indo-European primitive stock, which pictures it in the
form of a genealogical tree. It becomes theoretically untenable
as soon as the latter hypothesis is discarded. And Bremer has
shown \\. practically ^NXOXi% in the concrete example of a change
confined to the Anglo-Frisian for which, on direct evidence,
greater antiquity may be claimed than for certain changes which
are common to all Germanic dialects.
8. — And finally we must base our reconstructions on individual
forms which have behind them a most unequal stretch of inde-
pendent development. A Vedic form is separated from an Alba-
nian form by at least 3000 years. And the problem, as was early
enough recognized and admitted, is in reality not the reconstruc-
tion of the parent on the basis of descendants of the first degree,
but on the basis of an aggregate of descendants of very different
degrees, descendants which have undergone an independent
development of very unequal duration, during which unknown
external forces have had an opportunity of variously affecting
them.
9. — We have seen above how intimately linked questions of
chronology are with the geographical notions held with reference
to the spread of the Indo-Europeans over the territory which
they hold in historical times.
To Schleicher the Indo-European parent people was a nation
limited in numbers, inhabiting a comparatively small area some-
where in Asia, whence issued forth, from time to time, migratory
expeditions which settled down in new homes more or less
removed from the old parent stock, and, breaking intercourse
with it, started on a line of independent development. Though
remnants of this theory yet linger on, as is shown by expressions
like 'the parting of the peoples' or 'the end of the primitive
^ Cf. Paul, Principien', p. 41 {§46 of the Engl. tr.).
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES, 421
period' and the like, it is safe to say that it is at present generally
discarded and has been superseded by the theory of gradual
expansion, which may be regarded as a transfer of the leading
idea of Schuchardt-Schmidt's linguistic wave-theory to the ethno-
logical problem of the spread of the Indo-Europeans. Now, if
migration, as conceived by Schleicher, played at best but a very
small part in locating the Indo-Europeans in their present quar-
ters, and we substitute for it a gradual expansion progressing
in (roughly speaking) concentric circles, belt after belt being
added as time passed and numbers increased, the whole aspect is
considerably changed. Instead of assuming a series of sudden .
interruptions of intercourse between members of the outer belts
and the central stock, we shall rather have to admit a constant
communication of members of inner and outer belts, varying, of
course, in the degree of intensity, which would depend on a
variety of causes which need not be treated here. The effect of
this continual interdependence, which thus takes the place of
Schleicher's independence, is a slow dissemination over an ever-
increasing area of whatever developments in language or institu-
tions or art or manufacture may arise in any one locality.
lo. — But as soon as we substitute this theory of gradual expan-
sion for that of disintegration, we can no longer contrast the
parent stock with the individual members, as Schleicher does.
Instead of a parent stock which is broken up into a number of
smaller units which, stopping their intercourse with the main
body, start on a new and independent course of development, we
must posit a nucleus which develops proportionately to the outer
belts, which continually reacts on them, as they react on it, which,
in a word, is ever changing.
Leaving out of consideration, for the moment, all possible
contact with foreign tribes (though the influence from that source
was certainly very great), the territory occupied by the Indo-
Europeans, even in the course of a wholly normal expansion,
must have represented thousands of years before our oldest
historical records begin, an aspect so diversified that it would be
impossible to regard it as one national unit, much less to assign
to it one dialect. But this is the very period for which alone a
reconstruction can be attempted. The time for which uniformity
might theoretically be postulated lies in so distant a past that it is
altogether beyond our reach.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
422 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Brugmann very clearly states that he is not * operating with the
idea of one primitive nation and a primitive, homogeneous parent
speech/ a fault which E. Meyer had urged against comparative
philologists (Geschichte des Alterthums (1884), I, pp. 7-8, note)
when he says (Compend., Engl, tr., I, p. 2, §3) that *it is impos-
sible to suppose that a language [like the Indo-European] should
have gone through a long course of development and be spoken
by a people of any considerable number without a certain amount
of dialectic variations, and hence we cannot look upon the speech
of the Indo-Europeans, even while they still occupied a compar-
. atively small territory and maintained a fairly close degree of
intercourse with one another, as bearing, in any strict sense, a
uniform character. Local differences had, no doubt, already
arisen . . . We may take it for granted that the differentiation of
dialects about the year 2000 B. C. had gone so far that a number
of communities existed side by side which could no longer or
only with difficulty understand each other.* And Bremer almost
verbally coincides with E. Meyer's remark (1. c.) : ' Nowhere does
a homogeneous parent speech exist, but everywhere we have
dialects influencing one another,* when he says (Indog. Forsch.
IV (1894), p. 10): 'Within every parent language there existed
at all times dialectic variations. I do not believe that we shall
ever succeed in reconstructing the posited Indo-European parent
language in its main features. We shall have to content ourselves
with the reconstruction of the dialectically differentiated compo-
nents.*
II. — After thus summing up the various limitations which are
inherent in the method followed in the work of reconstructing the
parent language, we are in a position to approach the second
question propounded above: Is the result of these limitations
merely a greater or smaller number of quaniitaiive imperfections
in the reconstructed object, or are they of such a character as to
affect it qualitatvvely ?
12. — It is plain that the term Indo-European parent language
is parallel to terms like Greek language, German language and
the like.
These latter terms we use, however, in two entirely different
senses. For, as sometimes used, the term German language
refers to the literary language of Germany, and the term Greek
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES, 423
language is not infrequently used to designate the literary Attic
dialect. If thus employed, the term language simply denotes a
certain dialect which, for one reason or another, and often with
admixtures from other dialects, has gained a supremacy over its
competitors and is accepted as the general means of (chiefly
literary) communication. The elevation of a dialect to a literary
language, however, is always a very late development. It pre-
supposes a literature and a strong national feeling tending toward
centralization. But the farther back we go the weaker becomes
this feeling. So little realized, in fact, is the homogeneous char-
acter of large aggregates that during the earlier periods very
frequently a name for these larger aggregates is wanting. With
Meyer (Gesch. des Alterth. I, p. 7, §7, note), we must regard the
creation of a literary language — like the creation of a nation — as
the goal of historical evolution. It is apparent that the term
Indo-European parent language cannot be used in this sense.
13. — There remains, then, the second sense in which terms like
English language, German language, etc., are used, viz. when we
employ these abstractions as classificatory devices, in order to
arrange a large mass of more or less similar units. Is the nature
of these generic abstractions such as to make reconstruction
possible? This question can only be answered on the basis of a
minute examination of the method by which they are formed.
The result of our reconstruction is forms, and forms are per-
ceptual objects. If a language-form is a perceptual object it
permits, theoretically, of reconstruction ; if not, reconstruction of
a language-form is an impossibility. In the following paragraphs
we shall therefore attempt an analysis of the generic terms
'dialect' and language' with a view of ultimately determining
whether dialect-forms and language-forms are perceptual objects
or not.
14. — Like all historical objects, the language of a people
presents static and dynamic problems. In the first case it is
necessary to regard the object as stationary, and our task is to
examine the qualities exhibited by the object at a given point of
time. Extending such an examination over a number of succes-
sive stages, the result of the examination of each stage marks a
point through which the object in its development passed. In
the second case the object is considered as being in continual
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
424 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
motion, and our task now is to determine the forces which govern
this motion.^
For the full understanding of a given object it is essential that
it should be investigated by both methods. Such knowledge is
made up of the results of both descriptive-historical and explan-
atory-analytical treatment.
15. — But popular concepts are not the result of such a purely
scientific investigation. A large part of the elements of which
popular concepts consist is, no doubt, of a static or dynamic
character. But a naive observation couples with them elements
which cannot be assigned to either class, elements which are in
no way inherent in the object itself, but connected with it by
external ties, viz. temporal or local contiguity. I propose to call
these elements * associative elements.' So elements of the percept
*lamp' may associatively enter into the concept 'light,' or those
of *a court of law' into that of 'justice." For practical purposes
this associative admixture causes little or no inconvenience because
the total picture is of sufficient clearness. When, however, these
same terms are used for scientific purposes the heterogeneous
character of their composition gives rise to much ambiguity and,
consequently, of controversy. In this case it becomes a matter of
importance to distinguish between the various elements which
make up the concept, especially with a view to remove the
dangerous associative elements.
16. — How, then, does the concept of a dialect* originate, and of
what character are the elements composing it?
The concept originally is not the result of scientific investigation,
but of naive observation. The naive person expects every one to
talk like himself. Hence the fact that his neighbor talks like
^ Quite similarly we may, in mathematics, regard a curve eithfr as a system
of discrete points or as the track of a point moving under the influence of
certain forces. And no bridge leads from the system of discrete points to the
continuum.
' It is especially where the other elements are weak, indistinct, and insuffi-
cient to produce a clear concept, that the latter is supported, as it were, by a
frame-work of associative elements.
' The most important points affecting the scientific study of dialects were
brought out in the controversy regarding the boundaries of Romance dialects,
which is admirably summarized by A. Homing in Zt. f. roman. Philol. (1893),
XVIII 160 c ff, Cf. also Paul's second chapter, where im wesentlichm einkeit-
lick (pp. 35, 37) equals my 'subjectively uniform.*
Digitized by VjOOQIC
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES, 42$
himself fails to arouse his attention or interest. This fact, indeed,
is not noted by him until he is confronted by a group of indi-
viduals differing from him in their speech. The canlrasi for the
first time makes him realize the identity of speech of himself and
the members of his group. This speech-identity of his group he
conceives of as the dialect of his group.
Dynamic elements, therefore, originally never enter into the
make-up of this concept They are without value for the imme-
diate purpose for which the concept was created ; for the forces to
which identity and diversity of speech are due have no direct
bearing on the contrast between 'like speech' and 'unlike speech.'
Static elements, on the other hand, are largely present. In
calling the speech-identity of a group its dialect we have com-
bined in this concept a large number of judgments passed on the
quality of the speech of a certain number of individuals, singling
out their speech from that of the rest and claiming likeness for it.
The term dialect thus expresses a certain relation of the speech
of some individuals to that of other individuals. It must vary as
this relation varies, and a dialect, Z7, may be regarded as a
function of this relation, R : D^ F {R).
But the concept of a dialect is not wholly made up of static
elements. Speech is indissolubly linked to the speaking indi-
viduaL And, consequently, wholly heterogeneous elements asso-
ciatively enter into our concept which, for want of a better term,
might be called ' ethnological.'
After the contrast of speech of two groups A and B had been
noted and found expression in the formation of the concepts
'/^-dialect' and '^-dialect,' it became evident that these dicUecial
groups corresponded to certain political groups. And the more
normal and primitive the conditions, the closer must have been
the similarity between these groups, the stronger, therefore, also
the associative tie by which they were held together. The inevi-
table result was 2l fusion in which elements of one concept passed
over into the other. Thus the concept of a dialect, which arose
from the necessity of marking the relation of a certain kind of
speech to another kind of speech, by this admixture of ethno-
logical elements departs somewhat from its original connotation
and comes to be used not only with reference to a certain relation
existing between two kinds of speech, but also denoting a given
speech as characteristic of a given political group ; and thus part
of its purely abstract character is lost.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
426 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
17. — ^After we have thus determined the character of the
elements of which the popular concept of a dialect is composed,
we turn to examine somewhat minutely the exact manner of
procedure in the formation of this concept.
The knowledge which we obtain concerning speech is either
subjective or objective.
The knowledge which is based upon the direct acoustic sense-
impressions conveyed to our brain by the speech-sounds I term
subjecHve,
Objective knowledge of speech, on the other hand, is based on
a direct examination of the stimuli producing our sensations.
Neither one of these two methods can rightly claim a superiority
over the other. Both alike are experimental. They differ only
in that the objects of investigation differ. In the former case we
examine sensations^ in the latter case stimuli. Their results,
therefore, can never be said to conflict. For, if the results
obtained by one method are not like those obtained by means of
the other, the diversity merely shows that sensation and stimulus
are two different things.
18. — In the naive observation which formed the concept of a
dialect the objective method played no part. It was formed
wholly subjectively y i. e. it is based on sensations only, not on a
knowledge of the stimuli which gave rise to these sensations.
Such subjective knowledge is characterized by these qualities :
I. Our sensations are imperfect. For —
(a) They are of moderate sensitiveness. Certain stimuli are
not perceived at all. There is an upper and lower limit for
audible tones ; variations of a stimulus within certain bounds are
not discovered ; etc.
{V) They are subject to deception, as in the case of visual
illusions.
II. They lack uniformity. For their degree of accuracy
depends —
{a) On practice, as in judging distances, weights, etc., and
(^) On attention. This is of especial importance where, as in
speaking, a complex object (the spoken word) can be observed
for a short time only. As it is possible to attend to only one
thing at a time, a short observation-time will necessarily prevent
all qualities of the object from being equally attended to.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES, AV
From this it appears that in subjectively forming the concept of
a dialect we may d. priori assume —
{a) That certain stimuli, though present, were disregarded
because they were not perceived.
{p) That the ratio of two or more sensations permits no direct
inference as to the ratio of the corresponding stimuli.
{c) That the results must vary in direct proportion to both
practice and attention of the observer.
19. — By this method the naive observer classifies the speech of
the individuals surrounding him, and, as we saw above, by a
ficrd/3a<riff into the ethnological ycVor, these individuals themselves.
The speech which is like his he groups into one class ; the speech
which is different from his into a second dass. As in all classifi-
cation, he thus simplifies the comprehension of a large number of
individual objects. Like all generic names, the name of a dialect
does not stand for any perceptual object, but expresses a peculiar
relation of a series of perceptual objects. It stands, not for a
sense-percept, but for the particular manner in which we have
viewed and grouped a number of sense-percepts.
20. — Two ways are open for such classification :
I. We may begin by tracing a certain system of boundary lines
within which we include kindred objects. But very frequently
such boundary lines cannot be drawn, and in their stead we have
boundary zones. J. Simon and others experimentally showed
this to be the case in dialect-boundaries, and many similar
instances might be added.
II. But instead of starting from the periphery, we may also
select a center around which a number of kindred objects are
grouped in concentric circles, the radius of these circles being
inversely proportional to the degree of similarity with the center.
If we choose for such a center one of the many concrete objects
which are to be classified, I propose to call this a concrete center.
If, on the other hand, we construct the center on the basis of the
concrete objects, none of them being absolutely identical with it,
I will call this an ideal center.
21. — Let us first examine the manner in which such an ideal
center may be constructed. We must distinguish here between
two possibilities :
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
428 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
I. If we classify single qualities expressible in numbers (e. g.
weight, distance, etc.), the ideal center is equal to the mean of
these quality-numbers.^
Around the mean thus obtained the variations may be grouped.
And such a classification is of especial interest because certain
mathematical theories may be directly brought to bear on it.
For Quetelet showed in 1846 (Lettres sur la th6orie des probab.
appliq. aux sciences mor. et pol. Lett. XVIII 119) that the
different variations grouped around such a mean may be regarded
as so many fallible measurements of this same mean, and that
therefore the Law of the Frequency of Error may be applied to
them.' We shall return to this point below (§26).
II. But if we classify not single qualities^ but whole objects, we
construct our ideal center in a somewhat different way.
We begin by comparing all objects {0^0^ . . . ^«) as to their
qualities. It will then appear —
(a) That certain qualities are present in the same degree or
manner in all objects (constant qualities).
ip) Certain qualities are present in all objects, but not in the
same degree or manner (variable qualities).
(^) Certain qualities are present in some objects and absent in
others (variable qualities).
Our ideal center, (?, must then be constructed in such a manner
that it will contain all qualities enumerated above under (a) and
those qualities enumerated under (^) and (c) in the most charac-
teristic manner or degree, by which is meant that manner or
degree which will permit the variations as they appear in the
^ Whether this mean should be the arithmetical mean,
nf ^i + ga +g»
or the geometric mean.
M^z^/a^a^ .... a..
must depend on the nature of the case. If, e. g., we have a series of weights,
the weight-center will be the arithmetical mean. If, on the other hand, we
deal with such sensations as come under Weber-Fechner's law (viz. sensation
= log. stimulus), the geometric mean must be substituted (cf. Galton, Proc.
Roy. Soc. Lond. (1879), XXIX 365).
'Cf. on this also Stieda, Archiv f. Anthropol. XIV 167; Galton, Proc. Roy.
Soc. (1879), XXIX 365 ; McAlister, ibid., p. 367 ; Galton, ibid. (1889). XLV
135, and the applications by Galton (above), Davenport and BuUard, Proc. Am.
Ac. Arts and Sci. (1897), XXXII, No. 4, and Brewster, ibid.. No. 15.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES. 429
concrete objects to be most easily deduced from it. This deduc-
tion in all historical sciences is genetic. The qualities falling
under {U) and {c) will therefore be given to O in such degree and
manner as will make it possible to regard them as the sources
from which the individual variations may have developed. I say
advisedly ^may have developed/ because by such a method of
comparison we can never obtain results for which more than a
possibility can be claimed. Certainty could only be gained by
experimentally watching the actual progress of development
Strictly speaking, we do not reconstruct 'parent '-forms, but we
construct them. Only when we have been able to observe an
object during its period of evolution are we able to reconstruct by
retracing the course of development. For in this case the course
of development is given. In the construction of 'parent '-forms
by the comparative method, however, the course of development
from the unknown 'parent '-form, _;/, to the present form, a, is not
experimentally determined; it is not given, but inferred. We
deal here with two unknown quantities. And this makes it very
problematic that the result of such a construction will be exactly
identical with the real prehistoric 'parent '-form. It will be more
or less similar to it ; but real identity would be a mere matter of
chance, obtained rather despite of our method than by means of
it. And cogent proof of sUch identity must always be lacking.^
A comparison of any one concrete object o, with the ideal
center O will then show that o^ varies from O either in lacking a
quality which O has, or in possessing a quality which O lacks, or
in possessing a quality in a degree or manner differing from that
ofO.
22. — The ideal center constructed in the preceding paragraph
has, of course, no perceptual existence. But suppose that after
the construction of such an ideal center it should be found that
one of the concrete objects to be classified shows no variation
from it, that, e. g., o^ = O.
In this case it is plain that we might discard O altogether and
substitute o^ in its place. This concrete object o^ would then
appear in a double rdle, v\z. first as one of the many concrete
objects forming the series 0^0^ . . • ^r, and second as ideal center
or type of this series.
iCf.Wundt. Logik, II47.
Digitized by^
430 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
And in ihis case the ideal center really does possess perceptual
existence, and we distinguished it from the ideal type of §21 by
calling it concrete type.
23. — Whenever, therefore, we have to deal with generic terms
or types we must examine in each case whether we have to do
with an ideal or a concrete type. This examination will be our
next task, and by it I hope to show that a dialect-form differs
from a language-form in that the former is a concrete type, while
the latter is an ideal one.
24. — For this purpose it is necessary to investigate those indi-
vidual objects which, in the manner discussed in §21, II, are fused
into the generic concept of a dialect. These elements are, of
course, the speech-forms of the various members of the dialectal
unit, which may be designated as U^U^. . . U^. But 'speech-
form of a member of a dialectal unit* is itself a generic concept.
It is based on the sum of momentary utterances (UiU^ . . . 2<.) of
each member, and our attention must therefore be first directed
toward these momentary utterances.
25. — The basis for any given momentary utterance («) of an
individual is a certain psycho-physical condition or diathesis A.^
In this respect language does not differ from any other move-
ment. As the expressive movement of a gesture affects our
sight, so the expressive movement which gives rise to the spoken
word affects our hearing. As a repeated gesture is not the same
as the first original gesture, so the repeated utterance is not the
same as the first original utterance. Neither the gesture nor
utterance has a latent existence during the interval; but the
original gesture or utterance on the one hand, and the repeated
gesture or utterance on the other hand, are linked together, not
directly, but indirectly by the psycho-physical diathesis of which
they are respectively the results. This diathesis remains; its
results absolutely vanish. Consequently the repeated momentary
utterances do not exist independently of each other, but as effects
of their respective psycho-physical diathesis; so that as long
as this diathesis remains the same, the utterances will remain so
also.
^ Paul, I believe, was the first to introduce these psychological and physio-
logical considerations into linguistic literature.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES, 43 1
But while we may thus speak of repeated utterances as results
of a given diathesis, it is conversely true that this diathesis itself
is in turn the product of all the speech movements which have
gone before. For the strength of the diathesis depends on
practice. The constancy of a diathesis is proportionate to the
number of repetitions of the movement, and the probability that
a given movement will be performed in a given way is the
stronger the oftener such movement has been so performed.
The first utterance, ^^ creates a weak diathesis, A, on account
of which a second utterancej «„ will be similar to u^ \ but, like
every subsequent utterance, «, will react on A and strengthen it.
In the adult, therefore, the diathesis, under normal conditions,
must be constant and the utterances belonging to it alike.
A
(Because A is of increasing stability, fi^ = ti, = . . . m..)
26. — It must be borne in mind that in these observations like-
ness and unlikeness are determined by purely subjective methods.
It is not denied that variations may exist and could be discovered
by an objective examination. All that is claimed is, that if such
variations exist they are not perceived as such, partly because
our senses are not keen enough, partly because our attention is
not directed to them, /ar//^ because we compare sensations which
do not follow each other in quick succession, but the memory of
one sensation is separated from the next similar sensation by a
longer or shorter interval, and partly for the following reason :
Suppose that we have n variations (v{v^ . . • z^J grouped around
the type or mean V. Suppose, further, that of these n variations
a few lying close to Vi and v, (i. e. close to either extreme) are
sensibly perceptible ; but that those variations lying between v,
X 9k K * *
and z/y are not perceptibly different from the type V. The Law
of the Frequency of Error teaches, then, that of all n variations
the greatest number is bunched closely around V. That is, by
far the greater percentage of these n variations must fall between
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
432 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Vj, and z/„ and is therefore sensibly perceived as equal to V.
Consequently the effect of n variations on the diathesis is not
alike. For a large number of these n variations, being perceived
as F, strengthens the diathesis, and the number of variations
whose difference from V is perceived is in many cases far too
weak to act as a disturbing element.
27. — We have seen in §25 that repeated momentary utterances
of the same individual are subjectively perceived as alike. If we
now form the type U of the whole series of these momentary
utterances («i . . . ««), we may, under these conditions, take any
u as such a type, and we thus obtain a concrete type :
We may, in other words, take a given momentary utterance of an
individual, say «„ as representative of his average utterance U^
because there is an overwhelming probability that the diathesis
which gave rise to «„ and itself was the product of the whole
series u^ to «„ will produce an Uy and «. which will be, subjec-
tively, like «,.
28. — Having thus determined of what character the average
utterance of an individual is, we must now compare the average
utterances i/, C/, ... 6^ of the various members of a dialectal
unit, on which, as we saw above, our concept of a dialect is
founded.
Now, at the time when the concept of a dialect was first formed
they must have been subjectively alike, for this very likeness was
the cause for combining them into a class. And if all C/'s were
alike, their bases, viz. the respective diatheses (AjA, . . . A«) of the
various members of the dialectal group, must have been very
similar.
Again, in the case of normal accessions to the dialectal group»
viz. by birth, the diathesis of each child was formed by the sum-
total of its utterances. And these utterances being, consciously
and unconsciously, fashioned after the utterances of its surround-
ings, would naturally produce in each child a diathesis similar to
the diatheses around it.
But suppose that, for reasons which need not be discussed
here, new members of a dialectal group should perceptibly differ
from the rest. In this case we may plainly see how the admixture
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES.
433
of the heterogeneous ethnological elements (cf. end of §i6) will
tend to vitiate the very connotation which the concept originally
possessed. For we have seen that it was devised to denote a
likeness^ to unite in one class the speech of individuals talking
alike. To group together a number of individuals in a dialectal
group when their speech differs is plainly a contradiction in
terms. And such grouping does, in fact, not rest on the basis on
which the original concept of the dialect was formed, but on an
entirely different, heterogeneous basis, viz. sameness of origin or
naHonalUy. The introduction of this double standard is the
source of vagueness and ambiguity, to which reference was made
in §i6. And for scientific purposes it is certainly essential to
remove from the concept of a dialect these heterogeneous, ethno-
logical elements and confine it most strictly to its original sense.
Suppose, then, that new members added to the political group
which, up to that time, had continued to be identical with the
dialectal group, do perceptibly differ in speech fi'om the rest. It
will simply mean that this identity of political group and dialectal
group has ceased, and that we now have two (or more) dialectal
groups within the same political group.
From these observations it will be apparent that from the very
definition of a dialectal group we must assume all U'% of its
members to be subjectively alike, from which a corresponding
similarity of the respective diatheses (Aj . . . A.) may be inferred.
The diagram below may serve to represent the relations to the
dialect D of the diatheses a^a^. of the various members of a
dialectal unit ; of the average speech of each member, U^ U^ Z/, ;
and of the momentary utterances of three such members, viz.
u^ii^ and tJxti<^u\ and ti{t£iu\ :
/N
A.
Now, if
then
A,
V
A.
A, = A, = A„
ttj = tt, = tt. = tti = tti = «1 = jtf = «; = «;,-
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
434 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
also U,=zU, = U.\
also U, = U^ = U^ = D.
And because 17^ = u^, therefore D also = u^.
Or, in other words, any momentary utterance (u) of any member
of a dialectal unit may be taken as a type of the dialectal utter-
ance. And because any t^ is a concrete, perceptual entity, all
dialectal utterances are cancrete, perceptual entities.
29. — We may therefore now define thus : — A dialect is the sum
of all dialectal utterances. A dialectal utterance is the type of the
average (typical) utterances of the members of a dialectal unit.
This average utterance is subjectively equal to any one momen-
tary utterance. The type referred to is therefore concrete, and
any one momentary utterance of a member of a dialectal group
may be taken as representing a dialectal utterance. A dialectal
unit is constituted by the speech of all those persons in whose
utterances variations are not sensibly perceived or attended to.
A dialectal unit, especially at first, may coincide with an ethno-
logical unit, but such coincidences grow rarer as development
continues.
30. — There finally remains to be examined the term * perceptible
variation' which has been used throughout, and which we have
found to be the one criterion according to which a dialectal group
must be determined. The more exactly we can, therefore, draw
the line between those variations which are subjectively perceived
and those which are not so perceived, the more sharply shall we
be able to distinguish what lies within a dialectal group from that
which lies without.
There appears to be but one method of ascertaining whether
two utterances are subjectively felt to agree or to differ, and that
is to take the testimony of the persons whose sensations form the
subject of our inquiry. There is indeed no other way of deter-
mining a dialectal group than to take the testimony of the men
who are to compose it. For the very reason that the concept of
a dialect is formed wholly on a subjective basis, all objective tests
are barred out.
The question whether the inhabitants of two villages, A and
B, belong to the same dialectal group can only be answered on
the testimony of the villagers as to whether they believe they
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES. 435
Speak alike. They are the court of last resort, from which there
is no appeal. And occasionally a nickname or a jest will be
prima facie evidence of the fact that the villagers of A clearly
feel the difference of their speech from that of B.
But he who is unwilling to operate with so uncertain and
variable a quantity as a dialect thus appears to be, will be forced
to discard this subjective attempt at classification and substitute
for it some new objective arrangement.
31. — In §26 we grouped n objective variations around a center
Fand assumed that the variations lying between v^ and v^ were
not sensibly perceptible, while those which lie between v^ and v^
and between v^ and v^ were sensibly perceptible :
• 1 ^ ■ • 1
And we have seen in the preceding paragraph how the two
points, v^ and v^^ can be experimentally fixed. Whatever lies
between them is intra-dialectal ; what lies outside is extra-dialectal.
These extra-dialectal variations (between v^ and Vy and between
v^ and z/,) are alike in that they are always sensibly perceived ;
they differ in the degree in which they affect the ease and clear-
ness with which a given word may be understood. For, as con-
veyance of ideas is the chief aim of language, everything which
stands in the way of an utterance being understood is of the
greatest moment. But it is plain that the nearer the center a
perceptible variation lies, the more easily will the utterance con-
taining it be understood ; the farther away from the center it lies,
the more will it interfere with the understanding of the utterancei
until it absolutely prevents the utterance from being understood.
32. — If we now continue our classification of speech along the
same lines which led to the formation of the concept of a dialect,
we may proceed to unite two or more dialects into a dialect-
family ; two or more dialect-families into a language ; and two or
more languages into a language-family. But whereas a dialect-
form, as we have seen (§28, end), is a concrete type and hence a
perceptual entity, the speech-forms of the types enumerated here
are ideal types and have no perceptual existence. No one
concrete utterance belonging to any of these three classes may,
as in the case of a dialect, be taken as concrete type, because in
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
436 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
each such concrete utterance one or more variable elements per-
ceptibly vary. The typical utterance is here similar to all con-
crete utterances, but like none. Remove the perceptible variation^
and these classes revert into the dialect whose distinguishing
mark is the imperceptible variation of its variables. The whole
may be illustrated by the following diagram, in which the classes
are represented as (logical) functions of a series of constant (Latin
letters) and variable (Greek letters) elements. The variable
elements whose variations are not subjectively perceived are
enclosed in brackets.
Variablb Elbm bnts.
CONSTAir
r
t.
t
t
t
t
Variations
perceived.
a p y
a /3 y
a b y
a b c
Variations
not perceired.
6.
5.
4.
3.
2.
A Language-family, Z/ = /"(q
A particular Language, L = -^ (q
A Dialect-family. iy=F{q
A Dialect, £>=F{q
Average Utterance of a
member of a dialectal
r s
r s
r s
r s
W W)
[-n W)
ra W)
W W)
I.
unit, C/:=F{q
Momentary Utterance
of a member of a dia-
r s
t
a
b
c
[d] W)
lectal unit, u r=F{q
r s
t
a
b
c
[d] W)
33. — If I have succeeded in showing that an insurmountable
bar thus separates language-forms from dialectal forms, that the
latter are perceptual objects while the former are imaginary, it
follows that from the very nature of the case the perceptual
reconstruction of language-forms is impossible. When a given
/orm is said to be German we thereby mean that it is a member
of a large mass which, for convenience sake, we have accustomed
ourselves to group together on account of certain resemblances
exhibited by all members. But while we may thus classify a
given form as German or Greek, just as we might classify a given
animal as a bird or a fish, it is as impossible to construct, inferen-
tially, a German form or a Greek form as it is to construct a fish
or a bird. Or, to be more exact, the result of these constructions
in either case will be an ideal type for which only an illogical
hypostasis could claim a past reality.
* Perceptibility is the gewisse maass of Paul (p. 36) which variations must
reach in order to result in dialectspaltung.
Digitized by VjOOQIC
INFERRED PARENT LANGUAGES, A17
34. — It would be very rash to deny the value of constructive
parent forms because perceptual reality cannot be claimed for
them. Their distinct value lies, however, as indicated above, in
the fact that they are the means by which we classify and arrange
a given number of existing forms. The posited Indo-European
gen- signifies that Latin gen-^ Avestan zan-y Sanskrit jan-, etc.,
belong together. To claim more means losing one's self in a
maze of speculative possibilities. So it is, of course, perfectly
proper to say that the I.E. possessed the vowels a, Cy Oy if it is
borne in mind that, in doing so, we simply maintain that there is
sufficient evidence to show that all prehistoric I.E. dialects (which
form the bases of the historical I.E. languages) possessed these
vowels at stages of their development antedating the historical
epochs. This evidence, however, is not sufficient to warrant a
claim that these three vowels belonged to the whole prehistoric
period of I.E. speech, or to settle the question as to their original
independence. It is impossible to prove or to disprove on such
evidence any of the points involved in the controversy outlined
by Bechtel, Hauptprobleme, p. 63 f.
The sum total of inferred forms does not give us a true picture
of any language ever spoken ; nay, even the single forms cannot
lay claim to being representatives, true in every detail, of words
ever in actual use. Yet it is only by reducing the results of our
investigations to such formulae that they become convenient
enough to be easily handled and permit a clear arrangement of
the facts of a language. It is a significant fact and a sign of clear
logic that Schleicher's great successor, Brugmann, in the Grund-
riss, does not follow his predecessor in placing on the title-page
an 'Indo-European parent language' alongside of the historical
languages.
The danger increases if, after infusing life into a parent lan-
guage constructed by our own hands after the defective method
examined above, we proceed to erect upon it as a basis a lofty
superstructure of mythological or sociological inferences. Inves-
tigations of this character, which are beset by enormous diffi-
culties even when carried on under the most favorable conditions,
must necessarily see their ends defeated, if based upon material
so unfit because designed for entirely different purposes. The
method of Usener in his Gotternamen (1896), and Wernicke
(Pauly's Real-Encyclop., 2d ed., vol. II, * Apollo') is a most
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
438 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
healthy reaction, which will result in placing positive results in
the place of unprovable and often improbable hypotheses.
There are certain limitations which are inherent in, and common
to, all historical sciences. Their objects must be clearly defined
in space and in time. They all start where tradition, in one form
or another, begins. It is true that inferences may be permitted
as to what lies beyond this boundary line which divides the
historic from the prehistoric. But these inferences must be
confined to the period immediately preceding the beginnings of
tradition. The farther they depart from it, the more shadowy,
general, and unreal they become, because the data of time and
space are wanting, and without them historical investigation
becomes impossible.
YalbUhivbrsity. HaNNS OERTEL.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
IV.— CONCLUDING NOTES ON THE ORIGIN OF THE
GERUND AND GERUNDIVE.
In the A. J. P., vol. XV, part 2, July, 1894, pp. 194-216, there
was published my first essay on * The Origin of the Gerund and
Gerundive,' and in a subsequent number (A.J. P. XVI, July, 1895,
p. 217, n. i) were given some 'Addenda et Corrigenda' thereto.
The first essay was supplemented, in A. J. P. XVI, July, 1895,
pp. 217-222, by 'Further Notes on the Origin of the Gerund and
Gerundive.'
The present paper consists of what may fidy be called ' Con-
cluding Notes on the Origin of the Gerund and Gerundive,'
together with a 'Precise Statement of My View.'
Before turning attention to the further consideration^ of the
main propositions which I sought to establish in the two papers
already published,' I should like to give, concerning the said
papers themselves, the following
Addenda ei Corrigenda : —
A.J. P. XV 198, 1. 13: For "This suffix -do may, so far as
Latin alone is concerned, represent," etc., read: "This suffix -do
might, so far as Latin alone is concerned (that is to say, if there
were no Osc- Umbr. forms of the Gerundive to be taken into
account"), represent," etc'
* See infra, pp. 444 sqq. ' Namely, A. J. P. XV 194-216, XVI 217-222.
'There are two other remarks on this page, viz. 198, which may require
slight amendment :
11. 15-16: For " J^dhi' 'place,* or rather 'make,' since the Idg. ^dhi- has
lost its meaning ' place ' in Italic, and retained only that of ' to make,* " read :•
" J^dhi' * to make' or * to place.' " — The meaning * to place' is preserved appa-
rently in (a) con-do (see Brugmann, Grundr. I, §370, p. 282), ab-dd (Brugmann,
op. cit. I, §507, Rem.), cridd (see Brugmann, op. cit. I, §507, Rem., and II,
§160, I, p. 479; and also A. J. P. XV 207), and in {b) prae-ficio (whence prae-
fectus) and in-fuid (the original meaning of which appears to have been * to
place, put, or dip something in something else').
11. 31-33 : For •• He shews that in the middle of a word in some cases we
find Idg. dh represented in Latin by ^," read : " He shews that medial Idg. dh,
unless followed by r, /, or preceded by r, u (ju) and perhaps m, is represented
in Latin by d,"
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
440 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
XV 199, 1. 33 : After the word ^^ dhiyam-dhd-'^ omit the words
" quoted above." — On a Greek parallel to this word see further
infra, p. 441, s. v. "XV 205, 11. 21-26."
XV 201, 1. 6 and note 2, 1. i : It is here observed that "the
suffixes 'dhc' and -do- are not frequent in forming Greek nouns
like Lat. rubidus^ etc." I ventured, however, to hazard one
Greek example of -do-y namely, /ccJpu-do-ff 'crested lark* (with
which, in order to shew that there was no objection to the view
that its diy- might come from a verb, I compared Gk. jcepacr-^/xx
K€po'(t>6pos and Lat. comi-fer comi-ger).
Beside the suffix -do- thus seen in K6pv'do-s, we may possibly see
the suffix 'dhO' in the parallel bird-name KSpv-Bo-s (if rightly thus
analysed) * crested trochilus.'
In a recent article in Bezzenberger*s Beitrage, XXII, pp. 128-
130, Dr. W. Prellwitz furnishes us with a very interesting example
shewing -dho- (given infra, p. 441).
From the concluding remarks of the article in question (quoted
infra, p. 446) we are led to hope that a forthcoming treatise by
the same scholar will give us further examples of Greek nouns
formed with the suffixes -do- and -dAo-.
XV 201, note 2, 1. 22 : After "This explanation of -dhi" add :
"namely, that it is derived from the Idg. ^ dhi-J*
XV 201, at the end of note 2, add : "P. S. — It may be equally
possible to regard this -dki as a case-form belonging to the same
group as Gk. '$€ -6tv -3a -Bai. -6tjv, etc. [cf. the groups no ne neti mi
tiPi notf etc. (Per Persson in Idg. Forsch., vol. II, pp. 199 sqq.),
'Ki K( Ktp Koi fca, Be 8tj dai -da(m) -do de], these and such like primi-
tive particles being generally considered to shew forms with
varying vowel representing various case-forms.
But, whether the i of -dhi be explained in this way or as in the
actual text of the note (i. e. A. J. P. XV, p. 201, note 2), my
derivation of -dhi as from the Idg. V dhi- (a derivation in which
it is gratifying to note that Prof. E. W. Fay concurs^) is nowise
affected."
XV 204, 1. 5: For ** ahumer^nc^' read ^' ahUmer'c^ or
ahumer*nc^'^ See Brugmann, Grundr. II, §§27 and 163 (as
amended by A. J. P. XV 204, n. i).
204, 1. 6 : For " ahu-mer^c ^ " read " ahu-mer^c'^
^A. J. p. XVI, 1895. p. 2.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ORIGIN OF THE GERUND AND GERUNDIVE, 44 1
iccpo-
VKIUIN UJ* THE GEKUND AND GERUNDIVE,
XV 205, 1. I : Read " Ktpav^pos beside Kcparo^por and
XV 205, 11. 21-26 : The explanation here given of Lat. vindex
and index, as compounds wherein the prior member is an accu-
saHve case governed by the second member — (a class of compounds
which, in A. J. P. XV 203 sqq. and XVI 217 sqq., I have illus-
trated from Sanskrit, Avestic, Greek, Italic and Lithuanian) — is
supported also by W. M. Lindsay, The Lat Lang., 1894, c^i^-
III, §16, VIII, §95, p. 544, and by P. Giles, Short Manual of
Comparative Philology, 1895, §284, p. 215.
So also W. Prellwitz (in Bezzenberger's Beitrage, XXII, pp.
128, 129), who there adds from Greek the following very inter-
esting example of such composition :
*Bm'Bo" or *3ta-3(ri) — the base of "^Bia-B^os whence Blaaos "*eine
versammlung, die einer gottheit zu ehren opfer, chore, aufziige
u. dgl. veranstaltet' " (Prellwitz, 1. c.) — is to be equated with Skr.
dhiyam'dh{a) "*das anschauen worauf richtend* (jdhd- *setzen*),
daher von menscben 'andachtig,' von gottern *achtsam' " (a word
which I had already given in A. J. P. XV, pp. 200, 203, as an
instance of a compound the prior member of which is an accu-
sative case governed by the second member), *Bia^ being an
accus. sing, (identical with Skr. dhiyam) governed by the second
member of the compound.
[Several more examples of such compounds, which apparently
have escaped the notice of Prellwitz, are to be found (as above
mentioned) in A. J. P. XVI, pp. 217 sqq.]
Further Latin instances : —
iocundus [with d due to the U of iUcundus (from which it is
etymologically to be separated*)] idcundus [the latter only in late
Latin] — the ioc- whereof is generally identified with the idc- of
idcus idcare^ — is probably to be regarded as a compound of this
class, representing originally *idcum-dO'S 'giving merriment,
giving pleasure.'
rdiundus should also be added here, if the explanation of it
offered by Dr. Prellwitz (cf. infra, p. 443, and see infra, p. 446) be
correct.
' Seen also (according to Prellwitz, 1. c.) in Bia'y6v£q, whose literal meaning
is held by Prellwitz to be * huld-zeuger.'
' See R. S. Conway in the Class. Rev., vol. V, 1891, p. 300 ^, ad fin.
'So, for instance, Conway, 1. c.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
442 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
XV 206 : On Lariscolus and legiscrepa see further A. J. P.
XVI, p. 220.
XV* 208, 209: The derivation here offered of venundo and
pessumdo finds an advocate also in W. M. Lindsay, Class. Rev.,
vol. VII (1893), p. 106, n. I,' and The Lat. Lang. (1894), ch.
VIII, §95, p. 544.
XV 212, 1. 22: It was here observed that Osc. eehiianastim
was "of uncertain meaning." But I now think so no longer. In
an article on 'The Italic Verb eehiia- ehia-^ published in the
Class. Rev., vol. X, May, 1896, I venture to think that I have
offered the correct explanation of this Oscan word.
XV 212 ad fin.: **Hmi'dus : iimen-dU'S^^ etc — Pairs of such
compounds shewing in the one case a bare stem as prior member,
in the other a full case-form, are not rare in the Idg. languages.
Cf., e. g., the following :
Ved.-Skr.:
dhanadd'^ : dkanam-jayd-*'
AvESTic :
ahumer'C'^ ahUmer*C', standing for ^ahnm'tner'C' •
virajan- (: Skr.
virahdn-y : virenjan-^ standing for ^virem-jan-^
Greek:'
jrvp'(f>6pos'^
{iroSa-viirr^p *
nobd'Viirrpov
fiv<r'<j)6vos
fii0Xia'ypd<f>og '^
/3t/3Xia-0opoff'
^ XV 208 : Concerning the explanation given of palam-facio in XV 208, I
would add the following note : *' Even granting that palam was originally a •
fem. accus. sing., it is, however, quite possible that at the time of its compo-
sition with fcuio the purely adverbial meaning of the word had become
established, and the true explanation of the word (as ace. fem. sing, of a
substantive) forgotten. Of course, if this be ^o^ palam-facio is not here a case
in point.'*
' Referred to again, infra, p. 445.
» A. J. P. XV 199. * A. J. P. XV 203. » A. J. P. XV 204.
• A. J. P. XV 204, and herein, supra, p. 440.
^In addition to the examples here cited, see, further, the letter of Dr.
Prellwitz cited infra, p. 446.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ORIGIN OF THE GERUND AND GERUNDIVE.
443
<fiaea<f>6pos^ 1
<f>C»TO(f>dpOS^ }
Kepo<f>6pof* 1
K€paTO<f)6pOt* J
^i(l>o<l>6pos*
TeparotrKdrrot^
0vod6Kos'^
Latin :
iuridtcus^
muricidus'^
Larifuga^
legirupa}
(Skr. bhaga-dheya-^)
lepidus
<f>ma'<f>6pos
K€paa-<f>6pos
^i<f>ri-<l>6pos*'
T€pafTK6iroSi Standing for ^rtpawKonot*
BvffKOOS
OvrfiroXos
index, standing for ^ius-dex^
muscipula^
Laris{= Lares)'Colus^
legis{= leges)'Crepa^
merenda^
iocundus?
XV 213, 1. i: *' If from ^ dhe^r A reference to XV 202, 11.
14-16, will explain the point of this "if."
XV 215, U. 6, 7 : A still simpler explanation of roiundus is
now offered by Dr. Prellwitz (cf. supra, p. 441, and see infra, p.
446).
XVI 218, 1. 14 : Add : With respect to the second of the two
suggested explanations of Lesb. diKaaKdnog, compare the following
remark of Brugmann, Grundr., vol. II, §161, p. 487 : "No doubt
diK-ri has replaced an older *dif = Skr. diS" And, for ^diK-a :
diK'tif compare KpSic-a : KpSK-ri and oXk-I : aXie-17.
XVI 218, 1. 30: On the vocalism of Lat. cdvid see now the
essay on 'The Establishment and Extension of the Law of
Thurneysen and Havet,' A. J. P. XVI, Dec. 1895, P- 448.
XVI 222, n. I, U. 13-15: For "Umbr. pane'' read "Umbr.
pane."
> A. J. P. XV 204.
*A.J. P. XVI218.
^A. J. P. XV 206.
* Given herein, supra, p. 441
•A. J. P. XV 205.
*A.J. P. XVI219.
' Herein, p.
•A. J. P. XV 205.
•A. J. P. XVI 219.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
444 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
We may now turn our attention to the further consideration of
the main propositions which it was the object of my two first
papers to establish : —
(i) That the Italic Gerundive developed itself an Italic soily i, e.
in other words ^ wa^ purely an Italic development}
Of this view I need say no more here than that it has the
advantage of being supported by "the influence of a great
name"' — the name of Brugmann.* I believe the view to be
correct as stated.*
(2) That the Gerundive arose before the Gerund^ the loiter
being a development from the former}
In support of this proposition — advocated not only by myself
in the two papers on the * Origin of the Gerund and Gerundive,*
A. J. P. XV 194-216, XVI 217-222, but also by such distinguished
philologists as Dr. Joseph Weisweiler in his *Das Lateinische
Participium Futuri Passivi in seiner Bedeutung und Syntaktischen
Verwendung* (Paderborn, 1890), Professor Karl Brugmann in
his Grundriss, vol. IV, 1892, §1103, Rem., p. 1424, and Mr. W.
M. Lindsay, The Latin Language, 1894, ch. VIII, §94, p. 543 —
Mr. F. W. Thomas, Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge, sends
me the following communication :
"You may be interested to note as confirmatory of your and
Weisweiler's" and (he might have added also) Bnigmann*s and
Lindsay's " opinion as to the priority of the adjective in Latin,
that, beside the Greek, the Sanscrit shews an Impersonal Gerun-
dive, viz. in -yam and -lyam^ derived from the adjective. (This
will be found discussed by Bohtlingk in a short article * Ueber d.
impersonalen Gebrauch d. Participia necess. im Sanskrit' in the
Zeitschrift d. Deutschen Morgenlandischen Gesellschaft, vol. 42,
1888, pp. 366-9.)"
* See A. J. P. XV 195, 202, 212, and XVI 222, n. i.
*See Prof. E. W. Fay in the Proc. of the Amer. Philolog. Assoc, vol. 26,
1895, p. Ixv.
'Brugmann, Grundr., vol. IV, §1103, 3, Rem.
^**' Suppose for a moment that my first proposition is incorrect, and that the
Italic Gerundive took its rise (not, as I have held and believe, in Prim, Italic,
but) in Idg, itself. My main propositions concerning the Origin of the Gerund
and Gerundive would, notwithstanding, remain practically unaffected." See
Postscript (i), infra, p. 450.
*See A. J. P. XV 195, 202, 215, 2i6 ad fin.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ORIGIN OF THE GERUND AND GERUNDIVE, 44$
(3) That the Gerundive itself was a compound, wherein the
prior member^ consisting of the Prim. ItaL accusative infiniiive
in -m} was governed as object by the second member, the verbal
suffix dO'^
It was pointed out in A. J. P. XVI, p. 217, that this view is
supported by Mr. W. M. Lindsay in his work on The Latin
Language, 1894, ^^ VIII, §§94-5, and also in his * Addenda et
Corrigenda* thereto (p. 660). I find, too, that Mr. Lindsay, in
the Classical Review, vol. VII, 1893, p. 106, note i, instancing
laudandus as an example of the Gerundive, wrote " I would make
'dus a Verbal Adjective 'giving praise.* Cf. ruborem-do^ venum-
doJ* With Mr. Lindsay's permission, I now venture to supple-
ment this with the following extract from a letter which, in Oct.
1894, he wrote to me (then personally quite unknown to him) :
"I have just seen your excellent article on the 'Origin of the
Gerund and Gerundive* in the Amer. Journ. of Philology. I
have long believed that the Gerundive was a Compound of a
Verbal Noun, in Accusative and not in Stem-form, with the root
DO, and am delighted to read your thorough-going justification
of the theory.**
My view is supported also by Dr. Prellwitz (Joint-Editor of
Bezzenberger*s Beitrage) in a letter to me (dated i Feb. 1896),
which runs as follows :
"Ihre Ansicht Uber das Gerundium ist mir sehr interessant
gewesen. Aehnliche Gedanken haben mich lange beschaftigt
und sind dann durch andere Thatigkeit zuriickgedrangt. Dem-
nachst hofFe ich aber Ihnen einige Sachen iibersenden zu konnen,
die Ihrer Ansicht iiber das Gerundium, die ich voUig billige,
ziemlich verwandt sind.*'
This letter Dr. Prellwitz has, more recently (28 Sept. 1896),
supplemented by a second, in which, (after courteously granting
me permission to publish the foregoing) he gives me a first
instalment of the promised * Sachen.* He writes as follows :
"Die Ihrer Gerundiverklarung ziemlich verwandten Aufsatze
habe ich noch nicht zum Druck geben konnen.
''Ein Vorlaufer aber davon ist die Erklarung Blavos : ai. dhiyam-
dhd (B. B. 22, 128 ff.).**— See above, p. 441.
^See A. J. P. XV 196, 198. 202.
'See A. J. P. XV 198, 202, 203 sqq., 212, 213; XVI 218 sqq., and herein,
pp. 441,442, 446,447.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
446 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
" Wenn Bka Accusativ +ftoff von i^ dhi- ist, so ist es auch erlaubt
die andern Worter auf a-^o; so zu trennen ; ferner die Worter auf
KV'Boiy vv'Bos, u. s. w., als Compost/a aus Accusaiiven auf i», «»,
•\-dhos von ij dhe- zu betrachten. Die Nebenformen auf i-^or v^-
ohne V sind dagegen mit dem reinen Stamm auf -i -v zusammen-
geselzt."
[** Endlich ist es klar," he writes at the conclusion of his above-
mentioned article in Bezz. Beitr. 22, *'dass sich aus obiger Deutung
von Blacrot u. s. w. wichtige Folgerungen f iir die Worter auf -aBw
und -ad-, ja auch fiir die auf -v^or ergeben."]
"So ist rotundusy^ he continues in his letter, " sehr viel einfacher
zu erkl'aren als Brugmann und auch Sie meinen. Es ist ^roihom--
dos (resp. -dkos) * Umdrehung gebend (oder machend) ' — *rdiho5
'Umdrehung* (mit ih wegen ai. raiha-s und gr. imppoOoi), neben
*roihtL (lat. rota) *Rad' ist ganz regelrecht angesetzt.
So," he concludes his letter, "erklare ich noch eine grosse
Anzahl von Wortern." *
Numerous examples of this kind of composition (which is seen
in the Italic Gerundive) — composition, that is, wherein the prior
member of tJie compound is an accusative case governed as object
by the second member — will have been found collected in A. J. P.
XV 203 sqq., XVI 218 sqq., and herein, supra, pp. 442 and 443,
and the present page.
And now we come to the remaining proposition which I sought
to establish, namely : —
(4) Thaty unless it be assumed that the Umbr.'Osc, Gerundive
was borrowed from Latin, its formation {assuming^ the latter to
be identical with that of the Latin Gerundive) should compel us
to regard the said suffix do- cts the representative {not of Idg. dhd-
from Idg. »J dhi', but) of Idg. do- from Idg. ij dd-?
In A. J. P. XVI, July, 1895, P- 222 (text), at the conclusion of
the second of the two papers on *The Origin of the Gerund and
^ P. S. — See further, now, a ** Sonderabdnick aus * Wochenschrift fflr klas-
sische Philologie' (Berlin), 1897," wherein Dr. Prellwitz, again adverting to
the subject, writes (on p. ii): *' Ich hoffe bald Zeit zu finden, urn ausfiihrlich
zu zeigen, dass -vBoq oder vielmehr avdo^, ivdog^ wdo^, aSoc auf Accusative Sing.
auf -av, £v, w, 0 + ^ d. i. dhi-^os 'machend' zuriickgehen."
*See A. J. P. XV 198, 202 (text and note 3) ; XVI 217, note i (ad fin.), 222
(text and note i), and herein, supra, p. 439.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ORIGIN OF THE GERUND AND GERUNDIVE. 44/
Gerundive'* — in which I had endeavoured to prove that the
Gerundive [which (in common with Weisweiler, Brugmann, and
Lindsay*) I held to be the earlier formation of the two'] was a
Prim. Italic compound wherein the prior member consisted of the
Prim. Ital. accus. infin. in -nis governed as object by the second
member, namely, the sufHx do-^ and that (as said above) "unless
it be assumed^ that the Umbr.-Osc, Gerundive was borrowed from
Latin, its formation (assuming the latter to be identical with that
of the Latin Gerundive) should compel us to regard the said
sufHx dd- as the representative (not of Idg. d^ from Idg. V dhe-^
but) of Idg. do- from Idg. nj do-** — occasion wcls taken to toiuh on
Prof. E, W. Fay's theory of * The Latin Gerundive -^ndo-J
The latter had appeared in the same number of the A. J. P. as
my own first paper on * The Origin of the Gerund and Gerundive,'
namely, A. J. P. XV, July, 1894, pp. 217-222.
I pointed out (XVI 222, text) that, inasmuch as Prof. Fay's
theory, explaining the d of *The Latin Gerundive -^ndo-* as the
epresentative of an Idg. dh from the Idg. nj dhe- (thus h^X.ferend-
from Idg. *bherndh-) — an explanation to which, so far as the
Latin forms alone were concerned, no objection need be raised —
took no account whatever of the Umbr.-Osc. forms of the Gerun-
dive, and inasmuch as (according to my view*) the latter could
not possibly represent Idg. dh, it followed that Prof. Fay's theory
(with respect to which we need here concern ourselves only with
his views on the phonetic development of Idg, dh in Italic) must
therefore " inevitably fall to the ground."
With this comment on Prof. Fay's theory I (originally) con-
cluded my * Further Notes on the Origin of the Gerund and
Gerundive ' ; and it was not till after I had remitted them to Prof.
Gildersleeve for the A. J. P. that I received my copy of A. J. P.
XVI, part I, April, 1895 (containing Prof. Fay's attempt to escape
from the difficulty confronting him).
Having observed that my remarks concerning the representation
of Idg. dh in Italic would, unless they could be proved to be
incorrect, tell distinctly against his own explanation of 'The Latin
Gerundive -^ndo-* (as given in A.J. P. XV 217-222), Prof. Fay in
A. J. P. XVI, April, 1895, p. I, n. i, brought forward certain
* A. J. P. XV 194-216, XVI 217-222. 'See herein, supra, p. 444.
'See A. J. P. XV 193, 202, 215, 216 ad fin., and herein, supra, p. 444.
* An assumption '* which does not seem very probable," A. J. P. XVI 222.
*See A. J. P. XV 198, 202 (text and note 3) ; XVI 217, note i ad fin.. 222.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
448 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
forms whereby he hoped to shew that Idg. " -ndh- gave Osc*
Umbr. -«!>-> -«^->-««- II -»-," i. e. in other words, that the
-««- II -«- of the Osc.-Umbr. Gerundives could represent Idg»
-ndh' as well as Idg. -nd-.
This led to my adding at the end of the * Further Notes on the
Origin of the Gerund and Gerundive* (A, J. P. XVI, July, 1895,
pp. 217-222) a Postscript (namely, the note on p. 222) wherein I
endeavoured to prove that "the examples adduced by Prof. Fay
do not seem at all convincing" and that we must "therefore feel
compelled to regard Prof. Fay's suggestion, that Idg. -ndh- gave
Osc.-Umbr. -«)>-> -«flr->-««- 1| -«-, as unproven."
In A. J. P. XVI, Dec. 1895, pp. 491-5, Prof. Fay has returned
once more to the charge. He is, however, unable to adduce in
support of his suggestion — ^that Osc-Umbr. -««- 1| -«- can repre-
sent Idg. -ndh' as well as Idg. -nd- — any further examples than
those which he had previously given (A.J. P. XVI i, n. i), the
unconvincing nature of which I had exposed (A. J. P. XVI 222,
n. iV
To my own view concerning the representation of Idg. dh in
Italic — expressed in A. J. P. XV 198, 202 (text and note 3) ; XVI
217, note I (ad fin.), 222 (text and note i), and identical with that
of Brugmann, Grundr. I, §370 — I still feel bound to adhere,*
whether the particular Oscan word Ana/riss (to which Prof. Fay
devotes three pages') be* or be not* ultimately considered as an
example of Idg. dh.
In conclusion let me quote in support of my view the opinion
of Prof. C. D. Buck, as expressed in his paper on * The Oscan-
Umbrian Verb-System,* published in The University of Chicago
Studies in Classical Philology, vol. I, 1895. Speaking of the
origin of the Latin Gerundive, he there says (on p. 184) as
follows :
''The Oscan- Umbrian forms*' of the Gerundive ''furnish, in
my opinion, conclusive evidence for original (n)d rather than
(jn)dhr
'" The comparison of in-de with iv-dnf'^ — in the validity of which Prof, Fay
says that he does ''not believe'' (A. J. P. XVI 491) — was, it may be observed in
passing, no suggestion of mine. See A. J. P. XVI 222, note I.
' For the present, at all events ; pending the discovery of further and much
stronger evidence than any which Prof. Fay has yet been able to adduce in
support of his suggestion.
" A. J. P. XVI 492-5. * The view held by one set of scholars.
6 The view held by Prof. Fay. A. J. P. XVI 492-5.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ORIGIN OF TITE GERUND AND GERUNDIVE. 449
In bringing to a close these 'Concluding Notes/ it would
perhaps be well for me to take the opportunity of summarising,
in precise terms, my view concerning * the Origin of the Gerund
and Gerundive* (as expressed in A. J. P. XV 194-216, XVI 217-
222, and in the foregoing pages herein).
Precise Statement of My View
{with references).
I regard the Italic (i. e. Latin- Oscan-Umbrian) Gerundive as
having '^developed itself an Italic soiV^ {XV igs)^ or^ in other
words, as being '* purely an Italic development (XVI 222, n. /).*
Of the Gerundive and Gerund^which latter indeed " does not
appear in the Umbr.'Samn. monumeTits" {XV 1^4) — I consider
that ^'the Gerundive was the earlier formation of th^ two^^ {XV
2i6*)f and that " the Gerund wcls developed from the Gerundive "
The Gerundive itself, held {as aforesaid) to have arisen on
Italic soil, I explain as** a compound, wherein the prior member,
consisting of the Prim. ItaL Accusative Infinitive in -w*," is
** governed as object by the second member, the verbal suffix dd- * "
(jupra,p.445%
And, Icutly, I consider that ** unless it be assumed— an assump-
tion * which does not seem very probable' {XVI 222) — that the
Umbr.'Osc. Gerundive was borrowed from Laiin'^, its formation
(assuming the loiter to be identical with that of the Latin Gerun-
dive) should compel us to regard the said suffix dd- as the repre-
sentative {notofldg. dhO'from Idg. ij dhi-, but) of Idg. dd-from
Idg. li/dd'** {supra, p. 446%^
^ A. J. P. XV 195, 202, 212 ; XVI 222, note i, and herein, p. 444*
'A. J. P. XV 195, 202, 215, 216, and herein, p. 444.
* A. J. P. XV 195, 215. and herein, p. 444.
*See A. J. P. XV 196, 198, 202, and herein, p. 445.
'A. J. P. XV 198, 202, 203, 212, 213, and herein, p. 445.
'For examples of such composition see A. J. P. XV 203 sqq., XVI 218 sqq.,
and herein, pp. 442, 443, 446.
'A. J. P. XV 198, 202 (text and note 3) ; XVI 217, note i (ad fin.), 222, and
herein, pp. 439i 447-
* A. J. P. XV 198, 202 (text and note 3); XVI 217, note i (ad fin.), 222 (text
and note i) ; and herein, pp. 439, 447 sqq.
*P. S. — Indeed, assuming the correctness of my first proposition (namely,
that (he Italic Gerundive took its rise, not in Idg., but in Prim. Italic), it
would appear that the suffix even of the Latin Gerundive can hardly be held to
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
450 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
Postscript.
(i) Suppose for a moment that my first proposition is incorrect^ and that the ItaKc
Gerundive took its rise (not, as I have held and believe^ in Prim. Italic^, btii) in
Idg. iUelf:
My main propositions concerning the Origin of the Gerund and Gerundive
would, notwithstanding, remain practically unaffected, (a) The Gerundive
would still have arisen before the Gerund, the latter being a development
from the former', [b) The Gerundive would still have been a compound,
wherein the prior member was an accusative infinitive in -m governed as
object by the second member the verbal suffix -do-'^. And (c) this latter —
*' unless it be assumed" (etc., as above ^) — must still be regarded as the repre-
sentative (not of Idg. dhd' from Idg. j^dhe-^ but) of Idg. dd- from Idg. y'^fe-*.
In fact, the only difference arising would be that the said "accus. infin. in
-m" would have to be regarded (not as a Prim. Ital,, but) as an Idg, infinitive
in -m (concerning which latter, reference may be made to Brugmann, Grundr.
IV. §900, p. 1268, §1088, p. 1414, §1094, p. 1419, §1103, 3, Rem., p. 1425).
[If *i^mdlk7-j is rightly to be regarded as the Idg. groundform of Lat.
/wmbfi-J (see Brugmann, Grundr. I, §370 ; Stolz, Lat. Gr.', §55, p. 295 ; Osthoff,
Zur Gesch. d. Perf., 533 sq.), it would appear to be matter of doubt whether
Idg. -mdh' could even in Latin have normally given rise to -nd-^. If, there-
represent Idg, dhd- save on the assumption that the Getundival suffix was taken
direct from the old-established Latin adjectives already containing the verbal suffix
'dd'S representative medially of Idg, -dhd-s (from Idg, j^dhe-), [Concerning
these adjectives see below, Postscript 2, n, 7.]
But in Umbrian and Oscan themselves, as already observed, there could
have been no such adjectives shewing -dd-s from Idg. -dhd-s ; all such must in
Umbrian and Oscan have shewn not -dd-^ h}itfd-\ hence, if we were to insist
on seeing Idg. -dhd- in the -dd- of the Latin Gerundive, we should (as said
above) be compelled to accede to the improbable view that the Umbr.-Osc.
Gerundive was borrowed from Latin.
All our difficulties vanish the moment we decide that the suffix of the Italic
Gerundive is the representative (not of Idg. dhd- from Idg. t^dhe-^ but) of Idg*
dd' from Idg. y^o-.
^See herein, p. 449, and the passages there referred to.
'See herein, p. 449, and the passages there referred to.
' See herein, p. 449, and the passages there referred to.
^ See herein, p. 449.
^See herein, p. 449, and the passages there referred to.
' How far Lat. condo could be regarded a case in point is uncertain. It has
been thought by some that the -do of Lat. condo comes direct from Idg. /^dhi-
(i. e. cofUl' from *kom-dh'). It appears, however, that it may legitimately be
considered doubtful (i) at what exact date Lat. condo came into being,
/2) whether it may not in fact have arisen in Latin itself, simply on the
analogy of certain other Latin verbs which have been held to preserve Idg.
^dhi-, such as addo and abdd. Should this latter suggestion be correct, the
-nd' of Lat. condd would afford no argument *to counterbalance that afforded
on the other side by Lat. lu$nbu^ from Idg. *lomdho^.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
ORIGIN OF THE GERUND AND GERUNDIVE, 45 1
fore, the three scholars jast named are right in their said derivation, they
furnish us with an additional argument — this time from Zo/i'if— in favour of
the contention that, even assuming the Italic Gerundive to have taken its vise in
Idg, itself t it must nevertheless be regarded as representing, not Idg. -m-^dhO'
(from Idg. ^dhi^\ but Idg. ~m + dd- (from Idg. V</<J-)-]
(3) Assuming again for the moment that the Gerundive may have taken its rise
(not, as I myself believe and have said, in Prim. Italic^, bui) in Idg. itself— in
which case, as said above, the accus. infin. in -m, whereof the prior member of
the gemndival compound consisted, would have to be regarded (not as a
Prim, Ital,, but) as an Idg, in6nitive' —
And thereupon assuming further (a) the change in Idg. of -mdh- to -ndh- (an
assumption which in itself would appear to be somewhat doubtful'), ifi) that
an Idg. -mdh' could normally have given rise even in Latin to -nd- (again a
somewhat doubtful assumption^), and, lastly, also {y) that it had been proved
(and — with all respect to so brilliant a scholar as Prpf. Fay be it said — ^it
certainly has not been proved as yet') that Idg. "-ik/A- gave Osc.-Umbr.
-«!>->-«</->-»«- 1 -»-," in other words that the -nn- \ -»- of the Osc.-Umbr.
Gerundives can be the representatives of an Idg. -ndh- as well as of Idg. -if^-';
Assuming all the foregoing hypotheses, I should not perhaps be so anxious to
quarrel as to which exactly of the two suffixes Idg. dd- (from Idg. j^dd-) and
Idg. dhd' (from Idg. t^dhe-) is represented in the much-discussed suffix of the
Italic Gerundive— both, on the given premises, being equally admissible.
Indeed, on the given premises, I should feel almost inclined to suggest that the
suffix of the Italic Gerundive might very probably represent both Idg. dd- and
Idg. dhd',
I say ** both Idg. dd- and Idg. dhd-^* and I say it not unadvisedly. There
would be no inherent improbability in such a view. Indeed, it could aptly be
paralleled by the following pairs of Sanskrit compounds '.-^garbha-da-s :
garbha-dhd'S, a-doma-dd-s : a-doma-dhd'S, jani-dd-s : jani-dhd-s, sahasra-dd^ :
sahasra'dk& (all of which I cited in A. J. P. XV 199).^
* See herein, p. 449, and the passages there referred to.
*See above, Postscript (i).
'See Postscript (i) concerning Idg. *lomdho-s as the groundform of Lat.
lumbu-s.
^Doubtful, that is to say, in view of the derivation of Lat. lumbu-s from
Idg. *lomdho-s. See above. Postscript (i).
'See A. J. P. XVI 222 (text and note i), and herein, supra, pp. 447 sqq.
•The view of Prof. Fay in A. J. P. XVI, p. i.
^ In A. J. P. XV 202 I said that on account of a certain Umbrian word there
quoted "it is more probable that we should trace ^do- than ^dhe* in the Latin
adjectives in -du^ (given above)." But I doubt whether the conclusion was
sufficiently warranted by the premise. One Umbrian word can hardly, in such
a case, be allowed to 'legislate' for all the Latin adjectives in -du-s, I now
think that while many of the latter (along with the particular Umbrian word)
doubtless represent Idg. dd- (from Idg. ^dd-), others may nevertheless repre-
sent Idg. dhd' (from Idg. ^dhe-), and some (in all probability) both Idg. dd-
and Idg. dhd-.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
452 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
So far as the original meaning and the syntax of the Gerundive are
concerned: a glance at §5 of my first paper (A. J. P. XV 213-215) will at once
shew that the acceptability of my explanation concerning these points woald
be in nowise affected (unless, indeed, in the direction of still greater accept-
ability) by the advent of Idg. y<M/- upon the stage.
" The root dhi- in agglutinative groups*' is, too, of such frequent occurrence
(see Prof. Fay's interesting paper in A. J. P. XVI, pp. i sqq.) that one would
gladly welcome its appearance (if possible) in one's old friend, the Italic
(gerundive.
But {as already indUaUd) the hypotheses^ on which alone such appearance comid
be held to come even ** within the sphere of practical politics** remain as yei
•* unproveny They remain, in a word, — ** hypotheses**
Lionel Horton-Smith.
53 Queen's Gardens, Lancaster Gate, London, W., England,
23 Sept., X897.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
v.— NEGATIVE FUTURES IN THE GREEK NEW
TESTAMENT.
It has long been the common doctrine of New Testament
grammarians and commentators that the double negative ov fi^,
which is used with the aorist subjunctive, and more rarely with
the future indicative, in denials referring to the future, is an
4mphaHc negative. It is the purpose of this paper to show that
the facts of New Testament and Septuagint usage prove that ov
|i7 was not regarded by Hellenistic writers as an emphatic nega-
tive, but that, on the contrary, the aorist subjunctive with ov y^
was the more common way of expressing a negative future. In
modern Greek all futures are expressed by the subjunctive, the
word ^d, abbreviated for ^An ira, being placed before it, to show
that the future is intended. In Hellenistic times the change to
the use of the subjunctive for the future had so far advanced that
in the majority of cases where the prediction was negative the
subjunctive was used, the peculiar double negative, whatever its
origin, having come to indicate the iense^force intended, not the
quality of the negation.
It is not our purpose to discuss now the origin of the remark-
able combination ov /i^, or the question how far it is really emphatic
in classic usage. Our contention is only that, however it origin-
ated and however it may have been previously used, it was not
•emphatic to Hellenistic writers.
There are two ways in which a negative future may be expressed :
a negative word may be affirmed, as, ''No man shall set on thee
to harm thee," or the verb may be denied, as, " He shall not lose
his reward." Of course, we have in mind in this paper only this
latter kind of negative futures. These may be subdivided again
into Prohibitions and Predictions. The prohibitions are expressed
in the New Testament by ov with the future indicative; for
example, ** Thou shalt not kill" (Mat v. 21).
Negative predictions in the New Testament are expressed either
by ov with the future indicative or by oh yai with the aorist subjunc-
tive, or rarely with the future indicative. A pretty careful exam-
ination shows that oh with the future indicative occurs about
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
454 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
eighty times, while ov \u] occurs about ninety times, in eighty of
which cases Westcott and Hort give with it the aorist subjunctive.
Westcott and Hort give in ten instances the future indicative
with ov fii}, but on account of the variations of the manuscripts,
and the indecisiveness of the spelling even if there were na
variations, only one of these is certain, Mat. xvi. 22, " This shall
never be unto thee." It seems most likely that when the future
indicative was used with o£> fu^, as often in the Septuagint, it was
from a confusion of the two original idioms, and that no different
meaning was intended. Our question is simply whether in the
ninety-odd cases with ov /117 the negation is emphatic, and in the
eighty cases with 06 unemphatic. The fact that the common
doctrine requires the recognition of special emphasis in the
majority of the instances raises a doubt at the outset.
Let us see now how ov \ui has been treated in our English
versions. Out of ninety-three cases in which ow /iij stood in the
Textus Receptus, the Authorized Version rendered as emphatic
only the following seventeen :
Mat. V. 18. one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
20. ye shall in no case enter into.
26. Thou shalt by no means come out.
X. 42. he shall in no wise lose his reward.
xxiv. 21. no, nor ever shall be.
Mk. xiv. 31. I will not deny thee in any wise.
Luke x. 19. nothing shall by any means hurt you.
xviii. 17. shall in no wise enter therein.
John vi. 37. I will in no wise cast out.
Acts xiii. 41. which ye shall in no wise believe.
Rev. xviii. 14. thou shalt find them no more at all
21. and shall be found no more atalL
22. shall be heard no more at all in thee (bis)
23. shall shine no more at all in thee
23. shall be heard no more at all in thee
xxi. 25. shall not be shut at ail by day.
27. there shall in no wise enter into it.
It is evident that the selection of these seventeen cases for
emphasis, and the omission of emphasis in the other seventy-six
cases, was a matter of pure accident, since no one would contend
for a moment that these denials are in themselves more vehement
than many of the others.
The authors of the Revised Version added emphasis to the
translation of o& iiq in twenty-two additional cases :
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NEGATIVE FUTURES IN THE GREEK N, T, 455
Mat. xiii. 14. shall in no wise understand,
shall in no wise perceive.
xvi. 22. this shall never be unto thee
28. which shall in no wise taste of death.
xviii. 3. shall in no wise enter into the kingdom.
Mk. ix. I. shall in no wise taste of death.
41. shall in no wise lose his reward.
X. 15. shall in no wise enter therein,
xiii. 19. and never shall be
xvi. 18. it shall in no wise hurt them.
Luke ix. 27. which shall in no wise taste of death.
xii. 59. Thou shalt by no means come out thence.
John iv. 48. ye will in no wise believe.
Acts xxviii. 26. shall in no wise understand
shall in no wise perceive
z Thes. iv. 15. shall in no wise precede them that are fallen
V. 3. they shall in no tuise escape.
Heb. xiii. 5. I will in no wise fail thee
neither will I in any wise forsake thee.
Rev. iii. 5. I will in no wise blot his name,
xviii. 7. shall in no wise see mourning.
22. shall be found any more at all in thee.
In two instances the Revisers have weakened what was emphatic
in the Authorized Version :
Mk. xiv. 31. But he spake exceeding vehemently, If I must die with thee, I
will not deny thee. (A. V.: I will not deny thee in any wise,)
John vi. 35. he that cometh to me shall not hunger (A. V.: shall never hunger).
These changes were not made on account of any change of
reading in the Greek text. The first may have come from the
feeling that the briefer rendering would be more forceful. In
Rev. ix. 6 a change of reading has introduced ov fu; into the text,
and the Revisers have rendered it emphatically, " shall in no wise
find it."
We have therefore in the Revised Version thirty-eight cases in
which ov lui is rendered emphatically and about fifty-three in which
it is not. We say 'about/ because there are differences of read-
ings and we may have overlooked a few cases. About forty-two
per cent, of the cases are now rendered as emphatic, and fifty-
eight per cent, are not so rendered. But the division seems again
to have been made by accident, as will appear from the following
list of the cases which still stand unemphasized in the Revised
Version :
Mat. X. 23. Ye shall not have gone through.
XV. 6. he shall not honor his father.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
456 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
Mat. xxiii. 39. Ye shall not see me henceforth.
xxiv. 2. There shall not be left here one stone.
34. This generation shall not pass away.
35. my words shall not pass away,
xxvi. 29. I will not drink henceforth.
Mark xiii. 2. there shall not be left here one stone upon another which shall
not be thrown down.
30. This generation shall not pass away.
xiv. 25. I will no more drink.
31. I will not deny thee.
Luke 1. 15. sliall drink no wine.
vi. 37. ye shall not be judged
ye shall not be condemned,
viii. 17. that shall not be known,
xiii. 35. Ye shall not see me.
xviii. 7. And shall not God avenge.
30. who shall not receive manifold more,
xxi. 18. And not a hair of your head shall perish.
32. This generation shall not pass.
33. my words shall not pass away,
xxii. 16. I will not eat it
18. I will not drink from henceforth.
67. ye will not believe.
68. ye will not answer.
John iv. 14. shall never thirst.
vi. 35. he that cometh to me shall not hunger, and he that believeth on
me shall never thirst,
viii. 12. shall not walk in the darkness.
51. shall never see death
52. he shall never taste of death.
X. 5. And a stranger will they not follow.
28. and they shall never perish,
xi. 26. whosoever liveth and believeth on me shall never die.
56. That he will not come to the feast ?
xiii. 8. Thou shalt never wash my feet.
38. The cock shall not crow
XX. 25. I will not believe.
Rom. iv. 8. to whom the Lord will not reckon sin.
I Cor. viii. 13. I will eat no flesh for evermore.
Gal. iv. 30. shall not inherit with the son of the freewoman.
V. 16. ye shall not fulfil the lust.
Heb. viii. 11. And they shall not teach.
12. their sins will I remember no more.
X. 17. their iniquities will I remember no more.
1 Pet. ii. 6. shall not be put to shame.
2 Pet. i. 10. ye shall never stumble.
Rev. ii. II. shall not be hurt of the second death,
iii. 3. thou shalt not know what hour.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NEGATIVE FUTURES IN THE GREEK N. T. 457
Rev. iii. 12. he shall go out thence no more.
vii. 16. neither shall the sun strike upon them.
XT. 4. Who shall not fear, O Lord.
There is nothing to indicate that the line of division between
the cases in which o^ fi^ is translated emphatically in the Revised
Version and those in which it is not translated emphatically is
other than an accidental one. What but inadvertence can have
been the reason that Peter's vehement protestation, *'I will not
deny thee" (Mat. xiv. 31), and Thomas's obstinate refusal, "I will
not believe*' (John xx. 25), and similar passages were left unem-
phatic by men who rendered "I will in no wise fail thee" (Heb.
xiii. 5) and "ye will in no wise believe" (John iv. 48)? Some-
times the Revisers seem to have seen the ov /i^, and then to have
emphasized the negation, and sometimes they seem to have over-
looked it. It is curious that the quotation from the Septuagint in
Mat. xiii. 14 and Acts xxviii. 26 has been made emphatic, so that
we now read "shall in no wise understand" and "shall in no wise
perceive," instead of "shall not understand" and "shall not per-
ceive," while the very same idiom in quotations from the Septua-
gint is left "shall not inherit" in Gal. iv. 30, "they shall not
teach" in Heb. viii. 11, and "shall not be put to shame" in i Pet.
ii. 6.
It is next in order to inquire whether those negative predictions
which are expressed by the future indicative with ov are less
emphatic in their meaning than those which are expressed by the
aorist subjunctive with w fi^. Twenty of these taken at random
will serve a3 specimens : —
Mat. X. 29. not one of them shall fall on the ground without your Father,
xii. 19. He shall not strive nor cry aloud :
20. A bruised reed shall he not break, And smoking flax shall he not
quench
31. but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven
32. it shall not be foigiven him.
39. there shall no sign be given to it.
xvi. 18. the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Mark iii. 25. that house will not be able to stand.
xiii. 24. the moon shall not give her light.
31. my words shall not pass away.
Luke X. 42. which shall not be taken from her
xvi. 31. neither will they be persuaded if one rise from the dead.
xix. 44. shall not leave in thee one stone upon another.
John vii. 34. Ye shall seek me, and shall not find me.
xix. 36. A bone of him shall not be broken.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
458 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Rom. iii. 20. by the works of the law shall no flesh be justifled.
ix. 33. shall not be put to shame.
Heb. i. 12. And thy years shall not fail.
Rey. xxii. 3. And there shall be no curse any more.
5. And there shall be night no more.
Are these passages, in their spirit and purpose, less emphatic
than those with ov \ai ? Let this list be read over to some intelli-
gent person familiar only with the English version, and then let
the list of passages in which ov ^ has not been emphatically
translated be read to him, and let it be seen whether such a
person can guess which list of passages has the stronger nega-
tives in the Greek. Our point is that if one should approach the
New Testament with the notion that simple ov is an emphatic
negative, he would find in usage as much to support that gratu-
itous theory as he can find to support the doctrine that ov \ii\ is
emphatic.
Even the most hasty reading of the Septuagint is sufficient to
convince any one that the authors of that version regarded ov ^
with the subjunctive or future indicative as the natural translation
of any Hebrew negative future without regard to its character for
emphasis. The Hebrew imperfect with fe6, which is not an
emphatic negative, is freely so rendered. Often in the same
connection and even in the same verse where two or more
Hebrew imperfects stand, each with fe6, the Septuagint changes
from ov with the future to ov f<^ with the subjunctive, obviously in
unconsciousness, or merely for variety. For example, we read
in Isaiah ii. 4, ''nation shall not lift up (ov XiT^crat) sword against
nation, neither shall they learn (ov fi^ fidBaviv) war any more."
Isaiah v. 27 is an instructive example, "They shall not hunger (ofr
with fut. ind.) nor grow weary (ov with fut. ind.) nor slumber (ov
with fut. ind.) nor sleep (ov with fut. ind.), neither shall they loose
(ov fi^ with fut. ind.) the girdle of their loins, nor shall the latchets
of their shoes be broken (ov fi^ with aor. subj.)." The negative
in the Hebrew is simple k^ every time. In the two cases just
given ov fjof comes last and might therefore be thought to be
climacteric ; but it is liable to come first, as in Isa. vii. 7, " It shall
not stand (ov firj with aor. subj.), neither shall it come to pass (ov
with fut. ind.).'' In commenting upon Paul's quotation in Rom.
iv. 8 from Psalm xxxii. 2, " Blessed is the man to whom the Lord
will not reckon sin," Dr. Shedd says : " The double negative is
noticeable : the fact that there is certainly no imputation of sin
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NEGATIVE FUTURES IN THE GREEK N. T. 459
must first be established, before there can be felicitation." But
there is no double negative in the original Hebrew, and it does
not seem likely that the Septuagint meant to put into that verse
more negation than the Psalmist had put into it, or that St. Paul
meant to attribute to David more negation than he actually used.
To sum up the argument: We do not regard ov fii as an
emphatic negative in the New Testament —
1. Because it is freely used in the Septuagint to render unem-
phatic kS in the original Hebrew.
2. Because in the Septuagint oO luj with the aorist subjunctive,
or future indicative, is mingled in the same sentences with ov and
the future indicative without discernible distinction.
3. Because the majority of negative predictions in the New
Testament have 06 fi^, which is inexplicable if it is emphatic.
4. Because the negative predictions in which ov fuj occurs would
not, on other grounds, be regarded as more emphatic than those
which have simple ov.
5. Because ov f4 is not used in the New Testament in future
prohibitions (except, possibly, in one or two doubtful cases),
although in these an emphatic negative would be peculiarly
appropriate.
6. Because ov /i^ is used in relative clauses, and questions which
amount to positive assertions, connections in which an emphatic
negative is wholly out of place; for example, "there shall not be
left here one stone upon another, which shall not (ov ^) be thrown
down" (Mark xiii. 2); and "shall I not (ov fuf) drink it?" (John
viii. 11).
7. Because the makers of our English versions, although holding
to the doctrine that ov fuj is an emphatic negative, have not seen
fit to apply that doctrine in the majority of the instances, and we
fail to discover any principle by which they were guided.
The foregoing considerations are sufficient, in our judgment, to
decide the matter inductively for the New Testament. If, how-
ever, any one remains unconvinced, we should like to ask him one
question: Would you approve of inserting the phrase 'in no
wise,' or an equivalent phrase, fifty-three more times in the Revised
Version ? and if not, why not ?
W. G. Ballantine.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
460 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Note by the Editor.
Professor Ballantine is right in saying that oh /aij is commonly
set down as an emphatic or strong negative. True, Blass varies
the phraseology somewhat and says that ov fir^ is *'die bestimm-
teste Form der verneinenden Aussage iiber Zukiinftiges." But
no great chasm divides 'emphatic' from 'decided.' The tone of
personal interest which I have claimed for firj ov in certain combi-
nations (A. J. P. VII 170) is recognized for ov fu? by Ewald
(320 a), cited in my Justin Martyr, Apol. I 38, 9. Ewald says :
" Nur selten ist ^^ bei blossen Aussagesatzen, driickt dann aber
doch stets eine innigere Theilnahme wie ov fti}." * Innigere Theil-
nahme' is perhaps better than 'emphatic' or 'strong,' but of the
passages cited by Ewald, in only one (Ps. 34, 6) is ^K rendered in
the LXX by ov foj. Professor Ballantine's demonstration that the
'emphasis,' 'strength,' 'interest,' whatever we may call it, is not
very palpable in the N. T. is in accordance with the blunting of a
great number of pointed idioms in the transfer from classic
Greek. Nothing is more natural than exaggeration and emphasis
in the use of an adopted language (see J. M., Apol. I 16, 6). Of
this there are many instances in Hellenistic Greek, not merely in
the vocabulary, but also in grammatical construction. Instead of
saying with ov, the Hellenist swears with fiif (cf. A. J. P. I 50)*
Instead of using the quieter present imperative, he is prone to
employ out of all proportion the more pungent aorist imperative*
Comp. Justin Martyr, Apol. I 16, 6, with Professor Miller's statis-
tics, A. J. P. XIII 425. Josephus has a tendency to overdo the
participle (A. J. P. IX 154). The articular infinitive, which
belongs to argument, is made to figure conspicuously in narrative
(A. J. P. VIII 337). There is no just sense of sphere, of propor-
tion. So here, ov fu/, however explained, belongs to the dramatic
domain of classical Greek (A. J. P. Ill 202). It has very little
scope outside of dialogue, and, in my judgment, can only be
accounted for by a certain amount of passion. But it would be
hard to see any special passion in many of the examples that
Professor Ballantine cites, and we must suppose that the stress
has been lost by over-familiarity. Swearing has no place in
narrative, as Lucian has remarked emphatically (Quomodo his-
toria, II, II 19 R.), but the ordinary Hellenist is not troubled by
that and uses his 1^ Ala freely. Nothing seems to be more
likely than that ov ^ has found its way into the LXX and the N. T.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NEGATIVE FUTURES lAT THE GREEK N, T 461
from the range of everyday speech. The Hellenist picked up
ov ^ as the Scythian archer picked it up in Ar. Thesm. 1108 : ovki
fui \a\fjat tnf> It is not to be emended into the text of Pindar,
O* 3> 45» and if it occurs in the oracular Parmenides (A. J. P. Ill
203), it is only one more evidence of the essentially unpoetic
character of his philosophic epic. Nor does it seem to me that
Professor Jannaris, in his recently published Historical Greek
Grammar (§1828), has cleared the matter up at all by his
advocacy of the theory that ov ^117 is a corruption of w firjv, the
very combination, by the way, which has been used by scholars
to correct unruly ov firf% as in Ar. Ranae, 508.' ov firjp, of which o^
fi^ is supposed to be a corruption, Professor Jannaris calls a
negative form of 5 fujv. "Hence," he adds, **in the N. T. ov fui(p)
or rather ovfi^v and dfjJiv or rather ^/xi)v hold the balance, 95 and 77
times respectively." I have not been careful to count after Pro-
fessor Jannaris, but I submit that it ought to have given him
pause to find that, according to his own reckoning, the N. T.
holds more ov fi^'s than are to be found in the whole range of
classic Greek. Professor Jannaris's ov hti{¥) theory carries with
it, of course, the survival of the futural subjunctive in classical
Greek, and it is a striking illustration of the fact that in historical
syntax we cannot afford to neglect aesthetic syntax or the history
of the department. Professor Jannaris cites among his arguments
the non-occurrence of ov fjJi in inscriptions. But who would look
for ov fjJi in inscriptions? Our Greek syntax would be much
simplified if we restricted it to what may be found in Meisterhans.
Not less striking is the illustration of the danger that besets the
Greek of to-day in dealing with recondite problems of Greek
syntax. The vernacular is apt to prevail over the historical
sense, and many things besides the futural subjunctive give no
shock to the consciousness (A. J. P. I 242). As Ba <f>vyiif must
deaden the sensibilities to the shock of ov fujv <l>vyjj£, so the impos-
sible aphaeresis postulated by ov fAtjp in certain passages might be
welcome to a man whose mother-tongue is full of similar prod-
elisions.' But the whole theory refutes itself and breaks down at
the first serious application.'
* Tyrrell on Eur. Bacch. 852.
'So. Tr. 978: ov fif^ *fc7'c/)e2f, Ar. Pax 1302: ov fjoj *niX6dif^ both cited by a
reviewer in Th€ Nation^ Jan. 20, 1898.
' E. g. Xen. An. 4, 8, 13 : ow5c«f fUiKkri fuivy.
Digitized by
Googl
NOTE.
On Latin «/A//' naught, not/
The etymology of Latin nihil seems to me to be still in need ot
explanation. Brugmann keeps a dead silence as to its origin, in
the Grundriss. Victor Henry hazards nothing as to its formation,
in his Grammaire compar6e. All that Stolz says (Iw. Miiller's
Hdbch.', p. 315) is *^ nihil neben nihilumJ'^ Wharton (Eiym.
Lat, s. V.) makes this entry : **«f not, see «f, +adj.-ending -Old-.
Ovid has nihil through a popular connection with hllum*^' The
entries in Lewis and Short's lexicon, s. v. hllum, do not vindicate
the actuality of any such word. When Ennius divides ne-que . • •
hllum, the skeptically minded will bethink themselves of his
method of tmesis in *saxo cere- comminuit -drum,* I am of the
opinion that hllum is the veriest of ghost-words, although F. H.
Fowler, in what is probabjy the last treatment of the word (* The
Negatives of the Indo-European Languages,' Univ. of Chicago
dissertation), allows himself to write "^ne-hllum.
To make a new explanation of the word, I start with *nihllumy
with a by-form nihll^ which originated before vowels, and was
shortened in its (pen-)ultimate quantity by the operation of the
iambic law : from nihil the adverb nihllo got its quantity. Still,
the quantity oinihilo may be due to shortening in composition, a
phenomenon we cannot yet precisely limit, but may not forthright
deny.
I propose to divide *nihllum into ne-k-hi-^-elum: -hi- is the
particle affixed to Aryan *«^ (or a compound of *«^-) in Sk. nahi
and Lith. neigl^ affixed in Greek to a new negative particle in
We have next to explain ^-elum. We may define nihil very
exactly by Eng. naught 'no any whit,' and its by-form not 'non.*
It is to be noted also that Lat. non^ the ordinary negative, is a
compound of ne-\-unum\ and compound negatives meet us in
French ne— pointy ItaX. non^punto 'not at all.' We may seek,
therefore, in *-elufn for the meaning *whit, bit.'
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
NOTE. 463
For this we can find plenty of cognates : to begin with, eU-
,fnenium 'atom.' I am aware of the explanation of eiemenium
from the names of the letters ei-\-em'hen, but» ingenious as it is,
it has never seemed to me plausible. I lean, for my own part, to
the comparison of eiemenium with Sk. ar^tl ' fine, thin ' — as noun
' atom ' — afjdmdn ' the finest particles of an object.'
Here, too, we may refer dtakam (R.V.) *to no purpose,' Lat.
*parum.'
Greek is also not without cognates, for we may well put here
^Xi-yor * short,' which G. Meyer explains as o-Xiyos (with prothetic
^-), comparing Lith. ligH 'illness' and noting the Hesychian
gloss Xifoy* IXarroy; while Prellwitz in his dictionary suggests,
with a query, a connection with Homeric Xiy^fiv (adv.) 'grazing.'
As to its formation, l\lyos is a quasi rhyme-word with boKixos
Mong.'
Another Greek cognate is ikaxvt 'small.' Here again the c- has
met its explanation as a prothetic vowel, because of Sk. iaghii^
Lat levis. But we have to do here, I suggest, either with the
problem of dissyllabic gradation, or with a case of contamination
of two stems meaning 'small.'
It is easier to declare for the latter alternative, and we have a
parallel case to our hands in Gk. €pvBp6s 'red,' in which we should
see not only a cognate of Sk. rudhird, but also a cognate of Sk.
aru-ndy both meaning * red.' Why not ?
This evidence seems to me enough to warrant us in positing an
Aryan base el- 'small, a bit, whit.' A trace of this el- I would
see in Latin nihil ' naught, not.'
lbxihctok, va., Ocl 18, 1897. Edwin W. Fay.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES.
A History of English Poetry. By W. J. Courthopb, C. B., M. A.. D. Litt.^
Professor of Poetry in the University of Oxford. Vols. I and II. Mac-
millan & Co., New York and London, 1895, 1897. $2.50 each.
These volumes form the opening instalments of Professor Courthope's work,,
intended to be the first compute history of English poetry that we have had
since Warton, or rather that we have ever had, and we trust that the fates may
be more propitious to him than to ten Brink and Morley, cut off before they
had more than half completed their great designs.
That a complete history of English poetry is wanted will not be questioned^
for in the multiplicity of monographs and partial works, of single volumes
treating certain periods, and of text-books of English literature, we have no
work that gives a thorough and scholarly treatment of all our literature, or
even of the poetical literature alone. It is to be regretted that the plan of the
work did not include a history of the prose literature also, as in the works of
ten Brink and Morley, for literature is individual as well as national, and the
separation of a man*s work in poetry from his work in prose looks like depriving
him of a part of his individuality, dividing his mind in two, as it were, and
giving but a partial view of the man himself — but it is not worth while to
quarrel with what we have.
The first volume covers the period included in "The Middle Ages: influ*
ence of the Roman empire ; the encyclopaedic education of the Church, and
the feudal system " ; the second, that marked by ** the Renaissance and the
Reformation : influence of the Court and the Universities.*' It will thus be
seen that the first volume corresponds generally with Part I of Jusserand's
*' Literary History of the English People/' published in the same year in
English, although the French edition appeared the year before (1894). Prof*
Courthope's preface gives his point of view. He quotes Pope's scheme, which
remained but a scheme, and Gray's design, which he abandoned on learning
of Warton's work, but, with his well-known procrastination, it is doubtful
whether he would ever have executed it, even if Warton had not been engaged
on a similar work. Courthope regrets that Warton set about his work — which
was never completed — *'in the spirit of an antiquary" rather than in that of a.
literary critic, and thinks that he was better fitted for the latter than for the
former, hence the deficiencies of Warton's history. He then explains the
principles of his own work. Taking warning from the experience of Warton,
he concludes that the design of the historian of English poetry must possess
unity ; Gray*s design fulfilled this condition, but his classification did not cor-
respond with the facts ; Courthope aims ** to treat poetry as an expression of
the imagination, not simply of the individual poet, but of the English people.'*
He thinks too that a historical treatment of poetry " must exhibit the principle
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 465
of its growth and movement," and finds fault, justly, with Taine because he
looks with disdain upon the minor poets of the fourteenth century and finds
little of interest in them, which causes blunders with regard to them. But
" The Elizabethan and Jacobean dramatists regarded themselves as the lineal
descendants of the poets of the fourteenth century," and so " we must examine
the foundations on which they built'* While rightly regarding Taine's
criticism of our earlier poets as too depreciatory, Courthope takes exception to
Pater's and Symohds's views of the Renaissance " as a sudden and isolated
movement of the human mind, which cannot be explained by the ordinary
methods of historic investigation.*' He thinks rather that ** the business of
historical criticism is to trace the stream of thought that connects age with
age, and the almost imperceptible gradations which mark the advance of
language and metrical harmony." This causes him too to deal " not only with
the progress of poetical invention, but with the more technical question of the
development of metrical harmony." For taking up this subject he apologizes
in advance both to the philologist and to the general reader. No apology is
necessary to the former if he gives the correct results as ascertained by philo-
logists.
After this sketch of his object and principles in the preface, Prof. Courthope
announces his intention of tracing '* the history of the art of English poetry
from the time of Chaucer to the time of Scott." He thus disclaims any inten-
tion of giving a history of poetry anterior to Chaucer, and justifies himself for
abandoning the method of ten Brink and Jusserand, on the ground that
** between the poetry produced in England before the Norman Conquest and
the poetry of Chaucer there is absolutely no connection." But half of the
volume is taken up with a consideration of poetry in England antecedent to
Chaucer, and chapters III and IV treat specially ** the poetry of the Anglo-
Saxons," and "Anglo-Norman poetry"; so he himself feels that this period
cannot be altogether neglected, and however distinct the alliteration of Lang-
land is from that of Layamon and from the earlier normal scheme of the
Anglo-Saxons, it is scarcely probable that Langland would have originated the
metrical scheme of his great poem if he had not had earlier models, and the
history of " the development of metrical harmony " alone would have necessi-
tated an investigation of the form and style, and hence the contents, of these
earlier models, so that the historical connection cannot be overlooked.
Renouncing then any " attempt to derive the originals of Chaucer from the
cradles of the Anglo-Saxon race," the author seeks *' to trace his imagination
through its immediate literary sources," to ** connect it with the poetry of races
of partial Latin descent," judging that in this way cause and effect may be
linked together. These peoples, while differing in language and race, '* are
united by a common system of faith, education, and military institution," and
their writers deal with similar problems of thought, which take their rise in a
more ancient system of civilization, **but not joined to the life of Europe in
the Middle Ages by any apparently continuous stream of literature." It is the
course of this stream that Prof. Courthope proposes to trace in order *' to arrive
at the primal fountains of mediaeval poetry." Next will come '* the progressive
stages in the formation of the mediaeval stream of thought, which feeds the
literatures of England, France and Italy," and its connection with ** the great
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
466 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
system of Graeco- Roman culture, which seems — ^bnt only seems — to disappear
from the world after the death of Boethius." Then the course of the national
language must be explored "in order to observe the changes produced by
Saxon and Norman influences on the art of metrical expression before it
received the developments of Chaucer." Finally, the meaning of the word
" Renaissance" must be examined, and *' the early effects of the movement on
the literature of Europe.'* We can then appreciate the evolution of poetical
thought and language that characterized the art of succeeding poets.
This comprehensive method is analogous to that of Prof. Freeman in the
field of history, for it seeks to connect the modem with the ancient, to evolve
the former out of the latter, to show that the modem is the legitimate descend-
ant of the ancient, and is not separated by any hard-and-fast line. Like Free-
man's unity of history — which he enforced on all occasions — it emphasizes
the principle of the unity of literature. This work needed to be done, for, so
far as we know, it had not yet been done for English literature, historians of
literature apparently thinking it necessary only to begin with Chaucer as an
isolated phenomenon, as if he too were not the child of his age, and often to
overlook the antecedent literature.
After this preliminary sketch of his plan, showing the philosophic method
. which he intends to pursue. Prof. Courthope examines " the character and
sources of mediaeval poetry," his object being, for a right understanding of
the character of English poetry, '* to appreciate the nature of the vast change
in the life of imagination effected during the decline of the Roman Empire
and the gradual formation of the mediaeval system of Europe." The subject
is treated at some length under the four heads : *' (i) The decline of the civic
spirit under the Roman Empire, and the corresponding decay of classical
taste ; (2) the transformation of the system of imperial education by the Latin
Church ; (3) the rise of a new mythology among the nations embraced within
the system of Latin Christianity; and (4) the influence of feudal institutions,
of the scholastic logic, and of Oriental culture" (p. 14).
Our limits will not permit a detailed examination of each of these points.
Suffice it to say that, after a brief discussion of the first two. Prof. Courthope
concludes " that, in this continuous stream of education ... we find the con-
trolling force which has, in one form or another, guided the imagination and
judgment of every generation of poets from the days of Augustus down to our
own era." The third point is treated at greater length, and the replacing of
the pagan mythology by the Christian, and its effects on poetry, are discussed,
especially when accompanied by the growth of heroic legends, as those of
Troy and Alexander from the ancient world, of Charlemagne and King Arthur
from the modern. This cause, it seems to us, had the greatest infiuence on
the progress of mediaeval poetry, as a similar cause affected ancient poetry.
The fourth point is next treated, and the common bond of minstrelsy is found
to connect the Teutonic Scop (Prof. Courthope prefers the older form Scbp)
and the Romance TVnTttv^r/ and Troubcuiour\ the (^iSf^man becomes the yiMi^ZrMr.
" Teutonic, as well as Celtic, poetry is, in its origin, an embodiment of the
imagination of the Tribe, not of the State " (p. 60), but the character of this
minstrelsy changed, especially under the influences that emanated from Charle-
magne, " the last great figure of Teutonic epic song," and '* the decline in the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 467
spirit of minstrelsy led to a great variety of style in metrical composition.**
The result was shorter compositions and a great variety of tales; society
became more settled, and ** the Prankish intellect, coming under the influence
of an old civilization, began to aim at new artistic ideals." The scholastic
logic too affected literature, as in the case of Dante and Chaucer ; so, while
** the motive power of Christian European poetry springs from the oral min-
strelsy of the Teutonic [i. e. Germanic] and Scandinavian tribes," this was
''profoundly modified by contact with Latin civilization," and the resulting
effects.
Inquiry is next directed to " the origin of the metrical forms and literary
models adopted by the early poets of France and Italy, who gave the first
examples of composition to the fathers of English verse" (p. 69). The
author shows how the prosody of Latin verse was modified by the prevalence
of the principle of accent over that of quantity, referring to Prudentius, who
treated mathesis as having the second syllable short, and Diomedes, who
treated armatus as an amphibrach. So in popular verses the laws of quantity
were soon completely disregarded, and this was done deliberately in the
h3rmns of the early Christian fathers, the Hymn of St. Ambrose, cited by Bede
{De MetrUa RaHone\ being given as an illustration. Other illustrations of
this point follow, and ** The sum of what has been said as to the history of
modem European metres is, that many of the Greek metres were imported
into the Latin language by the literary Roman poets ; that some of them were
afterwards modified, by the disregard of quantity, to suit the requirements of
the popular ear; and that, still later, by some obvious retrenchments, they .
were accommodated to the changed character of the Romance languages which
grew up out of the rustic Latin." But as this was not sufficient to explain
*' the rise of the new system of rhyming architecture," the author traces it to
the Arabs, from whom the poets derived their models of harmony. The Italian
poets took them from the Arabs of Sicily and the French from those of Spain,
and from the Arabs came not only the Italian and Provencal metres, ** but
even the poetical conventions observed by Petrarch and the troubadours."
This is but a brief summary of Prof. Courthope*s interesting chapter on the
mediaeval poetry of Europe, but it has been thought advisable to give it, as
the subject is usually omitted in histories of English literature, and as it illus-
trates his attempt ** to bridge over in various directions the gulf that seems to
separate the civilization of the ancient world from the thought and imagina-,
tion of the community of Europe in the Middle Ages, at the time when the
rising nations were beginning to make use of the vulgar tongues for the pur-
poses of poetical composition " (p. 78).
He now travels back to England and traces the fusion of the elements of
the English language from Anglo-Saxon times to Chaucer. The chapter on
Anglo-Saxon poetry need not detain us long. This has been much better
done elsewhere. Prof. Courthope is evidently not so much of a philologist as
of a literary critic, and forgets the old saw, ne suior supra crepidam. A summary
of the Beowulf \% given, based on Arnold and Earle, and a notice of the Byrhi-
moth and of the Metrical Paraphrase^ *' once ascribed to Caedmon." We should
be glad to have the grounds of the " certainly" in the enumeration of the works
of Cynewulfs composition. There is a reference to Kemble's Codex Vercel-
Digitized by^
468 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
lensis for Cynewulf's date, which date has been long since abandoned \xf
scholars, a short extract from Weymouth's translation of the EUne^ a reference
to Stopford Brooke's History to combat his view that Cynewulf was equal to
Caedmon, and a short account of the Crista with reference to Gollancz's edition.
A few lines from Beowulf^ in which there are several misprints, ore given ** as
a good sample of the style," and a few pages follow (in which there ar«
several errors) intended to show how Anglo-Saxon changed to English. The
point of view may be given from the following quotation of one "change**:
" 5. The gradual substitution of the termination ing for that of and in the
present participle. This change at first sight seems anomalous, considering
that the Norman-French ant resembled the Saxon ending. The latter, how-
ever, in the southern part of the country, was replaced by the variation ind^
and it may be conjectured that the final labial \nc\ of this ending, under the
influence of the Normans, with whom the / of the present participle was mute,
gave way to the guttural ^" (pp. 109, no). It would have been better to omit
this whole antiquated linguistic discussion. In its attempt to turn Anglo-
Saxon into English with a wave of the hand, it reminds us of Jefferson's Essay
towards facilitating instructi<m in the Anglo-Saxon language^ but that was one
hundred years ago. It is not well to make an excursus into language in a
purely literary work.
The chapters on "Anglo-Norman Poetry" and on ** The Early Renaissance'*
are better done, and here we traverse the ground of Jusserand's Book II. The
genius of the Normans is contrasted with that of the Saxons ; their poetical
activity includes three stages, that of Wace and Benoit de Ste. More in the
twelfth century, the romantic poetry (and prose) of the chansons de geste and
the King Arthur cycle, in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and the lays
and fables of Marie de France, who is placed by Courthope in the reign of
Henry III, although Jusserand says she "lived in the time of Henry II."
Orm and Layamon are touched upon, but the Owl and Nightingale receives
the fullest attention. The author places it in the reign of Edward I, rather
later than it is usually assigned, and thinks that it shows " the influence of
French models " and '* a careful study of the style of Marie." The Cursor
Mundi shows the writer " to be a genuine descendant of Caedmon, though
breathing the. atmosphere of the Middle Ages,*' If so, this helps the connec-
tion between Caedmon and Chaucer. A notice of the works of Robert of
Brunne and Robert of Gloucester closes the chapter. The King Horn and
Haveloh the Dane are barely mentioned, but they still further aid the historical
connection and might have been described.
The early Renaissance is treated as affecting Italy, France, and England.
" Up to the middle of the thirteenth century European poetry may be said to
possess a universal character,'* and that, " because it reflects the image of a
society which still preserves many of the essential features of the universal
Roman Empire." " The Renaissance " is called a phrase at once misleading
and obscure, and exception is taken to the usual definitions, "for on the one
hand the pioneers of the movement were the schoolmen, . . . and on the other,
the stream of classical culture . . . had never entirely ceased to flow." It was
*" a tendency inherent in the condition of things, and it was promoted from
different quarters by the independent action of all the greatest minds of the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 469
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries." This seems like saying it was so because
it was so, and fails to give any adequate cause. Until this great movement
affected each country in turn there was no national literature, and the pro-
•duction of such was one of its greatest effects. The effects in Italy, as seen
in the works of Dante, Petrarch, and Boccaccio, and in France, as represented
by the Roman de la Rose^ of which a full analysis is given, are traced, and then
we pass to England, where ** the idea of national life and of the just relations
between Church and State," had been conceived more clearly than in any
other country of Europe. This development of political liberty had its foun-
dation in the institutions of the Saxon race, but *' had the Saxon race remained
in complete isolation, a certain slowness of temperament, which is apt to dis-
^ise its more heroic qualities, might have sunk it in torpor and decay." The
Danes *' Infused new blood and energy into the northern part of the island,"
and '* the Normans from the south communicated a fresh shock to the national
life by the introduction of feudal institutions, and of a ruling race possessed
of all the qualities in which the exhausted Saxon dynasty was deficient"
(p. 186). As these results did occur, we cannot speculate on what might have
happened if the Danes and Normans had not invaded England, but from the
dogged energy and persistency of the Saxon race, which have ever character-
ized the English people, and from the conspicuous lack of such qualities in
the French people, the nearest of kin to the Normans, we may reasonably sup-
pose that the basic qualities of the English would have re-asserted themselves
in the course of time even if there had been no such cataclysm as the Norman
invasion, which more or less repressed the native race for many years, and
even if the result had shown somewhat less elasticity of temperament and
brilliancy of imagination. English = three-fourths Saxon -|- one-fourth Nor-
man. This spirit of political libierty is seen in the political songs of the
thirteenth and fourteenth centuries (see Wright's Political Songs in the Rolls
Series), several of which, in English, French and Latin, and some of the
macaronic kind (French and Latin), are commented on. Abuses of all sorts,
and especially the universal corruption of justice in both the ecclesiastical and
the king's courts, are ridiculed and denounced. " Non est lex sana quod regi
sit mea lana," illustrates the tenor of one of this class. So also,
" Sum cum justitiario
Qui te modo vario
Possum adjuvare,
Si vis impetrare
Per suum subsidium.
Da michi dimidium
Et te volo juvare" (p. 193).
The song after the battle of Lewes — which has also been separately edited —
states the respective positions of the king and the barons. The patriotic
poetry of Laurence Minot (1333-1352) illustrates another side of the national
spirit. The effect of the Renaissance in England was then to awaken this
spirit of political liberty, to *' reveal a consciousness of united purpose and
-corporate pride in the nation, for which no contemporary parallel can be
found in any other country of Europe." ** The time had not yet come for
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
470 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
England when the masterpieces of ancient literature could exercise a refining
influence on the efforts of her native genius " (p. 198). This, however, was
to come a little later.
Prof. Courthope calls Langland the Naevius and Chaucer the Ennius of
English poetry, and the two following chapters are devoted respectively to
a study of each of these great poets. This order is preferable to that of M.
Jusserand, who treats Chaucer and Gower before Langland, whereas the first
form of Langland's work was written before Chaucer had even translated the
Romauntof the Rose, Langland*s Vision of Piers Plowman is rightly called " a
classic work in English literature " ; his " vigorous satire, vivid powers of
description, strong sense of justice, so faithfully reflect the conscience of the
English people, that his Vision often seems to be projecting its light upon the
ethical problems of our own day." The author discusses " the two great
principles on which society in the Middle Ages rested, Catholicism and
Chivalry," and shows that they ** reached their grand climacteric, and sank
into rapid decay." Even before Wycliff the religious sense of the time
embodied itself in Langland's great work. It is analysed very fully, and a
parallel is drawn between Dante and Langland: "both poets present an
image of the ideal or spiritual order of nature and human society, in striking
contrast with the actual course of the world "; '* but Dante's conception was
based on the metaphysical side of Catholic Christianity, Langland's on the
ethical and practical side ''; this gives the keynote of the criticism.
A brief extract from the Brunanburh^ with many misprints, and one from
Piers Plowman^ are given as illustrative of the metre, but Prof. Courthope does
not analyse the structure of the Anglo-Saxon verse. The two do not admit
of strict comparison. Langland merely employs, though with great skill, the
old-fashioned alliteration as an ornament to his verse, for he has been to
some extent affected by the Renaissance in his metrical form, and does not
attempt to reproduce accurately the original rhythm, but he uses the same
metrical principle. His metre is sometimes very regular, but at others very
irregular, and at variance with the older scheme.
An interesting chapter on Chaucer and his works follows that on Langland.
It is confessedly based on Prof. Skeat's edition, but unfortunately Courthope
does not always follow Skeat in his quotations, and hence his text is some-
times bad and needs emendation. We note in passing on p. 252 the common
misprint of Village for Visage, As to the burning question of the final v,
Courthope is inclined to follow Payne in Essays on Chaucer (Chaucer Society,
IV, pp. 84-154) vs. Skeat. He thinks no positive answer can be returned to
the question '* whether or not it was pronounced at the end and in the caesura
of an English verse, in words where it had a grammatical significance" (p. 256).
He is willing to grant that '* strong arguments are forthcoming on both sides
of the question," but he leaves each reader to follow his own taste. This
view would now be regarded as antiquated, and most scholars would certainly
prefer to follow Morris and Skeat and pronounce the final -^ notwithstanding
the ** feminine rhymes." The existing translation of the Romaunt of the Rose
is regarded as Chaucer's, and we are not even informed that there is any doubt
about it. An extract from it is given as showing that Chaucer "furnished
the English language with a new standard of versification which no poet
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 47 1
henceforth could afford to disregard"; and it is **not only remarkable as
making a landmark in the refinement of our Tersification," but ** it marks with
equal significance the rise of a new spirit in English poetry, the importation
of thoughts and themes from the Continent, announcing the approach of the
Renaissance *' (p. 258). While this work and, at a farther remove, Troilus and
Criseyde^ are treated as showing Chaucer's powers as a translator, the Book of the
Duchess^ the ParUment of FouUs^ the House of Fame^ and the Legend of Good
fVomen, show his powers as an imitator; and the Canterhtry Tales^ as an
inventor. They are " the full harvest of the art of the trouvire," who *• was
the lineal literary descendant of the tribal gleeman " (p. 279).
The trouvire was dependent upon the Ftibles of Bidpai and the History of
the Seven Wise Masters^ of Hindoo and Persian origin, which provided him
with his models. Thus originated mediaeval story-telling. ** The main object
of the literary trouvire was to collect appropriate subjects, and Chaucer, with
his habits of encyclopaedic study and omnivorous reading, had amassed a
supply of stories, not indeed so numerous as those collected by Boccaccio, but
covering a wider range of tastes and interests " (p. 288). His framework was
his own, and who but Chaucer could have given us such inimitable pictures of
the various characters in English society ? A table of the Tales^ with their
respective sources, is given, and a summary of the time spent on the journey,
after Skeat. A criticism of Chaucer's excellences closes the chapter, and he
is pronounced *' the first national poet of England." Chaucer emancipated
poetry from the trammels of *' Metaphysics, Allegory, and Theology, and from
the deductive methods of thought encouraged by encyclopaedic science,*' and
" reanimated it by the old classical principle of the direct imitation of nature."
Others developed this principle, Ariosto, Cervantes, Molidre, " but to Chaucer
must be assigned the honor of having led the way." Thus the movement of
the fourteenth century from the mediaeval to the modern had its pioneer in
Chaucer.
Our limits permit but a mention of the succeeding chapters. One follows
on "The Epical School of Chaucer — Gower, Lydgate, Occleve," in which
these poets are much more fully treated than by Jusserand. The Progress of
Allegory in English Poetry is next considered, as illustrated in the Pearl znd.
the Vision of Piers the Plowman^ which exemplify two opposite modes of
treatment, the contemplative and the active, in the Temple of Glass, which
follows the rules of the fashionable Love-allegory, in the Omrt of Love, of
mach later date, and in the Kin^s Quair, which stands midway between the
other two, and ** forms a landmark in the history of allegorical poetry."
These are followed by the works of Henryson, Dunbar, and Douglas, in
Scotland; Hawes, Skelton, and Barclay, in England. The last has been
osually known only from his translation of Brandt's SMp of Fools, but his
Eclogues, in which "the bucolic style is adopted merely as a vehicle of a
moral allegory," are more fully treated by Prof. Conrthope. Allegory was
a most popular form of composition, and it seems that scarcely any writer
could avoid using it as a vehicle for moral instruction. It is, indeed, as old as
Esop, and the Faerie Queen and the Pilgrim*s Progress are doubtless the most
brilliant examples of it in English literature, but the taste for it has declined,
and it is now considered heavy and antiquated.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
472 AMERICAN JOURNAL Ot PHILOLOGY,
The Rise of the Drama in England is next treated in the familiar forms of
the Mysteries and the Moralities, but we find nothing new, — a mere synopsis
of the well-known authorities.
A chapter on the Decay of English Minstrelsy succeeds, and here the
deficiency in Jusserand is supplied. Percy's and Ritson's views are dis-
cussed ; the author considers Percy ** amply warranted in concluding that ' the
minstrels seem to have been the genuine successors of the ancient bards.'"
His very free '* editing " of his MS. is not, however, endorsed. The changes
in the art of minstrelsy are traced, ** as illustrated by the progress of society
from the tribal to the civil state, by the transition from oral to written poetry,
and by the character of the ballad." The ballad is defined, its origin and
development are treated, and some illustrations are given, particularly the
Mary Hamilton^ as showing that the ballad " was a type of poem adapted by
the professors of the declining art of minstrelsy from the romances once in
favor with the educated classes."
A Retrospect of some half-dozen pagest giving a summary of the History,
closes the volume. With the exception of the third chapter on the poetry of
the Anglo-Saxons, Prof. Courthope has given us in this volume an interesting
contribution to a complete history of English poetry.
In the second volume the same design as that noted in the first volume, of
tracing the course of English poetry by the stream of the national thought and
imagination, and by its European relations, is continued, and it is now all the
more important because ** the sixteenth century is the great age of transition from
mediaeval to modern times ; the chief poets of the period work from the basis of
culture provided for them by the Middle Ages, but they are alive to all the inflv-
ences of their own age ; and, like their ancestor Chaucer, they avail themselves
of ideas and feelings flowing in upon them from a foreign source." A sketch is
first given of the religious and political system of Europe in the early sixteenth
century, " in the still Catholic European community," as shown in the Diet of
Augsburg (i 51 8). The idea of the modern state arose out of the decaying fabric
of the Christian Republic, and " Spain, France, and England began to display a
clearly marked individuality in all matters relating to religion, art, literature
and manners." This is seen in the works of the great European writers. The
Courtier of Castiglione and the Discourses and the Prince of Machiavelli, " par-
ticularly impressed the minds of knightly poets and scholarly dramatists in
England." Mr. Courthope accounts for Machiavelli by the circumstances by
which he was surrounded, and thinks that his works exerted an all-powerful
influence. The Colloquies of Erasmus too exerted a strong influence " on the
more reflective part of European society in the sixteenth century, by educating
public opinion indirectly in a more rational scheme of manners and conduct";
and Luther's treatise on Christian Liberty exerted a similar influence in the
religious sphere. The three countries of Spain, England, and France were
sufficiently organized to receive the influences of the Renaissance and the
Reformation. Spain resisted them ; More's Utopia showed how ** the unity of
Christendom might be expanded to satisfy modem requirements," and it was
destined to bear fruit hereafter; in France power was concentrated in the
hands of the king, who was absolute ; the writers reflected the ideas of the
Court, and lacked the ideas of rational liberty and toleration seen in the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 473
Utopia, The author traces these influences so as to give a view of '* the col-
lective forces acting on the imagination of Europe at the beginning of the six-
teenth century." Especially *' the idea of liberty of thought and action, in
the constitution both of the State and the Individual/' arises, and all of these
influences affiect the English imagination, and "begin to break up the solid
structure of traditional belief and ancient chivalry." Prof. Courthope's
method is thus seen to be very different from that of Prof. Morley, more
philosophic, and directed to tracing the history of ideas and how these
European ideas affected English literature.
After this sketch of "intellectual conflict in Europe in the sixteenth
century," the following chapters are devoted to showing its effect in England
in the poems of Wyatt and Surrey, the pioneers of the English Renaissance.
In the poems of Wyatt we see the first results, since Chaucer, of the study of
Italian literature. He is distinguished from the preceding poets by " the indi-
vidual energy of his thought and his persistent imitation of foreign miodels."
To him is due the credit of the introduction of the sonnet into English litera-
ture ; but, although he followed the Petrarchan model, from his unfortunate
lack of ear he was unable to make the improvement in English versification
which characterised the poems of Surrey. In his satires he imitated Alamanni
in his use of the tena rima^ and he also combined the Alexandrine with the
Septenar, so that he struck out new paths in English verse, even if he did not
possess the skill to handle his instrument very successfully. ** Wyatt is a
noble figure in English poetry. His strength, his ardor, his manliness, his
complete freedom from affectation, make him a type of what is finest in the
national character, and there is little exaggeration in the very fine epitaph
written on him by his great contemporary, Surrey" — which epitaph closes
the chapter.
Surrey was a man of more ardent disposition than Wyatt, and not so grave
a character. He lacked Wyatt's ** vehement individuality," " but he succeeds
where Wyatt failed in naturalizing the ideas he borrows by the beauty of his
style," and to it **he owes his great position in the history of English poetry."
His unfortunate death, or murder rather, on a trumped-up charge by the
advisers of the king, when Henry was on his death-bed, was a great loss to
English letters. Like Sir Philip Sidney later, he was the flower of chivalry,
and both by birth and character was a fine representative of English nobility.
His " Fair Geraldine " was an idealized lady-love, and his love-poems were,
like Wyatt's, modeled after Petrarch; but he possessed higher gifts than
Wyatt of " terseness, sweetness, purity, and facility of style." His reform of
English versification is traced under several heads, showing that he grounded
himself on Chaucer, but it is unfortunate that Prof. Courthope should use such
a poor text, with so many misprints, as that given on p. 87 as a specimen of
the beginning of the Prologue ; Prof. Skeat might have supplied him with a
better one. Surrey's sonnet-stanza is that used afterwards by Shakspere and
is not the Petrarchan form. He too first used blank verse in his translation of
Virgil ; and " he was also the first to refine the system of poetical diction so
as to adapt it to the reformed versification."
But while Wyatt and Surrey were thus refining the style and versification of
English poetry after Italian models, political poetry was being developed in
Digitized by^
474 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Scotland in the writings of Sir David Lyndsay, and a little later in England in
the huge collection of political tragedies known as the Mirror far Magistrates^
which owes its claim to consideration as poetry to Sackville's Induction and
his Complaint of the Duke of Buckingham, Lyndsay was a follower of Donglas
and Dunbar in his use of dream and allegory, but he was more. He used his
allegory to illustrate the political condition of the country. Lyndsay's manner
is still mediaeval : it points backward, but his matter points forward, and, in
its *' union of Lutheran piety, political philosophy, and classical imagery ,***
reflects the mind of the Scottish aristocracy on the eve of the Reformation.
A full account is given of the composition of the Mirror for Magistrates, and
its language and versification are pronounced to be " full of instruction for the
student who seeks to trace systematically the growth of the art of English
poetry" (p. 17). The transition in style from the rude and archaic of the-
early sixteenth century to the finished manner of the Elizabethan writers is-
here seen. It culminates in Sackville's Induction, for Sackville showed the
beneficial influence of Surrey. *' Of the epic poets of England, if Chaucer is
the first to exhibit the genuinely classic spirit, Sackville is the first to write in
the genuinely classic manner."
A chapter follows on the translations of the classics, due to the establish-
ment of the new learning in the universities, and the love of learning shown
by Elizabeth herself. ** Wolsey promoted the study of Greek by the founda-
tion of Christ Church [Oxford]. Colet and Grocyn lectured on the Greek
orators and poets in the same university ; and Cheke and Ascham familiarized
their scholars at Cambridge with the dialogues of Plato, the philosophy most
highly approved by the reformers of the Continent. Here was an influence
that could not fail to be felt in literature. But Elizabeth, according to Roger
Ascham, knew Latin, Greek, French and Italian, and could speak with facility
all of those languages. Ascham was her preceptor in Latin and Greek for two
years, so he ought to know. This learned influence communicated itself to
the Court, the Universities, and the writers. A translation of the Aeneid had
been made by Douglas in 151 3, Surrey had translated Books II and IV into
blank verse, the first in English, and now Thos. Phaer, 1 555-1560, and Thos.
Twine, 1562, translated the whole of it into the iambic septenar. Jasper
Hey wood, 1559-61, translated three of the tragedies attributed to Seneca into
the same ballad metre ; and Arthur Golding, 1565-67, turned into the same
verse Ovid's Metamorphoses; this was the translation which Shakspere used.
All of these translations testify to a desire for a knowledge of the new learning
in English form.
Now came many imitators and followers of Wyatt and Surrey in the
numerous Miscellanies of Elizabeth's reign, which were preceded in 1557 by
the most important of all, TotteVs Miscellany, containing the poems of Wyatt
and Surrey, of Thomas, Lord Vaux, Grimald, and others. Grimald led in
the pedantic and conceited style of the later school of Cowley, dubbed by Dr.
Johnson " metaphysical," doubtless merely because it was unnatural. He was
the first to imitate Surrey in the use of blank verse, in which he showed his
good sense, writing in that verse a poem on the Death of Cicero, Googe fol-
lowed with his Eglogues, Epytaphes, and Sonettes, and Turbervile, with his Songs^
Epitaphs^ and Epigrams, Googe, who translated Thi Zodiac of Life^ of Marcel lus
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 475
Palingenitts, and Turbervile, Ovid's HetoUal Epistles and Mantuan's Echgius,
Chnrchyard, who had contributed "a tragedy called Shores IVi/e'* to the
Mirror for Magistrates^ contributed poems also to these Miscellanies^ and lived
to be called old-fashioned by the later Elizabethans. But he was far exceeded
by Gascoigne, after Sackville the greatest name in English letters before
Spenser. Gascoigne was a leader in many ways and deserves more credit
than he has usually received. Prof. Courthope does not seem to be aware of
Prof. Schelling's excellent monograph on his life and works. He wrote son-
nets, lyrics, a satire, The Steel Glass, and other Posies^ and was a critic of
English verse — but we shall have to return to him under the drama.
Gascoigne died in 1577, and we now reach the middle of Elizabeth's reign,
the beginning of the Elizabethan efflorescence in literature. The preceding
thirty or forty years had been preparation and now we have fulfillment.
Three chapters follow, treating Court Dialect, as seen in Lyly, Court Romance,
in Sidney, and Court Allegory, in Spenser. Euphuism is treated as a move-
ment towards refinement in language which affected every literature in Europe.
Although the Euphues and the Arcadia are written in prose, the author thinks
they are '* so closely associated with metrical composition and with the pro-
' gress of English taste that it would be unphtlosophical to regard them as
beyond the limits of a history of English poetry." This illustrates the dis-
advantage of treating poetry and prose separately in a history of English
literature ; they mutually act upon each other, and both must be considered
in any complete view of the national thought and imagination. Passing over
what is said of Italy, Spain and France, we find the problem in England of
forming a standard of literary composition more difficult because of the mix-
ture of races and languages, but, fortunately for the development of style,
"French influence so far prevailed that the order of words in a sentence
follows the logical order of the thought.*' This is an advantage, it may be
noted, that the Germans have never attained, and hence their involved and
cumbrous prose style. The introduction of Latinized words was carried
so far that many never took root. Witness Douglas's dulcorate and facund^
Lyndsay's prepotent and celsitude^ and Wilson's specimen (p. 183), which he
says is no caricature, containing such words as reifoltUing, ingenia, accessited,
adjuvate, obtestate, contignate, inidgUate, &c., &c., so that it requires that one
should know Latin in order to know English. It may be remarked in pass-
ing that the date here given for Wilson's Art of Rhetoric^ the first treatise of
the kind in English, is 1562, whereas on p. 289 it is given as 1553. and this
was not the first edition. The date of this work is of importance as bearing
upon the date of our first comedy, Ralph Roister Doister. The history of
Euphuism is traced, and it is carried back, as usual, to Guevara. If Prof.
Courthope knows of Landmann's study of the subject, he does not mention it.
The common characteristics of this stylistic fad, as seen in Lyly's work,
natural history metaphors, antithesis and alliteration — ** transverse allitera-
tion," as Landmann calls it — are duly noted, and its great influence remarked.
** Euphues -wtL^ as much esteemed by polite society as by the critics. It was
accepted with the Arcadia as fixing the standard of eloquence at Court."
Euphues is called " an example of rhetoric in the language of love composed
to suit the taste of the Court," hence its flattery, its logic and its illustration.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
476 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
'* The metaphorical style in the love-poetry of the Euphuists is a natural
growth of the classical Renaissance: it marks the decay of the allegorical
interpretation of nature, which itself largely accounts for the abundant use of
metaphor in the poetry of the Middle Ages." The influence of Euphues lasted
for a hundred years, and Prof. Courthope considers Lyly's discovery as of
permanent value, for ** he perceived the advantage of clearness, correctness and
precision, in the arrangement of words." For this he should receive due
credit, and his style, when purged of its unnecessary adjuncts, left a residuum
of value in the history of English prose style. "Addison and Steele . . »
learned from Lyly how to present genuine thoughts in an artistic form ; and
Burke, Johnson, and Macaulay, . . . followed his example in working up-
sentences and periods to the climax required for the just and forcible pre-
sentation of the argument " ^ (pp. aoi-a).
Sidney was at the head of the school opposed to the Euphuists, and he criti-
cises them in one of his sonnets. Sidney, Dyer, Harvey, and Spenser for a
time, until his good sense predominated, wished to reform English versification
after the Latin, and perpetrated certain barbarous hexameters. Edward Vere*.
Earl of Oxford, was at the head of the other party, and was a great favorer of
the Euphuists ; he and Sidney quarreled and it came near resulting in a dueL
On Sidney's retirement from the Court in consequence of his bold protest
against the Anjou marriage, he amused himself with writing the Arcadia for hi»
sister Mary, " Sidney's sister, Pembroke's mother,*' intermingling poetry with hi»
prose romance. This work is treated at some length and its literary defects
are commented on. ** The action is wanting in human interest, the characters
are conventional, the structure of the story is confused and irregular." The
style too is criticised : ** Nothing is said plainly; commonplace is disguised by
metaphor ; style is mechanically elevated by a tricky arrangement of words.*"
But, " regarded historically, as a mirror of the feelings of Sidney and the best
of his contemporaries, and, as a work of fiction contributing to the develop-
ment of the English drama, the Arcadia is a most interesting monument.'*'
The element which affected contemporary taste was derived from the study of
Montemayor,and consisted in '* concentrating the main interest of his narrative
in the complications of the love-plots." The dramatists were indebted to the
Arcadia for sentiment and landscape, for development of action and character^
and for the complications arising from the disguise of sex.
The Astrophel and Stella sonnets are also treated with critical insight, and
Prof. Courthope differs from several other critics. Lamb, Trench, and Symonds,
in his interpretation. He thinks that their "theory of a profound and all-
pervading passion is contradicted by the facts of the case, by the character of
Sidney, by the character of the sonnets themselves." Each of these points is
developed, and I must say that I am inclined to agree with Prof. Courthope.
This attempt of critics to find in ideal love-poems some personal reference,
which has been " run into the ground " in the case of Shakspere's Sonnets,
seems to me far-fetched and mistaken. Penelope Devereux was a young girl
II may be permitted to remark just here that in my "Selections in English Prose from
Elizabeth to Victoria " (1891) I purposely beg^n with Lyly as the pioneer in the formation of
English prose style, and I fully concur with Prof. Courthope in giving credit to Lyly for his
contribution to this object.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEIVS AND BOOK NOTICES, 477
who attracted Sidney's attention when she was nnder fifteen, and her father
was anxious for the match. Some cause* now unknown, prevented it, and after
she was married to Lord Rich at the aj^e of nineteen, she became Sydney's
" Laura.'* and received his ideal adoration. ** Artistic opposition to the
Euphuists " also inspired these Sonnets, and " sonnet after sonnet sounds the
note that love alone is an adequate source of inspiration, without the artificial
supplement of science and learning." This is a much more reasonable theory
than the personal one.
The chapter on Court All^ory is a very full criticism of Spenser. As the
greatest genius since Chaucer, and the writer in whom the influences of the
Elizabethan age culminated, he receives the fullest share of critical attention.
'* He wanted no quality required to place him in the same class with Homer,
Virgil, Dante, Shakespeare, Milton, and perhaps I may add Chaucer, but that
supreme gift of insight and invention which enables the poet to blend con-
flicting ideas into an organic form." Prof. Courthope does not agree either
with those who regard Spenser ** primarily as a poetical philosopher^* or with
Lowell, who thinks '* the true use of Spenser is as a gallery of pictures,*' and
who compares the moral to " a bit of gravel in a dish of strawberries and
cream.** The sense is, for Courthope, a characteristic part of his work, but
the allegory is mainly interesting in so far as it serves the purposes of poetry »
not then as a vehicle of moral truth. The designs of the poems are separately
examined, and artistic unity is found even in The ShephercTs Calendar, These
poems were his experiments in poetical diction. The design of the Faery
Qtieen is found in the letter to Raleigh, not in the poem itself. ** As he sought
in The Shepherd's Calendar to treat the Eclogue in a new style, so in the Faery
Queen he aimed at producing a variety of the Romantic Epic of the Italians.'*
As is seen in Harvey's correspondence, he sought to ** overgo Ariosto."
His works are examined to see " how far his conceptions were formed in
harmony with the laws of his art, and how far his execution did justice to his
subjects as he conceived them." In the examination of The Shepherd's Calen"
dar from a metrical point of view, Mr. Courthope thinks that " the metres of
several of his Eclogues are founded on what he erroneously believed to be the
metre of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales** and that he read the Prologue with four
accents instead of five, as follows:
*' Whdnne that A | prfle with his | sh6wres | s6te
The dr6ught | of Mdrch | had perc'd | to the r6te," &c.
This is a remarkable mixture of dactylic-trochaic and iambic*anapaestic
rhythm, the latter predominating in the following lines, but from Spenser's
ignorance of Chaucer's language, it is barely possible that he so read the Pro-
logue, for he does employ this "composite style" in this poem. It is pro-
nounced, on the whole, **a truly beautiful and graceful, if somewhat artificial
composition."
The Faery Queen is also examined at length and compared with Ariosto.
*' Ariosto's word-painting is unequalled for brilliancy and distinctness of color,
but Spenser surpasses him in depth of imagination." Beside being a great
picture-gallery, the Faery Queen *'is also a vast experiment in English
metrical composition," and Spenser's treatment of his stanza is judged to be
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
478 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
*'a triumph of art." Spenser was the poet of chivalry and of mediaeval
allegory. '*He composed his poems in the spirit of a great painter, a great
musician/* and his Faery Queen is " a thing of beauty, a joy forever."
The next chapter on the growth of criticism and its effect on poetry, with
notice of the poetical euphuists, traces the advance of national taste as seen in
the later Elizabethan Miscellanies and the consequent development of poetical
criticism. Gascoigne was here a pioneer, for his Notes of Instruction concern*
ing the Making of Verse is the first critical treatise that we have on the verse-
practice of the time. Campion, Webbe, Puttenham, and Sidney receive brief
notice, and the four main groups of metrical composers are successively
described, the university scholars, Harvey and Fraunce, who wished **to
reform the national poetry on classical lines"; the sonnet writers, Watson,
Constable, Lodge, Daniel, and others, who imitated Petrarch and the Italians
until they ran out in the nonsense of Barnes ; the court poets, Sidney, Dyer,
Essex, Raleigh, Oxford, who have written some of the best lyrics of the age ;
and finally, the men of letters. *' who embodied the spirit of the Renaissance
in poetical romance or classical mythology," such men as Breton, Barnfield,
Greene, Lodge, and Marlowe. These last have left the most permanent
impress on the poetry of the time, and in Marlowe's Hero and Leander^^ have
the culmination of the poetry of passion. ** Though his style is colored with
the conceits and mannerism of the period, yet, as compared with the diction of
contemporary Euphuistic writers, it has a fiery strength and vigor not to be
found in any other man."
We now reach that form of literature for which the Elizabethan age was
distinguished par excellence^ and the last two chapters of the volume are devoted
to the development of the drama. Schlegel's theory that Shakspere *' owed
hardly anything to his predecessors " is rightly excepted to ; such a theory is
** the height of critical superstition," and Prof. Courthope devotes his efforts to
showing the historical evolution of the drama, ** the transition from pageant
to theatre, from interlude to tragedy, comedy, and history." The professed
historians of the drama, Collier, Ward, and Symonds, have done much to
elucidate its history, but the author thinks that ** something still remains to be
done," and he devotes this chapter to tracing ** the slow gradations by which
the dramatic art passed out of the rudimentary conditions, peculiar to it in the
Middle Ages, into the hands of those who brought the form of the romantic
drama to its full perfection." Without going into details, which would take
more space than we have at command, we may say that the facts- fully justify
Mr. Courthope's position. He investigates the progress of the stage from the
Miracle Play to the Morality; the influence exercised upon the stage by the
Court, the Universities, and the Inns of Court ; the opposition of the Puritans
and the effect of the building of theatres outside of the municipal jurisdiction
of London ; to all which were added the improvements in dramatic art made
in the course of time. Prof. Courthope analyses many of these Moralities, and
shows the gradual progression from allegorical personification to individual
action, from mere dialogue to development of a complicated plot. Like Will
to Like (1568) illustrates the manners of the time, and here we have a mixture
of allegorical and individual characters, and the personal Vice, Nichol New-
fangle. In The Three Ladies of London (1584), ** the genius of the old Morality
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES, 479
probably reached the highest level of which it was capable ": it is too a dramatic
^satire on the manners of the day. These were, however, very late examples
of the Moralities. Full credit is given to John Heywood for the steps taken
in advance by him, and under the influence of the study of Plautus and
Terence, is finally reached the first regular comedy, Udall's Ralph Rcisttr
Doistfr {tihoui 1550). Progress is made in Gascoigne*s translation of Ariosto's
Supposes and in his Glass of Government^ but Prof. Courthope omits to note
that this last is based on the Latin Acolastus^ founded on the parable of the
Prodigal Son. It was no more original with Gascoigne than The Supposes,
Gviscoxgnt^s Jocasta too was but a translation, from the Italian of Dolce, of the
Phoenissae, Lyly's prose Court comedies mark the highest development in
this direction. Prof. Courthope does not notice the supposed allegorical sig-
nification of the Endymion^ which has been brought out in the Introduction
to Mr. Baker*s edition of that play. The dramatic movement from Interlude
to Comedy is summed up, from didactic allegory to imitation of manners,
thence to action of human personages in fuller plots and with greater refine-
ment of dialogue.
So too was Tragedy evolved from Interlude, and here exception is taken to
Symonds's view of two types of tragedy, one modelled after Seneca and the
other after the Italian plays, the latter finally prevailing. The tragedies and
tragi-comedies *' all have a close affinity with the Interlude/' and there was no
** conflict between the type of tragedy favored by the Court and that dear to
the people." As the Mirror for Magistrates presented tragedy in epic form,
so the plays presented it in dramatic form. The influence of Seneca was
plainly seen in our first regular tragedy, Ferrex and Porrex, or Gorboduc (1562),
which Mr. Courthope speaks of only as Sackville's, ignoring Norton altogether,
although he wrote more than half of it. Notwithstanding Schlegel's opinion,
it is characterized as '* a work of great merit," and so it was if we consider its
time, but it was well for English tragedy that it did not develop on the lines
of Gorboduc, Hughes imitated it in his Misfortunes of Arthur (1587), but this
was the year of Marlowe's Tamdurlaine, and no one thought of Seneca after
that. Bale, with his Ring fohan, *' probably written during the reign of
Edward VI/' began the evolution of Chronicle History out of the Interlude.
So throughout the sixteenth century there was a gradual progress in dramatic
development. The Moralities and Interludes, themselves developed from the
old Miracle- Plays, gradually passed into Tragedy, Comedy, and Chronicle
History, under the influence of the Renaissance.
The last chapter is occupied with a study of the infancy of the romantic
drama as seen in the works of Greene, Peele, Marlowe, and Kyd. Now we
find a conflict in England between the principles of the Renaissance and the
Reformation. Puritanism showed itself in the attacks made upon the stage.
Between 1570 and 1587 there were no less than six violent attacks in pamphlet
form made upon the stage. Prof. Arber has given us a summary of these in his
edition of Gosson's School of Abuse (1579), which was an invective against
"Poets, Pipers, Players, and such-like Caterpillars of a Commonwealth.'*
Being dedicated to Sir Philip Sidney, it produced his Apologie for Poetrie^ as
Sidney did not relish the inclusion of Poets in this general onslaught. The
Puritans had ample justification for their attacks. Englishmen had become
Italiematedf and here too Gascoigne had led the way, but he repented, so that
Digitized by^
480 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Whetstone, his friend, could indite funereal verses on The Well-employed Life
and Godly End of G, Gascoigne, Esquire, which elegy the curious reader will find
prefixed to Prof. Arber*s edition of The Steel Glass, Greene, however, went
further than Gascoigne in this process of Italianisation, and if what he states
in his Repentance and his Groats-worth of Wit is true, he was veritably **a hard
case." Courthope sees no reason to question the authenticity of his auto-
biography. Greene's dramas, all of which except Friar Baeon and Friar Bun-
gay zx^ thought to show Marlowe's influence, are successively noticed, and
'*what is best and most characteristic ... is the poetry of his pastoral land-
scape, and his representation of the characters of women; in both of these
respects he exercised an unmistakable influence on the genius of Shakes-
peare." Greene was the true predecessor of Shakspere in comedy, as Mar-
lowe was in tragedy. Peele is thought by Prof. Courthope to have **a finer
range of imagination " than Greene, and he is given a higher rank than that
usually assigned him by the historians of the drama. His two best plays. The
Arraignment of Paris^ which inspired Shakspere in A Midsummer Nighfs
Dream, and David and Bethsabe, are alone noticed, and that briefly. The bulk
of the chapter is rightly reserved for Marlowe, '* the great genius who may
justly be called the founder of English poetic drama." In Marlowe "the
rupture with the Puritanic element of the nation was absolute and compleie."^
Marlowe wrote *' freed from the restraints of Conscience and Law.'* He
believed in " the freedom of the human will," and he wrote accordingly. The
incarnation of absolute power is seen in Tamburlaine^ of knowledge in Faustus..
" Tamburlaine is the type of resistless force ; Faustus represents the resolute
pursuit of knowledge as an instrument of material power." Faustus is pro-
nounced *' unquestionably Marlowe's greatest play; one of the greatest plays
that the world possesses." Others have given the palm to Edward //. They
are both great in difl'erent ways, but I must concur with the estimate of the
final soliloquy of Faustus, '* which, as a representation of mental agony and
despair, is only equalled, in the whole range of the world's poetry, by the
speech of Satan to the Sun in Paradise Lost.^* The other plays are briefly
noticed, and some excellent criticism follows. Marlowe's violence and exagge-
ration are recognized ; also, the ill-construction of his plots. His ** theory of
dramatic action is contrary to the constitution of human nature," for ** it elimi-
nates the factor of Conscience " ; and " the narrowness of his conception of
man and nature is seen in his representations of female character." As has
been recognized by all critics, Marlowe could not paint a female character.
The chapter closes with a notice of Kyd, but he was only a disciple of Mar-
lowe who exaggerated Marlowe's faults ; rant and bloodshed are his predomi-
nant characteristics. Shakspere rescued the drama " by restoring to tragedy
the elementsof conscience, religion, and chivalry, which Marlowe had expelled
from it."
This volume carries forward the history of English poetry to the time of
Shakspere, and we await with interest its successors. Prof. Courthope's work
traces with philosophic judgment, critical taste, and literary skill, the course
of English poetry, and is a useful addition to its history, notwithstanding
some defects. To each volume a very full analytical table of contents is
prefixed, but indexes are wanting.
James M. Garnett.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEiVS AND BOOK NOTICES, 48 1
T. Lucretius Carus de Rerum Natura. Buch III erklaert von Richard
Heinze. Teubner, Leipzig, 1897. Pp. vi + 206.
The edition of the third book of Lucretius which we have before us is
the second volume in the new series of Wissenschaftliche Commentare pub-
lished under the editorship of Professor Kaibel of Strassburg. It is a
worthy successor to the inaugural volume of the series, the Electra of
Sophocles, edited by Professor Kaibel himself. Like that work, it not only
undertakes to present a new and more thoroughgoing interpretation of the
text chosen, but it also stands for a theory of interpretation as yet but
scantily represented. If I understand the purpose of the commentary
aright, it assumes that there is much more in an ideal interpretation than
an explanation of the difficulties of thought, language or text. It would
seem to aim at something further — at illustration of the background of
thought and the habit of language out of which the poet's work has pro-
ceeded. Its effort is not only to explain difficulties, but in a manner to
reproduce the creative atmosphere in which the poet wrought. It would
substitute for mere explanation a background of consciousness. It may be
that this is to put more into the editor's work than he himself felt, but if so,
it is under the influence of the agreeable feeling that in this work we have
a real approximation to a true interpretation, infinitely removed from the
vast bulk of editions **with notes."
In the brief but instructive preface the editor calls attention to the
main directions of his effort. The task of the editor, he points out, consists
in an explanation of the relation of the poet to his material, since the poet
is only the interpreter of the teachings of another, and of the transforma-
tion of this material from scientific prose to verse. The content of Lucre-
tian verse therefore requires attention first of all. In this consists, I
believe, the most original and positive contribution of the editor to the
interpretation of Lucretius. The vast mass of scattered and fragmentary
material relating to the philosophy of Epicurus has been brought to bear
upon this portion of the de rerum natura with an insight before which many
an obscurity has disappeared, and with a sureness of touch that reveals
the master in the field of Greek philosophy, to one phase of which an
earlier work of the editor was devoted (Xenocrates, Lpz. 1891). This
material is presented not only current with the text, but in the introduc-
tion to the commentary the psychology of Epicurus is presented briefly,
but with great clearness, and in such a manner as to cast much light on a
field in which the obscurity is not wholly the fault of a scanty tradition.
In the whole matter of the relation of Lucretius to his sources, Heinze
seems to have penetrated much further than his predecessors (notably, for
example, in the arguments for the mortality of the soul), as was no more, to
be sure, than could fairly be demanded with the results of much recent
investigation in this field at hand (e. g. Usener's Epicurea), but still with
an originality and breadth of grasp that deserve the fullest recognition.
Closely connected with this subject is the question of terminology, to
which the editor also calls attention in his preface. Here it has been his
effort to ascertain in every case the equivalence of the terms chosen, and
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
482 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
when the exactness of the Latin word employed might be qnestioned, the
possibilities of expression at the disposal of the poet have been weighed.
In this connection Munro's defence of the poet against his own complaint
of the poverty of the Latin tongue and of the difficulty of giving expression
to obscure ideas in a field of thought never before trodden by Roman bard,
will be remembered (cf. Munro, Int. p. 11). Certainly in this well known
passage Munro has given expression to the feelings of Lucretian scholars
since Lachmann restored a legible text. For there is a confidence and
sureness of movement in the language of the poet that does not leave
room for much consciousness of the inadequacy of the language to the
theme. Bat Heinze in his note on vss. 258-261, on the nature of the
admixture of the elements of the soul, observes that no portion of the
poem is more obscure, and furthermore that it is the only portion of the
Epicurean doctrine which Lucretius greatly abridged. The causes of this
he holds are therefore not only the obscurity of the subject-matter, but he
believes that we must also give credence to the poet, whose complaint
here is reiterated, that the language did not permit him to say what he
gladly would.
In the matter of the text the editor has been quite conservative. His
own conjectures are not numerous, nor do they extend to changes that have
a radical efiEect upon the thought. In vs. 58 (eripitur persona manare)^
where the Itali read manet res^ he suggests mala re^ but does not introduce
the reading into his text, and wisely, since from no point of view does it
seem so satisfactory as the correction of the It., which in turn we may still
grant is not convincing. In vs. 194 constat for extat^ a rather doubtful
change in the interest of conventional phraseology. In vs. 337 praeterea
is changed to propterea, as it seems to me correctly in view of the argu-
ment. In vs. 394 quam sis = suis^ attractive. In vs. 433 feruntur seems
correctly restored iot geruntur. That vs. 493 is hopelessly corrupt is not
made convincing to me. In the matter of transposition and rearrange-
ment (apart from single verses), which has been a favorite field for the dis-
play of editorial ingenuity, the editor is very conservative, and has shown
very clearly that most difficulties of this kind are to be removed by inter-
pretation. Thus at vss. 417 and 526, the apprehension of the true dispo-
sitio makes transposition quite superfluous. Indeed the editor's grasp of
thought and arrangement reminds me not infrequently of the keen sense
for psychological suggestion in explanation of transitions which Kiessling
displays and was the first to apply with discernment to the interpretation
of Horace. When it is remembered that Heinze has assumed the respon-
sibility of revision for Kiessling's Horace, it is not unlikely that we have a
clue to the source of the training which marks much of the characteristic
quality of this work.
It is a satisfaction to find so pervading a sympathy with all the moods
and themes of the poet as the editor reveals, and one is pleased with his
expression of the feeling that Lucretius has in most cases elevated the
prosaic parts of his theme to the rank of true poetry. It used to be, and I
think still is, commonly said (e. g. by Teuflfel) that Lucretius was a great poet
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. 483
sadly astray in the choice of a subject I am sure, however, that many a
devotee of Lucretius will join with me in protest against this utterance.
For when we consider the sort of work that was possible or that was likely
to have challenged the attention of a Roman poet in the first century B. C,
we cannot, I believe, conceive of any theme that we should willingly
exchange for the de rerum natura. What were an epic of any theme,
mythological or national, or the Alexandrine sources of inspiration of his
contemporaries, in comparison with a subject-matter which called forth a
passionate intensity of feeling and devotion that we miss in all other
Roman poetry? Of refined workmanship and rhetorical vigor there is no
lack elsewhere in the higher poetry of Rome, but of feeling, verging at
times to an almost unhealthy fervor, there is no other grandly sustained
example, and let us not therefore complain of a subject-matter which was
its inspiration. I know not if there is a statelier or simpler example of
intense dramatic conception than the long cumulative enumeration of the
considerations which show the mortality of the soul, summed up in those
triumphant verses beginning Nil igitur ad nos mors est neque pertinet
hilum. To the sagacious and sympathetic interpreter of this culminating
book of Lucretius, scholars who have leisure to peruse his work will feel a
sense of personal obligation.
G. L. Hbndrickson.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS.
Romania, Vol. XXIV (1895). Second half.
Juillet.
Ferdinand Lot. Celtica. 17 pages. A series of interesting observations
throwing light upon various obscure points in the relations of the romances of
the Round Table to their Breton prototypes. Thus, Mabonagrain in the tale
of Erec et Enide (the Geraint et Enid of the Mabinogi) is a fusion of the juxta-
posed names of two magicians, Mubon and Evraifiy the latter name being in
turn a corruption of Euuain (Owen), due not to phonetic change, but to an
error of reading in written transmission. Again, the "chateau de Lis" is a
mere tautology, llys signifying * castle' in Breton.
A. Thomas. Les noms composes et la derivation en frangais et en proven^al.
18 pages. In his treatise on the FormaHon des mots composis^ Arsine Darme-
steter was able to draw up a list of only 66 derivatives from French compound
words, a fact which he offered in support of his statement that ** la derivation,
richement d^veloppee chez nous, s'exerce cependant avec difficulte sur les
composes.*' M. Thomas begins by eliminating from this list a certain number
of derivatives from compound proper names (such as saint-cyrun^ ttrreneuvier),
"car Ton pent dire que tous les noms propres, composes ou non, sont suscep-
tibles de foumir des derives" (Le Chat-Noir^ chatnoiresque) ; and such words as
vaurienne, while citing in addition, in this category, fainAmte^ " qui est re^u
partout, et proprarienne^ qui est encore confine dans les bas-fonds parisiens
(c'est I& de la flexion et non de la derivation).'* The author then proceeds to
supplement very considerably the list given by Darmesteter and to furnish
one of his own for the Provencal. In conclusion he points out a species of
parasynthetic not before signalized. " La pomme dite blandureau tire mani-
festement son nom de ce qji*elle est blanche et dure : on ne voit pas que Tadj.
dur ait produit de deriv^ dureau en dehors de ce mot compose." The words of
this class are comparatively numerous.
P. Meyer. La descente de Saint Paul en enfer: po^me frangais compose en
Anglcterre. Beginning at least as early as the fourth century, there have
been numerous versions of this legend in various languages. M. Meyer here
publishes, face to face, a Latin prose abridgment of the legend and an Old
French rhymed version of 282 verses, founded upon it and contained in a
manuscript of Toulouse.
Paget Toynbee. Dante's references to Pythagoras.— Dante's obligations to
Orosius.— Some unacknowledged obligations of Dante to Albcrtus Magnus. —
Dante's obligations to Alfraganus in the Vita Nuava and Omvivio, 55 pages.
This series of articles constitutes an original and valuable contribution to our
knowledge of the sources and references of Dante's writings. Speaking of
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS, 485
Alberlus Magnus, the author says : ** It is singular that, though he has made
such liberal use of the works of Albertus Magnus, Dante does not mention
him by name more than four times, viz. Convito, III 5 (where he is called
•Alberto della Magna'), Conviio, III 7 and IV 23 (in both of which he is
called simply 'Alberto*), and Paradiso, X 98 (where he is called 'Alberto di
Cologna').** Apropos of this paragraph the present writer pointed out, in a
paper read before the philological section of the N. Y. Acad, of Sciences, that
the modern appellation of *the Great,* as applied to Albert, appears to have
been the outgrowth of a misapprehension. The epithet Magnus was pretty
•certainly given originally to Albertus simply to designate him as* the Tall,*
but may also have been used as a mistaken latinization of the * della Magna'
{'of Germany') which we find used by Dante. It is noteworthy that, so far as
appears, no other scholar or writer in the world's history ever acquired the
appellation of * the Great.*
Melanges. A. MussaBa. Francese vals, vali^ imlent; salt, salt; chult^ chali,
4 pages. Latin va/rf, valet^ valeni should have given regularly in O.Fr. vels,
^elt^ velent^ but the latter forms are nowhere found. Most scholars have
regarded the universally occurring forms with a {vais, valt^ valerU) as due to
analogy with vahns^ valez^ where the a is regular, being pretonic. Mussafia
here supports an explanation long since advanced by Comu, that in this verb
the a of the forms in question was preserved chiefly by the influence of the a
regularly occurring in a majority of the stem-tonic forms, "forme rizotoniche **
ivailU^ etc.). — E. Langlois. Interpolations du jeu de Robin et Marion. In-
geniously surmises and unmasks two important interpolations. — G. Raynaud.
Le dit du Cheval 4 vendre, public d'apris un manuscrit du chateau de
-Chantilly. A fragment of only 51 verses, carefully edited.
Comptes rendus. Abhandlungen Herrn Prof. Dr. Adolf Tobler, zur Feier
seiner fUnfundzwanzigjfihrigen Th&tigkeit als ordentlicher Professor an der
Universitat Berlin von dankbaren SchQlem in Ehrerbietung dargebracht (G.
Paris). 10 pages. The work reviewed consists of 22 articles, " tons interes-
sants, quelques-uns de tris grande valeur,** covering over 500 pages. — W.
Meyer-LUbke. Zur Geschichte des Infinitivs im Rum&nischen. "Dans cette
savante et pen^trante ^tude, M. Meyer-Ltlbke nous donne un avant-goClt de
ce que sera le troisidme volume de sa Grammaire^ consacre k la syntaxe.*' — J.
Vising. Qtumtodo in den romanischen Sprachen. " Montre que, dans diverses
Ungues romanes, a cdte de com ou como<\9X, wxlg. quomo<quomodo il existe
ou a exists une forme coma^ qui s'explique par quorno ad^ et une forme come^ qui
s*explique par quomo et , , , Presque partout les formes se sont confondues.
En fran^ais, c'est come (comme) qui a absorbe comj'* — A. WallenskSld. Zur
Ldsung der Lautgesetzfrage (G. P.). " Je suis depuis longtemps 4 peu pris de
I'avis de mon savant ami sur le traitement exceptionnel aUquel sont sujets cer-
tains mots tr^s usites . . . Cette negligence tient k ce qu*on sait qu*il n*est pas
neccssairc de les prononcer pleinement pour que I'auditeur les comprenne,
quelques-uns d'entre eux, surtout parmi les formules d'allocution, — comms
prov. crtf na, esp. (/stcd, — arrivent 4 n*6tre en reality que de simples allusions
vocales."— K. Breul. Le Dit de Robert le Diable. " L*edilion du Dit de
Robert le Diable^ faite avec autant de soin que d'intelligence, est assurement
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
486 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
une des contributions qui ajoutent le plus de prix 4 ce beau recueil." — £.
Gorra. Delle origini della poesia lirica del medio evo (A. Jeanroy). **La
proluHone de M. Gorra est aussi habilement composee qu'elegamment ccrite."
— H. Springer. Das altprovenzalische Klagelied (A. Jeanroy). "Conscien-
cieuse dtude." — G. A. Cesareo. La poesia siciliana sotto gli Svevi (A. Jean-
roy). 8 pages. " II y a dans ce livre des pages excellentes et qui resteront ;
mais I'ensemble est gUte par des erreurs, des & peu pr^s, une tendance au
paradoxe." — E. Wechssler. Ueber die verschiedenen Redaktionen des Robert
von Borron zugeschriebenen Graal-Lancelot-Cyclus (G. Paris). "L'ordre et
la lumi^re pendtrent peu & peu dans ce chaos indigeste, dans cette selva oscura
des romans en prose de la Table Ronde ... Le memoire de M. Wechssler
est une des plus importantes contributions qui aient ete apport^es & cette
oeuvre de reconnaissance et de dechiffrement qui ne sera pas de longtemps
achevee."
Chronique.
P^riodiques.
Livres annonc^s sommairement. 40 titles. W. H. Schofield. The Source
and History of the Seventh Novel of the Seventh Day of the Decameron.
" Excellente petite etude."— James D. Bruner. The Phonology of the Pisto-
jese Dialect. "Ce travail porte sur l*etat ancien aussi bien que snr T^tat
moderne du parler de Pistoja." — Rene de Poyen-Bellisle. Les sens et les
formes du cr^ole dans les Antilles. " L*auteur de ce petit livre est intelligent
et sufHsamment au courant de la philologie romane." — G. Lanson. Histoire
de la litt^rature frangaise. Paris, Hachette, pp. xvi, T158. 5 francs. *'Dans
ce trds remarquable ouvrage, qui conduit I'histoire de notre litterature de ses
premieres origines jusqu'aux oeuvres les plus r^centes, le moyen age occupe
une place justement proportionnee (216 pages). Cette place est extr6mement
bien remplie."
Octobre.
F. Lot. Etudes sur la provenance du cycle arthurien. 32 pages. I. Le
sens du mot breion au XI I^ si^cle. In the nth and 12th centuries, for the
French, the Normans and the English, the Bretons were the inhabitants of
ancient Armorica, "la Bretagne." The insular descendants of the ancient
Bretons were called Gualeis, Gallois (Welsh), and their country, to the west of
the Severn, is GuaUs (Wales). They called themselves Cymri (Latin Cambri).
— II. De la provenance des lais dits bretons. The author analyzes critically
all the evidence, and concludes that at least half of the iais that have come
down to us derive, not from Armorica, but from southern Great Britain.
If. Meyer. Cet^ suivis d*a en provengal: ^tude de geographie linguistique
(avec carte). 47 pages. It has been well known that in the southern portion
of the regions speaking the langue d^oc^ Latin c (and similarly ^). initial, or
second consonant of a group, preserved its Latin sound virtually intact before
a, 9, u (camp, castel^ galina)^ while in the more northern parts c and ^, in like
case, take on a complex sound commonly represented by ch and / (champ,
chastely jalina). The present elaborate memoir undertakes to establish the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS, 487
geographical line of demarcation between the sounds ca^ga and the sounds
cha^ja, " Si on instituait une recherche semblable pour la zone od, dans le
nord de France, cha passe 4 CA, les resultats, autant que j'en puis juger par
quelques etudes qui je continuerai peut-6tre un jour, seraient moins satisfai-
sants h. tous egards. Pourquoi? Pour diverses causes qui se reduisent en
somme 4 une seule : parce que la limite de ch et de c^ de/ et de gu (Chastel et
Castely Jouy et Gouy) passe trop prds de Paris . . . Les parlers locaux sont
actuellement ou eteints ou trop impregnes de frangais pour donner des
indications nettes et precises."
Melanges. F. Bonnardot. A qui Jacques de Longuyon a-t-il d^die le
po^me des ** Voeux du Paon " ? The great vogue of this poem during the latter
part of the Middle Ages lends some interest to the discovery of the identity
of the personage to whom it was dedicated, viz. Thiebaut, bishop of Lidge
from 1303 to 1 312, son of Thiebaut II, comte de Bar.— A. Thomas. Etymo-
logies fran^aises. Chevhte [sort of fish resembling the whitebait]. From
*capit{nem, doublet of capitonem (cf. archaic turbonem for turblnem). — Hanse
[shaft of a pin]. Probably an alteration of hante (O.Fr. hanste\ due to influ-
ence of anse. — Haque, Harengs h la haque are herrings prepared and salted to
be used as bait. The phrase h la haque is doubtless for h Vactque^ from the
verb aeschier * to bait,' from Latin esca. — OrpailUur [gatherer of gold-dust]. A
folk-etymological modification of harpailleur (influenced by or * gold '), through
harpaiUer^ pejorative of harper *to seize.' — Routs [Mod. Prov. for • bush, brier'].
From *rusteum for rustum, — O. Densusianu. O.Fr, baufan [a dappled horse].
For baucenc, from Lat. balteum, with substitution of Germanic suffix -ing. — G.
A. Nauta. La Danse Macabre. '* La danse de la Mort ^tait nomme au XV (^
si^cle dans les Pays-Bas Makkabetis dansP—V, Meyer. La Descente de Saint
Paul en Enfer : po^me fran^ais compose en Angleterre (note complementaire).
— A. Morel-Fatio. Espagnol yogar. Among the orders pronounced by the
immortal Sancho Panza in the government of his Island appears the following:
*' Procurad que no os venga en voluntad de yogar con nadie." The etymolo-
gists have hitherto failed to distinguish between the familiar verb yogar ' to
sport,' homjoeare^ and the archaic word yogar, meaning *to lie (with).' Latin
jtuuit gave regularly the strong preterit yogo (pronounced ydgd). This form
came to be confused with the weak preterit yogd z=.jocavit^ and the confusion
extended to other forms of the two '^^xh^ yacer ?iXi^ yogar,
Comptes rendus. P. Marchot. Les gloses de Cassel. Les gloses de Vienne
(G. Paris). M. Marchot considers these two glossaries as both belonging to
one of the Raeto- Romance dialects. Holtzmann long ago assigned the Cassel
glossary to a Romance idiom spoken in Bavaria in the 8th century, and Gaston
Paris formerly adhered to this opinion, but now admits that Marchot has
rendered his view very probable. The Vienna glossary seems to be correctly
assigned to the dialect of Friuli. — Kritischer Jahresbericht liber die Fort-
schritte der romanischen Philologie. Unter Mitwirkung von 115 Fachge-
nossen herausgegeben von Karl Vollm5lIer und Richard Otto. I. Jahrgang
(G. Paris). *' C'est en fait le GrundrUs de GrOber indefiniment continue et
mis au courant: je ne saurais mieux en faire comprendre et le m^rite et
I'utilit^."— L. Willems. Etude sur I'Ysengrinus (L. Sudre). Even after the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
488 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
masterly introduction prefixed by Voigt to his edition of the Ysengrimus in
1884. the present work is valuable as throwing light on a certain number of
obscure points. The orthography of the title, Ysengrinus (with an »), is
defended by serious arguments.
Periodiques. A report is given of vol. I (1894) of the Revue Hispanique:
recueil consacre k I'etude des langues, des litteratures et de Thisioire des pays
castillans, Catalans et portugais, public par R. Foulche-Delbosc.
Chronique. M. Anatole de Montaiglon, professor at the Ecole des Chartes
in Paris, died at Tours on September i, 1895, in his 72d year. He was a
scholar of varied attainments, a prolific writer, and the editor of numerous
works in the domain of Romance philology. — There has been founded at
Madrid a Revista critica de historia y literatura espaflolas, which is published
monthly.
Livres annonces sommairement. 27 titles. Guernsey: Its People and
Dialect, by Edwin Seelye Lewis. Johns Hopkins University dissertation.
*• II est k souhaiter que M. Lewis reprenne et complete son etude, dont Tobjet
est des plus int^ressants, non seulement pour la dialectologie moderne, mais
pour I'histoire de revolution du fran^ais."
H. A. Todd.
Rheinisches Museum fOr Philologie, Vol. LI I, parts 3, 4.
Pp. 305-32. Lateinische Uebersetzungen aus der Aratusliteratur. M. Man-
itius. A critical edition of the " Arati ea quae uidentur" (= *Ap&Tov <^v6fieva)
of the Dresden MS Dc 183. This is a translation from the Greek into an
extremely barbarous Merovingian Latin. The MS belongs to the 9th century,
the translation may have been made about the beginning of the 6th.
Pp. 333-7. Die Exostra des griechischen Theaters. A. KOrte. In the
fifth century B. C. k^doTpa and tmcvKXriua were different names for the same
thing. At a later period k^uarpa meant a balcony. From the accounts of the
temple of Delos for the year B. C. 274 (B. C. H. XVIII 163) it is clear that
there were several exostrae. This inscription confirms the statement of
Pollux, IV 127 Kcu xp^ TOVTO voelodoi Koff kudorrfv dhpaVf oiovel Koff kK&aTrjv oiidav,
Reisch has exaggerated the difficulty of working such a machine (Das grie-
chische Theater, pp. 244, 246).
Pp. 338-47. Antiker Volksglaube. W. Kroll. I. The ancient popular
belief that the soul of man dwells in the air, whence it is breathed into the
body, is found in some Orphic verses quoted by Vettius Valens (cod. Oxon.
Selden. 22, saec. XVII): Kadbg koL 6 detdrarog *Opi^evc Xeyei' rjwx^ <J' avOpCmoujtv
OTT* aWipog tppi^uTai' koI AAA6)f dipa (T ehcovreg iffvxv^ deiav dpeizdfuada. II.
The KwdvdpLmoc or hjKdvdpuiroc v6aoc described by Marcellus of Sida was not
a religious hallucination, as W. H. Roscher has recently maintained (Abh. d.
s&chs. Ges. XVII 3). Kroll himself assumes, without any obvious warrant,
that the disease of lycanthropy presupposes a belief in werwolves. III. The
command of the anonymous dialogue Hermippus to change the names of the
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS, 489
dead in order that they may escape from evil spirits is to be compared with
the belief that the dead may be recalled to life by thrice pronouncing their
names.
Pp. 348-76. Lucubrationum Posidonianarum Spec. II (cf. Comm. in hon.
Wachsmuthii scr., 1897, pp. 13 sqq.). £. Martini. A study of Cleomedes,
Cycl. Theor., lib. I. cc. 2-7.
Pp. 377-90. Lebte Erasistratos in Alexandreia ? R. Fuchs. It is probable
that Erasistratus was settled in Alexandria towards the close of his life, and
was closely connected with the royal court.
Pp. 391-8. Altes Latein (Fortsetzung von Band LI, S. 471 ; see A. J. P.
XVIII 114). F. BUcheler. XXI. Favere is a later form of fovtre. An
inscription which apparently belongs to the latter half of the 3d century B. C.
runs: FOVE L. CORNELIAI L. F. The gloss fovet: nuirit studet (IV, p.
239, 21 G) may be explained without assuming a confusion. XXII. Lexical
notes on the tesserae described by HUlsen, Mitth. des r5m. arch&ol. Instituts,
1896, pp. 228-37. XXIII. Aplopodite, C. I. L. XII 6025, is for (h)aplopotide{m).
For the word anTuoTZfrriQ cf. Goetz, Corp. Gloss. Ill, p. 219, 23 dos aplopotin:
da filiolam (i. e. fiolatn •=.phialatn), XXIV. The legal praestat^ eyyvdrcu, was
formed by combining prms and stat, about the time of Sulla. Cf. Mon. ant.
dei Lincei, VI (1895), p. 411, 7 ff. quel pro se praes stat.
Pp. 399-411. Buphonien. P. Stengel rejects the view of H. von Prott, pp.
187 ff., that this represented an earlier human sacrifice.
Pp. 412-24. Studien zur Geschichte der griechischen Rhetorik. L. Rader-
macher. I. TimSlus und die Ueberlieferung Qber den Ursprung der Rhetorik.
II. Plutarchs Schrift de se ipso citra invidiam laudando.
Pp. 425-34. Zur lateinischen Wortbildungslehre. M. Pokrowskij. I. S^e-
nus originally meant ' dry,* rather than * bright.' It is perhaps formed from
*sirhre^ inchoat. serescere. Crudus : ^crude-o : cradi-li-s :: /<</<oc : fUfxe-oficu :
fUfirf-X6-<:, 11. Difraudit^ Petron. 69 \ fraudire : : olunt^ Petron. 50 : olere. III.
Die mit x»- negativum zusammengesetzten Verba. Fateor and infitear are
derived from ^fa-to-s (= 0tf-r<5-f), *infl-to-s. With *infiios^ infiUor^ infUiae cf.
hnioToq^ airiOTiiJ, aTrurria.
Pp. 435-45. Zu Pseudokallisthenes und Julius Valerius. I. Ad. Ausfeld.
Miscellen. — Pp. 446-7. W. Schmid. Zwei Vermuthungen zu der Schrift
irepl infwvi (fldpov^ for pdOov^, II i ; owapoMi for owdpoi, XLIV 5). — Pp. 447-9.
R. Schneider. Zu dem Lexicon Messanense de iota ascripto. Textual notes.
— P. 449. J. Ziehen. Zu Cicero ad fam. VIII 17, 2. Read vos inviios inncere
coegero astuHa! num me Catonemf^Y^, 449-50. A. Frederking. Zu Horat.
carm. II 6. Lasso^ v. 7, may refer to Septimius, not to Horace. — Pp. 450-54«
J. Ziehen. Eine Zeitbeziehung in der ersten Maoenaselegie. — Pp. 454-7>
M. Ihm. Nemesians Ixeutica. — Pp. 458-9. A. Zimmermann. Ueber Ent-
stehung von neuen Verwandtschaftsnamen aus alten im Latein. Opiier is
derived from the vocative ave pater. — Pp. 459-61. M. Ihm. Mars Mullo,
Mars Vicinnus und drei pagi der Redones. — Pp. 461-2. C. Wachsmath. Ein
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
490 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
inschriftliches Beispiel von Kolometrie. A marble tablet inscribed with the
Septuagint version of the 15th Psalm, recently found at Lapethus in Cyprus.
It was probably used in public worship, not later than the 4th century. — Pp.
463-4. W. Schwarz. Eigennamen in griechischen Inschriften.
Pp. 465-504. Kritische und exegetische Bemerkungen za Philo. I. P.
Wendland.
Pp. 505-8. Zur lateinischen und griechischen Etymologie. M. Nieder-
mann. I. The -per of the Latin adverbs nuper^ parumper^ paulisper^ semper^
topper^ etc., is to be identified, not with -pert of the Oscan peHropert (= quatef)^
but with the Greek particle ffcp. Ctparumper and pauxilUsper, e. g., with the
Homeric fuvwOd irep, II. 'BeX^po-^vrriq is the Lycian" form of the hero's
name, 'lnn6vmK the corresponding Greek name. Cf. *AM'pav6oc, the Carian
equivalent of ^iKirdifUDOC,
Pp. 509-18. Die Composition der Chorlieder Senecas. F. Leo. The
essential difference between the ardaifjui of Euripides or Sopholcles and the
choruses of Seneca is that the latter have neither strophe nor antistrophe.
Like the monodies of Euripides and the cantica of Plautus, they exhibit a
systematic arrangement of metrical periods corresponding to divisions of the
subject. Cf. especially Oed. 403-508. The majority of the lyric metres are
taken from Horace; the general form of the chorus represents the actual
dramatic practice of Seneca's time.
Pp. 519-56. Der korinthische Bund. J. Kaerst. The Hellenic confederacy
formed by Philip of Macedon after the battle of Chaeronea, and its influence
upon the subsequent political development of Hellas.
Pp. 557-68. Zu Pseudokallisthenes und Julius Valerius. II. A. Ausfeld.
Pp. 569-90. Das afrikanische Latein. W. Kroll. There may have been
in the time of Apuleius and Tertullian a tendency toward a special develop-
ment of the Latin spoken in Africa, but from the material which has come
down to us we cannot learn more of these dialectic variations than a few
uncertain details. The archaisms of the so-called African Latin are due to a
general tendency of the time, a tendency which has its parallel in the Greek
of the same period. The Grecisms are mainly due to translation. The
tendency of the period is distinctly rhetorical, but this concerns the literary
language, not the everyday Latin of popular speech. Very few of the supposed
provincialisms which are usually cited as characteristic of vulgar Latin are
peculiar to African writers.
Pp. 591-623. Ueber die Schriftstellerei des Klaudios Galenos. IV. J.
Ilberg.
Miscellen. — Pp. 624-8. L. Radermacher. Varia. Notes on Plant. Stich.
270-1; Varr. Sat. Menipp., fr. 384; Propert. IV i, 7; Aetna Carm.; Gratt.
Cyneg. — Pp. 628-32. K. Laddecke. Ueber Beziehungen zwischen Isokrates'
Lobrede auf Helena und Platons Syraposion. — Pp. 632-3. A. Brinkmann.
Bin neues Axiochoscitat. — P. 633. M. Ihm. Probi de nomine excerpta. —
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
REPORTS. 491
Pp. 633-4. R. Fuchs. dau vorn, l^« hinten (in medical Greek). — Pp. 634-5.
L. Radermacher. airdpuna^ birUfuOev,
A third section of the Beitrige zur lateinischen Grammatik, by Th. Birt
(see vol. LI, pp. 70-108, 240-72 ; A. J. P. XVIII 108-9, m). is printed as an
ErganznngshefL This forms a book of 218 pages, entitled * Sprach man avrum
Oder aurumV It is provided with a table of contents, two indexes, three
Anh&nge and eight pages of Nachtr&ge und Berichtigungen. The author
collects the evidence for the pronunciation avrum,
Havbkporo Collbcb. WiLFRKD P. MUSTARD.
Digitized by
Gooi
BRIEF MENTION.
The long-expected edition of Bacchylides was received at the office of the
Journal from the authorities of the British Museum after the present number
had been made up, and there is no space for a full account of this priceless
addition to the Golden Treasury of Greek Lyric Poetry. The editor is the
distinguished scholar F. G. Kbnyon, whose mastery was evinced by his
*A$7fiHiiuv iro^reia and his Herondas^ and there is no one who will begrudge
him the privilege of another ediiio princeps. This time Mr. Kenyon's rare
palaec^raphic ability was not put to so severe a test and he has had the
advantage of help and counsel from eminent Hellenists, from Jbbb, with his
faultless taste and his unique faculty for Greek verse-composition, from the
lamented Palmbr, from Blass, the skilled palaeographer, from Sandys, with
his wide command of the whole Greek domain. But it is Mr. Krnyon's
edition after all, and to him the gratitude of scholars is first due. Twenty
poems, some of them entire, have been brought to light and a new chapter in
the history of Greek literature has to be written. Before many days the
philological world will be flooded with literature on the subject, with emen-
dations, restorations, characteristics. The happy hours of the first possession
will be succeeded by weeks muggy with extemporized learning — extemporized^
for comparatively few are the scholars who have earned the right to speak
authoritatively by reason of special studies in this too much neglected domain
of Greek poetry; and in the dense air which is about to envelop Bacchylides,
the memory of these three or four undisturbed days will come back with the
sigh, fulsere vere candidi tibi soles. True, every one knew in advance from
the old fragments what manner of poet we were to expect ; no oid^puv irirpa
like Aischylos, no raviirrepoq cuerd^ like the Theban singer, but a clear and
fluent and brilliant master of his art, one who well deserves the title by
which he calls himself in one of his Hieronic odes, * a honey-tongued KeYan
nightingale.' Still, Bacchylides has given us much more than we could
have dreamed of, combinations that no one could have anticipated, dramatic
effects which theorists had denied to lyric poetry, and, like Cortes' men^
scholars are looking at each other with a wild surmise. But amid all the joy
over the new treasure and the endeavor to master the new points of view, the
lover of Pindar may be pardoned for thinking chiefly of the important acces-
sion to the Pindaric apparatus that has come to us through the discovery of
Bacchylides. Here he welcomes confirmsrtion of previous judgments, there he
yields with what grace he may to the contravention of cherished views. Four-
teen of the poems are epinikian odes, and enough of these are sufficiently
well preserved to show that they are built on the same lines as those of
Pindar's Songs of Victory. The type is older than Pindar. It is in the
handling of the type that the differences come out. Praise, myth, praise are
found as in Pindar, and those who believe with Drachmann that the myths
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BRIEF MENTION. 493
are mere inpi^futra will doubtless point to Bacchylides with triumph. But
others will maintain that Pindar has put a deeper meaning into the conven-
tional adornment, and that Bacchylides was satisfied with the mere embellish-
ment, and has given us a Euripidean as over against an Aischylean choral.
Those who have made so much of recurrent words in Pindar will find that
Bacchylides lends scarcely any handle to repetition as a reOfid^ of lyric poetry,
as an indication of the various members of the Terpandrian udfio^. No such
toying iteration is to be found in Bacchylides as we have, for instance, in
Pindar*s Sixth Olympian, and those who are not willing to concede that
Pindar, like other strong natures such as Samson and Aias, delighted in the
play on words, will have to set up the theory that Bacchylides deliberately
abandoned the technique of repetition and paronomasia just as alliteration
was abandoned in English poetry. The short line which reigned in the days
before Boeckh will probably be brought to honor again by this MS of Bacchy-
lides, but to those who are familiar with the principles of kolometry the short
line is merely a matter of convenience to the eye. Those who have learned
to recognize the importance of the literary sphere for syntax and of syntax for
the literary sphere will be interested to find that different as Pindar and
Bacchylides are in race, in gifts, in temperament, the lyric law keeps them to
the same range. One has not much new syntax to learn in passing from
Pindar to Bacchylides.
But while the lover of Pindar may be prone to dwell on the resemblances
and differences of the two rival poets, the student of Greek literature in
general will be most interested in the '* lyrical idylls/' as the editor calls
them. One of them tells of the demand for the surrender of Helen, another
of DeYaneira's gift to Herakles, yet another and a most spirited poem of the
contest between Minos and Theseus, in which Theseus trusts himself to his
father Poseidon with all the unreserve of the divers in the Bay of Naples.
Most remarkable of all is a lyrical dialogue between Aigeus, king of Athens,
and Medeia, his queen, which not only increases our repertory by a fine
poem, but constitutes, as Mr. Kenyon says, " a striking and, in some respects,
unique addition to our knowledge of Greek lyrical composition."
Some of the poems are much mutilated and tempt the restoring hand.
Would that a thorough study of the odes that remain entire might precede the
ready fancy of the multitudinous guessers ! But the wish is vain. As I lay
down my pen I catch sight of strings of unconvincing restorations and, which
is worse, hear a critic's voice declaring Pindar a landlubber and Bacchylides a .
seasoned sailor. It is true that Pindar*s fellow-Boeotian, Hesiod, was a land-
lubber oirre ri vavriTuTK atao^tofitvog obre ti vifuv (O. et D. 649), but even he had
to make space for navigation, because his brother Perses might take to the sea.
** The Boeotians,*' says Mr. Roberts the apologist, ** never made use of the sea,
favourably situated as they were, to the same extent as the Dutchmen," ^ with
whom he parallels them ; but for all that the land that had been the abode of
the Minyan vikings, that headed the catalogue of the ships in Homer, that
had Aulis for a harbor, can hardly be classed as the home of the landlubber,
and I may not have blundered so much after all in calling attention to the
sea-air in Pindar.'
1 The Ancient Boeotians, p. 59. * Introd. Essay, xliii.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
494 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Mr. BussELL has written a book entitled The School of Plato (London,
Methuen ; New York, Macmillan), which is readable in spite of its preciosity
and suggestive in spite of its oracular tone. The late Mr. Pater is his cyno-
sure, which will hardly be an unqualified recommendation in the eyes of some
people, and Mr. Bussell has taken that alembicated stylist's Plato and Platon-
ism more seriously than a philologian would be apt to do. Paired with this
admiration of Mr. Pater's powers, one finds a curious neglect of a somewhat
more conspicuous thinker, and it is with no little astonishment that one reads
the candid confession that the author ** did not read Lotze's Microcosm until
the greater part of the work was in the press.** One might forgive Mr.
Bussell for calling a hen 'the solicitous stepmother of the farmyard,' but
Lotze was a philologian as well as a philosopher: he was the translator of
Antigone into Latin verse as well as the author of the Mikrocosmos, and an
editor of a Journal of Philology — especially one who knew Lotze in the flesh
— cannot help taking the matter to heart. But really the work hardly enters
into the range of this periodical, for, when Mr. Bussell says that he is afraid
that his title will appear somewhat of a misnomer, his fear is fully justified.
The aim of the work is to prepare the way for an elaborate defence of the
Roman Imperial Age — that age which, as Mommsen has said, is **mehr
geschm&ht als gekannt** — and Sokrates and Plato together occupy only 40
pages out of a total of 346.
Mr. G. F. Hill, in his Sources of Greek History between the Persian and
Pehponnesian War (Oxford. At the Clarendon Press) — a collection of docu-
ments for the period known as the Trevr^/covraeria — has primarily had in view
an educational object. The student of history is to be taught to study it in
the light of ancient authorities, not in the reflections of modem writers. Such
a lesson, it is superfluous to say, is not needed by the readers of this Journal.
But the secondary object is not less praiseworthy, and many advanced students
will be glad to be spared the necessity of referring to the originals for the
verification of the references in such a book as Busolt's Pentekoniaetie, Of
course, as in the case of punctuation, any arrangement is ipso facto an inter-
pretation, and an excerpt cannot take the place of an unbroken context ; but
every such work has its limitations. The book is divided into the following
chapters: I. Origin and Organization of the Athenian Confederacy; IL The
Quota Lists ; IIL External History of Athens, her Allies and Colonies ; IV.
The Athenian City ; V. The Athenian Constitution ; VI. Biographical ; VII.
Sparta and Peloponnesus; VIII. The Western Greeks. There is also a list
of Athenian archons, but, except here and in the quota lists, dates are a rarity,
belonging, presumably, to the reflections of modern writers.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
RECENT PUBLICATIONS.
Thanks are due to Messrs. Lemcke & Buechner, 812 Broadway, New
York, for material furnished.
AMERICAN.
Apuleius (Lucius). The Story of Cupid and Psyche done out of the
Latin by Walter Pater. Portland, Me., T, B, Mosher^ 1897. i6mo, pap.,
75 cts.
Cicero (M. T.) Selected Letters ; ed., with introd. and notes, by F. F.
Abbott. Boston, Cr/ff/f &> C^., 1897. 76 + 315 pp. i2nio, cl., ^1.35.
Conway (R. S.) The Italic Dialects; ed. with a grammar and glossary.
V. I, pt. I. The Records of Oscan, Umbrian and the Minor Dialects. V. 2,
pt. 2. Grammar of the Dialects; with appendix, indices and glossary.
New York, The Macmillan Co,^ 1897. 2 v., 18 + 456, 6 + 457-686 pp. 8vo,
cl., net ^7.50.
Horace (Q. H. F.) Works; tr. by A. Hamilton Bryce. New York, The
Macmillan Co,, 1897. 4 v. i6mo, cl., net, ea. 30 cts.
Lyttelton (E.) Are we to go on with Latin Verses? New York, Long-
mans; Green &* Co.^ 1897. 193 pp. i2mo, cl., ^1.25.
Muller (F. Max). The Sacred Books of the East; tr. by various oriental
scholars. American ed. 12 v. V. i. The Upanishads. New York, The
Christian Literature O., 1897. 101 + 320+52 + 350 pp. 8vo, subs., cl.,
I2.50.
Plato. The Philebus ; ed., with introd., notes and appendices, by R. G.
Bury. New York, The Macmillan Co., 1897. 87 + 223 pp. 8vo, cl., net
13.25.
The Republic ; ed., with critical notes and an introd. on the text,
by Ja. Adam. New York, The Macmillan Co,, 1897. 21 + 329 pp. i2mo,
cl., net ^1.25.
Sophocles. The Text of the Seven Plays ; ed. with an introd. by R. C.
Jebb. New York, The Macmillan Co,, 1897. 14+364 pp. 8vo,cl.,net ^1.40.
Xenophon. Works ; tr. into English by H. G. Dakyns. In 4 v. V. 3,
pt. I. The Memorabilia, and Apology, The Economist, The Symposium,
and Hiero. Pt. 2. On the Duties of a Cavalry General, On Horsemanship,
and On Hunting. New York, The Macmillan Co., 1897. 70+130 pp.
i2mo, cl., ^1.25.
ENGLISH.
Jannaris (A. N.) Historical Greek Grammar, chiefly of the Attic Dialect,
as written and spoken from Classical Antiquity to the Present Time. Lon-
don, Macmillan ^ Co,, 1897. 8vo, 776 pp. £1 5s.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
496 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Jensen (H.) A Classified Collection of Tamil Proverbs. London, 1897*
8vo. 88.
Macalister (R. A. S.) Studies in Irish Epigraphy. Part I. London,
1897. 8vo. 3s. 6d.
Murray (J. A. H.) A New English Dictionary. Part 11. Foisty-Frankish.
London, 1897. 4to, 132 pp. 5s.
Searle(W. G«) Onomasticon Anglo-Saxonicnm. A list of Anglo-Saxon
proper names from the time of Bede to that of King John. • London, 1897..
8vo. 20S.
FRENCH.
de Jnlleville (P. L.) Histoire de la langue et de la litt^rature fran9aise.
Tome IV. i7e si^cle. Paris, 1897. 8vo. 16 fr.
Knms (A ) Les choses naturelles dans Hom^re. Paris, 1897. 8vo. 5 fr»
Ledrain (E.) Dictionnaire de la langue de Tancienne Chaldee. Paris,.
1897. 8vo, 600 pp. 50 fr.
Michaelis (H.) et Passy (P.) Dictionnaire phon^tiqne de la langue
franfaise. Paris, 1897. 8vo, 320 pp. 5 fr.
Oischewsky (S.) La langue et la m^trique d'H^rondas. Leiden, 1897*
8vo, 84 pp. 90 c
GERMAN.
Abhandlungen f. die Kunde des Morgenlandes, hrsg. v. der D. M. GeselU
schaft unter der Red. von £. Windisch. X. Bd. Nr. 2 u. 4. gr. 8. L.,.
F. A, Brockhaut* Sort, — 2. Avasyaka-Erzahlungen, die. Hrsg. v. £. Leu-
mann. i. Hft. 49 S. m. 1.80. — 4. Marath-Uebersetzung, die, der Suka*
saptati. Marathi u. deutsch v. Rich. Schmidt, iii, viii, 175 S. m. 7.50.
Acta martyrum et sanctorum (syriace), ed. Paulus Bedjan, Cong. Miss..
Tom. VII vel Paradisus patrum. gr. 8. xii, 1019 S. Parisiis. L., O,
Harrassowitt, m. 28.
Au8 der Nibelungen Not. Fol. 8 Bl. Fk8m.-Drucke. St. Gallen, A.
and J. Koppel m. 6.
Babrii fabulae Aesopeae, recognovit, prolegomenis et indicibus instruxit
Otto Crusitts. 8. cvi, 440 S. m. 3 Taf . L., B, B, Teubntr, m. 8.40.
Beitr&ge, MQnchener, zur romanischen u. englischen Philologie. Hrsg..
v. H. Breymann u. J. Schick. XIII. gr. 8. L., A, Deichert Nachf,—
XIII. Fest (O.) Der Miles gloriosus in der franzttsischen KomOdie von
Beginn der Renaissance bis zu Molidre. xv, 123 S. m. 2.80.
.— Wiener, zur englischen Philologie, unter Mitwirkg. v. K. Luick u..
A. Pogatscher hrsg. v. J. Schipper. VL gr. 8. Wien, W, BraumUller,-^
VI. Schmid (D.) William Congreve, sein Leben u. seine Lustspiele. viii,.
179 S. m. 4.
Bibliotheca buddhica. ^ikshasamuccaya. A compendium of Buddhistic
teaching compiled by ^antideva. Ed. by C. Bendall. I. gr. 8. viii, 96 S.
St. Petersburg. L., Vats' Sort, m. 2.50.
Bibliothek, altfranzj^sische. 15. Bd. 8. L., O, R, Reiiland,—\^, Alls-
cans, m. BerUcksicht. v. Wolframs v. Eschenbach Willehalm kritisch hrsg.
v. Gust. Rollin. Ixix, 163 u. 132 S. (1894.) m. 6.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
I
RECENT PUBLICATIONS. 497
Bibliothek der angelsachsischen Prosa, begrttndet v. Chrn. W. M. Grein,
fortges. V. R. P. Wttlker. 4. Bd. i. Halfte. gr. 8. L., G. H, Wigand.^
I. Alfred's, KOnig, Uebersetzung v. Bedas Kirchengeschicbte. Hrsg. ▼•
Jac. Scbipper. i. H&lfte. ix, 272 S. m. 15.
Biasing (F. W. ▼.) Die statistische Tafel v. Karnak. 4. xxxviii, 67 S.
L.,/. C. Hinrieks' Vtrl, m. 15.
Bolland (G. J. P. J.) Die althelleniscbe Wortbetonung im Lichte der
Geschichte. 2. Drock. gr. 8. loi S. Leiden. Amsterdam, y. Muller*
m. 2.50.
Brockelmann (Carl). Geschichte der arabischen Litteratur. I. Bd.
I. Hilfte. gr. 8. 240 S. Weimar, £. Filter, m. 10.
Brogmann (Karl) u. Delbrtlck (Berthold). Grnndriss der vergleichenden
Grammatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. 2. Bearbeitg. i. Bd.: Ein*
leitnng u. Lantlehre. 2. H&lfte (§695 bis 1084). gr. 8. ix u. S. 623*i098.
Strassburg, K, /. TrUbner Vtrl. m. 12.
Catonis (M. Porci) de agri cultura liber, M. Terenti Varronis rerum rus-
ticarum libri III, ex rec. Henr. Keilii. Vol. III. Fasc. I. Index Terborum
in Catonis de re rustica librom composuit Rich. Krnmbiegel. gr. 8. iii,
82 S. L., B. G. Teubner. m. 3.
Chwolson (D.) Syrisch-nestorianische Grabinschriften aus Semirjet-
schie. Neae Folge. lirsg. u. erkUrt. gr. 4. 62 S. SL Petersburg. L.,
Vots* Sort. m. 6.
Columellae (L.) opera quae exstant, recensait Vilh. LandstrOm. Fasc I.
Liber de arboribos qai Tocatur. gr. 8. xii, 43 S. Upsaliae. L., O. liar'
rassowitt. m. 1.75.
Firmici Materni (Inlii) matheseos libri VIII, edd. W. Kroll et F. Skotsch.
Fasc. I. Libros IV. priores et V. prooemium continens. 8. xii, 280 S.
L., B. G. Teubmr. m. 4.
Flensburg (Nils). Stndien anf dem Gebiete der indogermanischen
Wurzelbildnng. I. Die einfacbe Basis ter- im Indogermanischen. Lex.-8.
xi, 115S. 'Lxxjidt IIj. Mdller's Univ.'Buchh, m. 2.60.
GrOber (Gust.) Grundriss der romanischen Pbilologie. 2. Abtlg.
4. (Schlass-)Lfg. gr. 8. yIi u. S. 385-496. Strassburg, IC. J. TrObner
Verl, m. 2.
Haeberlin (C.) Griechische Papyri, gr. 8. 131s. \^^ O. Harrassawitu
m. 3.60.
Hayyfig : The Weak and Geminative Verbs in Hebrew. The Arabic
text now published for the first time by Morris Jastrow, Jr. gr. 8. Ixxxv,
271 S. Leiden, Buchh. u, Druckereivorm, E.J. Brill, m. 10.
Heberdey (Rud.) Opramoas, Inschriften vom Heroon zu Rhodiapolis.
Nea bearb. Lex. -8. 71 S. m. 5 Taf. Wien, A. Holder. Kart., m. 5.
Horatias (Q. F.) Werke. Hrsg. v. O. Henke u. C. Wagener. i. Bd.:
Die Oden u. Epoden. Hrsg. v. Osk. Henke. Einleitung. Text. gr. 8.
viii, 286 S. Bremen, M. Heinsius Nachf. m. 3.
Journal de la Soci^te finno-ougrienne. XV. gr. 8. iii, 57, 64 u. 34 S.
Helsingissft. L., O. Harrassowitz in Komm, m. 6.40.
Koehm (los.) Quaestiones Plautinae Terentianaeque. gr. 8. 56 S.
Giessen, J. Richer, m. 1.20.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
498 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
KOnig (Fr. Ed.) Historisch-kritisches Lehrgebaade der hebrftischen
Sprache. 2. Halfte. 2. (Schla8s-)Tbl. A. u. d. T.: Historiscb-compara-
tivc Syntax der bcbr. Spracbe. gr. 8. iz, 721 S. L.,y. C. Ilinrichs* VerL
m. 18.
Kroehnert (Otto). Canonesne poetanim scriptorum artificium per anti-
quitatem f uerunt ? Diss. gr. 8. iii, 67 S. K5nigsberg, Gr&fe &* Unter*s
Sort. m. 2.
Lange (Edm.) Die Arbeiten zu Thnkydides seit 1890. Eine krit
Uebcrsicht. i. H£t. [Aus 'Philologus.'] gr. 8. 8.658-7x3. I.,, Dieterich,
m. 1.20.
Lindberg (O. £.) Vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen.
1. Lautlebre. A. Konsonantismus. gr. 8. xi, 160 S. Gothenburg, iVet'
tergren *• Kerbtr. m. 8.35.
Lucani (M. Annaei) Pharsalia. Cum commentario critico ed. C. M.
Francken. Vol. II continens libros VI-X. gr. 8. xiv, 276 S. Leiden,
A, W, Sijthoff, m. 9.60.
Lydi (loannis) liber de ostentis et calendaria graeca omnia, iterum edidit
Cart. Wachsmuth. 8. Ixxii, 366 S. L., B. G. Teubner. m. 6.
Martin (E.) u. Lienhart (H.) WOrterbuch der els&ssischen Mundarten.
2. Lfg. gr. 8. S. i6x-304« Strassburg, JC, J. TrUbner Verl, m. 4.
Mythographi graeci. Vol. III. Fasc. I. 8. L,jB. G, Teubner, m. 1.20.
—I. Pseado-Eratosthenis Catasterismi.recensuit Alex. Olivieri. xviii,76S.
Paulcke (Max). De tabula iliaca quaestiones Stesichoreae. Diss. gr.8.
109 S. Regimonti Boruss. L., G, Fock, m. 2.50.
Paulson (Jobs.) Lukrezstudien. I. Die fiussere Form des lukretian.
Hexameters, gr. 8. 37 S. Gothenburg, Wettergren ^ JCerber, m. — 85.
Plini Secundi (C.) naturalis historiae libri XXXVII. Ed. Carol. Mayhoff.
Vol. V. Libri XXXI-XXXVII. 8. x, 512 S. L., B, G, Teubner. m. 6.
Soltau (Wilh.) Livius' Geschicbtswerk, seine Komposition u. seine
Quellen. gr. 8. viii, 224 S. L., Dieterich. m. 6.
Tallqvist (Knut L.) Arabische Sprichw5rter u. Spiele, gesammelt u.
erkl&rt. gr.8. 152 S. Helsingfors. \,.^0, HarrassowitM, m. 4.
Texte, Irische, m. Uebersetzungen u. WOrterbuch. Hrsg. ▼. Wh. Stokes
u. £. Windisch. 3. Serie. 2. Heft. gr. 8. iii u. S. 285-596. L..^*. HirzeL
m. 10.
Theophrast's Charaktere. Hrsg., erkl&rt u. tibers. ▼. der philolog. Ge-
sellschaft zn Leipzig, gr. 8. Ixiv, 276 S^m. 14 Abbildgn. L., B, G. Teub-
ner, m. 6.
Vatsyayana : Das Kamasutram. Nebst dem Commentare des Yagddhara.
Aus dem Sanskrit tibers. u. hrsg. ▼. Rich. Schmidt gr. 8. 7,478 S. L.,
IV. Friedrich. m. 16.
Witkowski (Stanisl.) Prodromns grammaticae papyrorum graecomm
aetatis Lagidarum. gr. 8. 65 S. Krakau, Buchh. der poln. Verlagsgesell-
schaft in Komm. m. 3.
Zimmern (Heinr.) Vergleichende Grammatik der semitischen Sprachen.
Elemente der Laut- u. Formenlehre. Mit i Schrifttaf. ▼. Jul. Eating. 8.
xi, 194 S. B., Reuther &* Reichard. m. 5.50.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
RECENT PUBLICATIONS. 499
ITALIAN.
Earipide. Medea : tragedia con introduzione, commento ed appendice
critica di G. B. Camozzi. Imola. 8vo, p. i88. L. 3.
Novati (Francesco). LMnflosso del pensiero latino sopra la civilt^
italiana del medio evo. Milano. i6nio, p. x8o. L. 3.
Pizzi (Italo). Grammatica elementare dell' antico iranico (zendo e
persiano antico), con antologia e relativo vocabolario. Torino. 8vo, p. 92.
L. 2.50.
PulW (L, F.) Studi italiani di filologia indo-iranica. Pisa. 8vo. L. 15.
Sofocle. Elettra, con note di Domenico Bassi. Torino. 8to, p. 139.
L. 1.80.
Studi italiani di filologia classica. Vol. V. Firenze. 8vo, p. 518. L. 20.
SPANISH.
Ximenez de Embnn y Val (T.) Lengua espaftola en el siglo de oro de
su literatura. Zaragoza, 1897. 8vo, 304 pp. 8 pes.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BOOKS RECEIVED.
Anzeiger fttr indogermanische Sprache u. Altertamskunde. Heraosg. ▼.
Wilhelm Streitberg. Achter Band. Drittes Heft. Freiburg i. d. S. 1897.
Archaeological Institute of America. Papers of the American School of
Classical Studies at Athens. Vol. VI, 1890-97. Boston, Ginn &> Co., 1897.
Aristophanes (The Wasps of). With introduction, metrical analysis,
critical notes and commentary. By W. J. M. Starkie. London, Macmillan
^ Co, New York, The Macmillan Co., 1897.
Bacchylides, The Poems of. From a papyrus in the British Museum.
Ed. by F. G. Kenyon. London, British Museum, 1897.
Bierma (J. W.) Quaestiones dc Plautina Pseudolo. (Thesis.) Gronin-
gae, Scholtens ^ Zoon,
Boiling (Geo. Melville). The Participle in Hesiod. (J. H. U. Doctoral
Thesis.) Washington, D. C, Catholic University Bulletin, vol. Ill, pp.
421-71.
Brugmann (K.) u. Delbrttck (B.) Grundriss der vergleichenden Gram-
fnatik der indogermanischen Sprachen. Erster Band. Einleitung u. Laot-
lehre v. Karl Brugmann. 2. Halfte. 2. Bearbeitg. Strassburg, K, J.
2ratner, 1897. X2 m.
Buddisrao per P. £. Pavolino. (Manuali Hoeppli.) Milano, Ulrico
Hoeppli, I 1. 50 c.
Cicero. Laelius de Amicitia, with notes by C. E. Bennett. (Students*
Series.) Boston, Leach, Shewell &' Sanborn, 1897.
Selected Letters of. Ed. with introduction and notes by F. F.
Abbott. Boston, Ginn ^ Co,, 1897.
Columbia Bicycle Calendar for 1898. Hartford, Conn., Pope Manufac-
turing Co, 10 cts.
Drakoules (Platon E.) Neohellenic Language and Literature. Oxford,
B, H, Blackwell, 1897. is. 6d.
Educational Review. Ed. by N. M. Butler. January, 1898. New York,
Henry Holt 6f Co, I3 per annum.
Emery (Annie C.) The Historical Present in Early Latin. (Bryn Mawr
Diss.) Ellsworth, Maine, 1897.
English Dictionary (The Oxford). Ed. by J. A. H. Murray. Foistt-
Prankish (vol. IV), by Henry Bradley. (Double Section.) Oxford,
Clarendon Press, New York, Macmillan &» Co,, 1897. 5s.
Forman (L. L.) Index Andocideus, Lycurgeus, Dinarcheus. Oxouii,
E Prelo Clarendoniano, MDCCCXCVII.
Grundriss der indo-arischen Philologie. Herausg. von Georg Btthler.
II. Band. 3. Heft, B. Inhalt : Indian Coins, by E. J. Kapson. With five
plates. Strassburg, A^. y. TVtf^/f^r, 1898. Subs.-pr., 5 m.; Einze]preis,6m.
Harvard Studies and Notes on Philology and Literature. No. V. Child
Memorial Volume. Boston, Ginn &> Co., 1896.
Horton-Smith (Lionel). Two Papers on the Oscan Word Anasaket,
London, D, Nuit, 1897.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
BOOKS RECEIVED. 501
Isaiah, The Book of the Prophet. A new English translation, printed in
colors exhibiting the composite structure of the book. With explanatory
notes and pictorial illustrations by T. K. Cheyne. (Haupt's Polychrome
Bible.) New York, Dodd, Mead £r* Co., 1897. ^2.50.
Jenkins (O. P.) The Passing of Plato. Address. Leiand Stanford
University, 1897.
Kondratiew (Sergius). Index ad oratorem Lycnrgum. Mosquae, 0/m^
Tickomirovmm, 1897.
Leemen wagentje (Het). Indisch toonenspiel uit Sanskrt en Pr&krt in
faet Nederlandsch Yertaald door J. P. Vogel. Amsterdam, Scheltema en
Hoikema, 1897.
Livius' Geschichtswerk, seine Komposition a. seine Quellen. Von
Wilhelm Soltau. Leipzig, Dieteriek'sche Verlags^Buchhandlung^ 1897.
MacMechan (A.) Vergil. A lecture. Halifax, N. S.
Meyer (P.) Notice sur les Corrogationes Promethei d* Alexandre Neck-
ham. Paris, Klincksieck, 1897.
Modern Language Association of America, Publications of the. Ed. by
James W. Bright. Vol. XII, No. 4. N. S., vol. V, No. 4. Contents : XL
Goebel (J.) On the Original Form uf the Legend of Sigfrid. — Proceedings.
Baltimore, yMff Murphy &» Co,, 1897.
Muret-Sanders encyclopaedisches WOrterbuch der englischen u. deot-
-schen Sprache. Teil II. Deutsch-Englisch. New York, The International
News Co,, 1897. 24 Lfgn. @ i m. 50 pf.
National Educational Association. Journal of Proceedings and Addresses
of the 26th annual meeting, held at Milwaukee, July 6-9, 1897. Chicago,
University of Chicago Press^ *897»
Neue JahrbOcher fttr das klassische Altertum, Geschichte u. deutsche
Litteratur u. fUr Paedagogik. Herausg. v. Johannes Ilberg a. Richard
Kichter. Erster Jahrgang, 1898. I. u. II. Band. x. Heft. Leipzig, B. G,
Teubner,
Nolhac (P. de). Le Virgile de Vatican et ses peintnres. Paris, Klinck*
jieek, 1897.
Old Latin Biblical Texts. No. IV. Ed. by Henry J. White. Oxford,
At the Clarendon Press. New York, American Branchy 1897. 5s.
Kevne des Humanit^s en Belgique. Publication Trimestrielle. ire ann^e.
Juillet-Octobre, 1897. Anvers, Hasselt, 1897. 5 fr. par an.
Studia Sinaitica. No. VI. A Palestinian Syriac Lectionary, containing
Lessons from The Pentateuch, Job, Proverbs, Prophets, Acts, and the
Epistles. Ed. by Agnes Smith Lewis, with critical notes by Eberhard
Nestle and a glossary by Margaret D. Gibson. London, C. J. Clay, 1897.
128.
Tannery (P.) Le traite du quadrant de Maltre Robert Angles. (Mont-
pellier, Xllle siicle.) Text latin et ancienne traduction grecque. Paris,
Xlincksieck, 1897.
Toutain (J.) L'Inscription d'Henchir Mettich. Un nonveau document
sur la propriety agricole dans l*Afrique romaine. Academie des inscrip-
tions, i.serie. Tome XI. ire partie. Paris, AViWijiVfi, 1897. 3fr. 8oc.
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INDEX TO VOL. XVIII.
Abinnius, FlaTius, Correspondence of, aaS, 899
Accent, Grave, in Greek, xia
Aeschylus, Pers. 527-31, 328
S. c. Theb. 961 foil., aaS
Air, the seat of the soul, 488
Albertus Magnus, Dante's obligations to, 485
his name = della Magna (' Germany '), 485
Alexander and Ptolemy worship in Egypt, 339
Alkman's Partheneion, 365
Antiphon and Attic criminal law, 364, 365
Antony, Mark, Parthian expedition of. 363
Aristides, Election law of, Z13
Aristid. Quint., p. 96, 331
Aristokritos and his ' Theosophy,' zx x
Aristotle, *A9rivai»v iroAireia, 54, 7, xio
Arrian's Penplus, zog
Assyrian : imittu and sattukku, x 16
Assyriologie, Beitrage zur, X16-18
Athenaeus, 530^ emended, x 1 a
Athenian kings, 363
Athens, Primaeval, 109, xza, lao
Attic Dionysos-festivals, 340
inscriptions of the Vth century, 303
Augustin, Confess. 8, a, 3, xi6
Babrius. LXI 75, 338
Bacchylides, Renyon's, 493-3
Bacon-Shakespeare question, 107
Baixantinb, W. G. Negative Futures
in the Greek New Testament, 453^9
Beitrage zur Assyriologie, z 16-1 8
Benecke's Antimachus of Colophon and
the Position of Women in Greek
Poetry (noticed), 370
Bloompibld, Mauricb. Review of Hil-
lebrandt's Ritual-Literatur, 350-3
Boeotians as landlubbers, 493
BoLLiNG, Gborgb Mblvillb. Latin
•astro'f 70-3
Books Received, 130-9, 353-4, 38«-a, 500-1
Bomecque's Ciceronis Oratio in Verrem
De Signis (noticed), 95
Brial's Essai de S^mantique (noticed), 368
Breton, meaning of the word in the
Xllth century, 486
Brief Mention, XX9-34, 34X-^, 368-70, 493-5
Bucket, Kicking the, 191
Bussell's School of Plato (noticed), 494
Byron as a translator, 338
Caecilius of Calacte,
Caliban, Etymology of,
Callimachus, Epigrams of,
Cambyses, Records of the time of.
Carpus (ap. Petron.), Etymology of,
Castilian, Enclitic and proclitic
3ox-ia
337
364
XX7
341
in,
357-60
Catullus, LVII 6, X13
Charisius, Present form of, X13
Chaucer characterized, 470, 471
C. 1. L. X4679, 114
Cicero, Ep. ad Att. II 30, x; IV is, a;
XII 33, 3, ZX5
Ep. ad Brut. 14,5. Z15
Ad Fam. VIII 17, 3 (em.), X90
Ep. ad Qu. Fr. I fx ; II 14, 3 ; III 8, x, x 15
III, xxo
Cicero's Verrine orations, 93-5
influence, 94a, 343
Cicotti's Processo di Verre (rev.), 93-5
Clbmbnt, Willako K. The Use of
tntm in Plautus and Terence, 409-15
Clement of Alexandria and Philo, 365-6
Comedy, Greek, Superstitions and Popu-
lar Beliefs in, 189-304
Commedia dell' arte, 359
Cook, Albbkt S. Report of Englische
Studien, 96-108
Courthope's History of English Poetry
(rev.), 464-80
Creole dialect of the Antilles, 486
Ctesias and his Assyrtaca, 340
Cyriacus of Ancona on Strabo, 1x4
Cyrus, Records of the time of, 1x7
Dahlerup's Nekrolog 5ver Karl Vemer, 9X-3
Dante's obligations to earlier literature, 489
Definition of some rhetorical terms, 306-X3
Delphi, Conflagrations of the temple at, X13
Diodorus,XVIIl7, 5, 365
Dionysus Musagctes, 365-^
DoDGB, Damibl Kilham. Review of
Dahlerup's Nekrolog Over Karl Ver»
ner, 9X-3
Donatus, Commentum Terentii, MSS of, 339
Door, Sacredness of, X9Z
Ddrpfeld and the Greek Theatre, x-98
Dyroff's Geschichte des Pronomen Re*
flexivum (rev.), 3x4-37
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INDEX.
503
Eclipses caused by eril spirits, 194
Effyptj Alexander and Ptolemy worship
in. 339
Egyptian worships, 364
Elirabethan drama, 335
Embrt, V. J. On the Definition of Some
Rhetorical Terms, 306-17
Empedoclcs emended, 366
Englische Studien, Report of, giS-ioS, 333-8
English, Courthope's History of English
Poetry, 464-30
drama in the XVIth century, 479
Interchange and Tautology, 96
Old English Poetry, Expanded Lines
In, 337
Quantity of vowel before 'iti/in ME., xox, 337
Tautology, 96
To dart, X03
Enim in Plautus and Terence, 403-15
EspagnoUe's French etymologies, 133
Ethics and Amenities of Greek Histori-
ography, 355-74
Etiam in Plautus and Terence, 36-43
Euphuism, 475 foil.
Euripides, Danae of, 109
Troades, Tyrrell's (noticed), 340
Europe in the sixteenth century, 473-3
Fat, Edwim W. Textual Notes and
Queries on Plautus, z68-88
Noie on Latin nihil, 463-3
Fbrmald, O. M. Review of Peck's
Harper's Dictionary of Classical
Literature and Antiquities, 7^84
Fescennine verses, txa
Fictitious sources in Greek historiog-
raphy, 363 foil.
Folk-tales, Orientalist theory of dissemi-
nation of, 359
Forman on cri w. gen. and dat., zi8, 1x9
French: aochier, ar tiller, 361; baugan,
487; chevine, 487; combre and its
deriratives, 357; cormoran, 358;
d6me=:i. Ut^A, a. domum, 361;
girouette, 358; goupillon, 361 ;
hampe, 358; harengs ji la haque, 487 ;
hauNse-col, 361; macabre, 358, 487;
orpailleur, 487 ; penture, rature, 361 ;
rouls, 487 ; vals, valt, valent, 485.
French compound words, 484
etymologies, EspagnoUe's, 133
Fttgner's Lexicon Livianum, 346
Galen's works, zio
Stichometry in, 339
Callaway's Use of ^i) with participle in
classical Greek, 3<S9-7o
Gabubtt, Jamss M. Review of Jusse-
rand's Literary History of the Eng-
lish People, 343-8
Review of Courthope's History of Eng-
lish Literatuie, 468-80
Gascoigne characterized, 473
Germanic Philology. Journal of (rev.), 335-7
Gerund and Gerundive, 439-53
GiLDBRSLBBVB, B. L. Revlcw of Rai-
bel's Sophokles' Elektra, 353-6
Note on ov /m.i} in later Greek, 460-z
GoooBLL, Thomas Dwight. DSrpfeld
and the Greek Theatre, x-i8
(Goodwin, Chaki.es J. Review of Pun-
tonl's L'inno Omerico a Demetra, 84-8
Graeco-Syrian literature, zo8, xia
Gkandgbmt, C. H. Review of Ram-
beau and Patsy's Chrestomathiefran-
9aise, 934, 335
Greece, Modem, Language-Standard in, 19-35
Greek: BeAAepo^oKnic, 490; 0AcircJat-
/M.MV, 195; ^ov^di'ta, 340, 489; Acio-i-
Jai/M,oyia, Z89 ; Jixao-xbvtK, 443 ; ci m*>
jia, 346 ; jriavrdc ^ anniversary, 367 ;
cffi w. gen. and dat., ZZ8-19; 0iWoc,
44X ; 9\m.v and 0v«rtfat, 367 ; xdpvSof ,
440; /u.^ w. part., 369-70; Mil *»' c.
part. ^ opt., 344; K«/M.ciy and Wmc-
a0ai,*76-7; ov, 49 foil.; ov 11^,453 foil.;
WAai'oc, 366; ffpdc, Z09, X30.
Greek, Archaeologists', xx8
Comedy, Superstitions and Popular
Beliefs in, x 89-904
Historiography, Ethics and Amenities
of, 855-74
and Latin in the XVIth century, 474
New Tesument, Negative Futures in,
453-6«
papyrus MSS, Catalogue of, 333
reflexive pronoun, 314 foil,
superstition, 488
Theatre, Ddrpfeld and, z-18
theatre, c{w<rTpa, 488
GrCmbb, Gustav. Review of Journal
of Germanic Philology, 335-7
Godeman's History of Classical Philol-
ogy (noticed), 370
Harmodios and Aristogeiton, xxo
Harper's Dictionary of Classical Litera-
ture and Antiquities (rev.), 78-84
Hand, Origin of, 43-69
Heinze*s Lucretius (rev.), 48Z-3
Hbm DKicKSOM, G. L. Are the Letters of
Horace Satires? 313-34
Review of Heinxe's Lucretius, 481-3
Heptanomis of Egypt from Hadrian's
time, zz6
Hermes, 363-7
Hermogenes and his commentators, xo8
Hervleux's Fabulistes latins (noticed), 36X
Hillebrandt's Ritual-Literatur (rev.), 350-3
Hill's Sources of Greek History (noticed), 494
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
504
INDEX,
Hiitoriography, Greek, Ethics and
Amenities of, 955-74
Homeric Hymn to Demeter, 84-8
Hoplcins's Religions of India (rev.), 88-90
Horace, Carm. I 27, lai
11 6, 489
III 84, 31. 3a, 3»9-3i
IV 3, 17-ao, 335, 397
Sat. I X, 93-6, 331-4
I 5, 7- 43. 5«. 77-«o, 334-6
I 9, XI. aa, 336-8
Are his letters satires T 3i3-«4
Notes on, 335-38
Page, Palmer and Wilkins*s (noticed), xax
Hokton-Smxth, Lionel. The Origin of
Latin hand and Greek ov and the
extensions of the originally unex-
tended form, 43-69
Concluding Notes on the Origin of the
Gerund and Gerundive, 439-5a
HvMPHKBTs, Milton W. Report of
Revue de Philologie, •a8-33
India, Religions of, 88-9X
Isocrates, Order of the orations of, in the
archetype, 108
Helena, 490
Jannaris, Concise Dictionary of the Eng-
lish and Greek Languages (noticed), ax
On ov fi^. 461
Jenkins's L'Espurgatoire Seint Patrit
(noticed), 36a
Josephus, Niese's (noticed), 370
Journal of Germanic Philology (rev.), 935-7
Jutserand's Literary History of the Eng-
lish People (rev.), 34*-8
Kaibel's Sophokles' Elektrm (rev.), 353-6
Kalender of Shepherdes, xoo
Karsten's Journal of (Germanic Philology
(rev.), 995-7
Keau* Youth and Early Poems, 936
Keelhoff, J., on ti fii) &«, 946
Kenyon's Bacchylides (noticed), 493-3
Kicking the bucket, X9X
Kirk, William Hamilton. Etiam in
Plautus and Terence, 96-49
viiiL*t,v and viiitoBoL, 76
Knapp, Chaklis. Notes on Horace, 395-38
Langland, 470
LanguagC'Standardin Modem Greece, 19-95
Latin : aplopodlta ^ haplopotidem =: ar •
AovoriJa, 489; -astro-, 71-3; aorum
or avrum? 491; cuncti<cumque, -ti,
Z09; defraudit, 489; enim, 409-15:
etenim, 414; etiam (eti-jam) and
other compounds of -jam, 109; is
Plautus and Terence, 96-49; fateor
and infiteor, 489 ; favere and fovere,
489; Kemelli = testiculi, Z13; haud,
43 foil.; iocundus, 441; neque with
perf. subj., 193; nihil. 469-3; opiter,
489; opter,zx4; -per in parumper and
the like =vcp, 490; praestat=spraes
sut, 489 ; qu in liquldus, liquor, 999,
930; rotundus, 446 : serenus, 489.
Latin, African, 490
correption of trochaic words, xxx
Gerund and Gerundive, 439-53
in the XVIth century, 474
Latin rhetorical terms: adfictios=/ar#-
nctHotia, anticipatio, vpoxaraAii^ic,
articulus, atyntUton, 9o6 ; attenuatio,
commiseratio, conexum ^ wfivAiMc^,
contendere, contentio s= antitktsist
conversio, a^ttropfu^ 907; conver-
sum, avrt9Tpo^^, defectus, cAAct^tv,
denominatio=/arMitfiiMMM, depre-
catio, detractatio = 8taovpfi^, 908;
disiunctum, 908, 909 ; disparsum, dis-
solutio, distributio, 909 ; divisio ^ tU-
Umma, evacuatio ^ avoaacvi}, eape-
dio, exquIsitio= j^crcur/ui^, homoeon,
9x0; icon^xtmiVtf, iniunctumi=v««-
^wyikivov, Interrogatum ss ipMTirfia,
intemiptio=rap<»^<o-if, permutatio
3= aKrt/ul«ra^oA^, axx; praeceptloss
vpoxaraAii^if, pronuntiatio=v«4jqM*
o-t«, regressio =«-«AiAA«yui, 91a; so-
lutumss asyndeton, traductio, tran-
situs, 913.
Latin subjunctive in Independent Clauses
in Plautus, 133-67, ayS-sox, 389-401
Leges Anglorum, 99
Linguistic development. Order of, 934
Longinus (Ps.), vcpl v^ovc emended, 489
Lope de Vega, Shakespeare and, 104
Lounsbury's Chaucer, xo6
Lucian and Petronius, 1x4
Nigrinus, 339-4^
Lucretitis, Heinse's (rev.), 481-3
Lycanthropy, 488
Lyly, Importance of, 476
Lyndsay, Sir David, characteriised, 474
Macabre, Danse (Dance MacabrOr 358, 487
Marlowe characterized, 478. 480
Marston as a dramatist, 105-6, 333-^4
Merlin, M.E. Prose Romance of, 105
Milittry Colonies of Ocuvian and Caesar
in Gallia Narboneasis, 36a
MiLLBlt, C. W. E. Review of Dyroff's
Geschichte des Pronomen Reflexi-
vum, 3x4-94
Mitsodakis, Praktische Grammatik der
neugriechischen Schriftsprache (no-
ticed), 9X
Montgomerie, Alexander (b. 1545), 96-S
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
INDEX.
505
s, B. P. SutguBCtive in Indepen-
dent Sentences in Plautus,
«33-«7f a75-30i, l^ysox
Mottdlaria, Textual notes and queries,
Z68-88
MVSTARO, WiLFRKD P. Report of Rhei-
nisches Museum, zo8-i6, •99-41, 488-91
Review of Cicotti's Processo di Verre, 93-4
Notice of Bomecque's Ciceronis Oratio
in Verrem Dt Signit, 95
Naiad, Use of, 75
Name, Power of the, 194, 295
Change of name. Superstitious, 489
Necrology :
AUen, F. D., 247, 379-5
Lane, G. M., 247, 370-a
Montaigion, A. de, 488
Sundby, Thor., 359
Vemer, Karl, 91-3
Zupitza, Julius, 938
Nereids as evil demons, ^9*~A
Nero and the Rhodians, S31
Niese's Josephus (noticed), 370
Nigrinus, Lucian's, 399~4>
Nikokles 6 xttfop^tfr, 940
Nonius, p. 63 M, aa8
Nymph>names, On the alleged confusion
of. 74-5
Obsequens, Julius, ^39
Obrtu., Hanks. On the Character of
Inferred Parent Languages, 416-38
Ophelia, Irish, not Greek, 238
Optative and Potential, 383 foil.
Osgood, Chaklbs Grosvbnob, Jk. Re-
port of Englische Studien, s33-8
Parent Languages, Inferred, 4x6-38
Passy and Rambeau's Chrestomathie
fran^ise (rev.), 294, 395
Pbrrin, B. The Ethics and Amenities
of Greek Historiography, >55'-74
Petronius, 240
and Lucian, 114
Phaedrus, I 15. z-9, 998
Append. z6, 7, 998
IV 9, 9, 939
Philo and Clement of Alexandria, 366
Phonetic laws violated, 485
Pindar and Women, 194
Pisistratus, Chronology of, 215
Piso and the A. U. C, 365
Pistqjese dialect, 486
Plagiarism in Greek literature, 955 foil.
Plautus, Amphitr. 96, 930
Trin. 540, 930
The subjunctive in independent sen-
tences in Plautus, 133-^, >75-9oi» 383^402
Textual notes and queries in Plautus, 168-88
and Terence, Enim in, 409-25
Etiam in, 96-^49
Plutarch, Scipio Nmsica as a source of, 363
vcpl Aopyi|<riaf , Source of, 365
Polybios, III 94, 224
Notes on, 366-7
PosTGATB, J. p. On the Alleged Con-
fusion of Nymph-names, 74, 75
Potential and Optative, 383 foil.
Propertius, II 13 b, 1x4
11x3.48. X15
Studies in, 364, 365-6
Provencal : c and g followed by «, 486
compound words, 484
Pyrrhus, War of, 366
Qnomodc in the Romance languages, 485
Rambeau and Passy's Chrestomathie
fran^ise (rev.), 994, 995
Recent Publications,
295-9, a4«-5a, 37^-8o. 495-9
Reisch on the Greek Theatre, 5 foil.
Renaissance in England, 469
Reportt :
Beitriige xur Assyriologie, 226-28
Englische Studien, 96-208, 933-8
Hermes, 369-7
Revue de Philologie, 998-42
Rheinisches Museum far Philologie,
Z08-16, 939-42, 488-92
Romania, 357-^* 484-*
Reviews :
Courthope's History of English Poetry,
464-80
Dahlerup's Nekrolog 5ver Karl Vemer,
91-3
Heinxe's Third Book of Lucretius, 482-3
Hillebrandt's Ritual-Litermtur, 350-3
Jusserand's Literary History of the
English People, 349-9
Kaibel's Sopholdes' Elektra, 353-6
Peck's Harper's Dictionary of Classical
Literature and Antiquities, 78-84
Puntoni's Inno Omerico a Demetra, 84-8
Revue de Philologie, 998-33
Rheinisches Museum fur Philologie,
208-26. 939-42, 488-92
Rhetorical Terms, Definition of Some, 906-13
Rhodians, Nero and the, 932
Ries, Was ist Syntax t 206
RxBSS, Ernst. Superstitions and Popu-
lar Beliefs in Greek Comedy, 289-905
Rizo-Rangab^'s Practical Method in
Modem Greek (noticed), 90
RoBBRTS, W. Rhts. Caecilius of Ca-
lacte, 301-19
Roman colonial administration, 363-4
Romance: OM0m0d0 in Romance lan-
guages, 485
— Digitized by VjOOQ IC
So6
INDEX,
Romania, 357-6»f 484-8
Romaunt of the Rose, 104
Rome, founding of. Date of, 365
Rutherford's Scholia Aristophanica (no*
ticed), 345, 946
Sackville's Induction, 474
Sandys' ed. of First Philippic and the
Olynthiacs (noticed), 345
Scenery of Ajaz, Eirene and Prometheus, 367
Schneide win's Antike Humanitat (no-
ticed), 343
Scipio Nasica as a source of Plutarch, 363
Seneca's Tragicus, Choruses in, 490
Shakespeare and the Aubade, 99
-Bacon question, 107
and Lope de Vega, X04
Macbeth and Kyd's Spanish Tragedy, 337
and the Pilgrimage to (Janossa, xo3, 103
Taming of the Shrew, 100, xox
Ships in antiquity, 364
Sidney, Sir Philip, characterized, 476
Silence as to sources in Greek historiog-
raphy, 361
Smitix, Emily Jambs. Note on Lucian's
Nigrinus, 339-4*
Solinus (Pseudo*), ~ xis
Soul of man seated in the air, 488
Spanish: yogar, 487
Spenser characterized, 477
Statius, Silrae, Praef. 38. 339
IV X3, 19, X16
Thebais and the Codex Puteanus, xoS
Stedman's Modem Greek Mastery (no-
ticed), . 30
Stichometry in Galen, 339
Strabo, Cyriacus of Ancona on, 114
Stratton, a. W. Review of Hopkins's
Religions of India, 84-7
Subjunctive in Independent Sentences in
Plautus, «33-67# a7S-3oi, 383-401
Superstitions and Popular Beliefs in
Greek Comedy, 189-304
Surrey characterized, 473
Tacitus, Consulship of, x X4
Taine's History of English Literature, 465
Telmessians, Superstitious practices of, 193
Terence, Eum. 588, 333
Enim in, 40>-z5
Eiiam in, 36-43
Tts*9raho*pitalUt 1x4
Theatre, Attic, 367
Greek, e^orpa, 488
Three-legged tables, Why? 193
Thucydides, II 15, X09, xxa, iso
VI8x,5, "44
Marchant's Book VI of, 344
Steup's Classen's (noticed), xaa
Thumb's Handbuch der neugriechischen
Volkssprache (noticed), 19
TooD, H. A. Report of Romania,
357-«3, 483-8
Tolman's Taming of a Shrew, aoo, xox
Tracutus de diversis historiis Romano-
rum, 98
Triumvirate, Second, 363
Trochaic words in Latin, Shortening of, xxx
Tyrrell's Euripides' Troadcs (noticed), 345
Vergil's Eighth Eclogue,
x»5
Fourth Eclogue,
"5
Aen, IV 4x.
a39
VI 58.
231
VI 616-30.
"39
Verner, Necrology of.
9«-3
Verrine Orationea, Cicero's,
93-S
Vestal Virgins, Habit of.
XXI
Vocal allusions.
485
Warton's History of English Poetry, 464
Weil's Etudes sur le drame antique (no-
ticed), 343, 344
Whkblbx, Benjamin Ids. The Ques-
tion of Language-Standard in Modem
Greece, >9-«5
Wied's Praktischet Lehrbuch der neu-
griechischen Volkssprache (noticed), 30
Williams' Questions of Good English
(noticed), 134
Women in Pindar, X34
Wyatt characterized, 473
Xenophon, Memorabilia, Ub. IV,
IXO
Cynegeticus,
a39
obelized,
"5
Zielinski's Cicero im Wandel der Jahr-
hunderte (noticed), S4S-3
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Vol. XVIII, 4 ' Whole No. 72
THE
AMERICAN
Journal of Philology
EDITED BV
BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE
Professor op Gbbbk in thk Johns Hopkins Univbrsity
BALTIMORE: THE EDITOR
New York and London: Macmillan & Co.
Leipsic : F, A. Brockhaus
December, 1897
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
CONTENTS.
I. — The Subjunctive In Independent Sentences in Plautus. III. By
E. P. Morris, ' 3S3
H. — The Use oi enim in Plautus and Terence. By Willard K. Clkment, 402
III. — On the Character of Inferred Parent' Languages. By Hanns
Oertel, . 416
IV. — Concluding Notes on the Origin of the Gerund and Gerundive. By
Lionel Horton-Smith ■ . . . 439
V^. — Negative Futures in the Greek New Testament. By W. G. Bal-
LANTINE, 453
Note : . . ' 462
On Latin nihil * naught, not.' By Edvvln W. Fay.
Reviews AND Book Notices: 464
Courtliope's A History of English Poetry. — Heinze's T. Lucretius Carus
de Rerum Natura.
Reports: 484
Romania. — Rheinisches Museum ffir f*hilologie.
Brief Mention, 492
Recent Publications, 495"
Books Received, 50c
Index, 502
Open to original communications in all departments of philology, classical,
comparative, oriental, modern ; condensed reports of current philological work ;
summaries of chief articles in the leading philological journals of Europe ;
reviews by specialists ; bibliographical lists.' Four numbers constitute a vol-
ume, one volume each year. Subscription j^rice $3.00 a year, payable to the
editor in advance; single numbers, $1.00 each. Suitable advertisements will
be inserted at the following rates:
One page
Halt page .
Quarter page.,
Eighth paL;e. .
I TIME.
2 T.
3T.
4 T.
$^6 00
#30 00
;C40 00
J50 C»
8 00
15 00
20 CO
25 c»
4 00
8 00
12 00
15 oc
2 00
4 00
6 00
b 00
Bog-iiiiiiiig- with tlio iK'xt iiiiinbor (78), the Ag:oiits of the Journal
ill England will be 31exsrs. Kegau Paul, Trench, Triibner k Co.,
Paternoster Honse, Charing- Cross IJoad, London, W. €'•
Special Notice. — A few sets of The Amkkican Journal of Philology
have i)een made up of late by purchase and excliaiigf. and will be sold at the
regular price, ^54 for the eiLjliteen volumes, cash to accompany the ordei. Of
single volumes ($3) Volumes IV aud VI cannot be furn'shed. Of single
numijcrs ($l) 13, 15, 21, 22, 23, 49, 50. 52 are waiitiuL,'. No. 40, wliich contains
the Index to Vols. I-X, is not furni>hcd sepMalcIy, I'Ul a small edKion of the
Index itself is for sale at $1.00 a copy. Address,
H. I.. (»lLDhKsLEF,VE, li.ilt imore. Md.
I'uMished (tu.irtcrly. Ihree dollars a year ux-'^'taee piici). Kntcred at ihc Po-«l(>fficc of
Bahiniore, Md., as sccund-cla^s matter.
Press of I he Fric.lcI.^\ rdd Co.
iI.«lttnior''. Mil
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
Digitized by VjOOQ IC
"^ UNIVERSrrYOFMICHIQAN
lllMlillili
3 901506042 6006
Replaced with Commercial Microfbmi
1993
^
?: •> ' iT^^V ^ ■<* **"<>
(*>.*••,
^ f
GO
*#>€1AIJ
r
t
ii\
Digitized by VjOOQ
Digitized by VjOOQ IC