Skip to main content

Full text of "Transactions and proceedings"

See other formats 


TRANSACTIONS 


AND 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF  THE 


AMERICAN 

PHILOLOGICAL  ASSOCIATION. 

1903. 

VOLUME   XXXIV. 


PUBLISHED  FOR  THE  ASSOCIATION  BY 
GINN  &   COMPANY, 

29  BEACON  STREET,  BOSTON,  MASS. 

EUROPEAN  AGENTS. 
ENGLAND :   EDWARD  ARNOLD,  37  BEDFORD  STREET,  STRAND,  LONDON,  W.C. 

GERMANY:   OTTO  HARRASSOWITZ,  LEIPZIG. 
FRANCE :  H.  WELTER,  59  RUB  BONAPARTE,  PARIS. 


P 
II 

A5" 


Xcrfajoot 

J.  S.  Gushing  &  Co.  —  Berwick  &  Smith 
Norwood,  Mass.,  U.S.A. 


CONTENTS   OF   VOL.   XXXIV. 


TRANSACTIONS. 

I.   Studies  in  Tacitean  Ellipsis  :  Descriptive  Passages    ...  5 

FRANK  GARDNER  MOORE. 

II.   Word-Accent  in  Catullus's  Galliambics 27 

THOMAS  DWIGHT  GOODELL. 

III.  The  Succession  of  Spartan  Nauarchs  in  Hellenica  /.     .     .  33 

CARLETON  L.  BROWNSON. 

IV.  Magister  Curiae  in  Plautus's  Aulularia  107 41 

HENRY  W.  PRESCOTT. 
V     Hephaestion  and  the  Anapaest  in  the  Aristophanic  Trimeter  49 

C.  W.  E.  MILLER. 
VI.   The  Latin  Monosyllables  in  their  Relation  to  Accent  and 

Quantity.     A  Study  in  the  Verse  of  Terence     ....  60 

ROBERT  S.  RADFORD. 

VII.   Three  New  Types 104 

FRANCIS  A.  MARCH. 


PROCEEDINGS. 

Proceedings  of  the  Annual  Session,  July,  1903 i-lxiii 

tStos  as  a  Possessive  in  Polybius iv 

EDWIN  L.  GREEN. 

Notes v 

JOHN  C.  ROLFE. 

The  Cult  of  the  Nymphs  as  Water-Deities  among  the  Romans     .  vi 

F.  G.  BALLENTINE. 

On  the  Omission  of  the  Copula  in  Certain  Combinations  in  Greek          viii 

J.  E.  HARRY. 

Character-Drawing  in  Thucydides x 

CHARLES  FORSTER  SMITH. 

Report  on  the  Proposed  Change  in  Time  of  Meetings    ....  xvi 

i 


2  Contents. 

The  Codex  Canonicianus  XLI  and  the  Tradition  of  Juvenal    .     .  xix 

HARRY  L.  WILSON. 

The  Fiscal  Joke  of  Pericles xx 

B.  PERRIN. 

Danielsson's     Assimilation    mit     nachtraglicher    Diektasis    in 

Homer xx 

H.  C.  TOLMAN. 

Notes  (Hor.  C.  i.  3.  1-8,  Plato  Rep.  423  B) xxii 

MORTIMER  LAMSON  EARLE. 

Rousselot's  Phonetic  Synthesis xxiii 

E.  WASHBURN  HOPKINS. 

Notes  on  Greek  Grammar xxiii 

MILTON  W.  HUMPHREYS. 

Is  the  Present  Theory  of  Greek  Elision  Sound  ? xxiv 

H.  W.  MAGOUN. 
The  Question  of  the  Coincidence  of  Word-Accent  and  Verse-Ictus 

in  the  last  two  Feet  of  the  Latin  Hexameter xxvi 

H.  J.  EDMISTON. 

Studies  in  the  Metrical  Art  of  the  Roman  Elegists xxviii 

KARL  P.  HARRINGTON. 

Notes  on  the  Order  of  Words  in  Latin xxxi 

C.  L.  MEADER. 

The  Land  of  Cocaigne  in  Attic  Comedy xxxii 

EDWIN  L.  GREEN. 

The  Proemium  to  the  Aeneid xxxii 

THOMAS  FITZ-HUGH. 

The  Greek  Comic  Poets  as  Literary  Critics xxxiv 

WILLIAM  W.  BAKER. 

Cicero's  Appreciation  of  Greek  Art xxxv 

GRANT  SHOWERMAN. 

Three  Terra  Cotta  Heads xxxvii 

O.  S.  TONKS. 

Head  of  an  Ephebos  from  the  Theatre  at  Corinth xxxvii 

RUFUS  B.  RICHARDSON. 

The  Gerund  and  Gerundive  in  Livy xxxviii 

R.  B.  STEELE. 

On  Some  Verb-Forms  in  the  Ramayana xl 

TRUMAN  MICHELSON. 

Notes  on  Andocides  and  the  Authorship  of  the  Oration  Against 

Akibiades xli 

W.  S.  SCARBOROUGH. 


Contents.  3 

The  Meaning  of  o/i/xa  TtTpairrai  in  Euripides  Hippol.  246  .     .     .  xli 

J.  E.  HARRY. 

Did  Cicero  write  bcllum  Poenicum  in  Brutus  75  ? xliii 

MINTON  WARREN. 
The  Incongruities  in  the  Speeches  of  Ancient  Historians  from 

Herodotus  to  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  —  Introduction.     .     .          xliii 
ALFRED  GUDEMAN. 

Quintilian's  Criticism  of  the  Metres  of  Terence xlviii 

ALFRED  GUDEMAN. 

The  Dactylic,  Heroic,  and  /car*  eVoTrAiov  Forms  of  the  Hexameter 
in  their  Relation  to  the  Elegiac  Pentameter  and  the  Prosodiac 

Tetrameter li 

H.  W.  MAGOUN. 

Afterthoughts  (A&  before  Proper  Names  beginning  with  a  Con- 
sonant ;  de  tenero  ungui,  Hor.  C.  3.  6.  24 ;  caniculd)   ...  Iv 

JOHN  C.  ROLFE. 
Diaeresis  after  the  Second  Foot  of  the  Hexameter  in  Lucretius     .  Ix 

H.  J.  EDMISTON. 

The  Ablative  Absolute  in  the  Epistles  of  Cicero,  Pliny,  and  Fronto  Ixi 

R.  B.  STEELE. 

The  Optative  Mood  in  Diodorus  Siculus Ixii 

EDWIN  L.  GREEN. 


Proceedings  of  the  Philological  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast, 

December,  1902 Ixiv-cvii 

The  Apocope  of  s  in  Lucretius .  Ixv 

SAMUEL  B.  RANDALL. 

The  Modes  of  Conditional  Thought Ixvii 

H.  C.  NUTTING. 

Livy's  Account  of  the  Dramatic  Satura Ixvii 

J.  ELMORE. 

The  So-called  Mutation  in  Indo-European  Compounds  ....        Ixviii 
BENJ.  IDE  WHEELER. 

The  Siamese  Vowels  and  Diphthongs Ixxi 

C.  B.  BRADLEY. 

Herder  and  Goethe Ixxii 

J.  GOEBEL. 

Herder's  Attitude  toward  the  French  Stage Ixxxiii 

C.  SEARLES. 

Sepultura  —  sepulcrum Ixxiii 

J.  E.  CHURCH,  JR. 


4  Contents. 

What  is  Comparative  Literature  ? Ixxiv 

C.  M.  GAYLEY. 

The  Poetica  of  Ramon  de  Campoamor;    Is  the  Dolora  a  New 

Literary  Type  ? Ixxx 

SAMUEL  A.  CHAMBERS. 

The  Citizenship  of  Aristophanes Ixxxii 

A.  T.  MURRAY. 

Rhythm  as  concerned  in  Poetry Ixxxvii 

LEON  J.  RICHARDSON. 

The  Use  of  ella,  lei,  and  la  as  Polite  Forms  of  Address  in  Italian       Ixxxix 
O.  M.  JOHNSTON. 

Dryden's  Quarrel  with  Settle xc 

GEORGE  R.  NOYES. 

The  Scalacronica  Version  of  Ha-velok xci 

EDWARD  K.  PUTNAM. 
On  the  Relation  of  Old  Fortunatus  to  the  Volksbuch      ....          xcii 

A.  F.  LAXGE. 
The  Literary  Relations  of  Edgar  Allan  Poe  and  Thomas  Holley 

Chivers xcii 

A.  G.  NEWCOMER. 

A  Middle  English  Anecdoton xciv 

E.  FLUGEL. 

The  Omission  of  the  Auxiliary  Verb  in  German xcv 

CHARLES  R.  KEYES. 
The  Sources  of  the  Paris  Promptuarium  Exemplorum  ....         xcvi 

P.  J.  FREIN. 

Structure  of  the  Verb  in  Hupa  (a  Californian  language)      .     .     .       xcviii 
PLINY  E.  GODDARD. 

The  Chinese  Normal  Essay c 

JOHN  FRYER. 

The  Scholia  on  Gesture  in  the  Commentary  of  Donatus      .     .     .  ciii 

J.  W.  BASORE. 

The  Source  of  Sheridan's  Rivals cv 

W.  D.  ARMES. 


TRANSACTIONS 


OF  THE 


AMERICAN  PHILOLOGICAL  ASSOCIATION, 

1903. 


I.  —  Studies  in  Tacit ean  Ellipsis:  Descriptive  Passages. 
BY  PROF.  FRANK  GARDNER   MOORE, 

DARTMOUTH  COLLEGE. 

THE  brevity  of  Tacitus  is  usually  felt  as  a  quality  of  the 
narrator  of  events,  who  aims  constantly  at  rapidity  of  move- 
ment, not  without  a  certain  scorn  for  petty  detail,  and  hence 
omitting  all  that  is  not  essential  to  his  narrative.  And  yet  this 
pace  is  not  confined  to  less  important  events,  in  order  that  the 
historian  may  move  more  slowly  through  scenes  of  greater 
significance.  There  is  the  same  brevity,  as  a  rule,  even  where 
momentous  issues  are  concerned,  and  nowhere  is  it  more 
marked  than  in  vivid  descriptions.1  Not  that  impatience  to 
return  to  narrative  furnishes  any  adequate  explanation  of 
these  vigorous  outline  pictures.  Other  motives  influenced 
Tacitus  even  more  than  his  passion  for  conciseness.  Few, 

1  Of  those  who  have  written  upon  the  various  forms  of  ellipsis  in  Tacitus  no 
one  in  the  writer's  knowledge  has  separately  considered  his  use  of  this  figure  in 
descriptive  passages.  Thus,  the  following  dissertations,  valuable  as  they  are,  con- 
tain little  or  nothing  to  the  present  purpose :  Wetzell,  C.,  De  usu  -verbi  subitan- 
tivi  Tacitino  (Cassel,  1876);  Clemm,  G.,  De  breviloquentiae  Taciteae  qvibusdam 
generibus  (Leipzig,  1881);  StuhL,  C,  Quibus  condicionibus  Tacitus  eltipsim 
verbi  admiserit,  etc.  (Wurzburg  dissertation,  1900;  cf.  however,  pp.  7-8,  23-24, 
29).  Xor  is  anything  to  be  gathered  from  Constans,  L~,  £tude  sttr  la  langue  de 
Tacite,  1893,  p.  u8ff.;  or  Gantrelle,  J.,  Grammaire  et  Sft'le  de  Tatite*,  1882, 
p.  44;  or  Draeger's  Syntax  und  Stil  des  Tacitus.  The  present  paper,  it  may  be 
needless  to  add,  rests  upon  nearly  complete  collections  from  all  the  works  of  Taci- 
tus. In  the  citations  the  text  of  Nipperdey  has  been  followed  in  the  Annals, 
Heraeus  in  the  Histories,  and  Gudeman  in  the  minor  works. 

5 


6  Frank  Gardner  Moore.  [*9°3 

surely,  will  be  prepared  to  dispute  the  statement  of  Nipperdey 1 
that  brevity  was  to  Tacitus  not  an  end  in  itself,  but  a  means 
to  work  upon  the  feelings  of  the  reader,  —  a  truth  more  than 
ever  obvious  if  we  exclude  for  the  time  all  thought  of  ellipsis 
in  narration,  and  limit  our  view  to  pointed  description,  with 
omitted  verbs.  These  descriptive  passages  may  reach  a  con- 
siderable length.  More  frequently  they  are  brief  descriptive 
touches  in  the  midst  of  narration.  They  may  sum  up  the 
character  of  a  man,  or  outline  the  peculiarities  or  the  cus- 
toms of  a  nation.  Thus  characterization  will  necessarily  be 
included  with  description,  since  the  descriptions  in  many 
instances  take  on  a  broader  range,  and  include  a  resume  of  a 
situation,  or  even  an  estimate  of  a  whole  period.  It  will  be 
seen  that  from  the  nature  of  the  case  the  ellipsis  with  which 
we  have  to  do  in  all  passages  of  the  kind  will  be  overwhelm- 
ingly that  of  the  substantive  verb,  leaving  a  series  of  nomina- 
tives, an  enumeratio  partium,  which  has  the  effect,  not  so 
much  of  a  formal  description,  as  of  a  suggestive  sketch.  The 
question  will  inevitably  arise  whether  these  are,  after  all,  cases 
of  ellipsis,  or  not,  —  whether  the  insertion  of  verbs,  even  in 
thought,  would  not  have  been  resented  by  the  author  of  these 
bold  sketches,  as  though  a  literalist  in  interpreting  a  Whistler 
to  a  class  of  beginners  should  add  a  line  here  and  a  line  there, 
with  pedantic  remarks  about  the  eccentricities  of  the  artist. 
And  if  we  discard  the  idea  of  ellipsis  and  have  recourse  to  the 
term  nominative  absolute,  —  with  some  of  the  writers  of  dis- 
sertations upon  the  Latinity  of  Tacitus,2  —  the  appropriate- 
ness of  the  term  must  be  considered,  together  with  the 
possibility  that  some  day  our  grammars  may  recognize  a 
nominative  of  intimation,  requiring  no  verb  to  bring  it  into 
line  with  the  syntax  of  orthodoxy,  and  of  scarcely  less  im- 
portance than  its  companion,  the  infinitive  of  intimation, 
more  commonly  labelled  the  historical  infinitive. 

It  was  formerly  claimed  that  Tacitus's  brevity  sprang  from 
his  desire  to  be  objective,3  —  a  claim  sufficiently  untenable  on 
the  most  general  grounds.  Vividly  as  he  pictures  to  us  men 

1  Annals*,  Einl.  p.  42.  2  Thus  Stuhl,  op.  cit.  pp.  8,  23-24. 

8  Draeger,  op.  cit?  §  238. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Studies  in  Tacitean  Ellipsis.  7 

and  society  from  Tiberius  to  Vespasian,  he  has  given  us  almost 
nothing  that  is  purely  objective.  He  has  forced  us  to  see 
everything  with  his  own  eyes,  —  has  imparted  to  us  his  per- 
sonal impressions  of  things  and  men,  and  seldom  if  ever 
allows  us  to  escape  from  the  subjectivity  of  his  method.  At 
present  certainly  the  subjective  individualism  of  Tacitus  is 
duly  recognized  as  one  of  his  leading  traits.1  And  a  col- 
lection of  impressionist  descriptions  from  iheAgrico/a  on  down 
through  the  Annals  gives  a  striking  array  of  evidence  that 
the  personality  of  the  writer  dominates  every  attempt  to 
describe  or  to  characterize ;  that  we  cannot  hope  even  to 
imagine  that  we  see  things  as  they  really  were,  but  only 
as  they  appeared  to  the  keen  eye  of  a  Tacitus. 

The  more  a  writer  sets  himself  to  give  his  own  impressions, 
instead  of  following  a  traditional  objective  method,  the  more 
certain  is  he  to  develop  his  own  mode  of  expressing  those 
impressions,  or  to  adopt  and  perfect  a  mode  which  had  been 
employed  by  his  predecessors.  Obviously  the  impressionistic 
resources  of  the  word-painter  lie  largely  in  the  direction  of 
selecting  salient  points,  each  one  of  which  will  stimulate  the 
imagination  of  the  sympathetic  reader ;  and  then  in  producing 
a  whole  picture  in  a  few  bold  strokes,  every  one  of  which 
testifies  to  the  individuality  of  the  author.  To  omit  the 
copula,  to  reduce  compound  tenses  to  a  string  of  participles, 
to  strip  verbs  to  the  stark  nakedness  of  the  infinitive  of  inti- 
mation,— these  were  the  methods  ready  to  hand.2  Often 

1  Cf.  Norden,  Die  antike  Kunstprosa,  I.  p.  326,  and  especially  327 :  "  Durch 
diese  Subjektivitat  unterscheidet  sich  Tacitus  von  den  meisten  antiken  Schriftstel- 
lern  und  iibertrifft  auch  die,  welche  ihm  darin  ahnlich  sind.     Dieses  Uberstromen 
einer  machtigen  Individualitat,  die,  sich  selbst  dessen  unbewusst,  alien  Menschen 
und  Begebenheiten  ihren  Stempel  aufdruckt,  weist  Tacitus  eine  fast   singulare 
Stellung  in  der  antiken  Litteraturgeschichte  an,  in  welcher  die  Unterordnung  des 
Individuellen  unter  das  Traditionelle  fast  ein  Dogma  war."    Cf.  p.  322,  n.  I ;  243- 
244.     Cf.  Wackermann,  O.,  Der  Geschichtschreiber  P.  Cornelius  Tacitus,  Guters- 
loh,  1898,  pp.  74,  83. 

2  Another  method,  not  employed  by  Tacitus,  is  seen  in  Terence,  Phormio, 

950-951 : 

Nol6  volo  ;  volo  ndlo  rursum  ;  cape  cedo  ; 

Quod  dictum,  indictumst;  qudd  modo  erat  ratum,  inritumst. 

Here  the  wavering  of  the  old  men  is  cleverly  pictured  in  the  fewest  words, — 


8  Frank  Gardner  Moore,  [*9°3 

employed  before,  both  in  prose  and  verse,  either  in  narrative 
or  in  descriptions  and  character  sketches,  they  were  now  to 
be  given  a  far  wider  use  by  Tacitus  in  every  variety  of  char- 
acterization and  description,  not  to  mention  their  employment 
in  vivid  narration.  In  many  cases  in  prose  it  is  impossible  to 
say  that  the  verb  "  to  be  "  was  really  excluded  by  the  writer, 
and  not  merely  omitted  by  ellipsis,  especially  where  the  pas- 
sage is  a  brief  one.  With  increasing  length,  however,  it  be- 
comes more  and  more  probable  that  the  writer  did  not  even 
intend  a  verb  to  be  supplied  with  the  first  touch  of  descrip- 
tion, certainly  not  with  the  remaining  features  of  his  picture. 

Even  Cicero  has  passages  which  may  be  interpreted  in  an 
impressionistic  sense.  Thus  in  de  Off.  3,  47  :  nostra  res  pub- 
lica  .  .  .  quae  Cannensi  calamitate  accepta  maiores  animos 
habuit  quam  umquam  rebus  secundis ;  nulla  timoris  signifi- 
catio,  nulla  mentio  pacis.  Grammatically  speaking,  this  is, 
of  course,  equivalent  to  nulla  erat,  etc.,  but  rhetorically  there 
is  every  reason  to  think  that  Cicero  was  better  satisfied  with 
his  word-picture  than  with  a  logical  statement.1  If  epistolary 
examples  are  not  to  be  excluded,  we  may  cite  ad  Att.  4,  3,  3  : 
Clamor,  lapides,  fustes,  gladii,  haec  improvisa  omnia,  —  a 
comic  fragment  according  to  Ribbeck,  Com.  Rom.  Frag? 
p.  145,  and  perhaps  to  be  classed  with  narratives. 

More  elaborate  descriptive  sketches  are  to  be  found  in 
Sallust,  but  not  very  frequently.2  Thus  Jngiirtha  17,  5  :  Mare 
saevom  importuosum :  ager  frugum  fertilis,  bonus  pecori, 
arbore  infecundus:  caelo  terraque  penuria  aquarum.  Genus 
hominum  salubri  corpore,  velox,  patiens  laborum. 

In  portrayal  of  character,  or  the  estimate  of  a  man's  quali- 
ties, a  similar  form  had  been  used  by  Cicero,  as  in  Brutus 

nothing  inserted  which  could  be  spared  (except  's/,  951),  nothing  omitted  which 
ordinary  wits  could  not  supply.  It  is  needless  to  say  that  this  method  must  have 
been  very  freely  used  in  animated  conversation.  For  that  reason  it  would  be 
avoided  by  the  historian,  the  majority  of  whose  ellipses  are  at  the  furthest  remove 
from  familiar  and  everyday  speech,  as  also  from  the  style  of  lively  debate  (as  in 
Cic.  de  Off.  3,  87,  for  example). 

1  On  the  frequent  ellipsis  with  nullus,  cf.  Stuhl,  op.  cit.  p.  17;   Wetzell,  op.  cit. 

P-5- 

2  Cf.  Constans,  L.,  De  sermrne  Sallusiiano,  Paris,  1 880,  p.  252. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Studies  in  Tacitean  Ellipsis,  9 

246 :  M.  Messalla  minor  natu  quam  nos,  nullo  modo  inops,  sed 
non  nimis  ornatus  genere  verborum ;  prudens  acutus,  minime 
incautus  patronus,  in  causis  cognoscendis  componendisque 
diligens,  magni  laboris,  multae  operae  multarumque  causa- 
rum.  A  copula  may  be  inserted,  to  be  sure,  but  only  to  the 
detriment  of  such  a  series  of  characterizations.1 

Sallust's  familiar  portrait  of  Catiline  is  another  case  in 
point  (5,  3-6):  Corpus  patiens  mediae,  algoris,  vigiliae  supra 
quam  cuiquam  credibile  est;  animus  audax,  subdolus,  varius, 
cuius  rei  lubet  simulator  ac  dissimulator,"  alieni  appetens,  sui 
profusus,  ardens  in  cupiditatibus  ;  satis  eloquentiae,  sapientiae 
parum  :  vastus  animus  immoderata,  incredibilia,  nimis  alta 
semper  cupiebat.2 

A  well-known  parallel  is  Livy's  estimate  of  Hannibal, 
21,4,  6-7:  Caloris  ac  frigoris  patientia  par;  cibi  potionisque 
desiderio  naturali,  non  voluptate  modus  finitus ;  vigiliarum 
somnique  nee  die  nee  nocte  discriminata  tempora;  id  quod 
gerendis  rebus  superesset,  quieti  datum  ;  ea  neque  molli  strato 
neque  silentio  accersita. 

In  such  passages  as  these  it  is  clear  enough  that  the  omis- 
sion of  the  verb  is  not  due  merely  to  the  desire  to  avoid 
unnecessary  repetition.  Evidently  there  was  a  conscious  aim 
to  sketch  in  bold  lines,  all  the  more  impressive  because  they 
appear  to  be  hasty  strokes,  leaving  the  imagination  to  com- 
plete the  picture.  If  the  writer  was  conscious  at  first  of  an 
ellipsis,  he  had  soon  drifted  away  into  what  is  purely  pictorial, 
and  not  to  be  reduced  to  prosaic  assertion,  except  with  the 
loss  of  its  most  characteristic  feature. 


1  Another  example  from  Cicero  is  Cato  Maior  12:  Nee  veto  ille  [Fabius 
Maximus]  in  luce  modo  atque  in  oculis  civium  magnus,  sed  intus  domique  prae- 
stantior.  Qui  sermo,  quae  praecepta,  quanta  notitia  antiquitatis,  scientia  iuris 
augurii !  Multae  etiam,  ut  in  homine  Romano,  litterae;  omnia  memoria  tenebat 
non  domestica  solum,  sed  etiam  externa.  The  exclamatory  sentence,  of  course, 
does  not  concern  us  here,  except  in  its  suggestive  association  with  the  other 
brief  and  emphatic  assertions,  of  the  kind  in  which  the  omission  of  the  copula  is 
most  frequent. 

z  In  the  similar  portrait  of  Sulla  (Jugurtha  95,  3)  the  first  member  contains 
a  fuit,  but  its  influence  cannot  be  felt  beyond  an  infinitive  (otio  luxurioso  esse)  in 
the  middle  of  the  passage. 


io  Frank  Gardner  Moore.  [*9°3 

From  Vergil  it  is  evident  that  Tacitus  drew  no  small  part 
of  his  inspiration  in  this,  as  in  so  many  other  directions.1  An 
instance  from  Aeneid  I,  637-642  : 

At  domus  interior  regali  splendida  luxu 
Instruitur,  mediisque  parant  convivia  tectis  : 
Arte  laboratae  vestes  ostroque  superbo, 
Ingens  argentum  mensis  caelataque  in  auro 
Fortia  facta  patrum,  series  longissima  rerum 
Per  tot  ducta  viros  antiquae  ab  origine  gentis. 

Here  it  is  possible  to  supply  instruiintur,  or  an  equivalent, 
from  instrnitur  (638).  But  as  the  verses  were  read  the  hearer 
more  naturally  accepted  lines  639-642  as  a  catalogue,  leading 
up  possibly  to  a  verb,  the  omission  of  which  gave  him  no 
trouble  whatever.  Thus  parant  convivia  is  amplified  by  an 
enumeratio  partium,  not  in  apposition,  but  independently 
treated. 

Another  example  from  the  first  book,  166-168  : 

Fronte  sub  adversa  scopulis  pendentibus  antrum, 

Intus  aquae  dulces  vivoque  sedilia  saxo, 

Nympharum  domus. 

Also  ib.  703-706 : 

Quinquaginta  intus  famulae,  quibus  ordine  longam 
Cura  penum  struere  et  flammis  adolere  penates  ; 
Centum  aliae  totidemque  pares  aetate  ministri, 
Qui,  etc. 

Aen.  2,  368-369: 

Crudelis  ubique 
Luctus,  ubique  pavor  et  plurima  mortis  imago. 

Aen.  4,  200-202  : 

Centum  aras  posuit  vigilemque  sacraverat  ignem, 
Excubias  divom  aeternas  ;  pecudumque  cruore 
Pingue  solum  et  variis  florentia  limina  sertis.2 

1  Schmaus  in  his  dissertation,  Tacitus  ein  Nachahmer  Vergils,  Bamberg,  1887, 
confines  himself  to  a  few  instances  of  ellipsis  with  postquam,  ubi,  etc.,  and  ignores 
the   elliptical    descriptions  (pp.   45-46).      Wetzell,   op.   cit.   p.    57,   emphasizes 
Tacitus's  indebtedness  to  Vergil  in  this  general  direction,  but  has  nothing  pertinent 
to  the  present  inquiry. 

2  Taking  solum,  etc.,  as  nominative  with  Ladewig. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Studies  in   Tacitean  Ellipsis.  \  \ 

Aen.  3,  618-620: 

Domus  sanie  dapibusque  cruentis, 
Intus  opaca,  ingens.     Ipse  arduus,  altaque  pulsat 
Sidera,  etc. 

In  the  description  of  the  Harpies,  ib.  216-218 : 

Virginei  volucrum  voltus,  foedissima  ventris 
Proluvies  uncaeque  manus  et  pallida  semper 
Ora  fame. 

And  of  Scylla,  ib.  426-428 : 

Prima  hominis  facies  et  pulchro  pectore  virgo 
Pube  tenus,  postrema  immani  corpore  pistrix 
Delphinum  caudas  utero  commissa  luporum. 

Also  of  Achaemenides,  ib.  593-595  : 

Dira  inluvies  immissaque  barba, 
Consertum  tegumen  spinis  ;  at  cetera  Graius, 
Et  quondam  patriis  ad  Troiam  missus  in  arm  is. 

A  few  typical  examples  will  thus  confirm  the  belief  that 
Vergil's  omission  of  the  copula  in  such  passages  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  exigencies  of  his  metre,  as  has  been  main- 
tained.1 He  had  unquestionably  adopted  this  more  pictur- 
esque mode  of  description  by  a  brief  summary  of  leading 
features.  Essentially  poetic  in  its  nature,  it  had  not  com- 
mended itself  for  general  use  in  historic  prose,  in  spite  of 
the  influence  of  Sallust.  It  remained  for  Tacitus  to  appro- 
priate it  with  his  usual  skill  to  his  own  purposes,  in  longer 
or  shorter  descriptive  passages,  and  in  character  sketches, 
whether  of  individuals  or  of  nationalities. 

In  the  Dialogus  there  is  little  material  for  our  present 
purpose.  Naturally  enough  one  finds  a  series  of  character- 
izations such  as  in  25  :  Adstrictior  Calvus,  nervosior  Asinius, 
splendidior  Caesar,  amarior  Caelius,  gravior  Brutus,  vehemen- 
tior  et  plenior  et  valentior  Cicero.  But  this  does  not  differ 
from  Cicero  himself.  A  similar  passage  is  found  in  18:  Sic 
Catoni  seni  comparatus  C.  Gracchus  plenior  et  uberior,  sic 

1  Schmaus,  op.  cit.  p.  45. 


12  Frank  Gardner  Moore.  L19°3 

Graccho  politior  et  ornatior  Crassus,  etc.  More  suggestive  of 
certain  passages  in  the  Histories  and  the  Annals,  but  in  itself 
no  novelty,  is  36:  Hinc  leges  adsiduae  et  populare  nomen, 
hinc  condones  magistratuum  .  .  .  hinc  .  .  .  hinc  .  .  .* 

In  the  Agricola  characterizations  are  after  the  manner  of 
those  already  cited  from  Sallust,  and  obviously  under  his 
influence.  Thus,  9 :  lam  vero  tempora  curarum  remissio- 
numque  divisa :  ubi  conventus  ac  iudicia  poscerent,  gravis 
intentus  severus,  et  saepius  misericors  :  ubi  officio  satis  factum, 
nulla  ultra  potestatis  persona. 

Of  the  Britons,  1 1  :  sermo  haud  multum  diversus,  in  depo- 
scendis  periculis  eadem  audacia  et,  ubi  advenere,  in  detrec- 
tandis  eadem  formido.2  Also  in  12:  In  pedite  robur ;  .  .  . 
Honestior  auriga,  etc.  Of  Britain  itself,  12  :  Solum,  praeter 
oleam  vitemque  et  cetera  calidioribus  terris  oriri  sueta,  frugum 
patiens,  fecundum. 

Turning  to  the  Germania,  and  collecting  the  many  charac- 
terizations in  this  elliptical  form,  one  is  not  surprised  to  find 
that  they  number  about  seventy.3  Taken  separately  a  large 
proportion  of  these  would  call  for  no  remark.  A  brief  state- 
ment with  a  negative,  or  with  emphasis  upon  a  demonstrative 
or  an  adjective,  with  hinc,  inde,  plus,  and  the  like,  would  have 
occasioned  no  surprise  in  an  earlier  writer,  but  taken  together 
they  become  a  marked  feature  of  the  book,  which  owes  no  small 
part  of  its  poetic  coloring  to  these  impressionistic  touches.  It 
is  needless  to  give  more  than  a  few  examples ;  thus,  4 :  Unde 
habitus  quoque  corporum,  quamquam  in  tanto  hominum 
numero,  idem  omnibus  :  truces  et  caerulei  oculi,  rutilae  comae, 
magna  corpora  et  tantum  ad  impetum  valida :  laboris  atque 
operum  non  eadem  patientia,  minimeque  sitim  aestumque 
tolerare,  frigora  atque  inediam  caelo  soloque  adsueverunt.4 

1  Cf.  Wetzell,  op.  cit.  p.  19. 

2  Cf.  ii:  Habitus  corporum  varii,  atque  ex  eo  argumenta;    21:  Inde  etiam 
habitus  nostri  honor  et  frequens  toga. 

8  If  the  term  "  characterizations  "  may  cover  all  statements  as  to  the  manners, 
etc.,  of  the  Germans. 

4  Here  it  is  possible  to  regard  oculi,  comae,  corpora,  as  appositives  to  habitus, 
but  a  comparison  with  other  passages  of  the  kind  makes  it  probable  that  the 
enumeratio  partium  is  independent  of  what  precedes.  In  a  series  of  nominatives 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Studies  in  Tacitean  Ellipsis.  \  3 

Another,  less  open  to  debate,  5  :  Terra  etsi  aliquanto  specie 
differt,  in  universum  tamen  aut  silvis  horrida  aut  paludibus 
foeda,  umidior  qua  Gallias,  ventosior  qua  Noricum  ac  Pan- 
noniam  adspicit ;  satis  ferax,  frugiferarum  arborum  [injpati- 
ens,  pecorum  fecunda,  sed  plerumque  improcera.1 

Another  instance  brings  the  "  historical "  infinitive  into  the 
description,  7  :  et  in  proximo  pignora,  unde  feminarum  ulu- 
latus  audiri,  unde  vagitus  infantium.  Hi  cuique  sanctissimi 
testes,  hi  maximi  laudatores,  etc.2 

In  this  connection  should  be  cited,  30 :  Duriora  genti  cor- 
pora, stricti  artus,  minax  vultus  et  maior  animi  vigor.  Mul- 
tum,  ut  inter  Germanos,  rationis  ac  sollertiae :  praeponere 
electos,  audire  praepositos,  etc.  (a  series  of  nine  infinitives).3 
.  .  .  Omne  robur  in  pedite,  quern  .  .  .  Rari  excursus  et 
fortuita  pugna. 

Further  descriptive  passages  with  the  predominance  of 
simple  nominatives  are,  23  :  Potui  umor  ex  hordeo  aut  fru- 
mento,  .  .  .  Cibi  simplices,  agrestia  poma,  recens  fera  aut 
lac  concretum :  sine  adparatu,  sine  blandimentis  expellunt 
famem.  40  :  Laeti  tune  dies,  festa  loca,  quaecumque  adventu 
hospitioque  dignatur.  .  .  .  clausum  omne  ferrum  ;  pax  et 
quies  tune  tantum  nota,  tune  tantum  amata,  etc.  46  :  Fennis 

of  intimation  it  is  not  difficult  to  accept  tolerare  as  an  infinitive  of  intimation,  leav- 
ing frigora,  etc.,  to  stand  by  itself  (after  a  semicolon). 

1  In  this  case  the  fact  that  no  verb  was  intended  to  be  supplied  with  horrida, 
foeda,  etc.,  made  the  concluding  clause  sed  plerumque  improcera  less  harsh  than 
it  has  usually  been  felt  to  be.     An  enumeration  of  features  could  easily  be  fol- 
lowed by  a  correcting  statement,  relating  to  the  last  item  in  the  enumeration. 
Tacitus's  first  readers  would  probably  not  have  agreed  with  his  modern  editors  in 
positively  requiring  the  insertion  of  sun/. 

2  The  controverted  question  as  to  audiri  in  this  passage  may  receive  some 
illumination  from  the  examples  cited  below  of  such  infinitives  used  in  connection 
with  nominatives  of  intimation  in  descriptions;    cf.  pp.  14-18,  21,  23. 

8  These  infinitives  have  been  treated  by  most  commentators  as  epexegetic,  in 
apposition  with  multum  .  .  .  ralionis  ac  sollertiae.  Furneaux  and  Gudeman 
retain  the  idea  of  apposition,  but  style  the  infinitives  historical,  without  explaining 
their  divergence  from  the  accepted  use  of  terms.  It  is  surely  more  probable  that 
the  infinitivus  adiimbrativus  here  describes  in  outline,  without  grammatical  refer- 
ence to  the  words  preceding,  and  that  we  have  thus  an  example  of  such  infinitives 
in  a  general  statement  belonging  to  present  time,  having  in  themselves  no  sense 
of  time  at  all. 


14  Frank  Gardner  Moore.  [1903 

mira  feritas,  foeda  paupertas :  non  arma,  non  equi,  non 
penates  ;  victui  herba,  vestitui  pelles,  cubile  humus  :  solae  in 
sagittis  opes  quas  inopia  ferri  ossibus  asperant. 

After  such  pen-pictures  of  the  men  of  the  North  it  is  not 
strange  to  find  in  the  historical  works  a  vivid  portraiture 
worked  out  by  the  same  method  of  enumerating  the  more 
striking  features,  and  leaving  the  imagination  of  the  receptive 
reader  to  complete  the  picture. 

From  the  character  sketches  in  the  Histories  we  may  select 
a  few  specimens : 

i,  10,  Mucianus :  Luxuria  industria,  comitate  adrogantia, 
malis  bonisque  artibus  mixtus ;  nimiae  voluptates,  cum  vacaret ; 
quotiens  expedierat,  magnae  virtutes.  .  .  .  variis  inlecebris 
potens,  et  cui  expeditius  f  uerit  tradere  imperium  quam  obtinere. 

I,  48,  Vinius:  Pater  illi  praetoria  familia,  maternus  avus  e 
proscriptis.  Prima  militia  infamis :  .  .  .  mox  Galbae  ami- 
citia  in  abruptum  tractus,  audax  callidus  promptus,  et  prout 
animum  intendisset,  pravus  aut  industrius  eadem  vi. 

1,  49,  Galba :    Vetus  in    familia   nobilitas,    magnae  opes; 
ipsi  medium  ingenium,  magis  extra  vitia  quam  cum  virtutibus. 
Famae  nee  incuriosus  nee  venditator ;  pecuniae  alienae  non 
adpetens,  suae   parcus,  publicae  avarus ;    amicorum    liberto- 
rumque  .  .  .  patiens,  .  .  .  ignarus. 

2,  5,  Vespasian :  Vespasianus  acer  militiae,1  anteire  agmen, 
locum  castris  capere,  noctu  diuque  consilio  ac,  si  res  posceret, 
manu  hostibus   obniti,   cibo   fortuito,   veste   habituque  vix  a 
gregario  milite  discrepans,  prorsus,  si  avaritia  abesset,  antiquis 
ducibus  par. 

2,  5,  Mucianus :  aptior  sermone,  dispositu  provisuque 
civilium  rerum  peritus. 

4,  55,  Classicus  :  Classicus  nobilitate  opibusque  ante  alios: 
regium  illi  genus  et  pace  belloque  clara  origo. 

1  The  writer  has  ventured  to  insert  a  comma  after  acer  militiae,  from  the 
conviction  that  to  Tacitus  and  his  Roman  readers  acer  was  not  simply  in  agree- 
ment with  the  subject  of  the  infinitives,  but  formed  with  militiae  a  distinct  element 
in  this  portrait  of  Vespasian,  which  consists  of  adjective  phrases  (one  of  them 
assuming  the  form  of  an  ablative  of  quality,  —  cibo  fortuito)  combined  with 
infinitives  of  intimation,  and  all  upon  an  even  footing,  as  the  different  features 
which  he  wished  to  emphasize. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Studies  in  Tacitean  Ellipsis.  1 5 

From  the  Annals  we  take  the  following : 
i>  33.  Germanicus  :  Nam  iuveni  civile  ingenium,  mira  comitas 
et  diversa  ab  Tiberii  sermone,  vultu,  adrogantibus  et  obscuris. 

2,  2,  Vonones :  Sed  prompti  aditus,  obvia  comitas ;  ignotae 
Parthis  virtutes,  nova  vitia,  et  quia  ipsorum  moribus  aliena, 
perinde  odium  pravis  et  honestis. 

3,  40,  Florus  and  Sacrovir :  Nobilitas  ambobus  et  maiorum 
bona  facta,  eoque  Romana  civitas  olim  data,  cum  id,  etc. 

4,  I,  Sejanus :  Corpus  illi  laborum  tolerans,  animus  audax ; 
sui  obtegens,  in  alios  criminator ;  iuxta  adulatio  ct  superbia ; 
palam  compositus  pudor,  intus  summa  apiscendi  libido,  eiusque 
causa  modo  largitio  et  luxus,  saepius  industria  ac  vigilantia, 
etc. 

5,  i,  Livia :    Sanctitate  domus  priscum  ad  morem,  comis 
ultra    quam    antiquis    feminis    probatum ;    mater    inpotens, 
uxor   facilis   et   cum   artibus   mariti,    simulatione    filii    bene 
composita. 

6,  51,  Tiberius:    Pater  ei  Nero   et  utrimque  origo  gentis 
Claudiae,  .  .  .  Casus  prima  ab  inf antia  ancipites.  .  .  .    Morum 
quoque  tempora  illi  diversa :  egregium  vita  famaque,  quoad 
privatus  vel  in  imperiis  sub  Augusto  fuit ;  occultum  ac  sub- 
dolum   fingendis   virtutibus,    donee    Germanicus    ac    Drusus 
superfuere. 

13,  45,  Poppaea:  sermo  comis,  nee  absurdum  ingenium. 
Modestiam  praeferre  et  lascivia  uti:  rarus  in  publicum 
egressus,  etc.1 

From  characterizations  of  a  people  or  word- portraits  of  men 
we  turn  to  descriptions  in  the  midst  of  narration.  These 
range  from  mere  descriptive  touches,  —  brief  and  pointed,  but 
extremely  numerous,  —  to  more  elaborate  sketches  of  a  situa- 
tion, or  a  resum6  of  conditions  through  a  longer  or  shorter 
period. 

Descriptive  touches  can  be  illustrated  in  a  few  typical 
examples  only : 

1  Here  again  the  infinitive  of  intimation,  in  combination  with  the  other  nomi- 
natives. Comparing  Sallust's  portrait  of  Sempronia,  which  Tacitus  could  not  have 
forgotten,  one  may  suspect  that  in  that  case  also  the  infinitive  after  ingenium 
eius  haud absurdum  was  not  meant  as  an  apposition  (Cat.  25,  5). 


1 6  Frank  Gardner  Moore,  [1903 

From  the  Agricola,  5 :  Non  sane  alias  excitatior  magisque 
in  ambiguo  Britannia  fuit :  trucidati  veterani,  incensae  colo- 
niae,  intercepti  exercitus,  etc.  16  :  eadem  inertia  erga  hostis, 
similis  petulantia  castrorum,  nisi  quod,  etc.  1 7  :  Sed  ubi  cum 
cetero  orbe  Vespasianus  et  Britanniam  reciperavit,  magni 
duces,  egregii  exercitus  et  minuta  hostium  spes.  32  :  Nee 
quidquam  ultra  formidinis :  vacua  castella,  senum  coloniae, 
inter  male  parentis  et  iniuste  imperantis  aegra  municipia  et 
discordantia.  Hie  dux,  hie  exercitus:  ibi  tributa  et  metalla, 
etc.  38 :  vastum  ubique  silentium,  secreti  colles,  fumantia 
procul  tecta,  nemo  exploratoribus  obvius. 

But  in  the  most  striking  example  in  the  Agricola  description 
and  narration  are  inextricably  interwoven,  —  37 :  Turn  vero 
patentibus  locis  grande  et  atrox  spectaculum :  sequi,  vulnerare, 
capere,  atque  eosdem  oblatis  aliis  trucidare.  lam  hostium, 
prout  cuique  ingenium  erat,  catervae  armatorum  paucioribus 
terga  praestare,  quidam  inermes  ultro  ruere  ac  se  morti 
offerre.  Passim  arma  et  corpora  et  laceri  artus  et  cruenta 
humus ;  et  aliquando  etiam  victis  ira  virtusque. 

In  the  Histories  descriptive  touches  in  the  merest  outline 
are  extremely  frequent,  especially  in  the  first  two  books,  from 
which  alone  between  fifty  and  sixty  instances  may  be  gathered. 

Book  I,  17:  Sermo  [Pisonis]  erga  patrem  imperatoremque 
reverens,  de  se  moderatus ;  nihil  in  vultu  habituque  mutatum, 
etc. 

I,  20 :  Ubique  hasta  et  sector,  et  inquieta  urbs  actionibus. 
Ac  tamen  grande  gaudium,  quod,  etc. 

I,  35  :  ignavissimus  quisque  et,  ut  res  docuit,  in  periculo 
non  ausurus  nimii  verbis,  lingua  feroces  ;  nemo  scire  et  omnes 
adfirmare,  donee,  etc. 

i,  40:  Neque  populi  aut  plebis  ulla  vox,  sed  artoniti  vultus 
et  conversae  ad  omnia  aures ;  non  tumultus,  non  quies,  quale 
magni  metus  et  magnae  irae  silentium  est. 

i,  82 :  Postera  die  velut  capta  urbe  clausae  domus,  rarus 
per  vias  populus,  maesta  plebs  ;  deiecti  in  terram  militum  vul- 
tus ac  plus  tristitiae  quam  paenitentiae. 

2,13:  Quippe  in  acie  nihil  praedae,  inopes  agrestes  et  vilia 
arma,  nee,  etc. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Studies  in   Tacitean  Ellipsis.  1 7 

2,  19:  lamque  totis  castris  modesti  sermon es,  et  .  .  .  lau- 
dari  providentia  ducis,  quod,  etc. 

2,  22  :  Vixdum  orto  die  plena  propugnatoribus  moenia,  ful- 
gentes  armis  virisque  campi. 

2,  38  :  Modo  turbulent!  tribuni  modo  consules  praevalidi,  et 
in  urbe  ac  foro  temptamenta  civilium  bellorum. 

2,  41  :  Apud  Othonianos  pavidi  duces,  miles  ducibus  in- 
fensus,  mixta  vehicula  et  lixae  et  praeruptis  utrimque  fossis 
via  quieto  quoque  agmini  angusta.  Circumsistere  alii  signa 
sua,  quaerere  alii;  incertus  undique  clamor  adcurrentium 
vocantium. 

2,  89:  Quattuor  legionum  aquilae  per  frontem  totidemque 
circa  e  legionibus  aliis  vexilla,  mox  duodecim  alarum  signa  et 
post  peditum  ordines  eques,  dein  quattuor  et  triginta  cohortes, 
etc.  .  .   .     Decora   facies  et  non   Vitellio   principe   dignus 
exercitus. 

3,  22 :  Proelium  tota  nocte  varium  anceps  atrox,  his,  rursus 
illis  exitiabile.  .  .  .     Eadem  utraque  acie  arma,  crebris  inter- 
rogationibus  notum  pugnae  signum,  permixta  vexilla,  etc. 

3,  67 :  voces  populi  blandae  et  intempestivae,  miles  minaci 
silentio. 

3,  83 :  Saeva  ac  deformis  urbe  tota  facies :  alibi  proelia  et 
vulnera,  alibi  balineae  popinaeque ;  simul  cruor  et  strues  cor- 
porum,  iuxta  scorta  et  scortis  similes ;  quantum  in  luxurioso 
otio  libidinum,  quidquid  in  acerbissima  captivitate  scelerum, 
prorsus  ut,  etc.1 

4,  i  :  plenae  caedibus  viae,  cruenta  fora  templaque,  etc. 

5,  13:  Obstinatio  viris  feminisque  par  ac  .  .  .  maior  vitae 
metus  quam  mortis. 

In  the  Annals  the  same  mode  of  description  is  employed 
with  great  frequency : 

Book  i,  49:  Diversa  omnium,  quae  umquam  accidere,  civi- 
lium armorum  facies.  .  .  .  Clamor  vulnera  sanguis  palam, 
causa  in  occulto ;  .  .  .  permissa  vulgo  licentia  atque  ultio  et 
satietas. 

i,  6 1  :  Medio  campi  albentia  ossa,  ut  fugerant,  ut  resti- 

i  Cf.  p.  20  (Hist.  3,  30). 


1 8  Frank  Gardner  Moore.  [I9°3 

terant,  disiecta  vel  aggerata.  .  .  .  Lucis  propinquis  barbarae 
arae,  aput  quas,  etc. 

i,  64:  Contra  Cheruscis  sueta  aput  paludes  proelia,  procera 
membra,  hastae  ingentes,  etc. 

1,  65 :    Neque   is   miseriarum   finis.      Struendum   vallum, 
petendus  agger;    .  .  .  non  tentoria  manipulis,  non  fomenta 
sauciis,  etc. 

2,  20-21  :  utrisque  necessitas  in  loco,  spes  in  virtute,  salus 
ex  victoria.     Nee  minor  Germanis  animus,  etc. 

2,  80 :    Contra   veterani    ordinibus   ac    subsidiis   instructi : 
hinc  militum,  inde  locorum  asperitas,  sed  non  animus,  non 
spes,  ne  tela  quidem  nisi  agrestia,  aut  subitum  in  usum  pro- 
perata. 

3,  4 :  Dies,  quo  reliquiae  [Germanici]  tumulo  Augusti  in- 
ferebantur,    modo    per    silentium    vastus,    modo    ploratibus 
inquies ;  plena  urbis  itinera,  conlucentes  per  campum  Martis 
faces. 

4,  25 :  Ab    Romanis   confertus   pedes,  dispositae   turmae, 
cuncta  proelio  provisa :  hostibus  contra  omnium  nesciis  non 
arma,   non   ordo,   non    consilium,   sed    pecorum    modo   trahi 
occidi  capi. 

4,  62-63 :  .  .  .  lamentari  .  .  .  pavere  .  .  . ;  nequedum 
comperto,  quos  ilia  vis  perculisset,  latior  ex  incerto  metus. 
Ut  coepere  dimoveri  obruta,  concursus  ad  exanimos  complec- 
tentium,  osculantium  ;  et  saepe  certamen,  etc. 

4,  67 :  Caeli  temperies  hieme  mitis  .  .  .  aestas  in  favonium 
obversa  et  aperto  circum  pelago  peramoena. 

4,  70:  Quo  intendisset  oculos,  quo  verba  acciderent,  fuga 
vastitas  ;  deseri  itinera  fora. 

12,  7:  adductum  et  quasi  virile  servitium.  Palam  severitas 
ac  saepius  superbia;  nihil  domi  inpudicum,  nisi  domination! 
expediret. 

14,  63  :  turn  ancilla  domina  validior  et  Poppaea  non  nisi 
in  perniciem  uxoris  nupta,  postremo  crimen  omni  exitio 
gravius.1 

1  Nipperdey  supplies  patienda  fuerunf,  or  an  equivalent.  But  the  aggrava- 
tions of  Octavia's  lot  might  be  merely  enumerated,  without  any  distinct  thought 
of  a  predicate. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Studies  in   Tacitcan  Ellipsis,  19 

1 6,  13:  Non  sexus,  non  aetas  periculo  vacua.  Servitia 
perinde  et  ingenua  plebes  raptim  exstingui,  etc. 

1 6,  29:  non  ilia  nota  et  crebritate  periculorum  sueta  iam 
senatus  maestitia,  sed  novus  et  altior  pavor  manus  et  tela 
militum  cernentibus. 

The  same  mode  of  description  in  broad  lines  is  also  to  be 
found  on  a  larger  scale,  or  with  a  more  obviously  pictorial 
intention,  especially  where  a  state  of  feeling  is  described,  and 
the  impressions  of  spectators  dwelt  upon ;  also  in  summariz- 
ing conditions.  • 

Thus  in  the  Histories  i,  4, —  the  feeling  in  Rome  after  the 
death  of  Nero  :  Sed  patres  laeti  usurpata  statim  libertate  licen- 
tius  ut  erga  principem  novum  et  absentem  ;  primores  equitum 
proximi  gaudio  patrum ;  pars  populi  integra  et  magnis  domi- 
bus  adnexa,  clientes  libertique  damnatorum  et  exulum  in  spem 
erecti:  plebs  sordida  et  circo  ac  theatris  sueta,  simul  deter- 
rimi  servorum,  aut  qui  adesis  bonis  per  dedecus  Neronis  ale- 
bantur,  maesti  et  rumorum  avidi.1 

Of  the  impression  made  by  Galba's  entry  into  the  city,  with 
a  glance  at  the  unusual  military  conditions  in  the  city,  I,  6: 
Tardum  Galbae  iter  et  cruentum  interf ectis  Cingonio  Varrone, 
etc.  .  .  .  Introitus  in  urbem  trucidatis  tot  milibus  inermium 
militum  infaustus  omine  atque  ipsis  etiam,  qui  occiderant,  for- 
midolosus.  Inducta  legione  Hispana,  remanente  ea,  quam  e 
classe  Nero  conscripserat,  plena  urbs  exercitu  insolito ;  multi 
ad  hoc  numeri  e  Germania,  etc.  .  .  .  ingens  novis  rebus  ma- 
teria,  etc. 

In  picturing  conditions  at  the  court  of  Galba,  i,  7:  Venalia 
cuncta,  praepotentes  liberti,  servorum  manus  subitis  avidae  et 
tamquam  apud  senem  festinantes,  eademque  novae  aulae 
mala,  aeque  gravia,  non  aeque  excusata. 

Of  the  state  of  things  on  the  eve  of  Otho's  departure  from 
Rome  i,  88  :  Igitur  motae  urbis  curae ;  nullus  ordo  metu  aut 
periculo  vacuus :  primores  senatus  aetate  invalidi  et  longa 
pace  desides,  segnis  et  oblita  bellorum  nobilitas,  ignarus  mili- 
tiae  eques,  quanto  magis  occultare  et  abdere  pavorem  nite- 

1  Heraeus4  supplies  erant  with  laeti,  which  reduces  a  vivid  picture  in  outline 
to  the  level  of  mere  statement  of  fact. 


2O  Frank  Gardner  Moore.  [1903 

bantur,  manifestius  pavidi.  .  .  .  Sapientibus  quietis  et  rei 
publicae  cura;  levissimus  quisque  et  futuri  improvidus  spe 
vana  tumens ;  multi  adflicta  fide  in  pace  anxii,  turbatis  rebus 
alacres  et  per  incerta  tutissimi. 

In  2,  70,  the  gruesome  description  of  Vitellius's  visit  to  the 
battlefield  of  Bedriacum  :  Inde  Vitellius  Cremonam  flexit  et 
.  .  .  insistere  Bedriacensibus  cam  pis  ac  vestigia  recentis  vic- 
toriae  lustrare  oculis  concupivit,1  foedum  atque  atrox  specta- 
culum.  Intra  quadragensimum  pugnae  diem  lacera  corpora, 
trun«i  artus,  putres  virorum  equorumque  formae,  infecta  tabo 
humus,  protritis  arboribus  ac  frugibus  dira  vastitas.  Nee 
minus  inhumana  pars  viae,  quam  Cremonenses  lauru  rosaque 
constraverant,  etc. 

Vitellius's  army  marching  out  of  Rome  is  thus  described, 
2,  99:  Longe  alia  proficiscentis  ex  urbe  Germanici  exercitus 
species :  non  vigor  corporibus,  non  ardor  animis ;  lentum  et 
rarum  agmen,  fluxa  arma,  segnes  equi ;  inpatiens  solis 
pulveris  tempestatum,  quantumque  hebes  ad  sustinendum 
laborem  miles,  tanto  ad  discordias  promptior. 

In  the  account  of  the  siege  of  Cremona,  3,  30 :  Ac  rursus 
nova  laborum  f acies :  ardua  urbis  moenia,  saxeae  turres,  fer- 
rati  portarum  obices,  vibrans  tela  miles,  frequens  obstrictus- 
que  Vitellianis  partibus  Cremonensis  populus,  magna  pars 
Italiae  stato  in  eosdem  dies  mercatu  congregata,  etc.2 

1  Meiser  punctuates  with  a  full  stop  after  concupivit,  and  a  colon  after  diem. 
But  the  question  is  immaterial  for  the  purpose  in  hand,  since  we  have  already  had 
examples  of  nominatives  in  a  series  after  a  preceding  accusative,  instead  of  accu- 
satives in  apposition;   cf.  pp.  10,  22-25. 

2  Cf.  p.  17  (Hist.  3,  83).     In  3,  33,  in  the  horrible  scenes  of  the  sack  of  Cre- 
mona occurs  a  sentence  of  vivid  narrative  in  infinitives  of  intimation,  into  the 
midst  of  which  is  interjected  the  phrase  faces  in  manibus,  —  a  bit  of  description 
(cf.  Ann.  3,  4,  above,  p.  18).     In  view  of  the  unsatisfactory  nature  of  the  explana- 
tion that  this  stands  for  faces  in  manibus  habentes  (gerentes,  tenentes),  apparently 
unsupported  by  certain  parallels,  it  may  not  be  out  of  place  to  suggest  that,  if  we 
could  divest  ourselves  of  habit,  and  take  the  infinitives,  not  as  tenses  of  narration, 
but  of  mere  picturesque  suggestion,  as  a  Roman  doubtless  did,  it  would  not  seem 
altogether  strange  to  have  such  intimating  infinitives  (nominative)  followed  by 
an  intimating  nominative  of  another  substantive,  even  singly,  and  accompanied 
only  by  a  prepositional  phrase.     This  would  be  an  extreme  example,  only  to  be 
justified  by  the  intense  feeling  provoked  by  the  story.     The  passage  is :   Quidam 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Studies  in  Tacitean  Ellipsis.  2 1 

Among  the  scenes  of  the  revolt  under  Civilis,  Tacitus  gives 
us  this  picture,  4,  62  :  Quippe  intra  vallum  deformitas  haud 
perinde  notabilis :  detexit  ignominiam  campus  et  dies.  Re- 
vulsae  imperatorum  imagines,  inhonora  signa,  fulgentibus 
hinc  inde  Gallorum  vexillis;  silens  agmen  et  velut  longae 
exsequiae ;  dux  Claudius  Sanctus  effosso  oculo  dims  ore, 
ingenio  debilior. 

From  the  Annals  not  a  few  such  descriptions  may  be 
quoted.  Of  conditions  in  the  last  days  of  Augustus,  1,3: 
Domi  res  tranquillae,  eadem  magistratuum  vocabula ;  iuniores 
post  Actiacam  victoriam,  etiam  senes  plerique  inter  bella 
civium  nati :  quotus  quisque  reliquus,  qui  rem  publicam 
vidisset?  Igitur  verso  civitatis  statu  nihil  usquam  prisci  et 
integri  moris ;  omnes  exuta  aequalitate  iussa  principis  aspec- 
tare,  etc. 

An  impression  of  the  reign  of  Augustus  is  given  in  1,9,  in 
oratio  obliqua :  Non  regno  tamen  neque  dictatura,  sed  prin- 
cipis nomine  constitutam  rem  publicam ;  mari  Oceano  aut 
amnibus  longinquis  saeptum  imperium ;  legiones  provincias 
classes,  cuncta  inter  se  conexa;  ius  aput  cives,  modestiam 
aput  socios ;  urbem  ipsam  magnifico  ornatu  ;  pauca  admodum 
vi  tractata,  quo  ceteris  quies  esset. 

Another,  from  the  opposite  point  of  view,  in  chapter  10, 
abounds  in  ellipses  of  esse,  but  does  not  have  the  pictorial 
effect. 

In  a  historical  resume  in  descriptive  terms,  3,  27-28 :  Hinc 
Gracchi  et  Saturnini,  turbatores  plebis,  nee  minor  largitor 
nomine  senatus  Drusus ;  corrupti  spe  aut  inlusi  per  interces- 
sionem  socii,  etc.  .  .  .  lamque  non  modo  in  commune,  sed 
in  singulos  homines  latae  quaestiones ;  et  corruptissima  re 
publica  plurimae  leges.  .  .  .  Exin  continua  per  viginti  annos 
discordia;  non  mos,  non  ius;  deterrima  quaeque  inpune  ac 
multa  honesta  exitio  fuere. 

Again  a  sketch  of  conditions  under  Tiberius,  4,  6-7 :  Sua 
consulibus,  sua  praetoribus  species ;  minorum  quoque  magis- 

obvia  aspernati  verberibus  tormentisque  dominorum  abdita  scrutari,  Jefossa  eruere, 
faces  in  manibus,  quas,  etc.  (Heraeus8  omits  the  comma  after  eruere.  Cf. 
Clemm,  op.  cit.  p.  49.) 


22  Frank  Gardner  Moore.  L19°3 

tratuum  exercita  potestas ;  legesque,  si  maiestatis  quaestio 
eximeretur,  bono  in  usu.  .  .  .  Rari  per  Italiam  Caesaris  agri, 
modesta  servitia,  intra  paucos  libertos  domus ;  ac  si  quando 
cum  privatis  disceptaret,  forum  et  ius. 

No  bolder  example  of  the  impressionist  manner  in  descrip- 
tion can  be  found  in  Tacitus  than  Annals  i,  41,  in  the  account 
of  the  departure  of  Agrippina  and  the  other  women  from 
Cologne  at  the  time  of  the  mutiny :  Non  florentis  Caesaris 
neque  suis  in  castris,  sed  velut  in  urbe  victa  f acies ;  gemitus- 
que  ac  planctus  etiam  militum  aures  oraque  advertere.  Pro- 
grediuntur  contuberniis.  Quis  ille  flebilis  sonus  ?  quid  tarn 
triste  ?  Feminas  inlustres ;  non  centurionem  ad  tutelam,  non 
militem,  nihil  imperatoriae  uxoris  aut  comitatus  solid.  Per- 
gere  ad  Treviros  et  externam  fidem.  Pudor  inde  et  miseratio 
et  patris  Agrippae,  Augusti  avi  memoria ;  socer  Drusus  ;  ipsa 
insigni  f ecunditate,  praeclara  pudicitia ;  iam  inf ans  in  castris 
genitus,  in  contubernio  legionum  eductus,  quern  militari  voca- 
bulo  Caligulam  appellabant,  etc.  Here  the  last  enumeratio, — 
socer  Drusus,  ipsa,  inf  ans,  is  given  as  it  presented  itself  to  the 
minds  of  the  conscience-stricken  soldiers,  and  yet  the  histo- 
rian seems  to  have  deliberately  avoided  the  oratio  obliqua, 
even  after  such  words  as  pudor,  miseratio,  memorial 

Another  of  the  most  important  passages  is  Histories  2,  6. 
There  is  first  a  summary  of  conditions  in  the  East  from  the 
time  of  the  civil  wars.  This  is  followed  by  brief  mention,  in 
historical  infinitives,  of  the  altered  feelings  of  the  eastern 
legions,  —  their  awakening  to  a  consciousness  of  their  own 
resources.  Then  an  enumeratio,  in  a  series  of  nominatives, 
not  appositives  to  the  preceding  accusative,  vires  suas.  It  is 
a  catalogue  pure  and  simple,  grammatically  as  incomplete  as 
any  index,  but  rhetorically  most  effective,  and  giving  every 
evidence  of  study.  But  to  quote  the  entire  passage :  Nulla 
seditio  legionum ;  tantum  adversus  Parthos  minae  vario 
eventu,  et  proximo  civili  bello  turbatis  aliis  inconcussa  ibi  pax, 

1  Cf.  Ann.  15,  5,  where  a  series  {Irritum  obsidium;  tutus  manu  et  copiis 
Tigranes ;  fugati,  qui  expugnationem  sumpseranf)  really  represents  the  enumera- 
tion of  disadvantages  in  the  mind  of  Vologaeses,  as  is  shown  by  an  almost  imme- 
diate lapse  into  indirect  discourse  (sibi  inbecillum  equitem,  etc.). 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Studies  in   Tacitean  Ellipsis,  23 

dein  fides  erga  Galbam.  Mox,  ut  Othonem  ac  Vitellium 
scelestis  armis  res  Romanas  raptum  ire  vulgatum  est,  ne 
penes  ceteros  imperil  praemia,  penes  ipsos  tantum  servitii 
necessitas  esset,  fremere  miles  et  vires  suas  circumspicere : 
septem  legiones  statim  et  cum  ingentibus  auxiliis  Suria  ludaea- 
que,  inde  continua  Aegyptus  duaeque  legiones,  hinc  Cappa- 
docia  Pontusque,  et  quidquid  castrorum  Armeniis  praetendi- 
tur,  Asia  et  ceterae  provinciae  nee  virorum  inopes  et  pecunia 
opulentae,  quantum  insularum  mari  cingitur,  et  parando  in- 
terim bello  secundum  tutumque  ipsum  mare. 

Finally,  if  after  all  these  specimens  of  Tacitus's  manner 
in  descriptive  passages,  we  turn  to  the  opening  chapters 
of  the  first  book  of  the  Histories,  and  read  his  charac- 
terization of  the  whole  period  which  he  proposes  to  cover, 
it  is  almost  impossible  to  resist  the  conclusion  that  that 
passage  also  belongs  with  those  we  have  been  consider- 
ing, in  spite  of  its  extraordinary  extent, — that  it  is,  in 
other  words,  not  a  narrative  in  epitome,  but  a  vivid  pic- 
ture, painted  with  the  same  methods  which  he  so  constantly 
uses  elsewhere.  The  second  and  third  chapters  show  a 
complete  suppression  of  verbs,  with  the  exception  of  the 
brief  opening  sentence :  Opus  adgredior  opimnm  casibus, 
etc.,  and  a  concluding  reflection  at  the  end  of  chapter  three. 
Between  these  limits  there  are  more  than  two  hundred  words. 
If  one  begins  upon  the  officious  task  of  inserting  erat,  erant, 
est,  sunt,  he  finds  that  even  with  a  reasonable  economy  of 
verbs  some  fifteen  insertions  will  have  to  be  made,  and  the 
result  would  be  a  Livian  epitome,  —  such  an  epitome,  to  be 
sure,  as  Livy  himself  might  have  written,  a  condensed,  but 
still  highly  rhetorical  narrative.  That  the  thought  of  narra- 
tion was  far  from  the  mind  of  Tacitus  would  be  suggested  at 
once  by  the  absence  of  simple  perfects.  More  significant 
still  is  the  general  character  which  pervades  the  whole.  And 
yet  the  passage  cannot  be  classed  with  characterizations  of 
the  familiar  type,  owing  to  the  exclusion  of  imperfects. 
What  in  another  situation  might  be  mere  statement  of  fact, 
is  here  graphic  enumeration  of  the  features  of  an  entire 
period.  It  must  be  regarded  as  an  enumeratio  partium  on 


24  Frank  Gardner  Moore.  [1903 

the  largest  scale.  And  if  the  scale  is  without  parallel,  there 
was  surely  much  to  justify  it  here,  in  this  rapid  survey  of  all 
the  reigns  to  be  included  in  the  Histories. 

The  fact  that  opus  .  .  .  opimum  is  not  followed  by  accusa- 
tives in  free  apposition,  but  by  an  unbroken  series  of  nomina- 
tives is  precisely  paralleled  by  several  instances  which  we 
have  already  examined.1  An  objective  writer  might  have 
drifted  into  a  tame  series  of  loose  appositives,  or  directly  into 
matter-of-fact  statement.  The  intensely  subjective  Tacitus 
notes  down  in  bold  strokes  his  own  impressions,  —  what  he 
saw  as  he  scanned  the  horizon  of  his  Histories,  what  he  willed 
that  his  readers  should  see  as  with  his  eyes.  The  dark  side 
of  his  picture  he  presents  in  the  second  chapter ;  the  brighter 
lights  are  added  in  the  third.  And  the  whole,  under  this 
interpretation,  becomes  the  greatest  single  work  of  the  master 
of  impressionism. 

On  the  other  hand  every  edition  to  which  the  writer  has 
had  access2  distributes  periods  with  such  a  lavish  hand 
through  this  entire  passage  as  to  show  that  the  editors  are 
apparently  agreed  in  understanding  chapters  two  and  three 
as  a  narrative,  strikingly  rhetorical,  highly  finished  and  gen- 
eral in  character,  but  still  a  narrative,  —  an  abridged  version 
of  the  whole  work.  It  becomes  necessary  then  to  supply  the 
omitted  verbs ;  but  the  commentators,  to  whom  this  ungrate- 
ful duty  would  seem  naturally  to  fall,  content  themselves  with 
remarking  on  the  omission  of  a  stray  erat,  etc.,  perhaps  in 
chapter  three,  as  though  the  second  had  not  been  full  of 
similar  ellipses.3  The  inadequacy  of  such  comment,  the 
absence  of  any  remark  upon  the  passage  as  a  whole,  of  any 
citation  of  parallels,  seem  unaccountable.  One  is  left  to  con- 
clude that  the  editors  have  seen  nothing  extraordinary  in  an 
epitome  as  a  feature  of  a  preface,  —  or  else,  and  more  prob- 
ably, have  contrived,  in  spite  of  their  punctuation  and  inter- 
pretation, to  gain  the  picturesque  effect  which  seems  to  be 
so  much  more  completely  realized,  if  all  idea  of  narration  is 

1  Cf.  pp.  20,  n.  i,  22. 

2  Including  Meiser,  Gantrelle,  Wolff,  and  van  der  Vliet  (1901). 
8  Cf.  Heraeus  *  on  3  init. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Studies  in   Tacitean  Ellipsis.  2$ 

discarded  in  favor  of  pictorial  description,  and  the  pointing 
revised  to  indicate  an  unbroken  enumeration. 

With  such  changes  in  punctuation  the  passage  would  run 
as  follows : 

(2)  Opus  adgredior  opimum  casibus,  atrox  proeliis,  discors  seditionibus, 
ipsa  etiam  pace  saevum :  quattuor  principes  ferro  interempti ;  trina  bella 
ci villa,  plura  externa  ac  plerumque  permixta  ;  prosperae  in  Oriente,  adversae 
in  Occidente  res ;  turbatum  Illyricum,  Galliae  nutantes,  perdomita  Britannia 
et  statim  omissa ;  coortae  in  nos  Sarmatarum  ac  Sueborum  gentes,  nobili- 
tatus  cladibus  mutuis  Dacus,  mota  prope  etiam  Parthorum  arma  falsi  Neronis 
ludibrio ;  iam  vero  Italia  novis  cladibus  vel  post  longam  saeculorum  seriem 
repetitis  adflicta ;  hausta  aut  obruta  [urbes]  fecundissima  Campaniae  ora, 
et  urbs  incendiis  vastata,  consumptis  antiquissimis  delubris,  ipso  Capitolio 
civium  manibus  incenso ;  pollutae  caerimoniae,  magna  adulteria;  plenum 
exiliis  mare,  infecti  caedibus  scopuli;  atrocius  in  urbe  saevitum;  nobilitas, 
opes,  omissi  gestique  honores  pro  crimine  et  ob  virtutes  certissimum  exi- 
tium ;  nee  minus  pfaemia  delatorum  invisa  quam  scelera,  cum  alii  sacerdo- 
tia  et  consulatus  ut  spolia  adepti,  procurationes  alii  et  interiorem  potentiam, 
agerent  verterent  cuncta  odio  et  terrore ;  corrupti  in  dominos  servi,  in 
patronos  liberti,  et  quibus  deerat  inimicus,  per  amicos  oppressi.  (3)  Non 
tamen  adeo  virtutum  sterile  saeculum,  ut  non  et  bona  exempla  prodiderit ; 
comitatae  profugos  liberos  matres,  secutae  maritos  in  exilia  coniuges ;  pro- 
pinqui  audentes,  constantes  generi,  contumax  etiam  adversus  tormenta 
servorum  fides ;  supremae  clarorum  virorum  necessitates,  ipsae  neces  for- 
titer  toleratae  et  laudatis  antiquorum  mortibus  pares  exitus ;  praeter  mul- 
tiplices  rerum  humanarum  casus  caelo  terraque  prodigia  et  fulminum 
monitus  et  futurorum  praesagia,  laeta  tristia,  ambigua  manifesta  ;  nee  enim 
umquam  atrocioribus  popult  Romani  cladibus  magisve  iustis  indiciis  adpro- 
batum  est  non  esse  curae  deis  securitatem  nostram,  esse  ultionem. 

Such  is  Tacitus's  sombre  picture  of  the  revolution  year  and 
the  Flavian  period.1  That  the  great  pessimist  would  have 
only  wrath  and  contempt  for  the  editorial  assumption  of  real 
ellipses  throughout  such  a  passage,  seems  to  need  no  further 
demonstration.  But  instead  of  attempting  to  draw  distinc- 
tions between  ellipses,  nominal  and  real,  it  would  be  better  if  we 
had  a  convenient  name  for  these  nominatives.  The  term  "nom- 
inative absolute"  has  been  employed;  but  even  in  its  Latin 

1  Cf.  Wolfflin,  Sitzungsber.  der  kgl.  bayer.  Akad.t  1901,  I.  §  2:  "eine  ge- 
drangte  Uebetsicht  des  Charakters  der  flavischen  Periode :  die  schweren  Schick- 
salsschlage,  welche  die  Stadt,  Italien  und  das  Reich  trafen,  und  als  Gegenbild  der 
gesunkenen  Moralitat  Zuge  antiker  Tugend,"  u.s.w. 


26  Frank  Gardner  Moore.  [1903 

dress  this  is  open  to  objection,  since  if  the  scope  of  our  gram- 
mars is  extended  to  late  Latin,  the  term  is  required  to  desig- 
nate a  use  analogous  to  the  ablative  absolute,  and  the  genitive 
and  accusative  absolute  of  vulgar  and  late  writers.1  And  in 
an  English  form  the  phrase  would  give  rise  to  endless  con- 
fusion with  our  own  construction  of  the  same  name.  "  Nom- 
inative of  intimation  "  has  been  more  than  once  suggested 
above,  in  view  of  similar  functions  and*  frequent  association 
with  infinitives  of  intimation.  And  if  the  grammars  of  the 
new  century  can  be  supposed  to  trouble  themselves  about  a 
Latin  terminology,  we  may  propose  the  corresponding  nomi- 
nativus  adumbrativus. 

In  conclusion  one  cannot  fail  to  observe  that  this  rhetorical 
mode  of  description  was  more  freely  used  by  Tacitus  in  the 
Histories  than  in  the  Annals;*  that  the  most  conspicuous 
example  of  all  stands  at  the  very  beginning  of  the  Histories, 
and  in  close  chronological  connection  with  the  picturesqueness 
of  the  Germania.  This  method  was,  in  other  words,  the  prod- 
uct of  his  most  rhetorical  period.  Its  appropriateness  for 
an  age  in  which  the  recitatio  flourished,  and  every  writing  was 
judged  first  and  foremost  by  its  effect  upon  the  ear,  will  be 
granted  without  argument.  Given  the  ready  apprehension 
of  the  southern  races,  and  their  impatience  of  dull  statement 
where  a  hint  suffices,  the  wonder  is  that  the  fin-de-siecle 
description  does  not  play  a  more  important  role  in  Roman 
prose. 

1  An  actual  nominative  absolute  (for  the  ablative)  appears  to  be  first  found  in 
Lucifer  of  Cagliari   (t370>    cf.   Schmalz,  in  Stolz   und   Schmalz,  Lateinischc 
Grammatik,  §  98,  An.  3. 

2  In  general  it  has  been  noted  that  ellipsis  of  the  verb  "  to  be  "  becomes  rarer 
in  the  later  books  of  the  Annals;  cf.  Wetzell's  statistics,  op.  cit.  pp.  25,  32; 
Stuhl,  op.  cit.  p.  29. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]      Wor£-accent  in  Catullus 's  Galliambics.  27 


II.  —  Word-accent  in  Catullus' s  Galliambics. 
BY  PROF.  THOMAS  DWIGHT  GOODELL, 

YALE   UNIVERSITY. 

THE  object  of  this  paper  is  to  state  as  simply  as  possible, 
with  the  minimum  of  discussion,  the  relations  found  to  exist 
between  word-accent  and  the  rhythmical  structure  in  the  Attis 
of  Catullus  (carm.  63).  Elsewhere  (Chapters  on  Greek 
Metric,  pp.  165  ff.)  I  have  called  attention  to  the  fact  that 
Horace  in  his  one  poem  in  ionic  verse  (carm.  Ill  12)  makes 
every  word-accent  fall  on  one  of  the  three  beats  of  the  ionic 
foot.  For  an  accented  long  syllable  or  a  long  monosyllable 
that  is  a  necessity  and  of  no  significance ;  but  for  accented 
short  syllables,  in  the  penult  of  an  iambic  or  pyrrhic  word  or 
in  an  antepenult,  the  case  is  different.  Throughout  this  one 
poem  every  accented  short  syllable  (21  instances)  is  the 
former  of  the  recurrent  pair  which  the  meter  requires,  never 
the  latter ;  that  is,  it  coincides  in  every  instance  with  the  beat, 
or  with  the  first  half  of  the  divided  beat,  though  in  other 
meters  Horace  did  not  hold  himself  to  any  such  rule.  In 
Catullus  the  principle  is  the  same,  but  the  matter  is  not 
quite  so  simple,  and  there  are  exceptions.  Yet  it  seems 
clear  that  Catullus  intended  to  make  the  word-accent  a  dis- 
tinct assistance  to  his  readers  in  following  the  wild  and  shift- 
ing movement.  So  far  as  I  have  seen,  this  has  not  been 
pointed  out;  and  the  schemes  hitherto  given  for  the  poem, 
disregarding  this  principle,  make  the  rhythm  of  some  lines 
difficult  instead  of  everywhere  comparatively  simple  to  render. 

To  make  this  plain  let  me  first  clear  the  ground  by  explain- 
ing terms.  The  fundamental  form  of  the  verse  is  shown  in 
the  following  scheme,  in  which  the  feet  are  marked  off  as  in 
modern  music  (since  that  method  makes  plainer  to  the  eye 
the  relation  of  the  anaclastic  feet),  and  the  invariable  caesura 
is  marked  by  a  comma. 


28  Thomas  Dwight  Goodell.'  [I9°3 


In  this  scheme  any  long  except  the  last,  and  except  the  two 
that  immediately  precede  the  main  caesura,  may  be  resolved ; 
any  two  shorts  may  be  combined  into  one  long,  though  the  two 
shorts  following  the  main  caesura  are  not  often  so  combined. 
Thus  the  verse  has  two  stable  places,  two  longs  before  the 
caesura,  one  long  (of  course  anceps)  at  the  end ;  all  else  is 
free,  and  a  great  number  of  combinations  are  made  by  Catullus, 
though  not  all  possible  ones. 

Farther,  to  remove  all  ambiguity  from  the  statement  of  the 
law,  we  will  say  that  each  ionic  foot  has  three  beats,  two  for 
the  thesis  and  one  for  the  arsis,  and  each  trochaic  dipody  has 
two  beats,  a  down-beat  on  the  first  trochee,  an  up-beat  on  the 
second  trochee.  I  do  not  mean  thereby  to  assert  that  the 
ancients  beat  the  time  of  the  anaclastic  feet  in  this  way.  I 
do  not  know  whether  they  did  or  not ;  I  am  merely  defining 
a  term  of  my  statement  of  the  law  in  question.  Finally,  when 
a  long  is  resolved  into  two  short  syllables,  it  will  be  convenient 
to  say  that  the  beat  coincides  with  the  first  of  the  two  shorts, 
since  on  that  syllable  the  beat  begins. 

With  this  understanding  of  terms  the  law  is,  for  Catullus 
as  for  Horace,  that  an  accented  short  syllable  regularly 
coincides  with  a  beat.  Horace  in  his  perfectly  regular  ionics 
allows  no  exceptions.  Catullus  allows  exceptions  in  the  case 
of  iambic  words,  and  of  pyrrhic  words  made  iambic  by  position 
or  by  standing  at  the  end  of  the  line ;  these  would  by  the  law 
be  excluded  from  the  verse ;  but  Catullus  admits  them  under 
certain  restrictions.  That  such  iambic  words  have  elsewhere 
something  peculiar  about  their  metrical  treatment  is  well 
known  to  Latinists,  and  I  will  not  dwell  upon  the  fact. 

The  following  lines  will  amply  illustrate  the  rule  and  the 
exceptions : 

i.  super  alta  uectus  Attis  celeri  rate  maria 

\j  \j  I  __  \j     _  ^  |  __  ^_  9  \^  v^  |  __  v^  w   v./  w  i     ._ 

3.  adiitque  opaca  siluis  redimita  loca  deae 


Vol.  xxxiv.]      Word-accent  in  Catullus 's  Galliambics.  29 

ii.       canere  haec  suis  adorta  est  tremebunda  comitibus 

w  w  |  —  \j  —  w  I ,   w  w  I  \_/  w   w  w  I 

22.  tibicen  ubi  canit  Phryx  curuo  graue  calamo 

—  I  —  vy   w  w  w  | »_|_w\^   vy  w  |  _ 

30.         viridem  citus  adit  Idam  properante  pede  chorus 

w  vy  I  —  ww    w  w  I 1   w  \^»  |  vy   vy  vy  vy  | 

39.  sed  ubi  oris  aurei  sol  radiantibus  oculis 


46.  liquidaque  mente  uidit  sine  quis  ubique  foret 

w  w  |  _ w_w  I ,   ww|_w    w  vy  w  |  _ 

60.  abero  foro,  palaestra,  stadio,  et  gymnasiis  ? 

63.      ego  mulier,  ego  adolescens,  ego  ephebus,  ego  puer. 

vywlwww    vywwl i   v/w  I  _  w    wwv^|_ 

It  is  evident  that  the  combination  _  w  w  w  ^,  occurring 
where  anaclasis  may  be  expected,  is  on  the  score  of  quantities 
alone  ambiguous.  It  may  stand  for  an  ionic  a  majors  by 
resolution  of  the  second  long,  or  it  may  stand  for  a  trochaic 
dipody  by  resolution  of  the  long  of  the  second  trochee.  Some 
editors  have  in  all  such  cases  assumed  the  latter  alternative, 
and  have  so  marked  the  ictuses.  He  who  takes  this  alterna- 
tive finds  my  rule  falsified  in  many  cases,  as  in  the  very  first 
line.  Which  of  us  is  wrong  ? 

I  should  begin  the  argument  by  asking,  Why  assume  ana- 
clasis in  all  these  cases  ?  He  who  does  so  takes  on  himself 
the  burden  of  proof.  We  have  no  authority  for  assuming 
anaclasis  in  every  galliambic  line.  For  example,  of  the  two 
lines  cited  by  Hephaistion  (p.  39  W.)  as  illustrations  of  this 
verse, 

ToAAat  fjirjTpbs  opciijs  (friXoOvpcroi  opo/mocs, 
ats  fvrfa  TrarayetTai  KCU 


the  first  is  not  anaclastic  in  either  half,  and  the  second  is  in 
both  halves  of  precisely  this  ambiguous  type.  And  in  Catul- 
lus, line  60  is  not  anaclastic  in  the  second  half,  and  in  line  18, 


30  Thomas  D wight  Goodell.  [J903 

where  the  text  is  doubtful,  the  first  half  is  not  anaclastic  if 
aere  be  read : 

hilarate  aere  citatis  erroribus  animum. 

\J    \J    | W    V-<    | »    |    \J    \J     \J    \J    |   

In  short,  while  anaclasis  was  admitted  freely  and  perhaps 
even  preferred,  there  is  no  evidence  for  the  notion  that  it  was 
any  more  strongly  preferred  in  this  than  in  other  ionic 
rhythms.  The  shifting  from  anaclastic  to  plain  ionic  feet  in 
different  lines  contributes  to  the  wildness  of  effect  desired. 
And  on  the  positive  side  I  should  say  that  the  evidence  of 
the  unambiguous  lines  in  favor  of  my  rule  justifies  the  belief 
that  the  rule  was  observed  in  these  ambiguous  cases.  There 
is  no  evidence  against  this  belief ;  the  application  of  the  rule 
in  such  cases  makes  the  rhythm  clear  at  a  glance  and  raises 
no  difficulty,  while  it  makes  the  practice  of  the  poet  harmoni- 
ous throughout  the  composition.  The  word-accents  will  then 
in  such  cases  determine  whether  the  foot  is  anaclastic  or  not; 
lines  i,  n,  22,  39  are  therefore  not  anaclastic  in  the  second 
half,  lines  3,  30,  46,  63  are ;  in  the  first  half,  line  30  is  not 
anaclastic,  lines  22  and  63  are ;  and  so  in  other  cases. 

The  number  and  distribution  of  iambic  words  forming 
exceptions  to  the  rule  are  interesting.  In  the  93  lines  of  the 
poem  occur  about  70  such  cases.  Differences  of  reading 
affect  the  figures  slightly,  but  the  precise  numbers  are  not 
important  enough  to  make  it  worth  while  to  enter  into  the 
subject  here.  Their  distribution  is  shown  in  the  following 
scheme : 

w  w  I  —  w  —  w  I i   w  w  I w  —  w  I  — 

3        27        9  2  29 

The  last  half-line  contains  some  31,  of  which  29  end  the  line, 
and  two  (in  lines  64  and  72)  make  the  second  and  third 
syllable  after  the  caesura.  About  39  cases  occur  in  the  first 
half  of  the  line,  of  which  about  27  are  found  in  the  anaklo- 
menos,  and  form  the  short  of  the  first  trochee  and  the  long  of 
the  second  trochee.  Nine  make  the  final  short  of  the  anaklo- 
menos  and  the  long  immediately  following,  while  three  are 
the  second  and  third  syllables  of  the  line.  These  marked 


Vol.  xxxiv.]      Word-accent  in  Catullus' s  Galliambics.  3 1 

preferences  as  regards  location  of  the  exceptional  iambic 
words  appear  to  have  some  significance,  but  I  am  not  quite 
certain  what.  The  large  proportion,  nearly  39  per  cent, 
occurring  in  that  one  place  in  the  anaklomcnos,  may  have  a 
bearing  on  the  question  of  the  ancient  method  of  beating 
time  in  such  anaclastic  feet;  but  no  great  weight  can  be 
given  to  this  consideration,  since  a  slightly  larger  number 
close  the  line,  while  none  occur  in  the  corresponding  place  in 
the  second  anaklomcnos. 

It  is  worth  noting  also  that  the  total  number  of  these  cases 
is  in  part  made  up  by  the  recurrence  of  a  few  almost  neces- 
sary words,  like  deae  deitm,  domum  domo,  fcrnm  fera,  era 
eram  erat,  fui  fui t,  met  mea  mettm.  It  is  notable,  too,  that 
these  iambic  words  are  far  more  frequent  in  the  lines  where 
the  tone  of  excitement  is  most  marked;  lines  50-73,  the 
lament  of  Attis,  contain  26  cases,  or  37  per  cent  of  the  cases 
in  not  quite  26  percent  of  the  lines.  Line  55  contains  three 
cases,  as  does  line  92. 

Finally,  two  other  apparent  exceptions  to  the  rule  must  be 
considered  briefly.  The  word  ub(i}  occurs  thrice  (lines  39, 
67,  87)  and  ag(e)  once  (line  93)  before  a  vowel,  thus  becom- 
ing metrically  monosyllabic.  In  39  and  87  this  quasi-mono- 
syllable  is  the  second  syllable  of  the  initial  pair  of  short 
syllables ;  in  67  and  93  it  is  the  first  short  of  the  first  anaklo- 
menos.  As  monosyllables  these  words  hardly  come  under 
the  rule  at  all ;  wherever  they  are  full  disyllables  they  con- 
form to  it,  as  in  21-25,  and  the  second  occurrence  of  age 
in  93.  In  line  64  we  have  a  case  not  so  readily  disposed  of. 
If  we  read 

ego  gymnasi  fui  flos,  ego  eram  decus  olei, 

the  second  word,  a  trisyllable,  violates  the  rule.  The  Mss. 
vary  in  details  here  too  much  to  constitute  any  authority  for 
the  precise  spelling  gymnasi.  If  we  may  read  gymnasii,  and 
take  fui  as  a  monosyllable,  we  shall  have  the  rule  fully  ob- 
served by  gymnasii  as  by  gymnasiis  in  60.  The  scheme 
would  then  be 


32  Thomas  D wight  Goodell.  [*9°3 

At  first  sight  it  seems  violent  to  make  fui  a  monosyllable ; 
but  instances  of  this  occur,  as  CIL.  I.  1194,  in  the  line  (as 
given  by  F.  D.  Allen,  Remnants  of  Early  Latin,  no.  139,  p.  62), 

fui  parens  domineis  s^nibus,  huic  autem  6psequens. 

Here  also,  by  the  way,  the  word-accents  clearly  mark  the 
rhythm.  My  colleague,  Professor  Peck,  to  whom  I  owe  this 
reference,  also  reminds  me  that  monosyllabic  suis  is  an  exact 
parallel,  while  the  varying  treatment  of  huic  is  very  similar, 
and  that  the  comedians  not  infrequently  treated  fui  and  fuit 
as  monosyllables,  as  Plautus  in  Trin.  106,  619,  1090.  I  do 
not,  however,  urge  this  remedy ;  it  is  possible  that  in  this 
wildest  part  of  the  poem  Catullus  admitted  this  irregularity 
to  enhance  the  desired  effect.  And  the  irregularity  would 
appear  the  slighter,  because  this  relation  between  ictus  and 
accent  seems  to  have  been  traditional1  for  genitives  like 

gymnast  with  the  metrical  value  _  w 

But  after  noting  all  possible  exceptions,  it  remains  true  that 
the  general  relation  of  word-accent  to  the  beats,  when  once 
observed,  makes  it  easy  to  read  the  poem  in  true  galliambic 
rhythm ;  and  this  is  the  main  thing.  The  prose  accents 
locate  so  many  of  the  beats  that  the  rest  take  care  of  them- 
selves. One  is  even  obliged  to  look  very  closely  to  find  the 
exceptions ;  I  am  not  sure  that  I  have  caught  them  all,  so 
elusive  are  they  after  one  gets  the  general  swing. 

1  For  the  facts  in  Plautus  and  Terence  see  Pease,  Proceedings  of  this  Associa- 
tion, 1898,  p.  xxvi. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]        Succession  of  Spartan  Nanarchs.  33 


HI.  —  The  Succession  of  Spartan  Nanarchs  in  Hellenica  I. 
BY  PROF.  CARLETON  L.  BROWNSON, 

COLLEGE  OF  THE  CITY  OF  NEW  YORK. 

IN  1879  Julius  Beloch  established  the  proposition  that  the 
normal  tenure  of  the  Spartan  nauarchs  was  yearly  (R/tein. 
Museum,  XXXIV.).  His  demonstration  was  accepted  as 
conclusive  by  such  scholars  as  Curtius  (Gr.  Gesch.  II.6  88 1), 
Gilbert  (Staatsalt.  I.  64),  and  Holm  (Bursian's  Jahrcsber. 
1880,  III.  352),  and  the  general  soundness  of  his  rule  that 
the  nauarchia  was  an  annual  office  has  not,  I  think,  been  ques- 
tioned. But  the  rule  does  not  appear  to  be  strictly  observed 
during  the  important  years  from  41 1  to  404  B.C.  Beloch  him- 
self contended  (Philologiis,  XLIII.)that  it  was,  but  he  did  not 
offer  adequate  proof  to  support  his  contention,  nor  has  any 
one  else  done  so.  If  such  proof  could  be  presented,  it  would 
go  far  toward  settling  the  long-disputed  chronology  of  this 
period. 

The  conditions  of  the  problem  are  these :  in  his  account  of 
the  seven  years  from  411  to  404  Xenophon  mentions  by  title 
five  Spartan  nauarchs,  —  Mindarus,  Cratesippidas,  Lysander, 
Callicratidas,  and  Aracus.  Besides  these  five,  a  certain  Pasip- 
pidas  is  referred  to  in  such  a  way  as  to  indicate  quite  clearly 
that  he  also  was  a  regularly  commissioned  nauarch.  Accord- 
ingly, we  have  but  six  nauarchs  instead  of  the  seven  required 
by  Beloch's  rule  of  annual  tenure.  It  is  therefore  assumed 
by  those  who  have  discussed  the  subject  that  the  rule  is  here 
violated,  that  some  one  of  the  six  nauarchs  mentioned  held 
office  for  two  years.  I  believe,  however,  that  such  is  not  the 
case.  -^ 

In  the  conflict  of  opinions,  it  is  agreed  on  all  sides  that 
Mind'arus  was  chosen  nauarch  for  the  year  411-410,  Calli- 
cratidas for  the  year  406-405,  and  Aracus  for  the  year  405- 
404.  The  question,  then,  is  as  to  the  terms  of  the  three 
remaining  officers,  Pasippidas,  Cratesippidas  and  Lysander, 


34  Carleton  L.  Brownson.  [i9°3 

which  apparently  must  be  forced  in  some  way  to  fill  the  space 
of  four  years  from  410  to  406.  The  process  of  reasoning 
from  the  certain  to  the  uncertain  may  most  conveniently  begin 
with  Callicratidas  and  work  backward  from  the  time  of  his 
command.  His  appointment  is  mentioned  by  Xenophon  in 
I.  6.  i  of  the  Hellenica,  where  he  says :  "In  the  next  year 
[quite  certainly  406],  Lysander's  term  having  expired,  the 
Lacedaemonians  sent  out  Callicratidas  to  command  the  ships." 
Therefore,  since  the  nauarch  held  office  for  a  year,  Lysander's 
term  was  the  year  407-406.  This  conclusion  is  also  distinctly 
indicated  by  the  whole  narrative,  contained  in  Chapter  V.,  of 
Lysander's  doings  as  nauarch.  Going  backward  a  step  far- 
ther, we  find  it  stated  in  I.  5.  i  that  Lysander  was  sent  out  as 
nauarch  on  the  expiration  of  Cratesippidas's  term.  Again 
we  should  say,  relying  upon  the  established  rule  of  annual 
tenure,  that  Cratesippidas  must  have  held  office  during  the 
year  408-407.  But  when  we  search  for  corroborative  evidence 
to  support  this  conclusion,  we  seem  at  first  to  find  exactly  the 
opposite.  For  Xenophon  records  the  appointment  of  Crate- 
sippidas in  the  very  first  chapter  of  the  Hellenica  (I.  i.  32),  in 
connection  with  events  which  belong  quite  clearly  to  the  year 
410.  Therefore,  it  would  appear  that  Cratesippidas's  term 
covered  no  less  than  three  years,  from  410  to  407.  If  so,  of 
course  Beloch's  rule  of  annual  tenure  breaks  down  entirely. 
Here,  then,  is  the  crucial  point,  the  point  which  must  be 
examined  most  carefully. 

We  are  not  aided  at  all  by.  any  reference  to  Cratesippidas's 
doings  as  nauarch.  For  he  is  absolutely  unmentioned  from 
I.  i.  32,  where  his  appointment  is  alluded  to,  to  I.  5.  i, 
where  he  gives  place  to  his  successor.  We  have  no  resource, 
therefore,  except  to  go  back  to  the  very  beginning  of  the 
Hellenica  and  examine  the  events  which  preceded  his  assump- 
tion of  the  command.  It  will  be  remembered  that  Xenophon's 
story  opens  with  a  description  of  various  operations  in  the 
Hellespont,  terminating  in  the  battle  of  Cyzicus  (410  B.C.). 
The  Spartan  nauarch,  Mindarus,  is  killed  in  this  battle,  and 
his  epistoleus,  Hippocrates,  sends  to  the  ephors  the  famous 
despatch  recording  the  loss  of  the  Peloponnesian  ships  and  the 


Vol.  xxxiv.]        Succession  of  Spartan  Nauarchs.  35 

desperate  condition  of  the  men.  Xenophon  then  goe's  on  to 
tell  of  the  aid  rendered  to  the  Spartans  by  Pharnabazus,  the 
building  of  new  ships  at  Antandrus,  and  the  receipt  mean- 
while of  the  news  that  Hermocrates  and  the  other  leaders  of 
the  Syracusan  contingent  of  the  Peloponnesian  fleet  had  been 
.exiled  from  Syracuse.  Turning  then  to  events  which  took 
place  at  a  distance  from  the  main  seat  of  war,  Xenophon  pro- 
ceeds thus  (I.  I.  32):  "  In  Thasos  at  about  this  time  a  revolu- 
tion took  place,  and  the  Spartan  party  were  driven  out,  also 
Eteonicus,  the  Spartan  harmost.  And  Pasippidas,  the  Spartan, 
was  accused  of  having  brought  this  about  with  the  aid  of 
Tissaphernes,  and  was  consequently  exiled  from  Sparta.  As 
for  the  fleet  which  he  [Pasippidas]  had  collected  from  the 
allies,  Cratesippidas  was  sent  out  to  take  command  of  it,  and 
he  received  it  in  Chios."  We  see,  therefore,  that  between  the 
term  of  Mindarus  (41 1-410)  and  that  of  Cratesippidas,  whose 
dates  must  still  be  left  uncertain,  comes  another  nauarch, 
Pasippidas.  If  his  period  of  command  can  be  determined, 
an  important  step  has  been  taken  toward  the  solution  of  the 
problem.  But  let  it  first  be  noted  that  Xenophon  clearly 
means  to  put  the  Thasian  revolution  in  the  same  year  as  the 
battle  of  Cyzicus  (410  B.C.).  The  exile  of  Pasippidas  and  the 
appointment  of  Cratesippidas  followed  this  revolution ;  but 
whether  immediately  or  after  an  interval,  short  or  long,  we 
cannot  determine  from  the  language  of  the  passage  I  have 
quoted.  Xenophon  frequently  confuses  the  topical  and  the 
annalistic  methods  in  the  Hellenica ;  the  three  events  here 
related  —  the  Thasian  revolution,  the  exile  of  one  nauarch 
and  the  appointment  of  another  —  may  be  grouped  together 
simply  because  they  depend  one  upon  another ;  the  second 
and  third  may  well  have  taken  place  a  year  or  two  years  after 
the  first.  After  all,  therefore,  the  conclusion  which  we  have 
already  reached,  that  Cratesippidas  held  office  for  the  year 
408-407,  is  at  least  not  absolutely  forbidden  by  the  language 

the  passage  just  quoted ;  it  remains  to  be  seen  whether  it 
can  be  confirmed  by  any  arguments  tending  to  fix  the  term  of 
his  predecessor  in  the  nauarchia,  Pasippidas. 

As  to  this  Pasippidas,  we  may  say  at  the  outset  that  in  all 


36  Carleton  L.  Brownson.  [19°3 

probability  he  was  not  sent  out  to  collect  ships  from  Sparta's 
allies  until  some  time  after  the  battle  of  Cyzicus.  In  fact,  it 
must  have  been  some  time  before  the  result  of  that  battle 
was  known  at  Sparta.  For  Hippocrates,  epistolens  under 
Mindarus,  was  evidently  left  without  even  a  despatch  boat. 
He  did  manage,  we  know  not  how,  to  send  off  a  message  to 
the  ephors,  but  it  was  intercepted  by  the  Athenians.  When 
at  length  the  ephors  did  receive  the  news,  they  sent  an 
embassy  to  Athens  to  propose  terms  of  peace.  Possibly  they 
might  have  done  this  and  nevertheless  prepared  at  the  same 
time  to  continue  the  war  by  giving  Pasippidas  the  commission 
referred  to.  But  that  was  hardly  Sparta's  way.  She  was 
not  only,  as  Thucydides  remarks,  slow  to  follow  up  an  advan- 
tage, but  also  slow  to  recover  energy  after  a  reverse.  More- 
over, recognizing  that  the  sea  was  not  her  element,  she  was 
always  most  unreasonably  discouraged  by  a  naval  defeat, 
and  never  more  than  half  willing  to  maintain  a  fleet  at  all. 
So  after  the  battle  of  Arginusae  she  was  ready  to  abandon 
the  struggle  with  Athens,  weak  as  the  latter  then  was.  So 
after  the  loss  of  her  fleet  at  Pylos  she  had  completely  given  up 
naval  warfare  for  no  less  than  a  dozen  years.  Here  at  Cyzicus 
again  she  had  lost  her  entire  fleet,  and  the  ephors  must 
have  thought  once  again  of  abandoning  the  sea  altogether. 
It  would  have  been  very  strange  if  they  had  not  at  least  sus- 
pended any  further  naval  preparations  pending  the  peace 
negotiations  with  Athens.  These  negotiations  took  some 
time ;  and  after  they  had  failed,  Sparta  might  well  have 
delayed  still  longer,  perhaps  considerably  longer,  before  send- 
ing out  Pasippidas  to  relieve  Hippocrates  and  undertake  the 
gathering  of  a  new  fleet.  Besides,  Hippocrates,  a  man  who 
later  proved  himself  a  brave  and  efficient  officer,  was  already 
on  the  ground.  Upon  the  death  of  Mindarus  he,  as  epistolens, 
had  succeeded  to  the  chief  command,  just  as  Eteonicus  suc- 
ceeded Callicratidas  after  Arginusae,  just  as  the  epistoleus 
regularly  succeeded  the  nauarch  in  case  of  need.  Sparta, 
seldom  energetic,  might  well  have  preferred  to  leave  him  in 
command  at  a  time  when  naval  success,  if  it  could  be  thought 
of  at  all,  seemed  so  far  in  the  future. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]       Succession  of  Spartan  Nauarchs.  37 

It  is  most  probable,  therefore,  that  a  considerable  period 
elapsed  after  the  battle  of  Cyzicus  before  Pasippidas  received 
his  commission.  If  so,  it  is  all  but  impossible  that  he  could 
have  collected  a  fleet  from  scattered  allies  of  Sparta  when  the 
Athenians  absolutely  commanded  the  sea,  that  he  could  have 
been  suspected  of  complicity  in  the  Thasian  revolt,  accused 
in  Sparta,  tried,  condemned  to  exile,  and  succeeded  by  Crate- 
sippidas,  all  within  the  same  year  (410)  in  which  the  battle  of 
Cyzicus  was  fought.  Even  if  he  had  been  commissioned  as 
soon  as  the  news  of  Cyzicus  reached  Sparta,  it  would  still  be 
extremely  difficult  to  crowd  all  these  later  experiences  of  his 
into  the  remainder  of  the  year  410.  It  is  fair  to  conclude, 
therefore,  that  when  Xenophon  speaks  of  his  condemnation 
and  the  succession  of  Cratesippidas  in  connection  with  the 
Thasian  revolt  of  410,  he  merely  follows,  as  we  have  already 
suspected,  a  topical  arrangement,  and  does  not  mean  to  ascribe 
either  of  the  two  later  events  to  the  same  year  as  the  first. 
But  if  these  later  events  do  not  belong  to  the  year  410,  neither 
do  they  necessarily  belong  to  the  year  immediately  following. 
The  supposed  chronological  restraint  is  entirely  removed,  and 
we  are  free  to  follow  the  evidence  already  cited  that  Crate- 
sippidas only  became  nauarch  two  years  afterward,  in  408. 
Pasippidas's  term  may  then  be  the  year  409-408,  a  conclusion 
which  accords  well  with  the  indications  which  have  just  been 
reviewed. 

But  it  will  be  objected  that  if  Pasippidas  was  exiled  for 
complicity  with  the  Thasian  revolt  of  410,  he  must  have  been 
on  the  ground  or  near  by  in  some  official  capacity,  and  not 
quietly  at  home  in  Sparta,  still  waiting  for  his  commission  as 
nauarch.  The  Thasian  revolt,  however,  was,  if  I  may  say  so, 
a  continuous  performance.  Thasos  had  first  revolted  from 
Athens  in  411,  a  year  before  this  time,  then  back  again  to 
Athens.  But  this  was  by  no  means  the  end.  For  in  I.  4.  9 
of  the  Hellenica  we  read,  "Thrasybulus  also  subdued  Thasos, 
which  was  in  a  bad  state  on  account  of  wars  and  revolutions 
and  famine."  This  was  certainly  as  late  as  408,  probably  in 
407.  Since  410,  accordingly,  Thasos  had  gone  back  once 
more  to  Sparta, — surely  once  more,  perhaps  several  times. 


38  Carleton  L.  Brownson.  [X9°3 

For  trouble  had  been  continuous,  as  Xenophon  implies  in  the 
passage  quoted.  At  any  time,  therefore,  between  410  and 
407  Pasippidas  might  have  been  concerned  in  Thasian  affairs 
in  some  way  that  was  deemed  disloyal  to  Sparta.  The  first 
mention  of  Thasos  in  410  suggests  to  Xenophon  the  fate  of 
Pasippidas ;  if  that  fate  overtook  him  as  a  result  of  events 
later  than  those  of  410,  it  was  no  doubt  careless  in  Xenophon 
to  record  it  here.  But  such  carelessness  is  far  from  unusual 
in  the  Hellenica  ;  it  is  evident  again  in  connection  with  this 
same  unhappy  island  of  Thasos ;  for,  having  left  it  Athenian 
in  410,  Xenophon  next  mentions  it  to  tell  of  its  subjugation 
by  Thrasybulus,  an  Athenian  general,  omitting  all  reference 
to  a  defection  from  Athens  which  must  necessarily  have 
taken  place  in  the  meantime. 

Thus  far  it  appears  at  least  possible  that  Pasippidas  was 
chosen  nauarch  for  the  year  409-408.  Evidence  which  goes 
very  far  to  prove  that  such  was  really  the  case  is  found  in  the 
third  chapter  of  the  Hellenica.  There  (I.  3.  13)  Pasippidas  is 
mentioned  as  one  of  the  Spartan  ambassadors  who  accompany 
the  Athenian  embassy  which  Pharnabazus  has  engaged  to 
conduct  to  the  king.  He  is  not  only  one  of  the  Spartan  am- 
bassadors, but  the  principal  one,  —  HaannriSas  KOI  erepoi  is 
the  language  which  Xenophon  uses,  although  nine  other 
envoys  from  various  states  are  all  mentioned  by  name. 
These  embassies  probably  set  out  in  the  year  408,  possibly  a 
little  earlier,  certainly  not  later.  Can  it  be  possible  that 
Pasippidas  had  already  been  banished,  then  so  soon  recalled 
from  exile,  and  immediately  intrusted  with  so  extremely  im- 
portant a  mission  ?  Certainly  such  a  supposition  is  altogether 
improbable.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  suppose  that  Pasippi- 
das had  not  yet  been  exiled,  and  that  he  was  nauarch  for  the 
year  409-408,  he  would  have  been  exactly  the  man  to  head  a 
Spartan  embassy  to  Persia,  —  an  embassy  which  started  out 
either  toward  the  close  or  at  the  close  of  his  year  of  com- 
mand. Just  so,  twenty  years  later,  it  was  by  virtue  of  his 
office  as  nauarch  that  Antalcidas  undertook  his  famous  mis- 
sion to  the  court  of  Susa.  Such  a  parallel  case  is  certainly 
significant. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]        Succession  of  Spartan  Nauarchs.  39 

At  least  three  further  bits  of  evidence  tend  to  show  that 
Pasippidas  was  not  a  recalled  exile,  but  a  nauarch,  as  yet  un- 
accused,  at  the  time  when  he  acted  as  ambassador  to  Persia. 
In  the  first  place,  Hermocrates,  the  Syracusan,  who  is  men- 
tioned in  the  list  of  the  ambassadors,  is  described  (I.  3.  13)  as 
"already  an  exile," --rjSrj  favyuv.  These  words  seem  so  en- 
tirely superfluous,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Xenophon  has 
already  told  the  whole  story  of  Hermocrates's  banishment, 
that  they  are  suspected  by  all  editors,  and  by  some  bracketed. 
Now  in  the  list  of  ten  ambassadors  which  is  given,  the  name 
of  Hermocrates  immediately  follows  that  of  Pasippidas.  I 
believe  that  Xenophon  means  the  phrase  TJ&T)  favytov,  which 
is  applied  to  Hermocrates,  to  distinguish  the  two  men,  to  indi- 
cate that,  while  Hermocrates's  exile  was  an  accomplished  fact, 
that  of  Pasippidas  was  still  in  the  future.  Secondly,  Pasippi- 
das was  accused  of  having  conspired  against  Sparta  with 
Tissaphernes.  Such  a  charge  would  naturally  have  been 
pressed  against  him,  not  while  Tissaphernes  was  a  nominal 
ally  of  Sparta  and  a  power  to  be  feared  and  conciliated,  but 
after  his  fall  and  the  advent  of  Cyrus,  that  is,  after  the  year 
408.  The  third  item  of  evidence  is  by  far  the  most  impor- 
tant. A  few  weeks  after  the  departure  of  the  embassy  so 
often  referred  to,  we  find  Clearchus,  who  was  besieged  in 
Byzantium,  trying  to  help  himself  by  gathering  together  the 
ships  which  had  been  left  behind  in  the  Hellespont  by  Pasip- 
pidas {Hell.  I.  3.  17).  How  by  him  and  when?  If,  as 
editors  suppose,  he  had  long  ago  been  superseded  in  the 
nauarchia,  then  banished,  and  later  recalled,  these  ships  must 
have  been  drifting  around  in  the  Hellespont  for  two  years  or 
thereabouts,  failing  in  some  strange  way  to  unite  themselves 
to  the  Spartan  fleet,  and,  still  more  strangely,  escaping  the 
vigilance  of  the  Athenians,  who  during  all  this  time  had  been 
cqursing  up  and  down  the  Hellespont  at  will.  Such  a  sup- 
position is  nothing  less  than  impossible.  Manifestly  these 
ships  had  been  under  the  command  of  Pasippidas  as  nauarch 
up  to  the  time  when,  in  the  summer  of  408,  he  set  out  upon 
his  journey  with  Pharnabazus.  So  the  evidence  furnished  by 
the  Clearchus  incident  harmonizes  with  all  the  rest  in  indicat- 


' 


40  Carleton  L.  Brownson.  [I9°3 

ing  that  Pasippidas  was  nauarch  during  the  year  409-408. 
This  fact  confirms  the  conclusion  already  suggested  by  other 
arguments,  that  his  successor,  Cratesippidas,  held  office  from 
408  to  407 ;  and  Cratesippidas,  in  his  turn,  was  followed  by 
Lysander,  Callicratidas,  and  Aracus,  each  filling  out  the 
allotted  term  of  one  year,  as  required  by  Beloch's  rule. 

It  remains  only  to  be  noted  that  the  interval  between  the 
death  of  Mindarus  (410)  and  the  succession  of  Pasippidas 
(409)  was  a  kind  of  interregnum.  For  reasons  which  have 
already  been  given,  Hippocrates,  epistoleus  and  legal  succes- 
sor of  Mindarus,  was  left  to  command  the  Peloponnesian 
sailors  —  for  fleet  there  was  none  —  and  to  direct  the  building 
of  new  ships  at  Antandrus.  The  fact  that  he  was  thus  left 
in  command,  and  that  the  appointment  of  a  new  nauarch  was 
delayed  for  a  year,  is  no  more  a  violation  of  Beloch's  rule 
than  the  fact  that  during  long  periods  of  Spartan  history  the 
office  of  nauarch  lapsed  entirely. 

If  the  above  conclusions  are  deemed  sound,  the  succession 
of  Spartan  nauarchs  will  serve  as  a  means  of  settling  almost 
all  the  chronological  uncertainties  of  the  years  from  411  to 
404,  first  and  chiefly  the  important  and  long-disputed  date  of 
Alcibiades's  return  to  Athens. 


Vol.  xxxiv.J    Magister  curiae  in  Plautus's  Aulularia  107.    41 


IV. — Magister  curiae  in  Plautuss  Aulularia  107. 
BY  DR.  HENRY  W.  PRESCOTT, 

UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA. 

THE  relation  of  Plautus  to  his  Greek  originals  has  long 
been  a  fertile  theme  of  discussion.  Dissertations,  such  as 
those  of  Ostermayer,  Schuster,  and  Wollner,  within  the  limited 
fields  of  mythology,  religion,  and  military  activity,  and  the 
illuminating  chapter  in  Leo's  Plautinische  Forschungen,  which 
relieves  the  obscurity  of  many  a  word  and  phrase,  of  many  a 
structural  complication,  have  led  us  to  understand  more  intel- 
ligently the  process  of  translation  in  Plautus's  hands :  thorough 
Latinization,  so  far  as  the  language  is  concerned,  is  certainly 
the  rule ;  crudities  in  translation  are  rare  —  such  a  bit  of 
mechanical  work  as  his  perfossor  parietum  (Pseud.  98O),1 
almost  an  etymological  equivalent  for  the  rot^to/ji^o?  of  his 
original,  is  abnormal.  Yet  the  difficulties  of  his  task  led  him 
often,  as  Leo  has  shown,  to  produce  a  composite  picture,  a 
mixture  of  Greek  and  Roman  elements.  The  phrase  which 
forms  the  subject  of  this  paper  has  been  hitherto  said, 
or  at  least  implied,  to  be  a  mere  verbal  equivalent  of  the 
Greek ;  It  is  my  belief  that  it  is  a  commendable  translation, 
and  that  the  passage  in  which  it  appears  suggested  to  the 
Romans  of  Plautus's  day  a  perfectly  clear  picture  with  very 
slight  traces  of  its  Greek  background. 

The  context  of  the  passage  is  a  dramatic  exposition  of  the 
miser  Euclio's  character ;  in  the  verses  in  which  the  phrase 
magister  curiae  occurs,  the  departure  of  the  miser  is  explained 
by  his  statement  that  the  magister  of  his  curia  promised  that 
day  to  distribute  money  among  the  individual  members  of  the 

1  My  colleague,  Doctor  Nutting,  suggests  that  the  passage  in  Cif.  in  Vatin.  5, 
II  (licet  impune  per  me  parietes  in  adulescentia  perfoderis,  vicinos  compilaris, 
matrem  verberaris)  makes  it  doubtful  whether  Leo  is  justified  in  saying  (PI.  Forsch. 
93)  ..."  dieser  Ausdruck  gibt  clem  Romer  nicht  die  anschauliche  Vorstellung 
wie  dem  Griechen  rotxwpi/x0*-" 


42  Henry  W.  Prcscott.  [1903 

curia :  he  must  go  to  receive  his  share  or  else  incur  the  sus- 
picion of  being  too  well-off  to  need  the  largess  in  question : 

1 06  —  Nimis  hercle  invitus  abeo  :  sed  quid  agam  scio 
Nam  noster  nostrae  quist  magister  curiae 
Dividere  argenti  dixit  nummos  in  viros  : 
Id  si  relinquo  ac  non  peto,  omnes  ilico 
Me  suspicentur,  credo,  habere  aurum  domi. 

(Cf.  179-180.) 

The  passage  is  admitted  to  be  of  Greek  origin :  the  distri- 
bution of  money  in  this  fashion  is  not  attested  for  the  age  of 
Plautus.  It  suggests  at  once  the  division  of  the  theoric  fund 
among  the  demesmen  of  Attica,  probably  by  the  demarchs 
(Demosth.  1091,  37;  Haussouillier,  La  Vie  Municipale  en 
Attigue,  129,  n.  3).  Scholars  are,  however,  by  no  means 
agreed  as  to  the  wording  of  the  original.  Admitting  that  the 
passage  betrays  the  influence  of  the  Greek,  they  differ  with 
regard  to  the  precise  equivalent  in  the  other  tongue  of 
magister  curiae.  Turnebus  maintained  that  it  was  rpLTrvap^of, 
and  Wagner  (in  his  note  on  the  verse,  and  De  Plauti  Aulu- 
laria,  15  n.)  follows  him;  Benndorf  (as  quoted  by  Ussing) 
that  it  was  e7rt/4e\77T?7?  rewy  <f>v\a)v,  pointing  to  a  passage  in 
Lucian  (  Tim.  49)  for  his  justification  ;  since  curia  corresponds 
in  political  significance  to  <f>paTpia,  (f)paTpiap%o<;  is  an  easy 
suggestion ;  Francken  accepts  Sijfiapxos  (which,  however,  in 
Cure.  286  Plautus  chooses  to  transliterate  rather  than  trans- 
late), and  Ussing  follows  him.  It  is  immaterial  to  me  at 
present  what  stood  in  Plautus's  original.  It  will  be  admitted 
that,  whatever  the  precise  expression  was,  the  word  or  phrase 
denoted  a  political  division  of  Attica  and  a  magistrate  who 
served  in  some  important  capacity,  necessarily  financial.  Us- 
sing's  statement  that  a  magister  curiae  is  nowhere  mentioned  as 
a  Roman  official,  if  true,  leaves  us  a  choice  between  assuming 
that  such  a  magistrate  existed  at  Rome  but  has  accidentally 
escaped  mention,  and  imputing  to  Plautus  a  crude  transla- 
tion, magister  curiae  in  the  latter  case  being  a  mechanical 
rendering  of  S^/ia/a^o?  or  something  similar.  Neither  of 
these  alternatives  is,  I  think,  to  be  accepted. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]   Magister  curiae  in  Plautus's  Aulularia  107.    43 

An  attempt  was  made  by  Ps.-Asconius  to  discover  in 
magister  curiae  a  reference  to  a  Roman  official.  Cicero  (in 
Verrem  I.  8.  22)  refers  to  certain  divisores  omnium  tribnum  — 
election  agents  who  distributed  money  among  the  tribes 
allotted  to  them :  on  this  passage  Ps.-Asconius  queries 
whether  these  were  legally  appointed  tribal  officers,  such, 
he  says,  as  Plautus  in  his  Aulularia  calls  magistri  ciiriaruin, 
or  whether  they  were  criminal  agents  —  utrum  legitimos 
habent  omncs  tribns  divisores,  qnos  Plautus  in  Anlnlaria 
magistros  curiarum  vocat,  an  divisores  criminis  nomen  est? 
The  undisputed  answer  to  this  question  is  in  favor  of  the 
second  alternative,  and  his  quotation  of  Plautus  in  support 
of  the  first  alternative  is  admitted  to  be  inapposite,  as  tribal 
officers  are  not  to  be  identified  with  officers  of  the  curiae. 

The  Roman  curiae  were  associations  of  families,  in  earlier 
times  of  importance  as  political  units,  but  in  the  Republic, 
after  the  division  into  tribes  and  centuries  was  perfected,  as 
religious  corporations : x  under  the  supervision  of  a  curio 
maximus,  curiones  and  fiamines  they  celebrated  the  sacra 
publica,  the  expense  of  which  was  paid  from  the  common 
treasury,  aes  curionum.  Obviously  the  existence  of  these 
bodies,  which  had  no  magistri,  would  have  helped  little 
toward  the  understanding  of  Plautus's  magister  curiae. 

There  were,  however,  other  units  in  Rome,  and  elsewhere 
in  Italy,  during  Plautus's  lifetime,  which  constituted  religious 
confederations  similar  to  the  curiae  and  over  which  presided 
magistri,  assisted  by  flamines  like  those  of  the  curiae? 
Q.  Cicero  (de  petitione  8.  30),  in  giving  what  he  calls  the  ratio 
totius  urbis,  enumerates  as  distinct  entities  the  conlegia, 
montes?  pagi,  vicinitates :  primitive  local  groups,  known  as 
pagi,  anfl  vici,  and  similar  associations  of  hill-dwellers,  mon- 
tani,  survived  at  Rome  in  the  historical  period  alongside  of 
the  gentes,  curiae,  and  tribus.  Like  the  curiae  they  played  in 
this  later  period  an  important  part  in  the  religious  life  of  the 

1  Mommsen,   SR.   III.  89  ff.;   Marquardt,  SV.  III.  i88ff.;  Pauly-Wissowa 
IV.  1815  ff.,  1836  s.w.  curia  and  curio. 

2  Mommsen,  SR.  III.  112  ff.;   Marquardt,  SV.*  I.  3  ff.,  9  n.  4,  14  n.  I. 
8  The  text,  omnium,  is  properly  corrected  to  montium. 


44  Henry  W.  Prescott.  [1903 

city :  long  before  the  age  of  Plautus  the  pagits  Capitolinus 
formed  the  conlegium  Capitolinorum,  and  the  pagns  Aventi- 
nettsis  the  conlegium  mercatorum  or  mercurialium  in  connection 
with  the  temple  of  Mercury  on  the  Aventine.1  In  these  two 
cases  the  pagi  and  conlegia  are  almost  undistinguishable,  but 
in  general  the  pagi,  mantes,  and  vici  formed,  quite  apart  from 
the  conlegia,  religious  associations  with  an  organization  re- 
sembling that  of  the  curiae,  and  as  we  shall  presently  see,  that 
of  the  conlegia  :  as  the  festivals  of  Fordicidia  and  Fornacalia 
were  celebrated  by  the  curiae,  so  the  Septimontium  and  the 
Paganalia  were  in  charge  of  the  montani  and  pagani  respec- 
tively. Magistri  are  certified  for  the  vici  of  Plautus's  time 
by  Livy  34.  7.  2,  who  under  the  year  195  refers  to  them  as 
wearing  the  toga  praetexta  ;  an  inscription  of  the  Ciceronian 
period  (Mommsen,  SR.  III.  p.  viii.  n.  i)  refers  to  magistri 
and  famines  montanorum  ;  and  an  inscription  antedating  the 
Empire,  but  not  certainly  Roman  (Mommsen,  SR.  III.  116, 
n.  7;  Waltzing,  Etude,  etc.,  I.  101,  n.  6),  mentions  the  magistri 
of  two  pagi  and  of  the  vicus  Sulpicius.  There  can  be  little 
doubt  that  magistri  of  all  these  organizations  were  well  known 
in  Plautus's  day,  scanty  as  the  evidence  naturally  is. 

Not  only  these  local  communities,  but  more  important 
religious  and  industrial  corporations  were  organized  in  like 
manner,  and  for  similar  though  more  varied  purposes. 
Q.  Cicero  mentioned  one  other  important  factor  in  the  ratio 
totius  urbis ;  these  were  the  guilds  known  as  conlegia.  The 
importance  of  these  colleges  at  Rome  is  well  known.  All  of 
them  were  more  or  less  religious  in  character;  the  guilds 
of  the  Capitoline  and  the  Aventine  already  mentioned,  that  of 
the  Great  Mother,  established  in  Plautus's  lifetime,2  and  the 
Arval  Brothers,3  certainly  an  old  fraternity,  were  largely  so. 
The  industrial  guilds  were  ascribed  by  tradition  to  the  reign 
of  Numa;4  and  even  the  imperfect  record  of  early  inscrip- 
tions attests  the  existence  of  thirteen  for  the  last  century  B.C.  ; 6 
in  Plautus's  day,6  probably,  a  guild  of  poets  and  actors  was 

1  Waltzing,  Atudc  sur  Its  Corporations  Profcssionelles,  I.  35-36,  39-40. 
8  Waltzing,  I.  36.  8  Henze,  Acta  Fratrum  Arvalium,  pp.  i-ii. 

«  Waltzing,  I.  62  ff.  6  Ibid.  I.  87-88.  6  Ibid.  I.  82. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]    Magister  curiae  in  Plautuss  Aulularia  107.    45 

given  the  temple  of  Minerva  as  a  meeting-place.  These 
religious  and  industrial  guilds  had  one  or  more  presidents 
styled  magistri;  some  of  the  distinctly  religious  guilds,  as 
the  Arval  Brothers,  had  a  fiamen  as  well  (Henze,  pp.  iv  ff.). 
The  mention  of  a  magister  in  the  5.  C.  de  Bacchanalibns  falls 
in  the  second  year  before  Plautus's  death  ;  and  as  in  the  case 
of  the  magistri  pagorum,  vicorum,  and  montium,  it  is  mere 
accident  that  references  are  not  more  numerous  in  the  early 
Republican  period.  The  functions  of  the  magistri  of  the 
colleges  were  religious  and  secular;1  our  evidence  is  most 
nearly  complete  for  the  Imperial  period  —  here  we  find  them 
convoking  and  presiding  over  the  conlegia,  enforcing  the 
rules  of  the  fraternities,  in  charge  of  the  area  commitnis,  or 
common  treasury,  receiving  and  disbursing  funds,  distribut- 
ing largess  of  food  and  money  received  from  patrons  or  out 
of  the  common  treasury,  supervising  the  giving  of  dinners 
and  public  shows,  and  the  erection  of  statues.  Doubtless 
some  of  these  functions  were  not  exercised  in  Plautus's  time 
because  of  the  difference  in  prevalent  conditions,  but  the 
existence  of  the  magistri  is  certified  in  the  poet's  own  day, 
and  their  functions  were  certainly  similar  to  those  of  the 
magistri  in  the  later  period. 

So  far  I  have  shown  the  existence  of  a  remarkable  con- 
formity in  certain  organizations  in  Roman  public  life :  corpo- 
rations bound  by  kinship,  contiguity,  or  common  interests, 
differing  in  origin  and  purpose,  but  very  much  alike  as 
regards  the  names  and  the  functions  of  their  officials :  all  of 
them,  with  the  exception  of  the  curiae  are  presided  over  by 
magistri,  and  all  of  a  religious  character,  including  the  curiae, 
have  alongside  the  magistri  lesser  dignitaries  called  famines. 
That  such  organizations  and  their  officers  were  characteristic 
of  Roman  life  in  Plautus's  day  is  clear.  But  even  if  this  is 
admitted,  the  poet  was  certainly  perverse  in  leaving  to  the 
wits  of  his  audience  an  association  of  ideas  which  were  not 
apparently  easily  connected.  If  magister  meant  much  to  his 
hearers,  magister  curiae,  it  seems,  did  not :  why  did  he  not 

1  Pauly-Wissowa,  IV.  420-421,  s.v.  Collegium. 


46  Henry  W.  Fresco tt.  [1903 

accommodate  his  verse  to  magister  pagi,  or  mentis,  or  vici,  or 
conlegi  ? 

Such  a  change,  however,  would  not  be  necessary  to  make 
the  phrase  intelligible  to  a  Romanized  African  in  the  reign 
of  Augustus.  It  is  a  striking  feature  of  the  province  of 
Africa,  as  appears  from  the  evidence  of  inscriptions,  that  the 
conlegia  so  common  in  other  parts  of  the  Empire  are  not 
mentioned.  In  place  of  them  we  find  in  about  fifty  inscrip- 
tions of  more  than  twenty  African  towns  in  the  first  few  cen- 
turies after  Christ,  curiae,  which  have  been  recognized  as  old 
Latin  institutions  surviving  in  the  municipia  of  Roman  and  of 
Latin  rights.1  This  organization  of  curiae  is  not  restricted  to 
Africa ;  its  prominence  there  is  probably  due  to  the  absence 
of  conlegia.  Inscriptions  prove  the  existence  of  the  same 
divisions  in  Spain, — here  the  Lex  Malacitana  gives  us  infor- 
mation about  details,  —  in  Sardinia,  and  most  important  of 
all  for  our  purposes,  in  the  town  of  Lanuvium  in  Italy.  The 
curiae  in  these  towns  were  associations  of  neighboring  families, 
having  a  general  resemblance  to  the  Roman  curiae,  and  in  so 
far  as  they  are  local  communities  to  \\iQpagi,  monies,  and  vici 
of  Republican  Rome.  The  purposes,  however,  of  these 
municipal  curiae  resemble  those  of  the  conlegia :  they  had  a 
common  treasury,  received  gifts  and  legacies,  honored  in 
various  ways  their  patrons  and  officers,  they  erected  statues 
to  gods  and  emperors,  took  charge  of  the  burial  of  deceased 
members,  received  donations  from  the  emperors,  gave  festi- 
vals and  dinners,  and  played  a  prominent  part  in  the  public 
shows.  At  the  head  of  these  municipal  curiae  were  magis- 
tri,  certified  in  two  inscriptions  (CIL.  VIII.  iiooS,2  14683), 
who  carried  out  the  purposes  summarized  above,  and  with  the 
magistri  there  were  associated  flamines  as  in  the  Roman 
organizations  already  noted. 

The  case,  then,  may  be  briefly  stated  thus :  we  find  as  a 
part  of  the  very  foundation  of  the  Roman  State  the  Roman 

1  Mommsen,  SR.  III.  90 ;  Schmidt,  Rh.  Mus.  45,  599  ff . ;  Pauly-Wissowa,  IV. 
1815  ff.,  s.v.  curia. 

2  Mag(isterio)  :    Schmidt,  Rh.  Mus.  45,  607,  n.  2  for  mag(istratu)  of  the 
Corpus. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]    Magister  curiae  in  Plautus's  Aulularia  107.    47 

curiae,  communities  of  kinsfolk,  with  rights  and  privileges, 
civil  and  religious ;  in  Plautus's  time  their  religious  activities 
predominate  ;  their  officers  are  a  curio  and  a  flamen  for  each 
curia,  and  a  curio  maximtts.  Beside  them  we  find  primitive 
local  units  surviving  as  religious  societies,  —  thefagant,  man- 
tani,  and  vicini, —  these  with  magistri  and  famines.  As 
another  component  part  of  the  city-state  we  find  the  guilds, 
conlegia,  religious  and  secular,  under  magistri  with  religious 
and  important  secular,  especially  financial,  powers,  and  with 
flamincs  in  some  cases.  Two  centuries,  and  later,  after  Plau- 
tus's death  we  find  in  a  municipinm  of  Latium,  in  Spain  and 
in  Sardinia,  and  in  Africa,  a  division  of  the  people  into  curiae, 
associations  of  neighboring  families,  banded  together  for 
mutual  benefit,  organized  under  magistri  and  famines  for 
purposes  resembling  those  of  the  Roman  conlegia.  Is  it  too 
much  to  assert  that  these  municipal  curiae  were  no  sudden 
growth  in  the  reign  of  Augustus,  but  a  peculiarly  Latin 
organization  of  the  citizen  body  as  common  in  the  municipia 
of  Italy  in  Plautus's  day  as  they  were  later  in  Africa  ?  And 
was  not  magister  curiae  a  perfectly  natural  term  to  use,  as 
familiar  to  Plautus  and  his  audience  as  it  was  to  the  people 
of  Lanuvium  in  the  early  centuries  of  the  Empire  ?  The  only 
argument  against  this  supposition  is  an  argument  from 
silence ;  such  an  officer  of  such  a  municipal  division  does  not 
appear  in  inscriptions  that  antedate  the  Empire.  Still,  even 
the  magister  conlegi  and  the  magistri  of  the  local  communi- 
ties, which  must  have  been  well  known  in  the  poet's  time, 
are  seldom  mentioned  in  the  scanty  inscriptional  record  of 
the  Republican  period ;  influential  as  these  organizations  were, 
especially  &ie  conlegia,  the  magistri  are  mentioned  in  less 
than  half  a  dozen  inscriptions  before  the  reign  of  Augustus. 
Nothing,  I  think,  but  the  meagreness  of  inscriptional  evidence 
for  Plautus's  own  age  accounts  for  our  ignorance  of  a  magis- 
ter curiae  in  the  municipia  of  the  second  century  B.C.  If  this 
is  the  case,  the  phrase  in  the  Anlularia  was  no  unintelligible 
compound,  made  up  of  two  words,  each  in  itself  intelligible, 
but  both  together  a  meaningless  verbal  equivalent  of  the 
Greek  original ;  rather  it  was  a  rational  translation,  conveying 


48  Henry  W.  Prescott,  [1903 

to  the  audience  a  clear  conception  of  an  officer  presiding 
over  a  small  portion  of  a  Roman  municipium  and  possessed 
of  enough  financial  power  to  make  his  distribution  of  money 
easily  understood,  even  if  in  Plautus's  time  such  a  distribution 
was  not  natural  in  Italy.  This  distribution,  and  this  alone, 
may  be  purely  Greek.  The  rest  I  conceive  to  be  a  thorough 
Latinization  of  the  original. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]         Hcphaestion  and  the  Anapaest.  49 


V.  —  Hephaestion  and  the  Anapaest  in  the  Anstophanic 

Trimeter. 

BY  PROF.  C.  W.  E.  MILLER, 

JOHNS   HOPKINS   UNIVERSITY. 

THE  use  of  the  anapaest  in  the  iambic  trimeter  has  been 
treated  so  frequently  in  notes  and  special  articles,  and  its  use 
in  the  comic  trimeter  has  been  elaborated  with  such  fulness 
in  treatises  like  Rumpel's  "  Der  Trimeter  des  Aristophanes," 
Philologus,  XXVIII  (1869),  pp.  599-627,  Bernhardi's  "  De 
incisionibus  anapaesti  in  trimetro  comico  Graecorum,"  Acta 
Soc.  Philol.  Lips.  I,  pp.  245-286  (Leipzig,  1872),  and  Per- 
schinka's,  "  De  mediae  et  novae  quae  vocatur  comoediae 
atticae  trimetro  iambico,"  Diss.  Phil.  Vindob.  Ill  (1891), 
pp.  321-373,  that  the  writer  feels  constrained  to  state  the 
circumstances  that  led  to  the  production  of  this  paper. 

About  five  years  ago  I  was  reading  Hephaestion 's  Manual 
for  the  specific  purpose  of  noting  such  passages  as  might 
betoken  a  lack  of  understanding,  or  ignorance,  on  his  part 
with  reference  to  the  things  he  was  discussing,  when,  among 
other  things,  I  came  upon  the  following  well-known  passage 
(p.  21  W.):  TO)  Se  BavTvXa)  ro>  tcara  ra?  Tre/Hrra?  e/iTTtTrroim 
^topa?,  ijKicrra  ol  lafiftoTroiol  €%pijcravTO  TroiijTai  '  <nravia><t  B€ 
Kal  oi  rpayi/coi,  ol  Se  KCO/JLIKOI  eruye^ft)?,  uxnrep  teal  ev  TO>  lanftiicq*, 
TW  CTTI  TT}<?  apriov  avaTraicrTfo '  etcdrepov  <yap  dXoyov  •  ovre  yap 
€V  ro)  la/jifiiica)  €%pf]V  avajraiffrov  errl  Trjs  apriov  ^copa?,  efi  ^5 
ovSe  o-TToySeio?  ey^to/jet,  ov  Xu^t?  e&rlv  6  avajraiffTOS  •  ovre  ev 
TO)  Tpo%al/d&,  €7rl  rrjs  TrepiTrrjS  TOV  Sa/crwXo^,  e^>'  ^?  ou&e  GTTOV- 
Seto?  eyxwpel,  ov  o/ioiia?  \v<m  o  8a/cTu\o9.  "  As  for  the  dactyl 
in  the  odd  places  (of  trochaic  verse),  the  iambic  poets  almost 
completely  refrained  from  its  use,  and  the  tragedians  but 
rarely  employed  it,  though  the  comedians  constantly  used  it, 
as  they  did  also  the  anapaest  in  the  even  places  of  iambic 
verse;  for  either  use  is  irrational;1  for  neither  ought  the 

1  In  the  discussion  that  followed  the  reading  of  this  paper,  it  was  suggested 
that  the  word  4X0701'  meant  "  contrary  to  reason,  unreasonable,"  but  I  still  think 


50  C.  IV.  E.  Miller.  [1903 

anapaest  to  be  employed  in  the  even  places  of  iambic  verse, 
since  also  the  spondee,  of  which  the  anapaest  is  the  resolu- 
tion, is  excluded  from  these  positions,  nor  should  the  dactyl 
be  used  in  the  odd  places  of  trochaic  verse,  inasmuch  as  also 
the  spondee,  of  which  the  dactyl  is  in  like  manner  the 
resolution,  is  excluded  from  these  feet." 

A  few  moments'  reflection  caused  me  to  believe  that 
Hephaestion  was  mistaken  in  his  views.  It  occurred  to  me 
that,  contrary  to  Hephaestion's  dictum,  the  even  places  were 
the  very  ones  in  which  one  should  expect  to  find  the  anapaest, 
and  I  ventured  to  predict  that  the  statistics  of  the  Aristo- 
phanic  trimeter  would  show  a  larger  number  of  anapaests 
in  the  even  feet  than  in  the  odd  feet,  the  first  foot,  for 
obvious  reasons,  being  excluded  from  consideration.  Unfor- 
tunately other  engagements  prevented  me  at  that  time  from 
testing  the  correctness  of  my  prediction,  but  this  year  I 
have  had  occasion  to  take  the  matter  up  anew,  with  the 
result  that  my  expectations  have  been  fully  realized. 

My  line  of  reasoning  was  as  follows.  The  ordinary  scheme 
of  the  iambic  trimeter,  no  account  being  taken  of  resolutions, 
is 

W  I    W_«_|    W   I    \J I    W  I    \J  • 

The  irrational  long,  as  is  well  known,  is  admitted  only  in 
the  odd  places.  The  scansion  of  the  trochaic  tetrameter, 
regardless  of  resolutions,  is 

vy  |  w  I  w  I vy  II \J  |  w  |  \J  |  A- 

The  irrational  long  is  allowed  only  in  the  even  feet.  But 
if,  as  Hephaestion  tells  us,  the  trochaic  trimeter  catalectic 
was  by  some  called  an  acephalous  iambic  trimeter,1  there  is 
some  ancient  warrant  for  our  considering  the  iambic  trimeter 
a  cephalophorous,  or,  to  use  a  term  for  which  we  are  indebted 

that  the  rendering  given  above  is  to  be  preferred,  and  I  am  pleased  to  note  that 
this  is  also  the  view  taken  by  Thomas  Foster  Barham  in  his  English  translation 
of  Hephaestion,  Cambridge,  1843.  1  ne  word  &^oyov  is  there  translated  (p.  150) 
by  alcgous,  and,  in  a  footnote  to  this  word,  is  added  the  explanation,  "  that  is, 
not  according  to  just  reckoning,  or  proportion." 

1  P.  2O  W. :   Tplfierpov  dt  Ka.Ta\T)KTiK&v  .  .  .,  5  Tim  d/c^0aXoc  ia.UjSiKOv  KO\OV<TI. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]          Hephaestion  and  the  Anapaest.  51 

to  Hermann,  an  anacrustic,1  trochaic  trimeter  with  the  scansion 


and,  with  this  scansion,  the  irrational  long,  apart  from  the 
anacrusis  which  freely  admits  short,  long,  or  double  short, 
has  the  same  position  in  both  iambic  and  trochaic  verse,  being 
confined  to  the  even  feet,  or  to  the  end  of  the  dipodies.  Now 
the  great  frequency  of  the  irrational  spondee  occasioned  by 
this  irrational  long,  the  dipodic  structure  of  most  iambic  and 
trochaic  verse,  the  regular  diaeresis  between  the  cola  of  the 
trochaic  tetrameter,  and  the  predominance  of  the  penthe- 
mimeral  caesura  in  the  iambic  trimeter,  —  all  conspired  to 
produce  a  tendency  to  a  kind  of  catalectic  effect  at  the  end 
of  the  dipodies.  If  this  reasoning  be  correct,  the  dactyl, 
which  has  the  very  opposite  of  a  catalectic  effect,  would  be 
ill  adapted  for  the  second  part  of  the  dipody,  and  hence,  wher- 
ever used  in  large  numbers,  as  in  the  Aristophanic  trimeter, 
would  be  found  more  frequently  in  the  odd  feet  than  in 
the  even,  or,  speaking  in  terms  of  the  ordinary  scansion,  the 
anapaest  would  occur  more  frequently  in  the  even  places  than 
in  the  odd. 

Now  this  is  exactly  what  the  statistics  presented  by  Rumpel, 
"  Der  Trimeter  des  Aristophanes,  "  Philologtts,  XXVIII  (1869), 
pp.  599-627,  show.  For  purposes  of  ready  reference,  I  pre- 
sent them  here  in  tabulated  form  both  for  the  ordinary  scan- 
sion as  well  as  for  the  anacrustic  scansion  ;  but,  to  facilitate 
comparison,  I  have,  in  the  case  of  the  anacrustic  scansion, 
given  the  average  number  of.  dactyls  per  thousand  trimeters, 
instead  of  the  actual  number  employed;  and  I  have  also 
inserted  twoj?  columns  giving  the  ratios  of  the  anapaests  (or 
dactyls  of  the  anacrustic  scansion)  of  the  odd  feet  as  com- 
pared with  those  of  the  even  feet.  I  cannot  vouch  for  the 
accuracy  of  all  of  Rumpel's  figures,  but  I  believe  them  on 
the  whole  to  be  correct.  I  have  tested  their  accuracy  by 

1  I  am  not  unmindful  of  Masqueray's  pronunciamento,  "  Je  rejette  absolument 
cette  theorie.  L'anacruse  est  une  invention  moderne  "  (  Traiti  de  meirtque 
grecque,  p.  152),  nor  have  I  failed  to  note  Weil's  article  in  Rev.  des  et.  gr.,  1900, 
pp.  185  f.,  and  Gleditsch's  still  more  recent  utterances  on  the  subject  of  anacrusis 
(BphW.  1903,  col.  793). 


52  C.   W.  E.  Miller.  [1903 

comparing  my  own  statistics  for  both  the  Knights  and  the 
Plutus,  and  by  counting  the  number  of  trimeters  in  each  play. 
In  the  Knights  my  count  showed  one  anapaest  more  for  the 
second  and  fifth  feet  each,  the  other  figures  agreeing.  In 
the  Plntus  I  counted  one  anapaest  less  for  the  fourth  foot 
and  two  less  for  the  fifth.  But  these  and  similar  differences 
in  the  number  of  the  trimeters  do  not  in  the  least  affect  the 
results  in  question.  The  only  serious  error  detected  was  in 
the  number  1182,  which  Rumpel  gives  as  the  number  of  the 
trimeters  in  the  Ranae.  I  have  made  several  counts,  but 
cannot  find  more  than  854,  including  lyric  and  bracketed 
trimeters.  By  the  correction  of  this  mistake,  the  Ranae 
receives  the  ninth  place,  instead  of  the  last,  in  the  order  of 
frequency ;  the  averages  for  this  play  and  for  the  whole  of 
Aristophanes  are  raised,  and  the  proportion  of  pure  trimeters 
given  by  Rumpel  and  incorporated  in  the  text-books,  instead 
of  being  one  for  every  68  trimeters,1  is  increased  to  one  for 
every  66  trimeters.  No  distinction  has  been  made  in  the 
table  on  p.  53  between  comic,  lyric,  and  tragic  trimeters, 
but  all  have  been  counted  alike.  The  percentage  of  the  tragic 
and  lyric  types  is  so  small2  as  not  to  appreciably  affect  the 
results  of  our  investigation.  In  reference  to  the  table  for  the 
anacrustic  scansion  it  may  be  noted  that  for  every  anapaest 
of  the  ordinary  scansion  there  is  always  a  dactyl  in  the  pre- 
ceding foot  of  the  anacrustic  scansion  except  when  the 
anapaest  is  preceded  by  a  resolution  (o  w  ^  I  \j  <u  _  instead 

i  l  J  \ 

of  o  _  |  w  w  _).  But  these  exceptions  are  so  rare  and  so 
doubtful  (see  Rumpel,  I.e.,  p.  627),  that  for  all  practical 
purposes  they  may  be  ignored. 

A  glance  at  the  table  reveals  an  overwhelming  preponder- 
ance of  the  anapaest  in  the  second  and  fourth  feet  as  com- 
pared with  the  third  and  fifth  feet  respectively,  or,  in  the 
anacrustic  scansion,  of  the  dactyl  in  the  odd  places  as  com- 

1  As  a  matter  of  fact  Rumpel  gives  the  ratio  I  :  168,  but  this  is  manifestly  a 
typographical  error  as  may  readily  be  seen  by  scrutinizing  the  figures  from  which 
the  ratio  was  deduced. 

2  For  the  details,  see  Zielinski,  Die   Gliederung  dtr  altattischen  Komodie, 
pp.  292  f. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]         Hephaestion  and  the  Anapaest. 


53 


I 

£ 

Cn 
O 

U 

n 
H 


0) 

c^ 

U 

0 

c 

PH 

X 

HH 

INARY 

O 

y. 

0 

ANAPAEST  (ORD 

TRIMETER 

ORDINARY  SCANSI 

a 

= 

h 

fa 

O 

JETERS. 

* 

*ff«;s:s.*;r»ii*« 

00 
CO 

eA 

H 

5 

^*     *^     w^    O     t***  CO     **     ^S  00     t^s    O 

v% 

ri 
H 

H 

9***V9>*VZX* 

I 

ft 

(J 

,_; 

^£>S  c?^^-<8  ffj 

CO 
CO 

Q 

1|« 

2  o-  o 

JPcTco^^?^^  !^a  ?? 

c? 

ZQ*5 

o       M 

.2  !? 

u  ••* 

VO    ^VOI^^O    ^Tfvo    tx*- 

w% 

MTl--««rOTtNCO-^ 

N 

.2  ?? 

u  HH 

o 

•:««n^V^4«  «!<?<! 

^. 

"* 

"3 

«    OONCONCOOt^Ox-co 

0 

H 

rOcoScOrtcocococON     n 

CO 

| 

- 

O     O^   ^^     **    ^O     ^^     C1!     ^^    O^   *^     ^^ 

00 
CO 
CO 

z 

h 
O 

. 

^N   tr^   ^^   O     ^^     ^^    O     O     ^^   ^"  ^D 

s 

H 
M 

S 

D 
Z 

CO 

coct^cTcTrTg'coS^    = 

M 

|J 
| 

CM 

^    u^    NN     IA    M     tx,    O    CO     O^    ^t"    O^ 

fO 

00 

- 

i—  I 

U^I^NCO    «co    rN.rs.»MNO    *^ 

t 

"3  "o  £ 
^f2  o  ^ 

u^  d 

=5153555%** 

vn 
w 

"o 
d- 
Kj 

U) 

B 

-4 

vO     f^    O    \O     ON  t^  OO    CO    OO     t^   t-» 

oo 

.        .      N        •        •««•§. 

i  8  s  •  *  i!  i  i  M 

1 

s 

> 

•& 

t 

o 


1 
i 


54  C.  W.  E.  Miller.  [1903 

pared  with  the  even,  and  this  preponderance  obtains  not 
only  in  the  plays  taken  collectively,  but  also,  without  ex- 
ception, in  the  plays  taken  individually.  In  this  connection 
it  must  also  be  noted  that  the  tables  given  by  Perschinka, 
I.e.,  pp.  360  and  372,  show  the  same  overwhelming  pre- 
ponderance for  the  poets  of  the  Middle  and  of  the  New 
Comedy,  and  for  the  fragments  given  by  Kock  in  Vol.  Ill, 
418-468.  The  figures  are  as  follows: 

NUMBER  OF  ANAPAESTS  PER  1000  TRIMETERS. 

I.  II.  III.  IV.  V. 

Middle  Comedy .     .     .  125  94  26  41  23 

New  Comedy      ...  119  84  23  37  23 

Kock  III,  418-468 .     .  124  100  25  86  63 

Aristophanes  ....  129 1  133  30  95  38 

Now  it  seems  certain  that  if  the  anapaest  really  was  the 
resolution  of  the  irrational  spondee,  as  Hephaestion  would 
have  us  believe,  the  poet,  though  indulging  in  a  certain 
amount  of  license  if  you  choose,  must  have  striven  for,  or 
unconsciously  drifted  toward,  the  more  frequent  employ- 
ment of  the  anapaest  in  those  feet  that  admitted  the  spondee, 
that  is  to  say,  in  the  odd  feet.  But  this  was  not  the  case,  for, 
as  has  just  been  stated,  our  tables  show  an  overwhelming 
preponderance  in  the  even  feet.  Hence,  the  conclusion 
must  be  that  Hephaestion  was  certainly  mistaken,  and  that, 
whatever  may  have  been  the  theory  of  the  metricians,  the 
anapaest  of  the  iambic  trimeter  was  certainly  not  regarded 
by  Aristophanes  and  the  poets  of  the  Middle  and  the  New 
Comedy  as  a  resolution  of  the  spondee. 

The  thought  may  now  arise  that  there  is  nothing  very 
novel  about  the  conclusion  that  has  just  been  stated.  I  am,  of 
course,  fully  aware  that  I  am  not  the  first  to  have  assailed 
Hephaestion's  position.  About  a  century  ago,  G.  Hermann 
expressed  dissent  from  Hephaestion's  view,  a  view  that  seems 
to  have  had  so  strong  a  hold  on  Porson,  and  that  caused  so 

1  The  figures  actually  given  by  Perschinka  are  124,  128,  28,  92,  and  36,  which 
numbers  are  based  upon  Rumpel's  erroneous  calculation,  above  referred  to,  of  the 
total  number  of  trimeters  in  Aristophanes. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]         Hephaestion  and  the  Anapaest.  55 

much  needless  discussion  between  him  and  Hermann.  On 
p.  ccxii  of  hisflraef.  ad  Hec.  (ed.  Dune.),  Hermann  incidentally 
combats  the  view  that  the  anapaest  may  be  considered  the 
resolution  of  the  irrational  spondee.  He  argues  that  an 
irrational  long  could  not  be  resolved  into  two  shorts  any  more 
than  one  short  can  be  resolved  into  two  shorts.  At  the 
bottom  of  the  page  he  goes  on  to  say  :  "  Quae  quum  ita  sint, 
nulla  prorsus  caussa  est,  quare  imparibus  locis  prae  paribus 
aliqua  praerogativa  concedatur.  Nee  sane  earn  dari  videmus 
in  comicorum  trimetris,  qui,  praeterquam  in  ultima  sede,  ana- 
paestum  in  locis  omnibus  recipiunt,  quum  dactylum  a  paribus 
excludant.  .  .  .  Parium  atque  imparium  locorum  hie  nulla 
ratio  haberi  poterit,  quia,  ut  patet  ex  iis,  quae  supra  disputa- 
vimus,  anapaestus  non  spondei,  sed  iambi  locum  obtinet" 
Hermann  came  very  near  discovering  the  restrictions  that 
are  operative  in  the  use  of  the  anapaest,  when  on  p.  ccxiv  he 
says :  "  Quod  si  tamen  numerus  ipse  anapaestum  ab  una 
quinque  priorum  sedum  magis,  quam  a  caeteris,  removeri 
postulat,  erit  ea  non  quinta  sedes,  ut  videtur  Porsono,  sed 
tertia.  Quintae  enim  sedis  prorsus  eadem  ratio  est,  quae  est 
primae,  secundae,  quartae.  Sola  tertia  eo  a  caeteris  differt, 
quod  in  earn  incidere  solet  caesura."  But  to  show  that  he 
did  not  get  at  the  root  of  the  matter,  attention  need  only 
be  called  to  a  previous  remark  on  the  same  page  with  refer- 
ence to  the  use  of  the  anapaest  in  the  second  foot :  "  in  quibus 
formis  etsi  nulla  est,  quae  principium  ordinis  in  secunda  sede 
habeat,  poterit  tamen  in  hac  quoque  sede  anapaestus  eo 
excusari,  quod  primus  versuum  ordo,  quo  pleniore  spiritu 
profertur,  eo^facilius  paullo  majorem  numeri  vehementiam 
admittat,"  whereas  the  use  of  the  anapaest  in  the  second 
foot  needs  no  excuse,  as  it  is  the  one  foot  in  which  it  is  most 
frequently  employed  in  the  Aristophanic  trimeter,  not  even 
the  privileged  first  foot  exceeding  it  in  the  total  number  of 
admissions  of  the  anapaest. 

Rossbach  and  Westphal  also  rejected  the  doctrine  that  the 
anapaest  is  a  resolution  of  the  irrational  spondee.  Gnech. 
Metrik,  II2,  p.  448  (=  Theorie  der  mnsischen  Kiinste,  III, 
p.  182),  they  say:  "Die  irrationale  Arsis  [of  iambic  and 


56  C.   W.  E,  Miller.  [1903 

trochaic  verse]  lasst  keine  Auflosung  zu.  Unrichtig  ist  es, 
wenn  die  Metriker  dies  annehmen.  Sie  verstehen  unter  dem 
anapaestus  den  in  den  dialogischen  lamben  eingemischten 
kyklischen  Anapaest,  der  aber  mit  dem  irrationalen  Iambus 
nichts  zu  thun  hat  und  schon  desvvegen  keine  Auflosung 
desselben  sein  kann,  weil  er  auch  an  solchen  Stellen  des 
Verses  vorkommt,  von  welchen  der  Spondeus  bei  den  Griechen 
durchaus  fern  gehalten  ist,"  and  on  p.  455  (=  iSQ3),  footnote: 
"  Hephastion  halt  den  (kyklischen)  Daktylus  fur  eine  Auflo- 
sung des  (irrationalen)  Spondeus,  doch  haben  beide  Fiisse 
nichts  mit  einander  zu  thun."  Compare  also  pp.  4S62  f. 
(=  22/3) :  "  Die  Komodie  unterscheidet  sich  von  der  Tragodie 
nicht  bios  durch  die  uneingeschrdnkte  Zulassung  [the  italics 
are  mine]  der  Anapaeste,"  etc.,  and  pp.  4852  f.  (=  226s) :  "  Die 
Komodie,  sowohl  die  sicilische  wie  die  attische,  verstattet  die 
Zulassung  des  kyklischen  Anapaestes  an  jeder  der  f  unf  ersten 
Stellen  ohne  Einschrankung  [the  italics  are  mine],  einerlei, 
ob  derselbe  ein  Eigenname  ist  oder  nicht." 

Klotz,  Grundziige  altromischer  Metrik,  p.  306,  makes  the 
following  remarks  :  "  Ausserdem  aber  sind  in  alien  Senkungen 
mit  Ausnahme  der  letzten  auch  zwei  besonders  fliichtige  Kiir- 
zen  zulassig,  und  zwar  in  der  Comodie  ohne  Einschrankung 
[the  italics  are  mine],  im  Euripideischen  Drama  nur  im  ersten 
Fusse  bei  gewohnlichen  Wortern  (wie  auch  bei  Aeschylus  u. 
Sophokles),"  etc. 

"Nun  hat  man  nach  Hephastion's  (21)  Vorgange  den 
folgenschvveren  Fehler  begangen,  den  bereits  Rossbach-West- 
phal  II2  S.  455  griindlich  abgewiesen  haben,  dass  man  diese 
Kiirzen  als  die  Auflosung  der  irrationalen  Lange  ansah  und 
darauf  hin  in  den  Texten  der  Tragiker  die  zwei  Kiirzen  in 
der  inneren  Senkung  vielfach  wegconjiciren  wollte,  vgl.  Aug. 
Nauck,  Euripid.  Studien  I  S.  63  u.  a.,  sicher  mit  Unrecht. 
Denn  diese  beiden  Kurzen  unterscheiden  sich  durchaus  von 
den  die  zweimorige  Hebung  sowie  die  anapaestische  und 
daktylische  Senkung  ausfiillenden  Kurzen  und  ebenso  auch 
von  den  die  ausseren  Senkungen  der  trochaischen  und  iambi- 
schen  Dipodien  bildenden  irrationalen  Langen,  von  jenen 
dadurch,  dass  sie  nicht  durch  Wortpause  von  einander 


Vol.  xxxiv.]         Hephaestion  and  the  Anapaest.  57 

getrennt  oder  Endsilben  eines  mehrsilbigen  Wortes  sein  und 
als  solche  vom  folgenden  Worte  getrennt  werden  diirfen ; 
von  diesen  aber  dadurch,  dass  sie  weder  in  der  Tragodie  noch 
in  der  Comodie  bloss  an  die  ausseren  Hebungen  gebunden 
sind.  Daraus  aber  geht  mit  Evidenz  hervor,  dass  diese 
Kiirzen  Stellvertreter  nicht  etwa  der  irrationalen  Lange, 
sondern  der  regelrechten  Kiirze  sind.  .  .  .  Damit  stimmt 
auch  der  metrische  Charakter  und  ethische  Werth  dieser 
fliichtigen  Kurzen  vollstandig,  wie  diesen  die  Verstechnik  der 
griechischen  und  romischen  Comodie  fest  ausgepragt  hat; 
sie  retardirten  nicht,  wie  die  irrationalen  Langen,  sondern 
belebten  den  rhythmischen  Fluss." 

Gleditsch,  Metrik  der  Griechcn  u.  Romer*,  p.  139,  does  not 
mention  Hephaestion,  but  the  statement,  "  Als  eine  Abwei- 
chung  von  der  strengen  rhythmischen  Messung  ist  es  zu 
betrachten,  wenn  in  einigen  iambischen  Massen  statt  des 
Iambus  der  Anapaest  eintritt,  bei  dem  nicht  an  eine  Auflo- 
sung  der  Arsis  des  Iambus,  sondern  an  eine  Ausgleichung 
der  vier  Chronoi  des  Anapaest  mit  den  drei  des  Iambus  durch 
schnellere  070)777  zu  denken  ist,"  may  perhaps  be  construed 
as  a  protest  against  Hephaestion,  and  perhaps  there  is  also 
a  fling  at  Klotz,  who,  I.e.,  thinks  that  the  two  shorts  of  the 
anapaest  are  the  representatives  of  the  single  short  of  the 
regular  iambus.  But  the  next  sentence,  "  Der  Anapaest  tritt 
auch  an  den  geraden  Stellen  ein,  aber  nur  in  dem  Dialog  der 
Komodie  mit  grosserer  Freiheit,  sonst  mit  Beschrankung  auf 
den  An  fang  des  Verses,"  etc.,  smacks  somewhat  of  Hephaes- 
tion. On  p.  141  is  found  a  supplementary  statement  with 
reference  to  th^  comic  trimeter  :  "  Der  Trimeter  der  Komodie 
entbehrt  haufig  der  Caesur,  giebt  der  Auflbsung  eine  grosse 
Ausdehnung,  so  dass  die  dreisilbigen  Fiisse  uberwiegen, 
schliesst  den  Anapaest  nur  vom  6.  Fusse  aus  und  liisst  ihn 
sonst  ohne  Einschrdnknngen  zu  [the  italics  are  mine],  oft 
mehrmals  hintereinander,  nur  wird  die  Teilung  desselben 
(w  I  w  _  oder  w  w  I  _)  gemieden  ;  selbst  der  Prokeleusmatikos 
statt  des  Jambus  (^  w  oo)  ist  vereinzelt  zugelassen." 

The  foregoing  citations  show  that  Hephaestion's  theory  of 
the  anapaest  has  many  times  been  rejected,  and  its  rejection 


58  C.   W.  E.  Miller.  [1903 

has  been  supported  by  more  or  less  cogent  arguments,  which 
it  is  not  my  purpose  to  discuss.  But  the  method  in  which  the 
problem  has  been  attacked  in  this  paper  seems  to  be  a  new 
one,  and  I  do  not  know  of  anybody  that  has  treated  the 
matter  in  this  way.  The  results  of  such  a  method  of  treat- 
ment have,  at  least,  not  found  their  way  into  the  current 
manuals  and  into  current  discussions  of  the  subject.  None 
of  the  authors  from  whom  we  have  quoted  seems  to  have 
had  any  inkling  of  the  preponderance  of  the  anapaest  in  the 
very  feet  in  which  its  use  had  been  condemned  by  Hephaes- 
tion.  Everywhere  we  meet  such  terms  as  "  ohne  Einschran- 
kung  "  and  "  uneingeschrankte  Zulassung."  Even  Rumpel, 
to  whom  we  are  indebted  for  exhaustive  statistics  as  to  the 
frequency  of  the  anapaest  in  the  Aristophanic  trimeter,  says, 
I.e.,  p.  610:  "  Bei  weitem  am  haufigsten  .  .  .  tritt  im  aristo- 
phanischen  trimeter  der  kyklische  anapaest  auf,  nicht  nur 
durch  seine  menge — es  kommt  bereits  auf  2\  trimeter  ein  ana- 
paest— ,  sondern  auch  durch  die  uneingeschrankte  zulassung 
in  den  fiinf  ers  ten  fits  sen  [the  italics  are  mine]  scharf  von  dem 
tragischen  geschieden,"  though,  it  is  true,  after  having  given 
his  statistics  for  the  individual  feet  of  each  play,  he  gives  the 
totals  and  remarks  :  "  Der  anapaest  ist  hiernach  am  haufigsten 
im  zweiten,  am  seltensten  im  dritten  fusse  angewendet," 
without,  however,  adding  a  word  of  comment.  Of  course, 
the  author  of  an  article  does  not  always  tell  all  he  knows 
about  his  subject,  and  Rumpel  may  have  known  more  about 
this  matter  than  it  was  convenient  or  possible  for  him  to  tell. 
But  this  statement  sadly  reminds  me  that  there  are  also  a  num- 
ber of  points  connected  with  the  present  subject  that  it  was 
inconvenient  or  impossible  for  me  to  discuss  within  the  limits 
of  this  paper.  So,  for  example,  it  seems  clear  to  me  why  the 
number  of  anapaests  in  the  fifth  foot  as  compared  with  the 
fourth  is  proportionately  greater  than  that  of  the  third  as 
compared  with  the  second.  Then,  too,  the  method,  by  which 
I  reached  my  conclusion  in  regard  to  the  relative  frequency 
of  the  anapaests  in  the  various  feet  of  the  trimeter,  was  only 
briefly  outlined,  and,  if  there  were  time,  I  could  give  by  way 
of  further  illustration  the  results  of  a  detailed  study  of  the 


Vol.  xxxiv.]        Hephaestion  and  the  Anapaest.  59 

anapaest  in  the  Equites,  of  the  spondee  in  all  of  Aristophanes, 
and  of  the  tribrach  (anacrustic  scansion)  in  all  of  Aristophanes 
and  a  portion  of  tragedy.  But  the  presentation  of  these 
matters  must  be  reserved  for  a  future  paper  or  papers,  and, 
for  the  present,  I  shall  have  to  be  content,  if,  in  regard  to  the 
erroneousness  of  Hephaestion's  theory,  this  paper  has  made 
assurance  doubly  sure,  and  if,  in  addition  to  having  pointed 
out  the  limitations  in  the  use  of  the  anapaest  and  the  reasons 
therefor,  it  has  incidentally  shown  that  in  spite  of  the  fact 
that  the  ancient  metricians  may  have  known  little  or  noth- 
ing about  anacrusis,  they  might  have  learned  a  great  deal 
more  about  the  structure  of  iambic  verse  by  the  application 
of  modern  anacrusis,  and  that  certainly  we  moderns  cannot 
afford  to  deprive  ourselves  entirely  of  so  valuable  an  auxiliary 
to  the  proper  understanding  of  what  is  in  some  respects  the 
most  important  form  of  Greek  rhythm. 


60  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 


VI.  —  The  Latin  Monosyllables  in  their  Relation  to  Accent 
and  Quantity.     A  Study  in  the  Verse  of  Terence.1 

BY  PROF.  ROBERT  S.   RADFORD, 

ELMIRA   COLLEGE. 

I.   PROBLEM  AND  METHOD. 

IT  is  the  purpose  of  this  paper  to  investigate  the  cause  of 
the  syllable-shortening  which  occurs  after  short  monosyllables 
in  early  Latin  verse,  and  also  in  a  more  general  way  the  part 
which  monosyllabic  words  play  in  the  accentuation  of  the 
Latin  sentence.  The  data  illustrating  the  quantitative  and 
accentual  relations  of  monosyllabic  words  will  be  drawn 
almost  entirely  from  the  six  plays  of  Terence,  although  simi- 
lar results  have  been  obtained  by  the  writer  from  an  exami- 
nation of  ten  of  the  plays  of  Plautus.  In  a  study  which 
involves  the  Latin  sentence-accentuation  it  is  scarcely  neces- 
sary to  state  that  the  writer  is  greatly  indebted  to  the  brilliant 
labors  in  this  field  of  Ritschl,2  Klotz,  Lindsay,  Skutsch,  Wack- 
ernagel,  and  many  others,  not  to  mention  the  detailed  inves- 
tigations of  Ahlberg,  Podiaski,  Kampf,  and  O.  Brugman. 
Special  indebtedness  will  be  acknowledged  in  each  case, 
but  it  will  be  readily  understood  that  my  total  indebtedness 
to  these  scholars  is  greater  than  can  be  indicated  in  single 
references. 

The  two  most  frequent  forms  of  syllable-shortening  in  early 
Latin  occur  in  iambic  words  and  in  words  preceded  by  a  short 
monosyllable.  In  the  case  of  iambic  words  the  shortening  is 

1  A  paper  treating  the  same  subject  in  relation  to  the  verse  of  Plautus  was  read 
by  the  writer  before  the  Johns  Hopkins  Philological  Association,  April  24,  1903. 
An  abstract  of  this  paper  has  already  been  published  in  the  Johns  Hopkins  Uni- 
versity Circulars,  Vol.  XXIII,  and  the  paper  will  appear  in  full  in  an  early  number 
of  the  American  Journal  of  Philology. 

2  I  think  it  proper,  however,  to  state  that  at  the  time  when  I  reached  the  main 
conclusions  of  this  article  I  was  not  acquainted  with  that  part  of  Ritschl's  Prole- 
gomena which  treats  the  same  subject,  nor  with  Wackernagel's  article  in  Indogerm. 
Porsck.,  Vol.  I. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  6 1 

now  very  generally  attributed  to  the  word-accent  upon  the 
initial  syllable ;  a  slight  modification  of  this  view  would  be  to 
hold  that  the  shortening  is  due  to  the  analogy  of  pyrrhic 
words  such  as  ems  and  agit,  in  which  the  quantitative  rela- 
tions do  not  retard  the  development  of  a  clear  stress-accent. 
A  second  and  still  larger  class  of  shortened  quantities  arises 
when  a  short  monosyllable,  or  dissyllable  which  has  become 
a  monosyllable  by  elision,  precedes  another  word,  as  sed  abstn- 
listi,  sed  argenti.  What  is  the  cause  of  this  shortening  ? 
Why  is  it  that  the  short  monosyllable  has  the  power  of  short- 
ening a  following  long  syllable?  Upon  this  question  students 
of  early  Latin  verse  are  far,  I  think,  from  having  reached  an 
agreement.  It  happens,  necessarily,  from  the  very  structure 
of  iambic  verse,  that  a  long  syllable  shortened  in  an  iambic 
sequence  is  in  every  case  either  preceded  or  followed  by  the 
verse-accent ;  upon  this  coincidence  rests  the  older  view,  still 
held  by  Seyffert,  Leo,  and  Brix-Niemeyer,  of  an  artificial 1 
shortening  produced  by  the  verse-accent.  Accentual  scholars 
are  themselves  greatly  divided  in  opinion  at  this  point,  and  it 
does  not  seem  necessary  to  mention  all  the  theories  which 
have  been  proposed,  that  of  Klotz  being  especially  difficult 
of  acceptance,  at  least  in  the  extreme  form  in  which  it  is 
stated,  Grundziige,  p.  68  ff.,  p.  45  ff.  Ahlberg  (De  corrcpt. 
iamb.  Plant,  qttaestiones,  Lund,  1901,  p.  52  ff.),  and  Lindsay 
(The  Captivi,  London,  1900,  p.  352),  have,  it  is  true,  clearly 
put  forward  the  view  that  some  form  of  word-grouping  has 
taken  place,  and  that  the  group-accent  has  in  some  way  come 

1  The  use  of  this  term  must  not  be  understood  as  implying  that  I  question  in 
anapaestic  verse  or  even  occasionally  in  the  beginning  of  a  verse  or  colon  of 
iambic  or  trochaic  verse  the  occurrence  of  an  "  artificial  "  or  metrical  shortening 
produced  by  the  very  concrete,  the  very  real  verse-accent.     If  the  cases  of  sed- 
tllum,  sed-illum  were  only  a  few  in  number,  I  should  be  ready  to  accept  the 
metrical  explanation,  to  which  I  have  no  theoretical  objections.     But  since  these 
cases  are  very  numerous,  and  since  we  know  from  many  ancient  testimonies  that 
it  is  the  special  characteristic  of  Latin  iambic  verse  to  reproduce  the  cadence  of 
colloquial  speech,  and  thus  to  bring  the  verse-accent  (as  a  subordinate  factor) 
into  cooperation  with  the  word-accent,  the  metrical  explanation  appears  to  me 
untenable  for  iambic  verse  as  a  whole. 

2  In  his  earlier  writings  (e.g.  Lat.  Lang.,  p.  202),  Professor  Lindsay  hesitated 
between  this  view  and  the  explanation  given  by  Klotz,  Grundz.,  p.  68  ff. 


62  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

into  play,  but  neither  of  these  scholars  has  undertaken  to 
explain  how  the  primary  or  secondary  accent  has  come  to 
rest  upon  the  atonic  monosyllable  in  a  group  like  sed  tile,  sed 
abstulisti.  So  far  as  regards  the  word-grouping,  Havet  also 
long  ago  pointed  out  that  sed-abstulisti  forms  to  a  certain 
extent  '  one  body '  (see  the  quotation  of  his  views  in  Plessis, 
ed.  Ade/phoe,  p.  5),  and  in  his  Mttrique  (e.g.  §§  353,  363)  he 
regularly  links  the  monosyllables  by  a  hyphen  with  the  follow- 
ing word  to  indicate  their  proclitic  character,  but  the  particu- 
lar explanation  which  he  gives  of  the  shortening  in  this  group 
is  so  intimately  connected  with  his  theory  of  '  initial  intensity' 
that  it  does  not  call  for  further  notice  here ;  on  the  theory  of 
'  initial  intensity '  I  shall  make  some  observations  in  a  later 
section  of  this  article  (see  p.  95,  below). 

I  wish  to  bring  forward  for  the  solution  of  this  problem  a 
method  which  as  a  whole  has  been  hitherto  untried.  I  pro- 
pose in  brief  that  for  the  moment  we  shall  wholly  dismiss  the 
question  of  syllable  shortening,  shall  observe  the  short  mono- 
syllables when  they  precede  not  long  but  short  initial  sylla- 
bles, and  determine  independently  the  place  of  both  the 
primary  and  the  secondary  grammatical  accent  in  the  groups 
thus  formed.  This  means  that  we  shall  first  determine  the 
place  of  the  primary  accent  in  the  groups  sed  hie  (dissyllabic 
group),  sed  agit  (trisyllabic  group),  sed  homines  (quadrisyl- 
labic  group),  and  the  place  of  the  secondary  accent  in  the 
similar  groups  sed  amore,  sed  amaverunt,  sed  hilaritudo.  It 
is  not  possible,  to  be  sure,  to  determine  directly  the  place  of 
the  accent  in  all  these  groups,  nor  is  it  necessary.  A  single 
group,  the  trisyllabic,  offers  exceptional  opportunities  for  the 
determination  of  its  accent,  and  affords  the  one  point  where 
an  accent-law  may  be  established,  capable  of  extension  in 
principle  to  all  the  groups. 

A  trisyllabic  group  of  this  type  (w,  \j  w)  may  assume  two 
forms ;  it  may  either  form  an  anapaest,  sedagtmt,  or  a  tribrach, 
sed  agit.  Now  from  the  first  of  these  forms,  the  anapaestic, 
we  can  derive  no  aid;  for,  owing  to  the  structure  of  iambic 
verse,  the  group  can  never  occur  without  receiving  the  verse- 
accent  either  upon  the  initial  syllable,  se"d  agnnt  (much  the 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  63 

more  frequent  form),  or  upon  the  ultimate  sect  agunt  (less 
frequent  form).  Hence  in  this  case  we  can  draw  no  conclu- 
sions as  to  the  natural  accent. 

But  with  the  second  form  of  the  trisyllabic  group,  viz.,  the 
tribrach  form,  sed  agit,  the  case  is  wholly  different ;  for  so 
far  as  concerns  the  structure  of  iambic  verse,  the  group  is 
perfectly  flexible  and  may  receive  the  ictus  equally  well  and 
with  nearly  equal  frequency  either  upon  the  initial  syllable, 
std  agit,  or  upon  the  second  syllable,  scd  dgit.  So  far,  how- 
ever, as  concerns  the  word-grouping,  the  group  must  not 
admit  the  ictus  upon  the  second  syllable,  if  in  consequence 
of  peculiarly  close  grouping  it  has  acquired  the  grammatical 
accent  of  a  single  tribrach  word,  i.e.  the  grammatical  accent, 
std  agit,  belonging  to  an  improvised  compound  (as  we  may 
say),  just  as  the  accent  ineo  belongs  to  'a  permanent  com- 
pound. For  it  is  a  well-known  rule  of  Latin  iambic  verse 
that  a  tribrach  word  receives  the  metrical  accent  in  general 
only  upon  the  initial  syllable  and  thus  almost  always  in  agree- 
ment with  the  grammatical  accent,  i.e.  regularly  gJnere,  very 
rarely  gene"re. 

Before  we  proceed  to  apply  the  test  just  indicated  to  the 
verse  of  Terence,  it  will  be  necessary  to  comment  briefly 
upon  the  general  character  of  the  Latin  monosyllables. 
According  to  an  oft-repeated  rule  of  the  grammarians  the 
monosyllables  are  usually  without  the  accent.1  Thus  Priscian 
(Keil,  G.  L.  Ill,  p.  479,  20=  Scholl,  De  accentu  linguae  lat., 
p.  194)  in  speaking  of  the  accent  of  iam  (in  iam  dudum) 
says  :  Gravem,  ut  omnia  fere  monosyllaba  praepositiva ;  see 
also  ibid.,  p.  478,  22  (accent  of  at}\  p.  24,  21,  etc.  This  rule 
does  not  apply  of  course  to  monosyllabic  nouns  and  verbs,  as 
many  other  testimonies  of  the  grammarians  show  (cf.  Scholl, 
De  ace.,  p.  io8f.),  but  only  to  those  words  which,  owing  to 
their  meaning,  are  naturally  unaccented  in  many  languages, 
viz.,  the  monosyllabic  prepositions,  conjunctions,  pronouns, 
and  adverbs  (see,  e.g.,  Wallin,  Yale  Psychol.  Lab.  Studies, 
IX,  p.  21  f. ;  Meyer-Lubke,  Gramm.  d.  roman.  Spr.,  I,  p.  503 ; 

1  L.  Mullet  reaches  the  same  conclusion  on  metrical  grounds,  Res  Mttrica\ 
p.  467. 


64  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

G.  Paris,  Role  de  V accent  lat.,  p.  19).  Hence  there  seems  no 
good  reason  for  doubting  the  substantial  truth  of  the  gram- 
marians' rule,  which  means  no  more  than  the  similar  rule 
respecting  the  accent  of  prepositions,  i.e.  the  prepositions  — 
both  praepositiones  compositae  and  adpositae  —  are  unaccented 
in  a  considerable  majority  of  the  cases  in  which  they  occur, 
as  confero,  conferre,  in  navem,  ex  hello.  Besides,  as  will  be 
shown  later,  the  grammarians  often  distinctly  recognize  that 
the  monosyllables  may  acquire  an  accent  when  they  form 
part  of  a  compositum  or  word-group.  Thus  it  is  evident  from 
the  grammarians'  statements  that  the  monosyllabic  conjunc- 
tions, pronouns,  and  adverbs  bear  precisely  the  same  relation 
to  the  accent  as  the  monosyllabic  prepositions.  This  con- 
clusion is  expressly  confirmed  by  Audax  (Keil,  VII,  p.  360, 
i  ff.1),  to  whom  we  owe  the  clearest  account  of  the  accent  of 
these  particles  that  is  to  be  found  in  Latin  literature  subse- 
quent to  Quintilian :  non  omnes  partes  orationis  aequales 
sunt  .  .  .  nam  et  pronomen  subiacet  nomini,  et  verbo  servit 
adverbium  .  coniunctio  quoque  et  praepositio  ad  clientelam 
maiorum  partium  pertinent .  hae  ergo  partes,  quae  adpendices 
sunt,  sic  maioribus  copularitur,  tit  tanquam  in  tinam  partem 
orationis'2'  coalescant,  proprium  vero  fastigium  perdant,  non 
omnes  dumtaxat,  sed  pleraeque. 

It  is  necessary  also  to  review  briefly  the  treatment  in  iambic 
verse  both  of  primary  and  of  secondary  word-accents  belong- 
ing to  the  syllable-group,  ^  w  ^ : 

A.  PRIMARY  ACCENTUATION.  — To  determine  with  precision 
the  place  of  the  primary  grammatical  accent  in  trisyllabic 
groups  of  the  form  w,  w  ^  is  possible  only  through  the  fact 
that  tribrach  words  such  as  genere  do  not  as  a  rule  admit  the 
metrical  accent  upon  the  second  syllable.  Yet  the  statement 
sometimes  made  that  Latin  tribrach  words  never  under  any 
conditions  admit  the  accent  gentre  in  iambic  verse  is  not 

1  This  is  substantially  the   same  as  the  anonymous  quotation  in   Scholl,  De 
ace.,  p.  175  f.,  entitled  "  Interr.  et  resp."  which,  however,  is  not  placed,  as  might 
be  expected,  in  the  chapter  on  the  accent  of  conjunctions. 

2  '  Una  pars  orationis '  is  the  special  term  which  the  grammarians  employ  of 
the  composita,  which,  like  huiusce  modi,  istius  modi,  etc.,  are  known  to  be  such 
through  the  test  of  the  accentuation;  cf.  Scholl,  De  ace.,  p.  124  ff. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  65 

altogether  accurate,  so  far  at  least  as  regards  the  first  foot 
of  a  verse  or  colon  ;  and  since  we  can  scarcely  expect  that 
tribrach  groups  shall  be  treated  more  rigorously  in  this  respect 
than  tribrach  words,  it  is  important  to  state  the  usage  of  the 
iambic  poets  in  respect  to  the  first  foot  somewhat  more  fully 
than  is  done  by  Klotz,  Grnndz.,  p.  274  ff.,  or  by  Ritschl, 
Proleg.,  p.  ccxxv  ff.  The  evidence  is  conclusive  that  the 
Roman  poets  have  sometimes  admitted  in  tribrach  words  and 
in  words  ending  in  a  tribrach  the  accentuation  gentre  in  the 
first  foot  of  a  verse  or  colon,  although  far  more  rarely  and 
with  much  greater  hesitation  than  they  have  admitted  the 
accentuation  pcctore  in  the  same  place.  The  usage  of  the  later 
poets  may  be  found  in  L.  Miiller,  Res  Metr.,  p.  168 :  Seneca 
and  Prudentius  have  each  one  such  accentuation  of  the  tri- 
brach in  the  first  foot  (fngimus,  gen/re),  not  to  mention  the 
more  frequent  cases  in  less  careful  writers  such  as  Ausonius, 
Avienus,  Terentianus,  etc.  From  the  Christian  poets  also 
some  examples  have  been  collected  by  Hiimer,  Lateinisch- 
Christlichen  Rhythmen,  p.  27.  Examples  from  the  metrical 
inscriptions  are  given  by  Hodgman,  Harvard  Studies,  IX, 
p.  139,  i.e.  CLE.  67,  3  itdque ;  92,  3  Stefhdnc ;  211,  3  nimia. 

1  1  2 

Ahlberg  (De  proceleusmaticis  antiquae  poesis  lat.,  Lund,  1900, 
I,  p.  32)  accepts  the  accentuations  sequiminei  Merc.  782, 

mulie'iis  (first  foot  of  second  colon)  Most.  169,  Minerua,  Bacch. 

5  1 

893.  Hence,  even  in  cases  where  a  correction  would  involve 
little  textual  change,  it  appears  unnecessary  to  follow  Langen 
(Philologies,  XXXI,  p.  109),  and  recent  editors  in  emending 
Mil.  1 120  itdne  (GotJ^nd  Leo  :  itan\  Andr.  478  hlcine  (Umpf.: 
hie  inparatum),  Caecil.  com.  frgnt.  232  egdne  (retained  by 
Ribbeck3),  or  to  adopt  with  Scholl  a  change  of  order  in  Cas. 
564 :  hominem  amatorem  (cf.  Humphreys,  Trans.  Am.  Phil. 
Assoc.  VII  (1876),  p.  132  f.).1  Examples  in  other  feet  than 
the  first,  however,  are  so  rare  in  the  republican  and  early 
imperial  poetry  that  they  must  be  regarded  with  extreme  sus- 
picion and  are  commonly  removed  from  the  text  by  transpo- 

1  Add  also  Kicine,  Most.  507;  egdne,  Cure.  119  (in  cretic  verse;  GCtz,  egon); 
reprime,  Ace.  trag.  frgm.  381. 


66  Robert  S.  Radford.  [J9°3 

sitions,  yet  it  is  important  to  recognize  that  a  few  such  cases 
occur  in  our  Mss.  in  texts  otherwise  free  from  suspicion,  i.e. 
Most.  1 100  sere"re,  Men.  877  valtdus,  Andr.  596  corrige're,  Sen. 

64  4 

Med.  267  femin/d ;  see  also  Klotz,  Grundz.,  p.  274.     Quite 

2 

similar  to  the  treatment  of  tribrach  words  is  the  treatment  in 
iambic  verse  of  the  compound  phrases  (which  are  often  written 
as  one  word)  ending  in  a  tribrach  or  an  anapaest,  such  as 
adeo,  inibi,  veluti,  interibi,  intered,  intereos,  proptered,  prop- 
tereos,  etc.  According  to  the  ancient  orthography  these 
phrases  may  equally  well  be  written  separately,  i.e.  in  ibi,  ad 
eo,  inter  ibi,  inter  ed,  etc.  (see,  e.g.,  CIL.  I,  ind.  p.  609),  but 
so  far  as  concerns  the  accentuation,  they  apparently  never 
admit  of  separation  into  their  component  parts  (decomposi- 
tion), but  always  receive  the  metrical  accent  upon  the  ante- 
penult, i.e.  in  ibi,  dd  eo,  int/r  ibi,  inte"r  eos. 

B.  SECONDARY  ACCENTUATION.  —  I  have  so  far  discussed 
only  cases  of  the  primary  accent  in  tribrach  words,  and  students 
of  Latin  verse-accentuation  have  generally  been  content  to 
confine  their  treatment  to  these  cases.  Of  almost  equal  im- 
portance, however,  are  the  cases  of  tribrach  sequences  which 
involve  the  secondary  accent,  that  is,  in  which  the  syllables 
immediately  preceding  the  primary  accent  form  a  tribrach 
series,  as  cdldmitdtem,  mtseridnim,  fdmilidrem,  hlldrttudo,  etc. 
I  have  not  been  able  to  find  in  current  discussions  of  Latin 
verse-accentuation  any  treatment  of  cases  of  this  sort  except 
a  brief  reference  to  somewhat  similar  cases  in  an  article  by 
Lindsay,  Philol.,  LI  (1892),  p.  373  (footnote).  In  point  of 
fact  the  secondary  accent  in  calamitdtem  is  observed  almost 
as  strictly  by  the  Roman  dramatists  as  the  primary  accent 
in  ghiere.  Of  the  nearly  200  cases  of  this  kind  occur- 
ring in  Plautus,  the  secondary  accent  appears  to  be  disre- 
garded in  only  two  or  three,  e.g.  in  the  iambic  verse-close  of 
Mil.  562  mdltttost  tame'n  and  in  the  bacchiac  verse-opening 

45  6 

of  Cist.  3  dpZrtiistis .  [With  respect  to  the  latter  case  it  is 
possible,  but  not  especially  likely,  that  the  Latin  bacchius 
admits  the  accentuation  ^  ob  _L  instead  of  the  usual  wdo_^.; 
cf.  Christ,  Metr.,  p.  419  f.]  Terence  has  apparently  violated 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  67 

the  secondary  tribrach  accent  twice,  once  in  the  middle  of  the 

verse,  once  in  the  verse-close:  Andr.  941  cum  tud  rZlltfonc 

•  it 

odium;    Heaut.  906  8p?rfiere  ostiiim.      In  both  these  cases 

6  1 

other  scansions  than  those  which  I  have  adopted  are  possible, 
i.e.  religione,  opfrue're,  but  not  especially  probable  (cf.  Hauler, 
Einl.  P/iorm.,  p.  543).  The  elision  of  the  final  syllable  in 
both  cases  prevents  a  double  conflict  and  apparently  renders 
the  single  conflict  somewhat  less  harsh,  but  is  far  from  pro- 
ducing a  recession  of  the  accent,  i.e.  religion(e\  as  has  some- 
times been  supposed.  It  must  be  added  that  editors  of  Terence 
have  not  always  sufficiently  regarded  this  secondary  accent 
in  their  conjectures ;  thus  the  reading  facilitat(em)  has  been 
adopted  by  all  recent  editors  except  Umpfenbach  in  Andr. 
232  instead  of  the  Ms.  faci'ilfatem,  but  is  wholly  inadmissible 
in  view  of  the  unusual  conflict,  and  the  same  is  true  of 
Fleckeisen's  conjecture  cupiditat(e\  Heaut.  208.  Finally,  this 
accentuation  occurs  once  in  the  first  foot  of  Saturnian  verse, 
if  the  quantitative  view  of  the  Saturnian  be  correct,  i.e.  Naev. 
109  (Havet)  Sicilicn s/s  paciscit. 

We  may  sum  up  the  conclusions  which  we  have  reached 
as  follows :  In  words  and  compound  phrases  forming  a  tri- 
brach such  as  genere,  inibi  (in  ibi\  etc.,  the  grammatical 
accent  is  in  rare  instances  disregarded  in  the  first  foot  of  a 
verse  or  colon ;  there  are  also  a  very  few  cases,  chiefly  in  the 
first  foot  or  the  verse-close,  of  the  disregard  of  a  secondary 
tribrach  accent  in  words  like  caldmttdtcm.  It  is  evident  that 
in  any  tribrach  worel^roups  which  we  may  discover  to  exist 
the  same  licenses  will  be  admitted.  It  only  remains  to  note 
briefly  that  the  treatment  of  syllable-groups  forming  a  dactyl 
(_  ^  w)  is  considerably  less  strict ;  that  in  dactylic  words  such 
as  pectore  a  primary  grammatical  accent  is  rather  freely  dis- 
regarded in  the  first  foot  and  occasionally  disregarded  in  the 
other  feet  (cf.  Klotz,  Grundz.,  p.  274  ff.);  further,  that  a 
secondary  dactylic  accent,  such  as  that  of  commodltdtcs,  was 
rather  freely  disregarded  by  the  Roman  iambic  poets  prior  to 
the  time  of  Phaedrus  l  in  their  strenuous  endeavors  to  form 

1  Phaedrus  has  avoided  these  accentuations  almost  entirely;  compare,  how- 
ever, in  the  verse-close  App.  21,  12:  detinnisti  pedes. 

4  56 


68  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

legitimate  iambic  and  trochaic  verse-closes  —  thus  in  the 
verse-close,  with  harsh  double-conflict :  Andr.  569  at  si  cor- 
rigitur,  quot  commodities  vide  ;  Phonn.  843  ;  cf .  284 ;  cf . 
676;  Hec.  122 ;  Ad.  880;  Pacuv.  trag.  frgm.  164  R. ;  id.  inc. 
LIV  R.,  etc.  —  also  occasionally  in  middle  of  verse,  with  eli- 
sion of  final  syllable,  i.e.  with  single  conflict :  Andr.  844 ; 
Hec.  797 ;  Laber.  com.  frgin.  113  R. ;  Af ran.  com.  frgm.  7, 
etc. ;  finally,  we  may  note  that  dactylic  compound  phrases 
such  as  attamen,  quomodo,  nescw,  and  obviam  admit  to  a 
certain  extent  —  most  often  in  the  first  foot  —  of  being  treated 
as  two  words  through  decomposition,  i.e.  at  tdmen,  quo  modo, 
ne  scio,  ob  viam  (cf.  Klotz,  Grundz.,  p.  276;  Ritschl,  Pro/eg., 
p.  ccxxxvii ;  Skutsch,  Forsch.,  p.  158).  The  reason  for  the 
difference  of  treatment  in  the  verse-accentuation  of  tribrach 
and  dactylic  words  need  not  be  discussed  here  (compare, 
however,  Klotz,  Grundz.,  p.  278  f .) ;  I  shall  only  remark  in 
conclusion  that,  owing  to  the  decomposition  (recomposition) 
which  is  admitted  even  in  the  most  frequently  occurring  dac- 
tylic composita,  it  is  not  possible  for  us  to  employ  as  rigorous 
tests  for  the  determination  of  the  regular  accent  of  dactylic 
groups  (_,  ^  w)  as  can  be  employed  in  the  case  of  tribrach 
groups  (w,  w  w). 

II.   COMPARISON  WITH  GREEK  VERSE. 

It  is  evident  that  if,  in  pursuing  this  investigation,  we  shall 
find  the  Latin  tribrach  group  accented  either  wholly  or  in 
very  large  part  upon  the  initial  syllable,  i.e.  sed  agit,  the 
question  will  still  present  itself,  whether,  after  all,  there  is 
not  some  reason  in  the  special  kind  of  iambic  or  trochaic 
verse,  some  reason  in  the  placing  of  the  caesurae  for  the  non- 
occurrence  of  the  accentuation  sed-dgit.  With  this  question 
in  view,  I  have  examined  about  1500  Greek  iambic  and  tro- 
chaic verses  in  Philemon  and  Aristophanes,  and  I  find  that 
in  Greek,  where  the  influence  of  the  stress-accent  does  not 
exist,  the  two  accentuations  occur  with  equal  frequency  in 
trochaic  verse  and  in  the  longer  iambic  verses,  in  500  verses 
of  this  sort  the  metrical  accent  falling  9  times  upon  the  sec- 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  69 

ond  syllable  and  an  equal  number  of  times  upon  the  initial 
syllable,  while  in  the  iambic  trimeter  the  accent  upon  the 
second  syllable  bears  to  the  initial  accent  the  ratio  approxi- 
mately of  2  :  3.1  Thus  the  trimeter  alone  is  found  to  be  some- 
what more  favorable  in  its  structure  to  the  initial  accent  for 
the  reason  that  of  its  two  chief  caesurae  the  semiquinaria  is 
more  frequent  than  the  semiseptenaria.  The  two  most  com- 
mon forms  of  a  Greek  trimeter  containing  one  of  these 
trisyllabic  groups  may  be  seen  from  the  following  verses: 

Phil./rgm.  go,  I   (Kock)  :   /ze^w  ra  *aKa  jnxowri  |  iroXXoi,  S.Wora. 
Id./rgm.  90,  6  TWOVTO  yeycve  |  TO  KO.KOV  rf\iKov  trep  rjv. 

3 

The  results  obtained  through  an  examination  of  Greek 
verse  may  be  stated  in  detail  as  follows:  In  more  than  600 
iambic  trimeters  of  Philemon  the  ratio  of  the  medial  to  the 
initial  accent  is  12:  19;  the  medial  accent  occurs  in  frginm. 
31,  5  ;  44,  4 ;  60,  2 ;  79,  1 1  ;  88,  9 ;  89,  i  ;  90,  i  ;  90,  1 1  ; 
98,  i;  131  ;  207;  240.  In  450  trimeters  of  Aristophanes's 
Eqnites  (extending  through  v.  1025)  the  ratio  is  5:8;  the 
medial  accent  occurs  in  Eq.  124;  140;  202;  482;  938.  In 
150  iambic  tetrameters  of  Aristophanes  the  ratio  is  4:4;  the 
medial  accent  occurs  Eq.  338;  433;  859;  899.  In  350  tro- 
chaic tetrameters  and  dimeters  of  Aristophanes  (Nub.,  Eq., 
Ran.,  Av.)  the  ratio  is  5:5;  the  medial  accent  occurs  Eq. 
280;  Av.28o;  388;  396;  790.  In  the  1 500  verses  examined 
the  medial  accent  occurs  26  times,  the  initial  accent  36  times. 
In  making  the  count^cases  of  the  secondary  accent,  such  as 
Phil.frgm.  100,  2,  rt<?  eXdXrjaev,  were  estimated  according  to 
the  Latin  accent-law.  A  distinction  was  also  made  between 
real  and  apparent  trisyllabic  groups,  e.g.  in  Phil.  frgm.  7,  i 
jap  CTTI  TO  pr)(J<',  the  preposition  ejri  is,  of  course,  proclitic, 
and  the  first  part  of  the  resulting  group,  yap  eTrl-ro  prjf^a,  is 
not  trisyllabic  but  quadrisyllable.  We  may  conclude,  I  think, 
from  these  statistics  that  in  respect  to  the  placing  of  the 
metrical  accent  upon  the  first  or  the  second  syllable  of  such 

1  This  ratio  will  hold  good  approximately  for  all  the  trimeters  of  the  Middle 
and  New  Comedy  according  to  the  references  given  by  Perschinka,  De  med.  et  nn: 
com.  trim,  iamb.,  Dissert.  Philol.  Vindob.  Ill,  330  ff. 


7<D  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

phrases  as  pa  Alia,  TT/SO?  e'/te,  Ta  /ca/ca  the  Greek  is  absolutely 
indifferent,  as  it  is  upon  the  whole  indifferent  in  the  accentua- 
tion of  the  tribrach  word.1 

III.    SUMMARY  OF  TERENTIAN  USAGE, 

The  same  test  yields  very  different  results  when  applied  to 
the  Latin  poets.  The  accentuation  of  all  the  tribrach  groups 
occurring  in  Terence  is  given  in  detail  in  a  later  section  of 
this  paper  (p.  78  ff.),  but  since  I  wish,  before  proceeding 
farther,  to  discuss  the  origin  and  the  effects  of  this  accentua- 
tion, I  shall  here  briefly  summarize  the  results  obtained  in 
the  fuller  discussion.  There  are  in  Terence  176  certain  or 
highly  probable  cases  of  tribrach  (trisyllabic)  groups  of  the 
form  w,  w  ^  which  show  the  initial  accent,  3  certain  cases  of 
tribrach  groups  which  show  the  medial  accent,  and  half  a 
dozen  cases  in  which  the  accentuation  is  ambiguous  (see 
p.  82  f.,  p.  85).  We  may  estimate  the  ratio  of  the  initial  to 
the  medial  accent  to  be  about  40:  I,  and  we  shall  be  justified 
in  concluding  that  the  former  accentuation  alone  has  been 
known  to  the  spoken  language  of  the  republican  period.  With 
quadrisyllable  groups  of  the  form  w,  w  ^  w  the  case  is  some- 
what different ;  in  these  groups  the  accent  has  vacillated  in  the 
republican  period  between  the  first  and  the  second  syllables. 
Yet  since  the  recessive  force  of  the  accent  is  seen  to  be 
much  less  in  quadrisyllabic  words,  which  are  accented  either 
generibus  or  gen^ribus^  than  in  trisyllabic  words,  which  are 
accented  only  gtnere,  and  since  consequently  the  force  of  the 
recession  is  insufficient  to  overcome  entirely  the  slight  pause 
which  falls  between  the  monosyllable  and  the  following  word, 

1  According   to    F.   Hanssen,  " Ueber  den   griech.   Wortictus,"  J\hein.  Mus. 
XXXVII  (1882),  p.  258 ff.  (cf.  also  Havet,  Cours  elem.  ite  metr.,  p.  Il6f.)  Greek 
tragedy  is  not  wholly  indifferent  in   tribrach  words;   on  the  other  hand,  Greek 
comedy  is  altogether  indifferent,  according  to   Humphreys,    Trans.  Am.  Phil. 
Assoc.  VII  (1876),  p.  133;   Klotz,  Grundz.,  p.  269 f.;  Perschinka,  /./.,  p.  330  ff. 

2  According  to  the  valuable  data  furnished  by  Professor  Humphreys,  who, 
after  a  comparison  of  Greek  usage,  has  made  the  necessary  corrections  for  the 
influence  of  the  verse-form  (Trans.  Am.  Phil.  Assoc.  VII,  p.   137),  the  accent 
generibus  has  been  from  three  to  five  times  as  frequent  in  the  actual  speech  of  the 
republican  period  as  the  accent  generibus. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  7 1 

the  more  usual  accentuation  of  the  quadrisyllable  groups  has 
been  that  of  the  second  syllable,  i.e.  scd  hdmines,  although 
the  initial  accent,  se'd  homines,  appears  also  to  have  been  in 
current  use. 

It  is  chiefly  through  the  tendency  of  the  monosyllables  to 
coalesce  in  pronunciation  with  the  following  word  that  trisyl- 
labic groups  have  been  formed  in  Latin  and  have  received 
re-accentuation  in  accordance  with  the  three-syllable  or  the 
earlier  initial  accent  law.  As  has  already  been  indicated, 
the  pause  that  divides  a  word  of  one  or  two  morae  from  the 
following  word  may  be  shown  by  numerous  metrical  tests  to 
be  extremely  brief  in  a  quantitative  language  like  the  Latin  ; 
yet,  even  with  the  diminishing  pause,  a  recession  of  the  accent 
cannot  easily  arise  without  a  fixed  or  usual  order  of  words. 
Hence,  if,  as  appears  to  be  the  case,  a  general  recession  of 
the  accent  has  taken  place  in  these  groups,  this  must  be  due 
to  the  analogy  of  the  many  phrases  which  have  acquired  a 
fixed  order.  We  may  suppose  that  the  analogy  of  the 
numerous  verbal  compounds  with  monosyllabic  prepositions, 
such  as  abeo,  ineo,pereo,  subeo,  has  first  exerted  its  influence 
and  led  to  the  recession  of  the  accent  in  all  the  trisyllabic 
locutions  of  fixed  form  or  frequent  occurrence.  The  latter, 
the  fixed  locutions,  are  indeed  very  numerous ;  thus  with 
enim  alone  we  have  et  enim,  at  enim,  sed  enim,  ncqne  enim, 
quid  en im,  quod  enim,  quia  enim,  ego  enim,  etc.,  all  of  which 
are  virtual  composita  and  in  very  frequent  use.  Again,  in 
consequence  of  the  ^les  of  word-position  by  which  the  per- 
sonal and  demonstrative  pronouns  are  attached  in  the  sen- 
tence directly  to  prepositive  conjunctions,  to  interrogative 
words  and  affirmative  particles,  a  multitude  of  fixed  locutions 
arise  containing  ego  and  the  various  forms  of  is ;  i.e.  et  ego 
(Seyffert,  Stud.  Plant.,  p.  12),  nam  ego  (ibid.,  p.  20),  pol  ego 
(Kellerhoff,  Student.  Stud.,  II,  p.  60  ff.),  quid  ego  (Kampf, 
Pronom.  Personal.,  p.  31  f.),  quod  ego  (ibid.,  p.  33),  at  ego, 
sed  ego,  dum  ego,  ubi  ego,  etc. ;  at  ea,  et  ea,  sed  enm,  at  enm 
ad  enm,  in  eum,  ab  eo,  quid  eo,  etc. ;  with  homo  also  we  have 
the  frequent  phrases  hie  homo,  is  homo,  quis  homo,  qui  homo, 
etc.  In  short,  of  the  180  cases  of  the  tribrach  group  found 


72  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

in  Terence,  nearly  two-thirds  occur  apparently  in  fixed  locu- 
tions of  this  character.  Finally,  the  analogy  of  the  fixed 
locutions  is  followed  by  the  merely  fugitive  and  infrequent 
combinations,  i.e.  the  analogy  of  quid  agit  and  idagit  is  fol- 
lowed by  sed  agit,  and  the  accentual  group  in  its  developed 
form  does  not  apparently  require  the  closest  possible  connec- 
tion in  sense,  provided  always  that  the  single  words  involved 
belong  to  the  same  clause.  Thus  we  have  not  only  the  fre- 
quent phrases  quid  ais  and  tit  ais,  but  also  Phorm.  380  quern 
ami'cum  tiiom  ais  f ui'sse,  and  not  only  the  frequent  phrase  ubi 
erit,  but  also  Hcc.  474  me'o  erit  ingenio. 

Lindsay  (Lat.  Lang.,  p.  167  ff.,  and  Journal  of  Philology, 
XX,  150  ff.)  and  Skutsch  (Forsch.,  p.  157  ff.),  in  treating  the 
sentence-accentuation  in  Plautus  and  Terence,  have  already 
discussed  at  length  the  proclisis  of  the  Latin  prepositions, 
but  they  have  overlooked  the  similar  proclisis  1  of  the  mono- 
syllabic conjunctions  and  adverbs.  Yet  the  proclitic  charac- 
ter of  the  Latin  monosyllables,  as  a  class,  has  always  been 
recognized  in  a  general  way  by  Latin  metricians,  and  has 
often  been  invoked  in  the  explanation  of  special  rules  of 
Latin  prosody;  see  L.  M tiller,  Res  Metr?,  pp.  164-170, 
460-467;  Ritschl,  Proleg.,  pp.  ccxiii,  ccxxxiii,  etc.;  Podi- 
aski,  Quomodo  Tcrentius  in  tetrametris  iambicis  et  trochaicis, 
etc.,  pp.  7,  10,  etc.;  O.  Brugman,  Quemadmodum  in  iambico 
senario,  etc.,  p.  18;  Kohler,  De  verb.  ace.  in  troch.  sept.  Plant., 
p.  29;  cf.  Weil  et  Benloew,  L' Accentuation  lat.,  p.  56,  and 
Corssen,  Ausspr.,  II2,  862  ff.  The  Roman  grammarians  also 
recognize  no  distinction  in  character  between  the  prepositions 
and  other  monosyllabic  words,  as  the  testimony  of  Audax, 
quoted  above  (p.  64),  clearly  shows.  Finally,  the  Latin 
iambic  poets  of  the  classical  period,  when  admitting  a  short 
monosyllable  to  form  part  of  the  resolved  arsis,2  treat  the 

1  I  do  not  forget  in  making  this  statement  that  many  German  scholars  employ 
'  enclisis'  as  a  general  term  for  word-grouping  (Tonanschluss),  and  avoid  entirely 
the  use  of  the  term  '  proclisis,'  which,  as  is  well  known,  is  not  of  ancient  origin, 
but  a  coinage  of  G.  Hermann's.     On  my  own  account  I  have  not  hesitated  to 
employ  'proclisis,'  after  observing  the  general  use  of  the  term  among  Romance 
scholars. 

2  By  '  arsis '  is  meant  the  strong,  or  accented  part  of  the  foot. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  73 

prepositions  and  conjunctions  precisely  alike ;  i.e.  they  use 
in-amore  and  ft-amore,  with  equal  frequency,  as  quasi-quad- 
risyllabic  words;  for  examples,  see  B.  Schmidt,  De  Senccae 
tragg.  rationibus  prosodiacis  et  mctricis,  p.  46  f . 

In  saying  that  the  Latin  monosyllables  are  regularly  pro- 
clitic, I  do  not  mean  to  deny  that  there  are  many  single 
phrases  in  which  monosyllabic  words  have  acquired  an  en- 
clitic use  through  the  observance  of  some  fixed  order.  Such 
phrases  are  nescio  quis  (iicscioquis\  nisi  si  (nisist),  simttl  ac 
(simulac\  ctiam  mine  (etiamnnnc),  and  the  like,  a  fuller  enu- 
meration of  which  may  be  found  in  Corssen,  Aussfr.,  II2,  835- 
86 1.  Especially  frequent  in  these  phrases  is  the  quantitative 
type  w  w,  c;,  which,  by  an  extension  of  usage,  seems  some- 
times to  be  pronounced  as  a  single  word  in  the  caesurae  of 
the  chief  Latin  verses,  on  the  basis  of  the  form  alone.  Impor- 
tant as  these  enclitic  phrases  are,  they  constitute  a  very  small 
part  of  the  total  use  of  monosyllabic  words.  The  parts  of 
the  substantive  verb  are  also  regularly  enclitic;  compare  the 
frequent  writing  amatast,  amatumst  in  our  Mss.  Hence,  it 
is  necessary  to  distinguish  carefully  between  the  groups  quid 
opus  alone  and  quid  opus-est.  The  first  is  trisyllabic  {quid 
opus) ;  the  second  is  quadrisyllable,  and  has  a  variable  accent 
(quid  opus-est  or  quid  6pus-est\  just  as  we  have  found  the 
accent  to  vary  in  quid  agitur  and  sed  homines.  The  case  is 
similar  with  et  ego  or  at  ita  alone,  and  the  fuller  combinations 
et  ego-me  or  at  ita-me.^L 

According  to  the  view  here  adopted,  trisyllabic  groups, 
such  as  sed  enim,  sed  ego,  sed  homo,  etc.,  have  originally 
arisen  through  the  proclisis  of  the  monosyllable,  but  with 
the  result  that  a  dissyllable  with  short  penult  has  practically 
become  enclitic  whenever  a  monosyllable  precedes.  This 
explanation  may  appear  at  first  to  be  somewhat  at  variance 
with  the  results  reached  by  Wackernagel  in  his  extremely 
valuable  and  comprehensive  article,  "  Ueber  ein  Gesetz 
der  Indogermanischen  Wortstellung,"  Indogerman.  Forsch.,  I 
(1891),  p.  333  ff.  In  the  part  of  this  article  devoted  to  the 
Latin  word-order  (p.  406  ff.1),  Wackernagel  has  shown,  with 

1  See,  also,  the  summary  in  Stolz,  Histor.  Gramm.  d.  lat.  Spr.,  I,  p.  105. 


74  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

great  completeness,  that  the  Latin  personal  and  demonstra- 
tive pronouns  manifest  a  strong  tendency  to  occupy  the 
second  place  in  the  sentence,  —  a  place  which  is  not  only 
commonly  occupied,  in  Latin,  by  such  unemphatic  words  as 
enim,  quidem,  etc.,  but  which  is  associated,  in  most  of  the 
Indo-European  languages,  with  accentual  weakness,  or  encli- 
sis.  It  follows  that  the  personal  and  demonstrative  pronouns 
are  enclitic  whenever  they  follow  the  prepositive  conjunctions, 
as  well  as  in  some  other  cases.  While  it  did  not  fall  within 
the  scope  of  his  article  to  treat  the  verse-accent  of  the  early 
Latin  poets,  Wackernagel  has  clearly  demonstrated,  in  sub- 
stance, that  at  some  period  of  the  Latin  language  the  initial 
accent  existed  in  many  of  the  groups  which  we  are  now  dis- 
cussing, viz.  sed  ego,  std  eitm,  quid  eo,  etc.,  as  well  as  sed  tuy 
se"d  mihi,  and  the  like.  I  gladly  recognize  the  great  value  of 
Wackernagel's  independent  proof  of  the  fact,  but  in  respect 
to  the  process,  although  he  has  found  it  convenient  to  employ 
the  term  '  enclisis '  throughout,  I  cannot  see  that  his  results 
are  necessarily  opposed  to  the  account  which  I  have  just 
given.  In  the  first  place,  in  a  very  large  number  of  the 
trisyllabic  groups  which  we  are  now  discussing,  the  weakly 
accented  word  does  not,  as  a  rule,  occupy  the  second  position 
in  the  sentence,  i.e.  dd  eum,  dd  emm,  tibi  ego,  sat  erat,  turn 
agam,  hie  homo,  etc.,  so  that  no  theory  of  enclisis  will  apply 
to  these  cases.  Secondly,  the  personal  and  demonstrative 
pronouns,  being  usually  employed  without  emphasis,  are 
more  or  less  weakly  accented  in  all  parts  of  the  sentence; 
hence  they  naturally  gravitate  to  the  second,  or  enclitic  posi- 
tion, which  is,  however,  rather  to  be  considered  a  proof  than 
a  cause  of  their  weakness.  In  view,  of  these  considerations  it 
seems  probable  that  the  initial  accent  has  arisen  in  the  man- 
ner already  described,  although  it  is  not  to  be  denied  that  in 
some  cases  word-grouping  through  enclisis  may  also  have  op- 
erated, and  the  two  processes  may  have  gone  on  side  by  side. 
In  any  case  the  results  are  clear  enough.  The  mono- 
syllables which  are,  as  a  rule,  atonic,  often  acquire  the 
accent  of  the  word-groups  into  which  they  enter,  as  in  se"d- 
homo,  std-homines,  and  with  the  accent  they  acquire  the 


Vol.  xxxiv.] 


Latin  Monosyllables. 


75 


power  of  shortening  a  following  unaccented  syllable,  as  in 
se"d-ha?c,  std-arghiti.  Groups  containing  the  pronouns  ille, 
iste,  ipse,  and  other  weakly  accented  words,  such  as  nndc* 
omnis,  esse,  eccnm,  hercle,  ergo,  etc.,  often  adopt  a  similar 
accentuation;  thus,  on  the  analogy  of  std  ego,  se"d  fa,  se"d 
enm,  we  have  sed  tins,  se"d  Ilia,  se"d  fstum;2  on  the  analogy 
of  std  age,  s/d  enim,  we  have  std  trgo,  etc.  Through  false 
analogy  the  popular  pronunciation  sometimes  gave  to  the 
monosyllable  an  accent  incorrectly  and,  consequently,  dis- 
regarded a  genuine  grammatical  accent,  as  we  may  see  from 
accentuations  like  se"d  iixor,  pe"r  hortum,  which  are  occasion- 
ally admitted  by  Plautus.  Cases  of  this  last  kind  are  very 
rare  in  Terence;  Spengel  cites  only  e"ho  obsccro  (Andr.  781), 

3 

quod  interest  (Eun.  233);  cf.  s/d  interim  (Eun.  607;  Meant. 

1  3 

882(1));  tuam  mveniri  (Andr.  939). 

3 

The  following  table  will  serve  to  show  at  a  glance  the 
manner  in  which  the  syllable-shortening  arises: 


WORDS. 

WORD-GROUPS. 

SHORTENING 
BY  ANALOGY. 

Dissyllabic 

erus 
dgit 

sed  hie 
tlbi  amicus 

sed  hate 
fibi  drgenti 

Trisyllabic 

< 
genere 

sed  ea 
qudd  enim 
qut  erit 
quid  habuisset 
quid  opus 

std  Ilia 
qudd  lius 
ita  Usse 
tuam  Inveniri 
ut  2x-me 

Quadrisyllable 

generibus 

quid  opus-est 
sed  etiam 
qut  homines 

se"d  dbsecro  * 
sed  Interim 
quid  Interest 

*  All  such  cases  as  sed  obsecro,  in  which  a  trisyllabic  word  of  this  kind  is  short- 
ened after  a  monosyllable,  are  due  to  "  false  analogy." 

1  The  examples  here  used  are  taken  from  Spengel,  Einleit.  Andria,  p.  xxviii  ff. 

2  Compare  Ahlberg,  Procel.,  p.  49 :  Haec  vocabula  cum  vocabulo  praecedenti 
proxime  coniuncta  quasi  enclitica  fiunt :  et  ipsus,  ut  ifsus,  sid  eccum.    This  is  a 
statement  of  the  result,  not  of  the  process :  a  special  form  of  accentuation,  so 


76  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

The  question  may  well  be  asked  at  this  point,  What  is  the 
accentuation  of  trisyllabic  groups  formed  by  long  monosylla- 
bles, i.e.  groups  of  the  form  _,  v/  w  ?  Such  groups  are  not 
in  all  respects  similar  to  tribrach  groups,  for  the  reason  that 
a  somewhat  longer  pause  ('  latens  tempusj  Quintil.  IX,  4,  98) 
falls  after  a  long  monosyllable  than  after  a  short ;  hence  the 
long  monosyllable  possesses  a  greater  independence ;  compare 
also  the  accent  gtneribus  with  exJiibeas.  I  propose  to  discuss 
the  accent  of  these  groups  in  full  elsewhere;  it  will  be  suf- 
ficient to  point  out  here  that  the  initial  accent  is  the  usual, 
though  not  the  sole,  form  of  pronunciation  for  the  republican 
period.  Thus  Plautus  and  Terence  have  only  hoc  age  in  the 
middle  of  the  verse,  although  hoc  age  is  very  frequently  em- 
ployed in  the  first  foot  (cf.  p.  68,  above);  in  addition,  hdc 
age  has  always  been  admitted  by  the  Roman  poets  in  the 
accentual  fifth  foot  of  the  hexameter.  The  recessive  accentu- 
ation has  already  been  shown  by  Lindsay  and  Skutsch  to  be 
the  rule  in  such  prepositional  groups  as  in  rein,  in  mare,  in 
locum ;  it  is  the  rule  also  in  groups  like  at  tu,  sed  tamen, 
et  tibi. 

IV.   ADDITIONAL  METRICAL  TESTS. 

The  metrical  test  which  has  already  been  described  may  be 
applied  in  a  somewhat  different  and  perhaps  a  still  more 
striking  form.  The  application  to  which  I  refer  consists  in 
observing  the  formation  of  the  proceleusmatic  feet.  The 
iambic  proceleusmaticus  consists  of  four  shorts  arranged  in 
pairs,  the  two  pairs  being  contained  as  a  rule  in  separate 
words,  e.g.  vides  hodie,  ego  tibi,  and  it  involves,  as  is  well 
known,  a  regular  agreement  of  verse  and  word  accent. 
Fortunately,  by  means  of  the  valuable  collection  which  has 
been  made  for  an  entirely  different  purpose  by  Ahlberg,  De 

contrary  to  the  general  law  of  the  Latin  accent,  can  only  have  arisen  through 
some  widespread  and  powerful  analogy.  Yet  perhaps  we  have  no  right  to  assume 
in  the  first  place  that  in  the  genuine  Roman  language  two  consonants  produce 
definite  length  in  unaccented  or  in  weakly  accented  syllables,  unaccented  syllables 
being  those  which  have  neither  a  genuine  primary  word-accent  nor  a  metrical 
accent;  cf.  Leo,  Plautin,  Forsch.,  p.  291;  Corssen,  Ausspr.  II,2  p.  618  ff. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  77 

proceleusmaticis,  I,  p.  131  ff.,  we  can  readily  examine  the 
formation  of  all  the  iambic  proceleusmatici  which  occur  in 
the  dramatic  poets  of  the  republic.  In  Ahlberg's  collection 
we  find  forty-two  examples  of  the  type  vides  db  ea  (inclusive 
of  nine  examples  which  involve  syllable-shortening,  as  in  rogat 
tit  Ilium),  but  of  the  type  sed  ab  ta  we  find  only  a  single  case, 
i.e.  Cist.  594  ego  addnnm,  which  maybe  excused  by  the  license 
of  the  first  foot,  cf .  p.  65,  above.1  Hence  proceleusmatici  of  the 
types  sed  ab  fa,  id  nt  e"rus,  et  homo  ubi,  neqne  ego  dmo  are  evi- 
dently avoided  by  the  iambic  poets,  although  in  these  assumed 
types  the  thesis  is  formed  in  a  thoroughly  legitimate  manner 
(see  Ahlberg,  /./.,  I,  ioff.),  and  although  the  dissyllabic  arsis 
also  is  one  of  the  most  usual  forms,  see  ibid.,  p.  23.  Hence, 
since  neither  the  assumed  formation  of  the  thesis  is  avoided 
taken  separately  nor  that  of  the  arsis  taken  separately,  it 
is  clear  that  the  avoidance  of  these  types  is  due  to  the  effect 
produced  by  the  two  formations  when  occurring  together, 
and  this  effect  is  none  other  than  the  false  accent  sed  ab  /a, 
neque  ego  dmo.  The  twelve  examples  of  the  type  vides  db  ea 
cited  by  Ahlberg  from  Terence  are  as  follows  —  from  the 
iambic  trimeter  (/./.,  p.  I35f.):  Andr.  737  ego  quid  agas; 
Heaut.  872  ego  domi  ero ;  Phorm.  98  ea  si'ta  erat(see  Ahlberg, 
p.  156);  Eun.  509  video  ab  ea;  Phorm.  48  alio,  ubi  erit;  — 
from  the  iambic  sept,  and  oct^(p.  140  f.):  Phorm.  491  capiti.  || 
idem  ego;  Eun.  309  modo  quod  ames ;  Ad.  192  si  ego  tibi 
illam;  —  from  the  trochaic  sept.  (p.  149  f.):  Phorm.  346  vide 
quid  agas ;  Heaut.  966  tibi  qui  erat ;  Eun.  224  vide  quid  agas ; 
—  from  the  trochaic  oct.  (p.  151):  Eun.  618  rogat  lit  ilium. 
Similar  examples  from  Plautus  and  the  dramatic  fragments 
are:  Bacch.  508;  Men.  70;  Mil.  136;  Stich.  419;  Poen.  693; 
Enn.  trag.  frgm.  297;  Fab.  tog.  Titin.  98;  Mil.  1257;  1276; 
Asin.  430;  Most.  176;  True.  131;  Poen.  818;  True.  581; 

1  Only  apparent  exceptions  are  offered  by  Naev.  com.  frgm.  21  quis  heri  apucl 
te,  and  by  ScholPs  text  of  True.  693  isquidem  hie  apud  nos  (Mss. :  apud  nos  est 
hie),  since  dpud-te,  dpud-nos  are  really  trisyllabic.  Only  apparent  also  is 
the  exception  Epid.  593  ndmquid  ego  ibi,  where  the  real  division  is  num  quid- 
ego  fbi  (see  p.  84,  p.  98,  below).  On  the  other  hand,  extremely  doubtful  even  in  the 
first  foot  is  such  a  procel.  as  Fleck,  reads  with  the  Calliopian  Mss.  in  Heaut.  93-1 : 
et  id  erit,  where  Umpf.  and  Dz.  read  with  A  post,  et  id. 


78  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 


Mil.  994;  Rud.  731  ;  True.  879;  Aid.  734;  J5^;V/.  641  ;  Men. 
162;  J/<wA  305;  833;  Pers.  832;  C?//.  461;  Cure.  160;  170; 
7W».  715;  Amph.  748;  Pacuv.  trag.  frgm.  99;  Pseud.  1283. 
The  Latin  accentuation  of  .$•<?*/  tfgV/  as  a  single  word  is  also 
made  probable  by  some  of  the  general  rules  of  Latin  prosody. 
Two  of  these  may  be  mentioned  here  :  (i)  the  absence  of  a 
full  or  genuine  word-end  within  the  trisyllabic  group  is  shown 
by  its  admission  in  all  the  uneven  feet  (see  p.  92,  below)  to 
form  the  iambic  anapaest,  i.e.  sed  agiint,  since  the  thesis  of 
this  shortened,  this  exceptionally  swift  anapaest  does  not 
in  general  admit  division  by  a  word-end  ;  see  Ritschl,  Proleg., 
p.  ccxxxvii;  Klotz,  Grundz.,  p.  3O7.1  (2)  The  general  law  of 
Latin  prosody  against  the  placing  of  monosyllables  before  the 
pauses  is  evidently  based  upon  their  proclitic  character  ;  for  it 
is  a  rule  of  the  Graeco-Roman  poetry  that  a  full  word-end 
must  fall  at  the  end  of  a  metrical  period  (Rossbach-West- 
phal,  Metr.  II2,  p.  106),  and  such  a  word-end  scarcely  falls  in 
Latin  within  a  complex  like  si-bona. 

V.   TERENTIAN  USAGE  IN  DETAIL. 

It  seems  desirable  to  explain  clearly  the  system  of  meas- 
urements upon  which  the  following  statistics  for  the  accentua- 
tion of  tribrach  groups  in  Terence  are  based.  In  cases  which 
involve  a  primary  accent,  such  as  id  agis,  the  measurement  of 
the  tribrach  requires  no  explanation,  but  in  cases  involving  a 
secondary  accent,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  secondary 
group  should  be  measured  from  the  place  of  the  primary 
grammatical  accent.  Thus  in  Eun.  931  :  mddo  &dules\centu- 
lus,  the  rule  is  not  violated  because  the  first  part  of  the  phrase 
is  quadrisyllable  when  estimated  from  the  place  of  the  pri- 
mary accent  in  adulesce'ntulus  ;  on  the  other  hand  hSmo  adii- 
lescens  (P/iorrn.  1041)  and  pol  ego  amator  (cf.  Eun.  936  cum 

1  The  metrical  law  of  Lachmann  and  Ritschl  which  forbids  the  divided  thesis 
of  the  anapaest,  etc.,  is  subjected  to  thoroughgoing  criticism  by  Maurenbrecher, 
Hiatus  und  Verschleifung  im  alt.  Lat.,  Leipzig,  1899,  p.  26  ff;  Maurenbrecher's 
careful  analysis  (/./.,  p.  31)  proves  only  that  the  law  is  not  one  of  absolute  validity, 
which  we  have  little  right  to  expect  it  to  be  in  the  case  of  poets  so  little  bound  by 
fixed  conventions  as  the  Roman  dramatists. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  79 

amatore)  are  the  only  admissible  accents  in  genuine  trisyllabic 
groups.  In  the  cases,  also,  where  the  last  member  of  a  tri- 
syllabic phrase  coalesces  through  elision  with  some  following 
word,  as  in  quid  2g(o)  hodie  (¥\&\\\..  Most.  531),  there  is  clearly 
no  violation  of  the  rule ;  for  this  phrase  may  be  considered 
as  made  up  not  of  quid  and  ego  alone  (quid-€go\  but  of  quid 
and  e"go-hodie  ;  cf.  Andr.  684  ubi  tibi  erit,  though  we  find  only 
ubi  ^lbi  alone.  Similarly  the  complex  character  of  the  follow- 
ing prepositional  phrases  with  apud  is  clear :  Andr.  254  mihi 
apud-forum ;  Heaut.  377  scio,  apud-patrem.  Finally  not 
every  chance  occurrence  of  the  forms  v,  ^  ±>  and  ^,  ^,  ^ 
constitutes  a  trisyllabic  sentence-group,  but  the  words  in- 
volved must  at  least  belong  to  the  same  clause  and  be 
connected  in  the  sentence-enunciation.  Where  the  words 
belong  to  different  clauses,  set  off  by  punctuation,  the 
rule  does  not  apply.  Hence  I  omit  from  these  statistics 
examples  both  (i)  of  the  form  w;  6  ^  and  (2)  of  the  form 
6;  w  ^,  viz.,  (i)  Eun.  630  fit,  ubi;  Heaut.  154  fit,  ubi ;  628*  1 
ego,  erus ;  Phorm.  1029  sic  dabo  :  age;  Hec.  610  pol.  f,  abi ; 
637  fit.  ||  ea;  Ad.  646  Quid?  ||  ego;  cf.  943  haecquidem. 
||  age;  946*  quid?  ||  6go  (Dziatzko);  982  da  modo.  ||  age. — 
(2)  Andr.  713  siqui'd.  ||  age;  Hcaut.  974  ego,  id  obesse ;  Eun. 
252  nego;  ait?;  cf.  381  sine.  ||  at  enim  istaec.  To  prac- 
tically the  same  head  should  be  referred  two  apparent  excep- 
tions in  which  the  monosyllable  is  closely  connected  with  the 
preceding  word  through  elision,  and  at  the  same  time  is 
separated  from  the  following  dissyllable  by  the  principal 
caesura,  e.g. : 

Eun.   512:   Ubi    ve"ni,   caiis(am),   ut  |  ibi    man£rem,    r£pperit. 
Ibid.  394  Triumphal.  ||  h6c  provis(o)  ut,  |  ubi  tempiis  stet. 

It  would  be  harsh  and  unnatural  in  these  examples  to  read 
ut  |  ibi,  ut  |  ubi  and  thus  place  a  caesura  within  the  short- 
ened anapaest ;  we  should  rather  consider  ut-ibi  as  separated 
by  a  species  of  tmesis  and  causam  ut  when  followed  by  the 
principal  caesura  as  equivalent  to  a  single  word  in  the  same 
manner  in  which  we  are  accustomed  to  read  well-known 

1  »  indicates  passages  where  the  text  is  uncertain  and  editors  are  at  variance. 


8o  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

Vergilian  lines  such  as  '  Multum  ille  et  \  terris,'  where  illet  is 
metrically  a  single  word ;  cf.  L.  Miiller,  Res  Metr.,  pp.  275, 
350.  In  conclusion  we  may  summarize  the  rule  for  measur- 
ing and  accenting  trisyllabic  groups  as  follows :  Any  three 
short  syllables,  the  first  of  which  is  a  monosyllable  or  a  dis- 
syllable reduced  to  a  monosyllable  by  elision,  receive  the  met- 
rical accent  only  upon  the  initial  syllable,  i.e.  6,  w  w  or  6,  ^>,  w, 
in  case  the  three  shorts  immediately  precede  a  fixed  word- 
accent  and  belong  to  the  same  clause. 

I  shall  consider  the  example  of  tribrach  groups  occurring 
in  Terence  under  the  following  divisions  :  A.  necessary  cases 
of  the  accentuation  se"d  agit  (with  2  subdivisions) :  B.  appar- 
ent exceptions,  such  as  at  ita  me,  quod  dpus  est :  C.  real  ex- 
ceptions attested  by  the  Mss.  transmission. 

A.  NECESSARY  CASES  OF  THE  ACCENT  SED  AGIT.  —  (a)  Cases 
in  which  the  quantity  of  the  final  syllable  is  certain  in  each  in- 
dividual case,  inclusive  of  the  cases  of  final  -s  not  making 
position  in  thesis.  Especially  noteworthy  are  the  phrases  se~d- 
agis,  agit,  aget,  age,  ea,  eris,  erit,  erus,  era,  ita,  opus,  ego 
opinor,  etc.  Cf.  quid  agis  Andr.  134;  Heaut.  947;  976; 
PJiorm.  216;  Ad.  60;  780;  —  quae  agis  Ad.  680;  —  sat  agit 
Heaut.  225  (Mss.  reading);  —  qui  aget  Phorm.  27;  —  age 
age  Heaut.  332  ;  722  ;  Phorm.  662  ;  Ad.  877.  In  Heaut.  611 
most  editors  read : 

*N6n  em6' :  quid  agis?  ||  Optata  16quere.  ||  Qui  ?  ||  Non  £st  opus. 

But  Fleck,  has  already  adopted  here  the  reading  of  the  best 
Mss.  of  the  Calliopian  recension,  viz.,  ages  D^1  (P  gis  in 
ras.\  on  the  ground  that  the  future  tense  is  better  suited  to 
the  sense,  cf.  v.  608  :  egon  ?  ad  Menedemum  ibo :  dicam. 
For  the  textual  corruption,  compare  especially  Ad.  343,  where 
all  Mss.  except  A  have  quid  agis  instead  of  the  quid  ages  re- 
quired by  the  sense.  [Note  further  quid  agis  Ace.  trag.frgm. 
191  R. ;  Lucil.  XXIX,  No.  31  M. ;  —  fd  agit  Enn.  trag.frgm. 
185  R. ;  —  quod  agis  Terentianus  Maurus  2368;  quid  dgts 
occurs  once  in  the  whole  Roman  literature  in  an  apparently 
sound  text,  viz.,  Sen.  Troad.  607  quid  dgis,  Uh'xe,  where  it 
may  be  explained  as  due  to  the  license  of  the  first  foot.  Ac- 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  8 1 

cording  to  the  references  for  agis  in  Lodge's  Lexicon  Plau- 
tinum  the  type  se"d  agis  is  found  in  Plautus  47  times  in  the 
following  phrases :  quid  agis  (28  times),  siqufd  agis  (6  times), 
quo  agis  (2),  tii  agis  (2),  te  agis  (3),  vf  agis  (i),  re"m  agis  (i), 
bene  agis  (i),  male  agis  (i),  quod  agis  (i),  fdagis  (i),  cf.  for 
the  last  Corp.  Gloss.  Lat.  II  761,  u,  12.  Plautus  also  has 
quid  agit  (3  times),  tiia  agit  (uxor)  (i),  satagit  (i);  the  cor- 
rupt texts  Aul.  658,  Mil.  81 1  are  omitted.  There  are  only  4 
passages  in  the  dramatists  in  which  the  scansion  quid  dgls  (in- 
stead of  quid  agis}  is  even  possible,  viz.  Rnd.  337  ;  Eun.  378  ; 
797;  Ace.  trag.frgm.  135  R. ;  three  of  these  cases  belong  to 
the  first  foot.  The  type  s/d  age  (references  in  Lodge,  Lex. 
Plant.}  occurs  in  Plautus  6  times  as  follows :  s£d  age  ( I ), 
age  age  (2),  rem  age  (i),  palam  age  (i),  tua  age  (i).] 

Andr.  337  nisi  ea;  837  ubi  ea;  Heant.  334  an  ea;  Phorm. 
480  quid  eum?  ||  Ut;  1015  sed  ea;  —  Andr.  420  tibi  erit; 
684  ubi  erit ;  Phorm.  889  datum  erit ;  Hec.  474  m£o  erit ;  — 
quid  ita  Andr.  371;  Eun.  366;  725;  861  ;  897;  959;  1008; 
Heaut.  610;  Phorm.  568; — Heaut.  874  neque  ita;  941  s£d 
ita;  Ad.  161  an  ita;  483  nisi  ita;  —  Phorm.  47  ubi  era;  634 
ut  erus ;  cf.  471  et  qui'dem  ere,  which  may,  however,  be  taken 
as  etqufdem  ere.  Umpf.  and  Dz.  read  tibi  e"re  Andr.  508,  but 
the  text  is  corrupt  and  the  order  much  confused  in  the  Mss. ; 
Fairclough  now  reads  tibi  ere,  Fleckeisen  tibi  rcnuntio,  tre. 
An  exception  might  seem  to  be  offered  also  by  Hcc.  799 : 

Edepol  n6  meam  erus  esse  6peram  d£putat  parvi  preti, 

but  we  need  not  hesitate  to  accept  here  the  order  which  is 
found  in  D  (and  also  in  F):  ee  ems,  i.e.  e"sse  erus.  [Note 
also  quo  erus  Pompon,  com.  frgm.  45  R.  According  to  a 
collection  of  examples  which  in  part  is  based  upon  the  Le- 
maire  Index  and  is,  therefore,  only  approximately  complete, 
Plautus  has  the  type  se"d  erus  (ere,  era}  31  times.  The  four 
passages  in  which  either  sed  erus  or  sed  erus  (with  length  by 
position)  is  possible,  are  to  be  read  according  to  the  latter 
scansion,  since  certain  cases  of  erus  are  not  rare  in  Plautus. 
The  accent  nisi  Srr/s  in  a  single  apparently  correct  text  (Poen. 
839)  may  be  explained  as  due  to  the  license  of  the  first  foot 


82  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

of  a  colon  (fifth  foot  of  the  septenarius).]  — quid  opus,  Andr. 
490;  Phorm.  762; —  PJwrm.  440  siqui'd  opus,  i.e.  si  quid 
opus;  654  sed  mi'hi  opus  (probable  scansion);  681  tibi  opus; 
716  ita  opus;  Ad.  996  quod  opus.  The  ambiguous  passage 
Eun.  223  si  sit  opus,  vel  totum  is  to  be  read  opus,  as  is  also 
Ad.  617  id  anus  mihi;  for  certain  cases  of  opus  in  Terence, 
see  Heaut.  80;  Ad.  254,  etc.  [Note  also  Afran.  com.  frgm. 
145  R.  fit  opus;  Titin.  com.  frgm.  4  R.  id  opus  ;  cf.  Pompon. 
com.  frgm.  66  R.  age  anus.  The  usage  of  Plautus  is  similar 
in  respect  both  to  opus  and  to  anus ;{  a  single  exception,  in 
opus  Vidul.  75,  is  due  to  the  license  of  the  first  foot.]  For 
apparent  exceptions  occurring  in  quid  opus-est  and  similar 
phrases  with  est,  see  p.  87,  below. 

Hec.  538  ut  ego  opi'nor ;  for  the  numerous  examples  of  this 
phrase  in  Plautus,  where  it  is  always  similarly  accented,  see 
Kampf,  Pronom.  Personal,  p.  4;  cf.  Andr.  179  neque  ut 
opinor ;  Eun.  22  quom  ibi  adessent ;  242  quae  habitudost ; 
522  quid  habuisset;  588  in  alienas ;  606  pol  ego  is  essem ; 
764  volo  ego  adesse  ;  926  quod  ei  amorem;  Heaut.  191  ad 
earn  in  urbem ;  592  tibi  opis ;  637  at  id  omitto ;  836  pro  ali- 
mentis  ;  Phorm.  94  mi'hi  onus  ;  cf.  175  ego  in  eum  incidi ;  332 
quia  enim  in  illis ;  412  ego  adipiscar;  509  quod  homo  inhu- 
manissumus;  531  s£d  utut ;  545  Geta  alienus ;  553  siqui'd 
opis;  1041  homo  adulescens ;  1046  quod  is  iubebit;  cf.  Ad. 
232  turn  agam  ubi 1  illinc.  {Total  73.) 

(/3)  Cases  in  which  the  quantities  of  the  final  syllables  are 
not  perhaps  altogether  certain  in  single  cases,  but  are  suf- 
ficiently certain  collectively.  It  is  generally  agreed  by  Ter- 
entian  critics  that  many  final  syllables  which  were  '  half-long ' 
or  prevailingly  long  in  Plautus  are  to  be  considered  as  defi- 
nitely short  in  Terence  ;  thus  verbal  forms  in  -at  and  -et  which 
were  originally  iambic,  such  as  erat,  amat,  amet,  habet,  are 
pyrrhics  in  Terence  (see  Bomer,  De  correptione  vocab.  iamb. 
Terentiana,  p.  12);  homo  retains  a  long  final  only  in  arsis 
(Bomer,  /./.,  p.  18;  Fabia,  ed.  Ad.,  p.  55);  ego,  ibi,  ubi  have 
a  long  final  only  in  arsis,  and  even  then  in  very  rare  cases 

1 A  dissyllable  when  elided  is  commonly  treated  as  a  monosyllable  in  Latin. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  83 

(Klotz,  Grundz.,^.  5 if.;  Bomer,  /./.,  p.  34,  p.  63;  Hauler, 
Anh.  2.  Phorm.,  v.  176).  On  the  other  hand  verbal  forms  of 
the  first  and  second  persons,  such  as  ago,  ero,  eras,  habes,  abis, 
are  probably  to  be  considered  as  having  more  often  a  long 
final  in  Terence ;  hence  cases  like  Andr.  614  id  ago,  714  domi 
ero,1  will  not  be  included  in  this  collection.  On  the  principles 
just  stated  we  have  the  following  examples  of  groups  involv- 
ing the  so-called  '  half-longs  ' :  ( I )  erat,  amat,  amet,  habet ; 
Eun.  736  sat  erat  (or  sdterat,  like  poterat ;  see  Leo,  Plant. 
Forsch.,  p.  266  ;  L.  Miiller,  Res.  Metr.,  p.  466  f.,  and  compare 
the  word-division  in  the  Plautus  Mss.)  ;  Meant.  629  s6d  erat ; 
966  qui  erat;  Phorm.  97  si'ta  erat;  768  sat  erat  (saterat); 
Ad.  494  mi'hierat;  Eun.  986  quid?  amat?;  Ad.  341  quom 
amet;  Andr.  954  qufa  habet;  Heaut.  835  d^cem  habet; 
Phorm.  1041  si  habet;  Ad.  382  sfbi  habet; — (2)  homo:  mf 
homo  Andr.  721;  Phorm.  1005;  Ad.  336;  —  Andr.  778  pol 
homo  ;  Eun.  960  qui's  homo ;  — (3)  apu(a\  ibi,  nbi:  cf.  Phorm. 
198  modo  apud  portum  ;  Andr.  343  sed  ubi ;  928  is  ubi ;  Enn. 
719  parem  ubi;  Heant.  983  6t  ibi;  cf.  Phorm.  827  s£d  ubi 
nam  ;  cf.  Ad.  527  me,  ubi;  570  sci'o  ubi.  On  the  other  hand 
in  two  ambiguous  passages  we  should  scan  nbi  and  ibi:  Eun. 
414  is  ubi  molestus;  Ad.  584  quid  ibi  facit;  the  latter  is 

1  7 

rightly  so  scanned  by  Speng^l,  for  the  original  quantity  is 
preferable  on  other  grounds  in  the  pure  seventh  foot  of  the 
septenarius.  (  Total  24.) 

(4)  The  following  phrases  occur  with  ego  in  Terence :  dn 
ego,  at  ego,  ecquid  ego  (i.e.  ec  quid  ego),  e"t  ego,  (et  quidem  ego), 
id  ego,  idem  ego,  nam  ego,  ne"que  ego,  nisi  ego,  quasi  ego,  quid 
ego,  quod  ego,  qudm  ego,  quhn  ego,  quom  ego,  se"d  ego,  tibi  ego, 
tuam  ego,  vir  ego,  ubi  ego,  ut  ego:  —  Andr.  252;  508  (id  ego, 
rightly  scanned  as  trochaic  verse  by  Fleck,  and  Faircl);  519; 
563;  612;  850;  886;  944;  Eun.  142;  265;  293;  496;  822; 
930;  958;  1081;  1086;  Heaut.  191;  252;  529  (quid  ego  ni); 
5635631;  663;  686;  956;993;  1032;  Phorm.  491;  519;  587; 
685  ;  844  ;  1000  ;  1031  ;  1052  ;  Hec.  98 ;  (195  :  et  quidem  ego, 
or  etqui'dem  ego) ;  408 ;  524 ;  564 ;  850 (rightly  scanned  as  tro- 

aThis  is  the  accentuation  of  Spengel  and  Fleck.,  and  is  approved  by  C.  F.  W. 
Miiller,  Plant.  Pros.,  pp.  155,  182  ;  other  editors  accent  wrongly  domi  ero. 


5  j.  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

chak  by  Umpf .  and  Dz.);  Ad.  128 ;  256 ;  378 ;  568 ;  749* ;  784 ; 
877  (ecqtttd  ego)',  916;  (946,  Umpf.);  972  ( Total  5O>  In  the 

example  ecquid  ego  cited  from  Ad.  877  we  have  what  appears 
at  first  the  inadmissible  accentuation  of  a  trochaic  word  upon 
the  ultima,  cf .  Podiaski,  U.f  p.  62 ;  but  this  accentuation  is 
only  apparent ;  for  all  the  compounds  formed  of  two  mono- 
syllables admit  in  early  Latin  of  being  resolved  into  their 
original  parts  (Ritschl,  Proleg.,  p.  ccxxii  f. ;  Klotz,  Grttndz.t 
p.  324).  Hence  we  may  write  here  if  we  wish  ec  quid  ego, 
just  as  we  often  find  this  division  in  the  Plautus  Mss.  (e.g.  in 
B  ec  quid  Cos.  242,  et  quid  Ampk.  577,  etc.),  and  as  Leo 
writes  in  Sen-  Oed.  263  quid  quid  ego  fugi ;  see  also  the  lat- 
ter's  remarks,  Plant.  Forsck-,  p.  236.  The  extent  to  which 
the  expressions  containing  ego  have  acquired  a  fixed  order 
and  become  phraseological  may  be  seen  from  the  fact  that 
the  full  form  quid  ego  without  elision  occurs  in  Terence  13 
times,  quod  ego  7  times,  at  ego  and  sed  ego  4  times  each,  //  ego 
3  times,  etc.  That  qitzJego-3n6.  quidille  possess  most  of  the 
characteristics  of  actual  compounds  may  be  seen  further  from 
the  fact  that  they  take  precedence  over  the  compound  quidni 
or  fBOBB1;  for  in  connection  with  ego  and  ille  qteidni  (qieittni ) 
suffers  tmesis  and  the  forms  quid  ego  ni  (Heaut.  529),  quid 
illam  ni(Ad.  662)  result;  for  additional  examples,  see  Plessis 
on  Ad.  662  and  Brix-Niemeyer  on  Mil.  1120.  Hence  so  far 
as  the  actual  usage  of  the  language  is  concerned,  Priscian 
(Kefl,  III,  24, 23  f.)  appears  to  be  mistaken  when  he  says  that 
the  conjunctions  enter  into  composition  with  no  words  which 
are  declined  except  with  the  indefinite  pronouns,  i.e.  in  siquis, 
meyuts,  numqttis.  We  may  be  sure  that  if  the  Latin  gram- 
marians had  had  occasion  to  develop  fully  this  topic  and  to 
discuss  in  an  independent  manner  the  compounds  capable  of 
being  formed  with  the  help  of  conjunctions,  they  would  have 
shown  differences  of  opinion  at  this  point,  just  as  they  differ 
widely  in  the  lists  which  they  give  of  the  compound  conjunc- 
tions and  of  the  prepositions  which  may  serve  to  form  com- 
pound verbs  (on  the  latter  contrast,  for  example,  Priscian,  Keil, 

1  For  the  latter  fona,  see  dedottius,  Keil,  V,  66, 16  ;  Carp.  Glass.  Lai.  IV,  158, 
19,  etc. 


Vol.  xcriv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  85 

III,  56,  9f.  with  Donatus,  IV,  366,  lof.,  who  excluding  only 
apud  and  fetus  leaves  ample  room  for  such  compounds  as 
contrafacere,  frofttn-olare,1  propteresse,  etc.).  We  can  cer- 
tainly recognize  no  difference  in  closeness  of  connection 
between  si-quis  and  si-ego,  between  cc-quis  and  et-ille,  and  if 
the  question  be  decided  on  the  basis  of  the  accent  to  which 
Priscian  so  constantly  appeals  in  the  determination  of  compo- 
sita  and  on  the  basis  of  such  usages  as  quid  ego  mi,  we  shffliM 
be  compelled  to  recognize  the  phrases  which  are  made  up  of 
conjunctions  and  of  the  personal  or  demonstrative  pronouns 
as  comfosita  in  the  sense  of  improper  compounds.1  On  the 
other  hand,  if  we  adopt  the  traditional  orthography,  />.  the 
usual  word-division,  as  our  standard,  we  shall  recognize  more 
justification  for  Priscian's  statement;  for  siquis,  ccquis,  quis- 
quis,  etc.,  are  written  very  frequently  together  in  Mss.  and 
inscriptions,  while  we  find,  e^.  in  the  Plautus  Mss-,  the 
orthography  polcgo,  quiaegot  sedego,  siego%  etc.,  less  frequently. 
That  sed  ego  is  the  only  accent  known  to  Terence  is  also 
strikingly  shown  by  the  small  number  of  cases  in  which  the 
scansion  appears  doubtf  uL  For  Terentian  critics  are  agreed 
that  the  scansion  ego  is  quite  rare  in  Terence,  and  conse- 
quently we  are  not  at  liberty  to  assume  this  scansion  freely. 
In  point  of  fact,  while  scd  ego  is  certain  in  50  passages,  we 
shall  need  to  assume  sed  ^go  in  only  3  passages,  viz. 
Heaut.  309  ita  timuL  jj  at  ego  nihfl  esse;  610  mine  tibi  ego 

respondeo ;  Hcc.  243  etsi  scio  ego,  Philumena.     There  are  no 

1Haret  writes  fnfterofUmi  as  a  compound  in  Phaedras  ;  see  his  remarks, 
«£  /*«*•-,  p.  218,  §  93. 

*  Lindsay,  Lai  Lmmg*  p.  361 1,  has  some  jast  remarks  apon  word-gronpa  as 
distinguished  from  genuine  coaapowids.  and  apon  the  dmkalry  of  almrays  dmtm- 
gnishing  sharplv  between  the  two.  Since  the  present  stady  is  fcr  olmoas  reasons 
based  upon  the  ancient  terminology,  I  haTe  porposely  taken  no  accoaat  oflhe 
tjSgff^i^^rf  which  exists  in  modern  nsage  between  the  two  terms ;  see  farther, 
p.  loo,  below.  Upon  the  difficulty  of  distinguishing  geanine  compnarinn  from 
•  encfisis'  in  many  cases,  see  also  Stolz,  Hist,  Gramm,  d,  lot.  Sfrmd*.  L  p.  404  «. 
Of  coarse  Ac  true  view  is  that  neither  aftas  nor  stegv,  neither  etemim  nor  ftaJ- 

modern  sense,  thoagh  afl  alike  are  amfftitf  i a»a»»»ac|.iiaim«iiiir'  me 

of  the  term,  which  is  based  primarily  apon  the  meaning  and  the 
(e.g.  Priscian,  Kefl,  H,  177,  15  &). 


86  Robert  S.  Radford.  [19°3 

other  passages  in  Terence  which  present  any  difficulty  ;  for  in 
Andr.  762  the  reading  tibi  di'co  ego  an  (Umpf.,  Fleck.)  is  as 
well  supported  as  tibi  ego  dico  an,  and  in  Eun.  155  Umpf. 
retains  the  Ms.  reading  aut  ego  in  place  of  the  correction  at 

ego.  Cases  like  Andr.  967  £t  quidem  e"go,  i.e.  e^quidem  ego 
scarcely  require  mention  after  the  researches  of  Luchs  (Comm. 
Prosod.  II)  and  Ahlberg  {Procel.  I,  p.  62  ff.)upon  theenclisis 
of  quidem  and  in  view  of  the  orthography  hicquidem,  illequi- 
dem,  etc.,  now  generally  adopted  by  our  editors.  Besides  the 
compositum  e'tquidem,  like  e~ttamen,  se~dtamen,  sitamen,  etc.,  is 
expressly  attested  by  the  grammarians  (Audax,  Keil,  VII,  349, 
18).  Here  belong  also  Andr.  164  quemquidem  ego  si;  Meant. 
632  idquidem  ego,  si.  For  examples  involving  ego  me  (egome) 
and  ego  sum.  (egosum),  see  the  treatment  of  quadrisyllable 
groups  below  (p.  90). 

(5)  Cases  of  ais  and  ait  seem  to  acquire  a  separate  treat- 
ment, since  Fleckeisen  has  shown  that  this  verb  was  originally 
inflected  according  to  the  fourth  conjugation  and  with  long 
final  syllable ;    cf.   Brix-Niemeyer  on  Men.  487.     Whether, 
however,  the  long  final  of  ais  is  retained  by  Terence  under 
any  conditions  is  extremely  doubtful ;  for  this  scansion,  though 
accepted  by  Hauler  and  by  most  editors,  rests  solely  upon 
the  uncertain  reading  ais  advtntum  in  Phorm.  315;  the  two 
other  passages  sometimes  quoted,  Hec.  346  and  Ad.  570  quid 
ais?  may  both  be  explained  like  decipls  ?    Phorm.  528,  as 
cases  of  syllaba  anceps  in pansa  (see  Hauler's  note  on  Phorm. 
528;  Bomer,  /./.,  p.  11).      In  any  case  the  final  syllable  of 
ais  is  short  in  thesis  in  Terence,  and  the  phrases  quid  ais, 
quid  tu  ais,  quid  ait,  etc.,  are  to  be  considered  tribrach  groups 
in  the  following  passages :  Andr.  184.;  517;  575;  588;  616; 
665*  ;  872  ;  933  (quid  tu  aYs);  Eun.  334  ;  425  ;  654 ;  748  ;  829 ; 
948;  957;  Heaut.    182;   303  (qufd  alt);   701;  Phorm.    199; 
380  (tiiom  aYs) ;  383  (qui  aYs) ;  700  (ut  aYs) ;  755  ;  873  ;  1004 ; 
Hec.  236;  523;  Ad.  556;  920  (quid  tu  aYs).     (Total,  29.) 

(6)  Cases  involving  enim  require  special  mention.     As  is 
well  known,  the  final  m  of  this  particle  was  especially  weak 
in  early  Latin,  and  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  302  ff.,  has  even 
made  an  attempt  to  show  that  it  was  not  pronounced  before 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  87 

the  time  of  Lucilius.  This  extreme  view,  which  Leo  would 
himself  probably  now  wish  to  modify,  must  be  rejected  for 
many  reasons,  and  especially  because  it  is  not  possible  to 
accent  et  tni,  at  Jni  in  Plautus  and  Terence.  It  is,  however, 
a  reasonable  view  that  except  in  arsis  the  final  m  of  enim, 
like  the  final  s  of  other  words,  was  very  faintly  pronounced 
in  early  Latin  ;  hence  the  following  cases  of  at  eni,  tt  eni,1 
id  eni,  quia  eni,  quid  eni  probably  belong  among  tribrach 
groups:  Andr.  848;  Run.  751;  1074;  Heaut.  3 17 (bis);  713; 
800;  Phorm.  487;  Hec.  311  ;  Ad.  730;  830.  (Total,  u.) 

B.  APPARENT  EXCEPTIONS,  WHICH  ARE  REALLY  QUADRISYL- 
LABIC  GROUPS. —  It  remains  to  notice  those  cases  in  which  the 
group  w,  w  v>  appears  at  first  to  be  accented  upon  the  second 
syllable,  but  in  which  the  accentuation  is  really  ^,,  6  w,  o 
through  the  attachment  of  an  enclitic  at  the  farther  end  of 
the  phrase.  These  groups  which  are  few  in  number  may  be 
distinguished  very  definitely ;  they  are  formed  either  by  the 
attachment  of  the  substantive  verb  in  certain  phrases,  as 
opus  est  (cf.  opusf),  ego  sum  (egosum\  or  by  the  attachment 
of  the  personal  pronouns,  as  in  the  formulae  ego  me,  ego  te, 
etc.  (egome,  egote\  ita  me  (itame\ 

(i)  It  has  long  been  recognized  by  metricians  that  parts  of 
the  substantive  verb  like  est,  sit,  sum,  sim  constitute  one  phrase 
with  the  preceding  word,  especially  if  the  latter  be  a  word 
ending  in  a  pyrrhic,  a  trochee,  or  a  tribrach  (L.  Muller,  Res 
Metr.,  p.  466;  cf.  Lindsay,  Lat.  Lang.,  p.  167,  and  Classical 
Review,  V  (1891),  p.  405).  It  can  cause  no  surprise  then  to 
find  the  accents  sed-opns-est*  and  se"d  opus  est  equally  fre- 
quent in  the  dramatic  poets.  Terence  has  four  cases  of  the 
former:  Heaut.  558;  Ad.  601 ;  Andr.  638;  265  sed  mine 
peropus  est,  i.e.  per  opus  est?  He  has  also  four  cases  of 

1  On  etenim  in  Terence,  see  Clement,  A.J.P.  XVIII,  414 ;  in  Eun.  1074  et 
enim  still  has,  according  to  Langen  (Beitrage,  p.  271),  the  meaning  of  "  und 
wahrlich."     On  postpositive  etenim,  see  Clement,  A.J.P.  VII,  82;   similarly,  we 
often  find  in  the  poets  postpositive  sed  enim,  neqtie  enim,  quid  enim. 

2  With  sed  6pus  est,  compare  cases  like  excute-dum  (Aul.  646),  circumspice- 
dum  (Most.  472),  accipe-sis  (Pers.  412);    see  Ritschl,  Opusc.  II,  568;    Klotz, 
Grundz.,  p.  311. 

8  Compounds  with  intensive  per-  are  separable  compounds,  as  Andr.  486,  per 


88  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

the  latter:  Eun.  479;  PJiorm.  560;  Hec.  768;  865.  The  in- 
fluence of  the  copula  upon  the  accent  is  usually  but  not 
necessarily  confined  to  frequent  formulae ;  thus  the  drama- 
tists have  no  example  of  sed  /nts  est,  yet  we  find  Com.  frgm. 
inc.  inc.  742  R.  hie  dger  est.  A  second  very  frequent  formula 
is  ego  sum,  and  the  evidence  that  it  was  often  viewed  by 
the  Roman  as  a  single  word  is  complete.  Thus  egosum  is 
glossed  as  one  word,  Corp.  Gloss.  Lat.,  Ill,  406,  4,  it  is 
provided  with  an  abbreviation  in  the  Commentarii  Not.  7V- 
ronian.,  it  is  counted  as  a  word  of  six  letters  in  the  ingen- 
iously constructed  verses  of  the  carmina  duodccim  sapientium, 
Baehrens,  Poet.  Lat.  min.  IV,  p.  120,  v.  10  (see  Baehrens, 
/./.,  l,praef.,  p.  XII),  finally  it  is  not  infrequently  written  as 
a  single  word  in  the  '  vetus  '  of  Plautus,  e.g.  egosum,  Mil.  427; 
at/gosum  perditus,  Poen.  1379;  for  the  similar  enclitic  forms 
potissnm,  potissit,  etc.,  see  Leo,  Plant.  Forsch.,  p.  267,  and 
Neue-Wagener,  FonnenleJire  d.  lat.  Spr.  II,  p.  176  f.  Hence 
Terence  writes  Andr.  245  quemquam  ut  ego  sum ;  cf.  Heaut. 
825  ego  homo  sum  (or,  homo  sum),  but  he  has  also  quam  ego 

sum,  Eun.  527  and  PJiorm.  808. 1 

ecastor  stilus  puer;  see  Lindsay,  Lat.  Lang.,  p.  198.  Altogether  similar  to 
perdpus  est  are  the  Plautine  nescio  quis,  nescio  pol,  i.e.  ne  scioquis,  etc.,  on  which 
see  Luchs,  Hermes,  VI,  264  ff. 

1  Similarly,  punctuation  is  very  possibly  intentionally  omitted  Man.  Anc.  I,  28 
ductisunt ;  VI,  16  [appejllatussum.  The  present  context  naturally  suggests  some 
comment  upon  the  formulae  est  enim,  sunt  eiiim.  As  is  well  known,  the  differ- 
ence between  — est  enim,  the  regular  order,  and  —  enim  est,  the  occasional  order, 
has  been  much  discussed;  for  the  literature  of  the  subject,  see  Reisig-Schmalz, 
Varies.  Ill,  850  f.  The  view  of  Madvig  (de  Fin.,  p.  92)  and  Drager  {Histor. 
Syntax,  II,  164  f.)  on  this  question  is  correct,  i.e.  in  the  position  sapientia  est 
enim  the  copula  is  formally  enclitic  and  forms  a  word-complex  with  sapientia, 
Hence  the  form  of  statement  adopted  by  Neue-Wagener,  Formenlehre  d.  lat.  Spr. 
II,  p.  977  ff.,  is  not  wholly  satisfactory :  "  Sehr  haufig  steht  enim  an  dritter 
Stelle,  wenn  eine  Form  von  esse,  besonders  esf,  mit  einem  Worte  oder  einem  Satz- 
theile  vorausgeht,  wie  acta  est  enim,  pro  Cluent.  37,  104."  It  should  rather  be 
said  that  in  such  cases  enim  stands  in  what  is  apparently  the  third  place  ;  for  in 
examples  like  satis  est  enim,  expressa  sunt  enim,  the  particle  no  more  occupies 
the  third  place  in  reality  than  it  does  in  the  examples  a  Graecis  enim,  ab  Us  enim 
(also  cited  by  Neue),  where  it  stands  after  a  preposition  and  its  case.  This 
arrangement  constitutes  the  regular  usage,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  examples  in 
Neue  and  Drager.  On  the  other  hand,  as  Priscian  so  often  teaches,  word-corn- 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  89 

(2)  While  Plautus  and  Terence  commonly  know  only  the 
accent  std  ita,  an  itat  ntque  ita  and  the  like  (see  the  examples 
cited  p.  81),  a  special  case  is  presented  by  at  ita  me  in  the 
imprecatory  formulae.  Langen  (R/tein.  Mus.  XII  (1857), 
p.  426  ff.)  has  shown  that  the  position  of  the  personal  pro- 
noun me  is  fixed  for  each  individual  formula  of  this  kind,  and 
that  in  those  formulae  which  contain  the  particle  ita  the  pro- 
noun always  follows  immediately  upon  the  particle,  i.e.  ita  me 
di  ament,  ita  me  set  vet  luppiter,  etc.  The  stereotyped  char- 
acter which  belongs  to  the  asseverative  formulae  in  general  is 
also  aptly  described  by  Kellerhoff,  Student.  Stud.  II,  p.  77: 
"(Earum)  verba  adeo  inter  se  cohaerent,  ut  fere  individua 
esse  nee  quaedam  a  quibusdam  separari  posse  videantur." 
Hence,  through  the  enclisis  of  the  personal  pronoun,  ita  me 
becomes  practically  a  trisyllabic  word  in  the  frequent  for- 
mula ita-me  di-ament ;  cf .  especially  Wackernagel,  Indogerm. 
Forsch.  I,  p.  410.  Hence  we  find  ita  me  actually  written  as 
one  word  in  the  'decurtatus,'  Merc.  762,  and  we  find  the 
whole  formula  written  together  (cf.  mehercule,  mediusfidius) 
in  the  'vetus,'  Poen.  1413  itantediament,  i.e.  ttamediament 
(for  this  accentuation  of  the  phrase,  which  is  the  normal  one, 
see  Hauler's  note  on  Phorm.  165).  Much  less  frequent  than 
ita  me  in  the  imprecatory  formulae  is  the  fuller  form  with 
prefixed  at,  i.e.  at  ita  me,  whicli  constitutes  a  quadrisyllable 
group.  In  this  group  the  accent  at  ita  me  is  found  twice  in 
Terence,  once  in  Plautus :  Phorm.  807  vin  scire  ?  at  ita  me 
servet  luppiter;  Hec.  258;  Mil.  501.  Here  belong  also  the 
following  examples  of  bene,  ita  me:  Ettn.  1037  Bene,  fta  me 

plexes  (compositae  dictiones)  are  also  occasionally  separated  in  actual  use  ;  hence 
we  sometimes  find  the  order  -enim  est,  as  Cic.  Cat.  mat.  §  24,  nemo  enim  est  tarn 
senex.  This  latter  becomes  the  regular  order  in  such  combinations  as  quid-cnim 
est  (Cat.  mat.  §  5),  neque-enim  est  (Tusc.  4,  22,  §  50),  is-enim  est  (Fin.  3,  22, 
§  75)  ;  see  still  other  examples  in  Drager,  /./.,  II,  165,  and  in  Hand,  Tursell.  II, 
p.  400  ff.;  at  the  same  time  the  distinction  made  by  Hand,  viz.,  that  quid  is 
emphatic  in  the  order  quid  enim  est,  and  est  emphatic  in  the  order  quid  est  enim, 
may  be  true.  Very  instructive  also  to  the  student  of  Latin  accentual  groups 
are  the  additional  examples  of  Cicero's  usage  quoted  by  Neue-Wagener,  U.,  p. 
979  f.,  i.e.  opus  erat  enim,  satis  erat  enim,  eius  rei  enim,  et  formae  enim,  hoc 
quoque  enim,  nihilo  minus  enim,  non  lubet  enim,  non  modo  enim,  quo  modo 
enim,  quae  potest  enim,  quam  multi  enim,  si  quando  enim,  etc. 


9O  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

df  ament,  factum ;  Hec.  642 ;  Phorm.  883.  [In  Plautus,  ac- 
cording to  the  examples  cited  by  Lodge,  Lex.  Plant.,  p.  113, 
the  initial  accent  dt  ita  me  is  found  five  times,1  ntque  ita  me  is 
found  once.] 

(3)  The  same  enclisis  of  the  personal  pronoun  appears  in 
the  familiar  locutions  ego  me,  ego  te,  ego  vos,  etc.,  where, 
in  the  Latin  word-order,  the  two  pronouns  assume  a  fixed 
position  in  relation  to  each  other ;  cf .  Rein,  De  pronom.  ap. 
Ter.  collocatione,  Leipzig,  1879,  p.  3  f . ;  Mahler,  De  pronom. 
ap.  Plant,  collatione,  Gryphisw.,  1876,  p.  3  ff.  Metrical  schol- 
ars have  already  observed  in  their  study  of  the  caesura  that 
the  pyrrhics  mihi,  tibi,  ego  form  practically  a  single  word 
with  a  following  pronoun  (see  Waltz,  La  langue  et  la  me'triqtte 
d' Horace,  p.  187  f.),  and  this  observation  is  fully  confirmed 
by  the  evidence  of  the  glosses  and  the  Mss.,  which  sometimes 
write  the  two  together,  i.e.  Corp.  Gloss.  Lat.  Ill,  524,  13 
' etegote'  (where,  however,  the  Greek  Kayo)  o-e  stands  first); 
Mil.  23  ' egome'  B;  Poen.  1407  ' egote'  BC.  Hence  Plautus 
uses  almost  equally  the  accentuations  //  ego  te  and  et  e"go  te. 
Terence  has  certainly  ft  (quid,  pe"r,  ibi)  ego  te  with  initial 
accent  in  the  following  passages:  Andr.  533;  536;  834; 
Eun.  338 ;  Hec.  610,  while  the  accent  on  the  second  syllable 
perhaps  occurs  in  the  disputed  passage  Andr.  289  hdnc  per 
e"go  te  (so  Spengel,  but  most  editors  read  quod  pe"r  ego  //). 

C.  GENUINE  EXCEPTIONS.  STATISTICS.  —  The  Terence  Mss. 
offer  three  examples  of  exceptional  accentuation  in  tribrach 
groups  which  appear  to  be  textually  sound,  i.e.  Hec.  200  qui'c- 
quam  ab  a/zarum  fngenio  ullam  ;  Ettn.'66i  aliqui'd  domo  dbe~ 

4  2 

untem  abstulisse;  ib.  107  Samia  mihi  mater  fiiit,  ea  &#*tabit 

4 

Rhodi.  Of  these  examples  the  third  alone  is  sufficiently 
excused2  by  the  difficulty  of  forming  the  verse-close  (cf. 
p.  67  f.,  above). 

1This  includes  Poen.  1258,  where  it  is  necessary  to  correct  the  Ms.  reading 
dt  me  ita  to  dt  ita  me. 

3  It  is  perhaps  possible  that  the  two  remaining  exceptions,  although  they  are 
not  excused,  are  mitigated  somewhat  by  the  continuous  elision,  i.e.  dom(o) 
abeunt(em)  abstulisse.  For  certain  licenses  in  the  treatment  of  a  word  are  per- 
haps occasionally  introduced  through  the  elision  of  the  ultima ;  thus  Skutsch, 
Forsch.,  p.  107  ff.,  accepts  amab(anf). 


Vol.  xxxiv.] 


Latin  Monosyllables. 


It  seems  desirable  to  exhibit  in  brief  statistical  form  the 
results  which  we  have  reached  in  an  extended  examination  of 
the  tribrach  groups  in  Terence.  In  the  following  table  all 
examples  in  which  the  quantity  of  the  final  syllable  is  certain 
for  single  cases  are  represented  by  e a ;  examples  which  in- 
volve erat,  amat,  amet,  habet  are  represented  by  erat ;  those 
which  involve  ibi,  ubi,  homo  (opus\  by  ibi ;  those  which  in- 
volve enim  are  not  included  in  the  table. 


INITIAL 
ACCENT. 

AMBIGUOUS. 

MEDIAL. 

Ea.     .    .    .. 
Erat    .   f.    . 

73 

12 

3 

Ibi.    .    \    . 
Ego    .    .    . 
Ais      .     .     . 

12 

5° 

29 

3 
3 
(2) 

Total   .     . 

176 

6(8) 

3 

Those  who  have  followed  my  analysis  of  the  several  kinds 
of  examples  will,  I  believe,  agree  with  me  in  the  view  that 
cases  admitting  the  accent  sed  ibi,  sed  opus  cannot  really  have 
been  ambiguous  to  the  Romans  of  the  republic ;  at  the  most 
it  will  be  admitted  that  the  Romans  of  this  period  may  have 
hesitated  in  reading  the  three  cases  of  ego.  Hence,  classing 
these  cases  only  as  genuinely  ambiguous  and  estimating  them 
at  half  value,  I  reach  the  conclusion  that  the  ratio  of  the 
initial  accent  to  the  medial  in  the  tribrach  groups  of  Terence 
may  be  placed  at  176  : 4-^,  or  at  about  40  :  i. 

Those  who  are  acquainted  with  the  principles  on  which  the 
verse  of  the  early  dramatists  is  constructed  will  know  how  to 
interpret  the  frequent  cases  in  which  the  initial  accentuations 
occur  several  times  in  the  same  verse : 

Ad.  780  :  Nostin?  ||  Jam  scibo.  ||  Quid  agis  ?  quo  abis?  ||  Mitte  m<§. 
Phorm.  216  :  Non  p6ssum  ad£sse.  ||  Ah  quid  agis  ?  quo  abis ;  Antiph6? 
Heaut.  317  :    Quid-illo  facias  ?  ||  At  enim.  \  Quid  enim  ?  \  Si  sinds, 

dicam.H  Sine. 
Ad.  680  :  Et  scio :  nam  te  amo :  quo  magis  qude  agis  curae  stint  mihi. 


92  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

Phorm.    199:    Quid   agam?\  Quid  dis  ?  \  Huius   patrem    vidisse 
m£,  patru6m  tu6m. 

See  also  Hcant.  191 ;  Phorin,  1041,  etc. 

D.  OBSERVANCE  OF  THE  DIPODIC  LAW.  —  Since  trisyllabic 
groups,  like  sed  agunt  or  idagutit,  are  freely  allowed  by 
the  republican  dramatic  poets  to  form  the  iambic  anapaest, 
and  since  the  thesis  of  this  shortened  anapaest,  according 
to  the  well-known  metrical  law,  cannot  be  divided  between 
two  words,  it  follows,  as  I  have  already  pointed  out  (p.  78), 
that  sed  agunt  was  regarded  by  the  republican  poets  as  very 
nearly  the  equivalent  of  a  single  anapaestic  word.1  Still 
another  proof  of  this  fact  remains  to  be  pointed  out.  Sed 
agunt  is  not  admitted  as  a  shortened  anapaest  in  all  the  feet, 
but  is  excluded  from  the  same  places  from  which  redigiint 
is  excluded,  i.e.  from  the  critical  feet  of  iambic  and  trochaic 
verse,  which  commonly  admit  anapaestic  and  spondaic  words 
only  so  far  as  they  retain  their  normal  prose  accent.  Ritschl 
(Proleg.  pp.  ccxxiii,  ccxxxvi),  with  his  wonderfully  clear 
insight  into  all  the  problems  of  early  Latin  verse,  has  not 
failed  to  notice  that  Plautus  commonly  excluded  these  ana- 
paestic groups  from  the  critical  feet  of  the  dipodies.  A  fact 
of  similar  bearing  is  noted  and  correctly  explained  by  Podi- 
aski,  /./.,  pp.  9  f.,  55  f.  In  the  seventh  foot  of  the  iambic 
octonarius  and  of  the  trochaic  septenarius,  in  which  the  met- 
rical law  forbids  the  oxytonesis  of  iambic  words,  but  admits 
that  of  anapaestic  words,  an  iambic  word  when  preceded  by 
a  short  monosyllable  is  regarded  as  the  equivalent  of  an 
anapaestic  word;2  hence,  we  have  a  legitimate  verse-close 
in  Phorm.  165  : 

Ita  m£  di  b£ne  ament,  lit  mihi  liceat  tarn  diu  quod  amo  frui. 
Cf.  also  Kohler,  De  verb.  ace.  in  troch.  sept.  Plant.,  p.  30. 

1  Similarly,  in  the  strict  Ovidian  treatment  of  the  dactylic  pentameter  a  close 
like  'reiciet  quid  amansj  i.e.  quasi-trisyllabic  close,  is  not  admissible;    cf.  L. 
M  tiller,  Res.  Metr.,  p.  248. 

2  The  same  is  true,  of  course,  of  the  fifth  foot  of  the  senarius.     The  explana- 
tion given  by  Luchs  {Studem.  Stud.  I,  p.  13)  of  this  part  of  his  metrical  law  is 
scarcely  the  true  one,  as  I  hope  to  show  more  fully  elsewhere. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  93 

I  have  examined  three  plays,  i.e.  Phormio,  Hecyra,  Adel- 
p/ioe,  in  order  to  determine  how  far  the  anapaestic  groups 
observe  the  dipodic  law  in  Terence.  In  the  passage  from 
the  first  to  the  second  foot  of  the  septenarius  they  are,  of 
course,  freely  admitted  (cf.  Podiaski,  /./.,  p.  73  f.),  especially 
when  they  are  preceded  by  a  second  coalescing  monosyllable, 
as  Phorm.  1040  hem  quid  afs;  200;  538.  The  following, 

1  Z 

also,  are  familiar  cases  of  enclisis  :  Hcc.  6  ob  earn  rem;   584 

4 

ut  apiid  ma  ;   705  in  ea  re;  Ad.  590  qu6d  quidem  erft,  i.e. 

22  6 

quodquidem  erft.  The  three  plays  show  the  following  excep- 
tions to  the  dipodic  law:  Phorm.  777  tii,  Geta,  abi  prae;  951 
quod  modo  erat;  Ad.  6i7emisse:  id  anus  mihi;  618  mfssa, 

4  6 

ubi  earn;    704  nam  tibi  eos;  cf.  Hcc.   172  Horunc.     Ea  ad 

6  6 

hos  (doubtful  reading).     These  five  exceptions  to  the  dipodic 

2 

law,  in  the  case  of  anapaestic  groups,  are  scarcely  more 
numerous  than  the  exceptions  admitted  by  Terence  in  the 
case  of  anapaestic  words  (see  the  dissertations  of  Brugman 
and  Podiaski) ;  it  is  noteworthy,  also,  that  four  of  these  cases 
are  again  preceded  by  monosyllables,  and  hence  are  excus- 
able as  quasi-choriambic  words  (cf.  Ritschl,  Prolcg.  ccxiii). 
On  the  other  hand,  anapaestic  groups  occur  55  times  in  the 
critical  feet,  with  the  normal  accent  std  agiint,  and  are 
admitted  40  times  in  the  licensed  feet,  with  the  abnormal 
accent  scd  agunt. 

E.  QUADRISYLLABIC  GROUPS.  —  In  trisyllabic  groups  we 
have  seen  that  the  three-syllable  law  was  able,  practically,  to 
obliterate  the  pause  after  a  short  monosyllable,  and  to  fix 
definitely  the  accent  std  ego.  The  case  is  quite  different  with 
quadrisyllabic  groups,  such  as  scd  homines,  for  the  reason 
that,  in  the  case  of  fourth  paeon  words,  there  exists  only  a 
strong  tendency  toward  the  recessive  accent,  but  no  absolute 
four-syllable  law.  In  the  case  of  quadrisyllabic  groups,  the 
slight  pause  after  the  monosyllable  tended  to  check  this 
recessive  tendency.  Nevertheless,  Biicheler,  Umbrica,  p. 
171,  was  probably  correct  in  assuming  that  the  Umbrian 
neidhabas,  Ig.  IV,  33  (i.e.  nci  adhabas\  points  to  the  existence 


94  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

of  the  accent  »/  adeas  in  early  Latin.  The  examination  of 
the  accent  of  these  groups  in  three  plays  of  Terence  (Andr., 
Eun.,  Heaut.)  yields  the  following  results.  The  predomi- 
nance of  the  one  accent  or  the  other  depends  largely  upon 
the  kind  of  verse  employed.  In  trochaic  verse  the  accent  on 
the  fourth  syllable  is  nearly  twice  as  frequent  as  the  accent 
on  the  third  syllable,  the  ratio  for  the  three  plays  being 
23:  13;  in  iambic  verse  the  accent  on  the  third  syllable  is 
nearly  three  times  as  frequent  as  the  initial  accent,  the  ratio 
being  77  :  27.  Hence,  since  iambic  verse  greatly  predomi- 
nates in  Terence,  the  accent  on  the  third  syllable  is  nearly 
twice  as  frequent  as  the  initial  accent  in  the  three  plays, 
taken  as  a  whole,  the  combined  ratio  being  90  :  50.  Hence, 
if  we  should  look  only  at  the  combined  ratio,  we  might, 
perhaps,  conclude  that  sed homines  alone  represents  the  gram- 
matical accent.  It  is  more  probable,  however,  that  s/d  homi- 
nes has  been  a  genuine,  though  a  less  usual,  pronunciation, 
and  that  the  grammatical  accent  has  vacillated,  in  the  repub- 
lican age,  between  the  first  two  syllables.  This  may  be 
shown  from  the  following  considerations:  (i)  The  initial 
accent,  as  has  already  been  mentioned,  is  actually  twice  as 
frequent  in  trochaic  verse,  which  proves  that  it  was  by  no 
means  avoided.  (2)  Many  single  phrases  show  the  initial 
accent  predominant,  also,  in  the  combined  ratio.  Thus,  quid 
agitur  occurs  in  Plautus  and  Terence  10  times  (5  cases  in 
iambic  verse,  4  in  trochaic,  I  in  cretic:  Pers.  17;  309;  Pseud. 
273  ;  Stich.  528  ;  722  ;  True.  860;  Phorm.  610;  Ad.  373  ;  883  ; 
885);  quid  agitur  occurs  6  times  (5  cases  in  iambic  verse,  I  in 
trochaic  :  Most.  1076 ;  Pers.  406 ;  Pseud.  457 ;  Eun.  271  ;  456 ; 
Ad.  901).  Similarly  the  type  s/d  igitur  occurs  in  Terence  7 
times  (3  cases  in  iambic  verse,  4  in  trochaic  :  Andr.  375  ;  383  ; 
519;  -598  ;  749 ;  Eun.  854 ;  966) ;  the  type  sed  igitur  occurs  5 
times  (all  the  cases  being  in  iambic  verse :  Andr.  103;  Eun. 
46;  Heaut.  818;  Phorm.  924;  Ad.  746).  It  is  noteworthy 
that  the  recession  is  especially  frequent  in  quadrisyllable 
groups,  such  as  se"d  opiis  est,  se"d  ego  me,  etc.,  owing  to  the 
analogy  of  the  simple  se"d  opus,  se"d  ego,  etc. ;  cf.  p.  82  f .,  above. 
(3)  In  proceleusmatic  feet  (iambic),  which  follow  very  closely 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  95 

the  grammatical  accent,  the  accent  on  the  third  syllable  is 
somewhat  more  usual,  as  Hec.  259  quam  ego:  id  ddeo ;  but 
the  initial  accent  is  also  found,  as  Pkorm.  563  quid  est  quod 
opera  ;  Pers.  480  homines  e"go  hodie ;  Cure.  93  viden  ut  aperi- 
untur  (where  ut  is  unnecessarily  bracketed  by  Gotz);  Asm. 
699;  Trin.  846;  True.  763  ;  see  Ahlberg,  Procel.  I,  p.  131  ff. 
It  only  remains  to  indicate  those  parts  of  the  verse  in  which 
the  initial  accent  chiefly  occurs.  In  trochaic  verse  this  accent 
is  found  occasionally  in  all  the  feet,  but  chiefly  in  the  first  and 
fifth,  i.e.  in  the  first  foot  of  each  colon ;  as,  — 

Andr.  335  :  Ego  idagdm  mihi  qui  ne  detur.  ||  Sdthabeo  Davom  6ptume. 

1  5 

In  iambic  verse  the  initial  accent  occurs  chiefly  in  the  third 
foot  and  immediately  after  the  caesura  of  the  senarius  or 
octonarius  (e.g.  Andr.  413  ;  536 ;  883  ;  cf.  the  frequent  accent 
fdcilius  in  the  same  position),  in  the  fourth  foot  of  the  sena- 
rius (e.g.  Andr.  89;  417;  749;  762)  to  aid  in  forming  the 
well-known  senarius-close,  6  \  ^  w  ^.  \  ^  jL  II,  cf.  Luchs,  Student. 
Stud.  I,  p.  13  ;  Klotz,  Grundz.,  p.  243,  and  at  the  very  close 
of  the  senarius  or  octonarius,  cf.  Klotz,  /./.,  p.  280  (e.g. 
Andr.  311;  Eun.  84;  854).  The  following  examples  illustrate 
these  positions:  — 

Andr.  413  :  Hodie.6bservare,  ut(p.v/W  ageret  de  nuptiis. 

3 

lb.  749  :  Satin  sanus,  qui  me  id  r6gites?  II  Quern  ego  igitur  rogem? 
Ib.  311  :  Video.     6mnia  experiri  certumst  prius  quam  pereo.  ||  Quid 
hie  agit? 

In  the  light  of  these  results  I  wish  to  comment  briefly  on 
the  theory  of  '  initial  intensity,'  which  was  first  put  forward  as 
applicable  to  Latin  words  by  L.  Havet,  De  Saturnio,  Paris, 
1880,  p.  26  ff.  (cf.  Mtmoires  de  la  Socittt  de  Linguistique,  VI 
(1889),  p.  13  f.),  and  has  since  found  other  adherents.1  Ac- 
cording to  Havet  an  intensive  pronunciation,  i.e.  a  stress- 
accent,  was  associated  with  the  initial  syllable  of  Latin  words. 
This  '  initial  intensity '  is,  however,  quite  different  from  the 

1  Cf.  especially  J.  Vendryes,  Recherches  sur  fhistoire  et  Us  efftts  de  Pintensite 
initiale  en  Latin,  Paris,  1902,  and  see  the  criticism  of  the  theory  by  Solmsen  in 
his  review  of  this  work,  WoLflin's  Archiv,  XIII,  p.  137  f. 


o/3  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

Latin  accent  described  by  the  grammarians ;  for  the  latter,  in 
Havet's  judgment,  was  a  musical  accent  and  exerted  no  influ- 
ence upon  Latin  prosody.  Further,  Havet  recognizes  this 
'  initial  intensity '  as  belonging  not  only  to  words  but  also  to 
groups,  and  he  explains  the  shortening  in  tibi  tstum  as  due  to 
the  initial  intensity  of  the  group:  "(Les  monosyllabes  brefs) 
peuvent  abreger  la  premiere  syllable  du  mot  suivant,  parce 
qu'ils  font  jusqu'a  un  certain  point  corps  avec  lui"  (Havet 
quoted  by  Plessis,  ed.  Ad.,  p.  5).  It  is  clear  that  so  far  as 
concerns  the  fact  of  intensive  pronunciation  in  the  first  sylla- 
ble of  tibi  istum>  this  explanation  is  identical  with  the  one 
which  I  have  offered,  but  when  the  question  is  asked  whether 
the  intensive  pronunciation  of  the  first  syllable  is  due  to  the 
laws  of  the  Latin  accent,  Havet  holds  that  it  bears  no  rela- 
tion to  these  laws,  but  that  the  initial  syllable  is  stressed  qua 
initialis.  Since  then  he  admits  the  principle  of  word-groups 
in  Latin  pronunciation,  the  conclusion  would  seem  to  follow, 
if  the  theory  of  initial  intensity  be  correct,  that  trisyllabic 
and  quadrisyllable  groups1  should  be  stressed  on  the  first  syl- 
lable with  equal  or  nearly  equal  frequency.  In  practice  we 
find,  however,  that  these  groups  do  not  follow  such  a  law  of 
initial  intensity,  but  that  they  obey  rather  the  law  accord- 
ing to  which  the  Latin  accent  must  recede  three  syllables  and 
may  (in  words  like  facilius)  recede  four.  Hence  it  appears 
that  the  accentuation  of  these  groups  cannot  be  explained  by 
the  theory  of  initial  intensity,  but  only  on  the  basis  of  the 
Latin  accent-law. 

VI.    ANCIENT  TESTIMONIES. 

A.  EVIDENCE  OF  THE  GRAMMARIANS  AND  GLOSSES.  —  It  is 
not  my  purpose  to  review  at  length  in  this  paper  the  testimonies 
of  the  Latin  grammarians  upon  the  accentuation  of  three- 
syllable  groups  nor  to  examine  fully  the  evidence  of  the  word- 
division  in  the  inscriptions  and  Mss. ;  a  brief  treatment  of  these 
topics  will  be  sufficient  here.  The  Latin  grammarians  have 

1  The  verse-form  would  not  itself  prevent  this  accentuation,  as  is  shown  by  the 
regular  accent  fdcilius. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  97 

nowhere  had  occasion  to  treat  in  a  general  or  theoretical  way 
the  accent  of  such  word-groups  as  we  have  examined ;  their 
lists,  however,  of  the  more  frequent  compound  conjunctions 
not  only  furnish  us  with  much  valuable  information  on  the 
general  subject  of  accentual  groups  (composita},  but  include 
several  examples  of  the  present  kind.  Thus  Priscian  ex- 
pressly informs  us  that  the  compound  conjunctions  et  enim  l 
(etenirn)  and  sed enim  (sedenim)  have  the  initial  accent:  Keil, 
III,  93,  II  f.  (  =  Scholl,  DC  ace.,  p.  192)  Composita  vero  dtque 
tienim,  sedenim.  Haec  enim  ex  accentu  composita  esse  nos- 
cuntur.  Similarly  sedenim  is  named  as  a  composition  also  in 
a  gloss  on  Max.  Viet.,  Keil,  VI,  203,  12  ;  si  enim,  i.e.  probably 
slenim,  is  named  as  a  compositum  by  Donatus,  Keil,  IV,  365, 
2 ;  ibid.,  p.  389,  5,  and  by  Cledonius,  Keil,  V,  24,  25  ;  com- 
pare, also,  the  treatment  of  quidistic  (in  early  Latin  often 
quidistic)  as  a  compositum  by  Priscian,  Keil,  III,  85,  33  ;  Corp. 
Gloss.  Lat.  V,  622,  55  'quidistic  sub  uno  accentu  est  profecto 
vel  omnino.'  There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  numerous 
other  compounds  of  enim  have  a  similar  accent,  i.e.  at  enim, 
neque  enim,  quid  enim,  quod  enim,  id  enim,  etc. 

Among  the  glossarists  Festus  treats  neceunt  ( =  non  eunf) 
and  necerim  (  =  nee  eum)  as  single  words  (p.  162,  11  Mull.; 
Paul.  exc.  Fest.,  p.  162,  21  Miiltr),  but  the  most  complete  evi- 
dence may  be  drawn  from  Gotz  and  Gundermann's  Corpus 
Glossariorum  Lat.  The  conjunctions  here  glossed  as  com- 
pound words  are  sede[c]cum,  II,  181,  19  (where  the  gloss  eTrtSt 
apparently  indicates  that  the  force  of  the  simple  conjunction 
is  lost  as  completely  as  in  the  Italian  ebbene  (=etbene\ 
'  very  good ') ;  sedenim,  IV,  565,  52  ;  utenim,  IV,  470,  45  :  quid- 
enim,  IV,  461,  I  ;  quidita,  II,  167,  14;  IV,  158,  33,  etc.;  cf. 
quidistic,  V,  622,  55;  quid  igitur,  IV,  421,  1 6.  In  addition 
we  find  glosses  upon  the  pronouns  and  verbs  atego  and  astego, 

1  Et  enim  is  nearly  always  written  in  our  texts  of  Latin  authors  as  one  word;  it 
is  scarcely  necessary  to  say  that  no  such  uniformity  exists  in  the  Mss.,  which  no 
more  write  et  enim  than  they  write  ob  viam  and  i»  vicem  invariably  as  one  word. 
On  account,  however,  of  being  much  the  most  frequent  of  all  the  compounds  of 
enim,  etenim  is  usually  written  as  one  word,  and  this  orthography  is  much  more 
frequent  than  sedenim,  quidenim,  etc.,  which  also  occur. 


98  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

II,  284,  34  (where,  however,  the  Greek  stands  first);  et  ego, 

III,  342,  22  (where   also  the  Greek  stands  first);   ide\_g~\o 
(=€70)  auro'[z/]),  II,  80,  40;  numquid  ego  (i.e.  num  quidego 
as  a  rule),  =egone,  IV,  369,  35;  idagis,  idagit,  the  latter  = 
efe/jyeZ,  II,  76,  12,  13;  quiamat,  II,  167,  5.     The  grammarians 
also  name  quidita  among  the  compound  adverbs  (quidita, 
Audax,  Keil,  VII,  348,  14;  quid  ita,  Dositheus,  VII,  410,  24), 
and  an  abbreviation  for  the  frequent  phrase  ego  enim  is  found 
in  the  Commentarii  Not.  Tironian.     It  is  instructive  to  com- 
pare also  the  traditional  orthography  in  our  texts  of  etenim, 
potero,  poteram,  satago,  retr(o)ago,  retr(o)eot  veluti  (cf.  velut, 
nemut\    adeo,    ideo,  postidea,    ant(e}idca,    ub(i)tibi,    necuter, 
neuter  (according  to  some,  cf.  Lindsay,  Lat.  Lang.,  p.  39), 
necopinantem,  etiam,  quoniam,  etc.,  although   it   should   be 
remembered  that  the  separate  writing  et  enim,  sat  ago,  vel  uti, 
ubi  ubi,  nee  opinantem  is  also  frequent  in  the  Mss.,  and  even 
the  division  ad  eo,  id  eo  is  sometimes  found. 

B.  WORD-DIVISION  IN  INSCRIPTIONS  AND  Mss.  —  Finally, 
the  word-division  in  the  inscriptions  and  Mss.  has  an  important 
bearing  upon  the  question  of  the  accent ;  for,  from  the  time  of 
Quintilian  (I,  5,  25)  the  Roman  grammarians  often  expressly 
connect  the  question  of  punctuation  and  word-division  with 
the  determination  of  the  accent,  often  in  the  formula  'ratio 
distinguendi  (dividend!)  regulas  accentuum  corrumpit ' ;  see 
the  numerous  passages  of  the  grammarians  on  this  subject, 
which  are  collected  by  Scholl,  /./.,  p.  i27f.  They  also  fre- 
quently recommend  an  unusual  word-division,  i.e.  hauscio 
instead  of  han(d)  jc/t?  (Pseudo-Phocas,  Keil,  V,  441,  i),  on  the 
ground  that  it  corresponds  more  fully  to  the  accentuation. 
In  the  case  of  the  Latin  prepositions,  both  monosyllabic  and 
dissyllabic,  the  omission  of  punctuation  in  writing  is  well 
known,  but  the  similar  usage  by  which  the  monosyllabic  con- 
junctions, adverbs,  and  pronouns  are  joined  in  writing  with 
the  following  word  has  received  less  attention,  although  it  is 
by  no  means  rare.  Marius  Victorinus,  Keil,  VI,  23,  7  ff.,  pre- 
scribes the  omission  of  punctuation  in  nechoc  and  necillud  just 
as  in  ingalliam  and  initaliam  :  sed  ne  ea  quidem,  quae  cum 
praepositione  dicuntur,  circumpungetis,  ut  circumduci  et  cir- 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  99 

cumveniri,  et  nonnulli  et  paulopost,  nee  haec,  ut  ingalliam, 
initaliam,  nechoc,  necillud,  quae  infinite  dicuntur.  In  accord- 
ance with  this  orthography  the  monosyllables  are  at  times 
written  together  with  the  following  word  in  inscriptions  of 
the  best  period,  as  may  be  seen  from  the  examples  collected 
by  Corssen,  who  cites  Ausspr.  II2,  p.  868  etcoronis,  itauti, 
astu  =  ast  tu  (often  in  the  formula  'astu  ea  ita  faxsis,'  Acta 
fratr.  arv. ;  cf.  attn  glossed  as  tuvero,  Corp.  Gloss.  Laf.,  IV, 
22,  23),  p.  877  quodie  (very  frequent,  cf.  also  CIL.  II,  suppl., 
index,  p.  1 1 8 1 ),  qidvixit,  p.  879  huncincrem,  p.  88 1  nonliccbit, 
nondebuernnt.  This  list  might  be  greatly  increased  from 
inscriptions  of  the  best  character,  -and  if  examples  are  not  to 
be  found  collected,  like  those  involving  the  prepositions,  in 
the  various  Indices  of  the  CIL.,  it  is  because  the  editors  have 
often  ascribed  the  absence  of  the  division-points  to  careless- 
ness or  to  exposure  rather  than  to  the  true  cause,  viz.  the 
Roman  method  of  word-division.  In  the  minuscule  Mss.  of 
the  Carolingian  period  also,  upon  which  the  word-division  of 
our  texts  chiefly  rests,  we  find  the  monosyllabic  particles  and 
pronouns  not  seldom  joined  with  the  following  word;  cf. 
Wattenbach,  Lat.  Palaeogr.?  p.  76 ;  Lindsay,  Lat.  Text. 
Emendation,  p.  14.  In  carefully  written  Mss.  of  this  period 
the  traditional  rules  of  word-division  approved  by  the  gram- 
marians are  commonly  observed  by  the  copyists,  so  that  their 
usage  is  in  substantial  agreement  with  the  inscriptions  of  the 
fourth  and  fifth  centuries.  It  is  scarcely  necessary  to  add 
that  the  word-division  of  the  minuscule  Mss.  is  seldom  strictly 
uniform  in  doubtful  cases,  and  the  uniformity  which  often 
appears  in  printed  texts  is  due  to  the  modern  editor.  Except 
in  the  case  of  obvious  blunders,  however,  the  word-division  of 
the  Mss.  is  clearly  the  authoritative  division  for  critical  pur- 
poses, and  determines  in  each  case  what  constitutes  '  one  part 
of  speech  '  (ima  pars  orationis). 

In  the  case  of  the  Terence  Mss.,  as  it  happens,  Umpfen- 
bach  has  not  included  in  his  critical  apparatus 1  variations  in 
the  word-division,  but  their  usage  is  probably  not  very  differ- 

1  On  the  general  character  of  Umpfenbach's  collation  of  the  Terence  Mss.,  see 
Minton  Warren.  Am,  Journ.  Phil.  Ill,  59. 


IOO  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 

ent  from  that  of  the  Palatine  Mss.  of  Plautus,  which  afford 
examples  on  every  page  like  metarbitro  (B),  Cas.  143,  sisim 
293,  nemihi  341,  etc.  It  is  noticeable  that  Umpfenbach  writes 
always  refert,  non  dum,  vel  nti,  quis  nam  (on  the  basis  of  the 
frequent  nam  guts,  quis  .  .  .  nam,  cf.  Hand,  Turs.  IV,  18  ff.), 
inter  est  (Ad.  393),  inter  siet  (Enn.  685),  super  est  (Phorm. 
162),  etc.  These  last  examples  are  in  accordance  with  the 
usage  of  many  of  the  best  official  inscriptions  (cf.  Corssen, 
Ausspr.  II2,  p.  853),  and  superesse  at  least  is  generally  recog- 
nized as  a  separable  compound  (cf.  L.  Miiller,  Res  Metr., 
p.  264).  Nowhere,  in  fact,  is  it  more  difficult  to  distinguish 
between  the  genuine  and  the  separable  Latin  compounds * 
than  in  the  case  of  many  of  the  compound  verbs ;  it  is  clear, 
however,  from  the  evidence  of  Latin  verse  and  the  statements 
of  the  grammarians  that  these  words  were  regularly  accented 
as  composite^  i.e.  inter  siet  (cf .  inter  ibi,  inter  eost  propte'r  eos}t 
suptr  erat,  circum  dedit,  ante  venit,  etc. 

One  other  question  of  Terentian  orthography  is  valuable 
for  the  light  which  it  throws  upon  the  accentuation,  viz.  the 
assimilation  which  occurs  at  times  in  the  praepositiones  ad- 
positae  and  which  implies  a  closeness  of  connection  equal  to 
that  existing  in  the  case  of  the  praepositiones  compositae. 
Thus  Umpfenbach  (praef.  xiv)  points  out  that  the  Bembinus 
has  offactum,  Heaut.  956,  for  ob  factum,  oppeccatum>  ib.  990, 
for  ob  peccatum,  while  at  te  occurs  8  times  for  ad  te ;  for 
assimilation  in  other  authors,  see  Neue-Wagener,  Formenl. 
II,  pp.  783,  905.  Hence  we  cannot  doubt  that  the  secondary 
grammatical  accent  is  fully  observed  in  the  following : 

Caecil.  com.  frgm.  266  R. :  Sa£pe  est  etiam  sup  palliolo  s6rdid6 
sapientia. 

It  is  evident  from  these  facts,  which  might  easily  be  illus- 
trated by  more  numerous  examples,  that  the  Latin  word- 
division  is  far  from  being  fixed  in  a  multitude  of  cases,  and 

1  It  should  be  remembered  that  many  of  the  combinations  which  later  came 
to  be  felt  as  genuine  compounds  were  still  separable  compounds  or  word-groups 
in  early  Latin ;  cf.  Ter.  Hec.  364  qua  me  propter  adduxi ;  630  ne  revereatur, 
minus  iam  quo  redeat  domum. 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  101 

that  those  writers  upon  Latin  accentuation  who  have  treated 
the  subject  almost  entirely  in  dependence  upon  the  traditional 
word-division  have  chosen  too  narrow  and  too  uncertain  a 
basis  for  their  study. 

VII.    EVIDENCE  OF  THE  ROMANCE  LANGUAGES. 

The  Romance  languages  have  preserved  in  rich  abundance 
the  word-groups  formed  by  the  coalescence  of  monosyllabic 
words,  i.e.  Span,  tambien  =  tambene,  Ital.  ebbe"ne  =  etbene,  ossia 
=  autsit,  nemme'no  =  necminus,  etc.  (for  the  treatment  of  these 
phrases  in  Italian,  see  Meyer-Liibke,  Gramm.  d.  roman.  SpracJi. 
I,  p.  508),  but  the  accent  of  these  groups  as  a  rule  has  been 
derived  from  the  late  period  of  vulgar  Latin,  when  the  pro- 
cesses of  decomposition  (recomposition)  were  applied  to  all 
the  composita  which  were  still  recognized  as  such,  i.e.  cxplicat 
(Fr.  esploie)  instead  of  the  classical  faplicat,  desuper  (Fr. 
desure)  instead  of  the  classical  de"super,  etc. ;  cf.  Meyer- 
Liibke,  /./.,  I,  495.  Notwithstanding  the  great  changes 
wrought  in  this  period,  the  original  accent  has  been  retained 
in  some  cases.  Thus,  as  Corssen,  Ausspr.  II2,  p.  889,  and 
Skutsch,  Forsch.,  p.  158,  have  noticed,  the  Italian  forms  colla, 
delta,  sulla  give  evidence  of  the  accent  cum  ilia,  d$  Xlla,  sub 
ilia,  just  as  we  know  from  th§.  Latin  grammarians  (see  the 
passages  quoted  by  Scholl,  De  ace.,  p.  192  f.)  that  dflnde, 
pMnde,  etc.,  continued  to  be  the  usual  colloquial  pronunciation 
in  contrast  with  the  more  formal  delude,  perlnde,  etc.  So 
also  the  relative  pronoun  qui,  which  was  generally  atonic  in 
Latin,  but  of  course  became  tonic  in  these  groups,  has  both 
forms  preserved  in  Spanish,  i.e.  the  tonic  form  qnien  and  the 
atonic  que  (cf.  Seelmann,  Ausspr.  d.  lat.,  p.  57);  for  other 
possible  cases,  see  Meyer-Liibke,  /./.,  p.  504  ff.  We  may 
expect  that  additional  cases  of  the  preservation  side  by  side 
of  the  tonic  and  the  atonic  forms  of  the  Latin  conjunctions- 
and  adverbs  will  be  recognized  when  the  problem  of  these 
double  forms  has  been  more  fully  worked  out  by  Romance 
scholars  than  is  the  case  at  present. 


IO2  Robert  S.  Radford.  [1903 


VIII.    PREVIOUS  INVESTIGATORS. 

It  remains  to  indicate  how  far  students  of  early  Latin  verse 
have  already  advanced  in  the  direction  of  the  conclusions 
which  have  been  reached  in  this  article.  The  particular  cases 
of  trisyllabic  groups  in  which  uniform  accentuation  has  already 
been  noted  are  indeed  very  numerous.  Thus  the  invariable 
accentuation  of  quid  ita  has  been  pointed  out  by  Luchs, 
Hermes,  VIII,  114;  of  quid  ego  in  certain  phrases  by  Keller- 
hoff,  Student.  Stud.  II,  55  (cf.  also  Seyffert,  Stud.  Plaut., 
p.  9);  of  at  enim  by  Seyffert,  Berl.  Phil.  Woch.  1885,  Sp., 
p.  40,  and  Ribbeck,  Com.  Rom.  Fragmentd1,  p.  xxxiv ;  of  quid 
ais  by  Conradt,  die  Metr.  Compos,  d.  Kom.  d.  Ter.,  p.  159; 
of  hie  homo  by  Luchs,  Comment.  Pros.  I,  p.  6  f. ;  of  quis 
homo,  is  homo  by  Nilsson,  Quomodo  pronomina  ap.  PL  et  Ter. 
collocenlur,  Lund,  1901,  p.  61  (footnote).  Several  of  these 
accentuations  are  also  discussed  by  Skutsch,  Forsch.,  p.  154, 
and  in  his  edition  of  the  Captivi,  which  came  into  my  hands 
after  my  own  results  had  been  reached,  Lindsay  adds  qui 
homo,  tibi  ego  dico  (pp.  367,  372).  In  the  quadrisyllable 
groups  Biicheler,  Umbrica,  p.  171,  has  inferred  the  Plautine 
accentuation  n2  adeas  from  the  Umbrian  form  neidJiabas ; 
Hartmann,  K.  Z.  XXVII,  p.  558,  has  derived  igitur  as  a 
weakened  form  from  quid  agitur. 

Finally,  Ritschl,  Proleg.,  pp.  cclviii-cclxi,  has  discussed  this 
problem  with  his  usual  thoroughness  and  breadth  of  view. 
He  does  not  limit  his  inquiry  to  the  proclisis  of  the  preposi- 
tions, but  mentions  also  '  other  similar  combinations  of  words,' 
i.e.  quid  agis,  quid  ais,  ut  opust,  qudd  homo,  quod  edis,  etc., 
and  from  the  analogy  of  these  combinations  he  clearly  derives 
the  Plautine  accentuation  of  dt  illo,  e"t  iste,  se"t  intus,  quod 
omnes,  etc.  (cf.  Proleg.,  p.  cclxi:  '  correptiones  valde  propin- 
quae  eadem  prorsus  ratione  reguntur ').  Hence  in  this,  as 
in  all  other  questions  of  Latin  sentence-accentuation,  Ritschl 
has  sketched  in  brief  but  clear  outlines  the  general  conclu- 
sions which  further  study  can  only  serve  to  strengthen. 
While  the  present  study  of  syllable-shortening  was  at  first 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Latin  Monosyllables.  103 

undertaken  independently,1  it  will  fulfil  its  purpose  if  it  shall 
be  instrumental  in  reviving  Ritschl's  solution  of  the  problem 
and  shall  offer  additional  evidence  in  support  of  his  conclu- 
sions. 

1  Unfortunately,  a  copy  of  the  Prolegomena  was  not  accessible  to  the  writer 
during  the  first  part  of  his  work.  The  above  reference  to  Ritschl  must  not  be 
understood  as  meaning  that  he  recognized  in  the  Proleg.  the  complete  recession 
of  the  early  accent  in  sed  ea,  sed  agis,  dd  eumt  etc. 


IO4  Francis  A.  March.  [1903 


VII.  —  Three  New  Types. 
BY  PROF.  FRANCIS  A.   MARCH, 

LAFAYETTE  COLLEGE. 

THE  time  has  come  fer  urging  the  adoption  in  common 
print  ef  the  new  types  which  ar  necessary  to  denote  the 
elementary  sounds  ef  our  language. 

Three  original  Roman  letters,  A  O  V,  now  giv  us  the  types 
fer  six  elementary  vowels,  as  in  far  fast,  at  fare,  obey  go,  net 
ner,  full  rule,  but  bur. 

It  is  the  cemmon  way  with  nations  using  the  Roman 
alfabet  to  use  the  same  letter  fer  an  elementary  sound  when 
prolengd  as  when  quickly  utterd,  even  tho  the  sound  becomes 
weaker  er  narrower  as  it  is  drawn  out ;  full  and  rule,  but  and 
bur  go  together ;  a  diacritic  is  added  when  we  hav  occasion 
to  distinguish. 

But  with  advancing  nations  variations  ef  articulation  pass 
these  bounds.  Periods  ef  great  deeds,  great  national  efforts 
expand  the  speech,  and  the  thinkers  and  writers  ef  the  fellow- 
ing  age  need  to  enlarge  the  alfabet. 

So  fer  exampl  the  generation  that  fellowd  the  Elizabethan 
age  workt  over  the  spelling,  and  among  other  changes  they 
found  that  i  and  u  each  represented  two  sounds,  a  vowel  and 
a  consonant,  and  each  had  two  ferms,  i  and/,  u  and  v.  They 
differentiated  by  using  j  and  v  always  fer  the  consonant 
sounds,  i  and  u  only  fer  the  vowels ;  and  so  two  letters  wer 
added  to  the  alfabet. 

The  introduction  ef  a  new  letter  in  cemmon  printing,  in 
newspapers,  er  literature,  is  a  matter  ef  great  difficulty. 
Many  things  ar  necessary  to  make  a  good  working  type. 
Many  generations  ef  type  founders  hav  used  their  best  powers 
in  bringing  the  Roman  types  to  perfection.  A  type  that  wil 
net  look  out  ef  place,  a  raw  recruit,  is  not  easy  to  invent. 
Then  each  word  has  its  own  personality  to  the  reader's  eye ; 
putting  in  new  types  changes  the  picture.  We  carry  words 


Vol.  xxxiv.]  Three  New  Types.  105 

with  us  as  pictures,  and  a  changed  picture  balks  the  reader, 
er  diverts  him. 

These  difficulties  wer  avoided  in  the  differentiation  ef  the 
semivowels;  all  ef  the  types  i  j  u  v  wer  familiar  and  each 
used  with  a  familiar  power,  so  that  it  is  net  strange  that 
under  the  guidance  ef  the  great  scholar,  Philemon  Holland, 
and  the  Cambridge  editions  ef  the  new  translation  of  the 
Bible  (King  James's),  the  new  letters  wer  completely  establisht 
in  a  singl  generation. 

A  similar  procedure  may  giv  us  the  new  letters  now 
needed.  There  ar  two  forms  ef  a  in  familiar  use,  the  old 
a  which  we  use  in  script  and  italics  and  know  in  Greek  and 
German,  and  the  Roman  a.  A  new  type  "  a "  made  to 
match  the  lowercase  Roman  fents,  may  be  used  fer  "a" 
whenever  it  sounds  like  a  in  far,  and  giv  us  a  new  letter 
that  wil  cause  no  embarrassment  to  any  reader.  There  ar 
two  forms  also  ef  u,  the  lowercase  u  and  the  small  capital  u. 
A  new  type  like  the  small  capital  to  match  the  lowercase 
fents,  and  used  only  fer  the  u's  which  hav  the  sound  ef  but, 
burn,  wil  giv  us  a  manageabl  new  letter  fer  the  alfabet. 
And  an  O  like  a  script  O  with  a  curve  like  a  drept  breve, 
and  used  only  for  o's  which  sound  like  the  "  o  "  in  not,  nor, 
wil  do  fer  the  third  new  letter  which  our  alfabet  demands. 

The  Scientific  alfabet  in  whjch  these  new  types  ar  used 
was  promulgated  by  the  American  Philological  Association 
in  1877.  They  hav  been  thoroly  tested  as  part  ef  a  key 
alfabet  fer  all  alfabetic  languages.  (See  plates  and  exposi- 
tion in  Funk  &  Wagnalls'  Standard  Dictionary.)  They 
raise  to  their  proper  prominence  the  free  middle  tones  in 
which,  as  Grimm  declares,  the  English  surpasses  all  other 
languages.  They  work  wel  in  the  alfabet  ef  English  litera- 
ture and  ef  every  day  use. 

Much  has  been  done  by  the  last  generation  to  simplify  the 
spelling  of  anomalous  words,  but  any  one  who  uses  one  of 
these  types  in  a  book,  er  article,  er  advertisement,  wil  do  as 
much  fer  good  English  as  he  who  adepts  a  hundred  corrected 
words  in  old  types  from  the  goodly  lists  ef  the  3500  presented 
in  the  Century  and  Webster. 


PROCEEDINGS 


OF  THE 


THIRTY-FIFTH   ANNUAL  MEETING 


OF  THE 


AMERICAN  PHILOLOGICAL  ASSOCIATION 

HELD  AT   NEW   HAVEN,   CONN.,   JULY,   1903 

ALSO   OF  THE   FOURTH   ANNUAL   MEETING   OF  THE 

. 

Philological  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast 

HELD  AT  SAN  FRANCISCO,  CAL.,  DEC.,  1902 


MEMBERS   IN   ATTENDANCE   AT   THE   THIRTY-FIFTH 
ANNUAL  MEETING   (NEW   HAVEN,  CONN.). 

Francis  G.  Allinson,  Brown  University,  Providence,  R.  I. 

R.  Arrowsmith,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

William  W.  Baker,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

Floyd  G.  Ballentine,  Bucknell  University. 

William  N.  Bates,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Penn. 

Paul  Baur,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

C.  F.  Brusie,  Mount  Pleasant  Academy,  Sing  Sing,  N.  Y. 

George  Davis  Chase,  Wesleyan  University,  Middletown,  Conn. 

Sherwood  Owen  Dickerman,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Mortimer  Lamson  Earle,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

William  Wells  Eaton,  Middlebury  College,  Middlebury,  Vt. 

Herman  L.  Ebeling,  Haverford  College,  Haverford,  Pa. 

W.  A.  Eckels,  Miami  University,  Oxford,  O. 

Homer  J.  Edmiston,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Bryn  Mawr,  Pa. 

George  V.  Edwards,  State  Normal  College,  Ypsilanti,  Mich. 

L.  H.  Elwell,  Amherst  College,  Amherst,  Mass. 

Edward  Fitch,  Hamilton  College,  Clinton,  N.  Y. 

Thomas  Fitz-Hugh,  University  of  Virginia,  Charlottesville,  Va. 

Thomas  D.  Goodell,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

E.  L.  Green,  South  Carolina  College,  Columbia,  S.  C. 
Albert  Harkness,  Brown  University,  Providence,  R.I. 
Karl  P.  Harrington,  University  of  Maine,  Orono,  Me. 
J.  E.  Harry,  University  of  Cincinnati,  Cincinnati,  O. 
Samuel  Hart,  Berkeley  Divinity  School,  Middletown,  Conn. 
Eugene  W.  Harter,  Erasmus  Hall  High  School,  Brooklyn,  N.Y. 

F.  M.  Hazen,  Mount  Holyoke  College,  South  Hadley,  Mass. 
George  Hempl,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 
John  H.  Hewitt,  Williams  College,  VVilliamstown,  Mass. 
Henry  T.  Hildreth,  Roanoke  College,  Salem,  Va. 

E.  Washburn  Hopkins,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 
Milton  W.  Humphreys,  University  of  Virginia,  Charlottesville,  Va. 
Stephen  A.  Hurlbut,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
George  B.  Hussey,  East  Orange,  N.  J. 

A.  V.  Williams  Jackson,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y. 
Eva  Johnston,  University  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  Columbia,  Mo. 
Roland  G.  Kent,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 
J.  C.  Kirtland,  Jr.,  Phillips  Exeter  Academy,  Exeter,  N.  H. 
Charles  Knapp,  Barnard  College,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

i 


ii  American  Philological  Association. 

Abby  Leach,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y. 

Grace  H.  Macurdy,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y. 

H.  W.  Magoun,  Redfield  College,  Redfield,  S.  D. 

F.  A.  March,  Lafayette  College,  Easton,  Pa. 

Clarence  Linton  Meader,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

John  Moffatt  Mecklin,  Washington  and  Jefferson  College,  Washington,  Pa. 

Alfred  W.  Milden,  Emory  and  Henry  College,  Emory,  Va. 

C.  W.  E.  Miller,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Clifford  Herschel  Moore,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

Frank  G.  Moore,  Dartmouth  College,  Hanover,  N.  H. 

J.  Leverett  Moore,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y. 

Morris  H.  Morgan,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

Edward  P.  Morris,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Elisabeth  H.  Palmer,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y. 

James  M.  Paton,  Wesleyan  University,  Middletown,  Conn. 

Tracy  Peck,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Bernadotte  Perrin,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Edward  D.  Perry,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

John  Pickard,  University  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  Columbia,  Mo. 

William  K.  Prentice,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J. 

Robert  S.  Radford,  Elmira  College,  Elmira,  N.  Y. 

W.  S.  Scarborough,  Wilberforce  University,  Wilberforce,  O. 

Charles  P.  G.  Scott,  Radnor,  Pa. 

Henry  S.  Scribner,  Western  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Allegheny  City,  Pa. 

E.  G.  Sihler,  New  York  University,  University  Heights,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

M.  S.  Slaughter,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis. 

Charles  Forster  Smith,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis. 

Kirby  F.  Smith,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Herbert  Weir  Smyth,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

Sidney  G.  Stacey,  Erasmus  Hall  High  School,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

H.  C.  Tolman,  Vanderbilt  University,  Nashville,  Tenn. 

Minton  Warren,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

John  C.  Watson,  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y. 

Harry  Langford  Wilson,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md. 

Willis  Patten  Woodman,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J. 

Henry  P.  Wright,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

John  Henry  Wright,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

[Total,  75.] 


AMERICAN  PHILOLOGICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


NEW  HAVEN,  CONN.,  July  7,  1903. 

The  Thirty-fifth  Annual  Meeting  was  called  to  order  at  4.30  P.M. 
in  the  Trowbridge  Library  of  the  Divinity  School  of  Yale  University, 
by  the  President,  Professor  Charles  Forster  Smith,  of  the  University 
of  Wisconsin. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Association,  Professor  Herbert  Weir  Smyth, 
of  Harvard  University,  presented  the  following  report :  — 

i.  The  Executive  Committee  has  elected  as  members  of  the  Associa- 
tion :  — 

Prof.  Hamilton  Ford  Allen,  Washington  and  Jefferson  College. 

Dr.  Floyd  G.  Ballentine,  Bucknell  University. 

Dr.  Samuel  E.  Bassett,  Yale  University. 

Prof.  O.  F.  Emerson,  Western  Reserve  University. 

Prof.  Charles  H.  P'orbes,  Phillips  Academy. 

Prof.  John  P.  Fruit,  William  Jewell  College. 

Harwood  Hoadley,  Esq.,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

Stephen  A.  Hurlbut,  Barnard  College. 

Dr.  Roland  G.  Kent,  University  of  Pennsylvania. 

Prof.  J.  W.  Kern,  Washington  aftd  Lee  University. 

Ernst  Loren  Meritt,  Esq.,  New  Haven,  Conn. 

Dr.  Alfred  W.  Milden,  Emory  and  Henry  College. 

J.  Mollison,  Esq.,  Summerside,  Prince  Edward  Island. 

F.  P.  Moulton,  Esq.,  Hartford,  Conn. 

Dr.  Oliver  S.  Tonks,  Boston,  Mass. 

N.  P.  Vlachos,  Esq.,  Yeadon,  Pa. 

Charles  Heald  Weller,  Esq.,  Yale  University. 

Miss  Julia  E.  Winslow,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Dr.  Henry  B.  Wright,  Yale  University. 

*,  2.  The  President  appointed  in  May  the  following  members  to  serve  as  a 
Committee  to  present  a  report  to  the  National  Educational  Association 
on  the  subject  of  a  reform  of  English  Spelling:  F.  A.  March,  Chairman, 
C.  P.  G.  Scott,  George  Hempl,  B.  I.  Wheeler,  and  F.  G.  Hubbard. 

3.  The  Report  of  Publications  by  members  of  the  Association  since 
July  i,  1902,  showed  a  record  of  books,  pamphlets,  and  articles  by  ninety- 
four  members. 

4.  The  TRANSACTIONS  and  PROCEEDINGS  were  issued  in  February,  1903. 
Separate  copies  of  the  PROCEEDINGS  may  be  obtained  only  of  the  Publishers. 


IV 


American  Philological  Association. 


Professor  Smyth  then  presented  his  report  as  Treasurer  for  the 
year  1902-1903:  — 

RECEIPTS. 

Balance  from  1901-1902 $725.19 

Sales  of  Transactions $127.73 

Membership  dues 1460.00 

Dividends  Central  New  England  and  Western  R.  R.      .  6.00 

Offprints l.oo 

Interest 36.77 

Philological  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast  (less  expenses)  209.80 

Total  receipts  for  the  year $1841.30 

$2566.49 

EXPENDITURES. 

Transactions  and  Proceedings  (Vol.  XXXIII)      .     .     .  $1275.09 

Contribution  to  the  Platonic  Lexicon  (.£40)     ....  194.80 

Salary  of  Secretary 300.00 

Postage 59.88 

Printing 70.00 

Expressage 4.02 

Stationery .70 

Incidentals 3.35 

Total  expenditures  for  the  year $1907.84 

Balance,  July  6,  1903 658.65 

$2566.49 

The  President  appointed  Professors  Elwell  and  C.  H.  Moore  as  auditors 
of  the  Treasurer's  report. 

The  reading  of  papers  was  then  begun. 

i.  *!8ios  as  a  Possessive  in  Polybius,  by  Professor  Edwin  L.  Green, 
of  South  Carolina  College. 

Phrynichus  the  grammarian  (Lobeck,  Phrynichus,  p.  441)  says  that  in  his 
time  the  adjective  fStos  was  in  general  use  as  a  possessive  :  rh,  tdia  irpdrru  Kal  ret 
tdia  irpdrrei  ol  TroXXoi  \{yov<riv  flKTJ  are  his  words.  He  is  here  dealing  with  a 
non-Attic  use  of  f5ios,  which  came  into  the  language  some  centuries  before  the 
time  he  wrote.  In  the  Greek  of  the  New  Testament  Wtos  largely  takes  the  place  of 
a  common  possessive  pronoun  (Blass,  G.N.  T.  48,  8;  Hatzidakis,  Einleitung  i.  d, 
neugr.  Grammatik,  p.  293;  Thumb,  Die  gr.  Sprache  im  Zeitalter  des  Hellenismus, 
184  A  6),  and  Dietrich  {Untersuchungen  z.  Geschichte  d.  gr.  Sprache,  pp.  195  f.) 
has  observed  this  use  of  fStos  long  before  the  time  of  New  Testament  writers. 

Polybius  uses  fSios  as  a  possessive  in  more  than  threescore  passages  in  the  five 
books  of  his  Histories  that  have  come  down  entire. 

fSios  as  a  possessive  appears  both  as  an  adjective  and  as  a  substantive,  the 
former  use  being  more  common.  Two  examples  will  suffice  to  illustrate  the 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903. 

adjective  use:  L  IO.  I,  rbrrt  Si  [o!  Ma/tcpr?!-™]  rait  ISiott  rpdypafftv 
oXoffxcpus  Sid  rAj  vvv  piffflffat  airtat,  ol  piy  ivl  KapxijSoviovt  Ka.Tt<j>evyov:  ii.  3.  3, 
[ol  A/TwXol]  KO.ra.-ri.ffTevffa.vTft  Ta.1t  i'5/aiy  Svvd^tai  KO.TO.  woabf  fvffapffwt  elxov: 
cf.  i.  30.  IO;  48.  10;  79.  13. 

In  the  substantive  use  Idiot  has  the  meaning  "his  (their)  own  men."  [TO, 
e-npia.~\  ffTpaQerra,  *arA  TWV  ISiuv  f^ptro  (i.  40.  13)  will  be  sufficient  to  illustrate 
this:  cf.  iii.  43.  8;  73.  7;  100.  6;  v.  85.  i.  In  us  vepl  Mas  (iii.  23.  5),  Idlat  is 
for  TIJS  idlas  x^Paj- 

In  a  few  passages  the  genitive  of  a  reflexive  pronoun  is  found  in  connection 
with  Wios:  i.  26.  I,  5*  TO«  Kopx^So^oti  ^  *-«pl  Zi/c«XJaj  dXXA  repl  ff<pui>  a.inG>v 
K.o.1  r^j  iSias  xwpoj  i  idv&vvos  ylinprcu:  cf.  i.  52.  I;  iL  23.  12. 

Wtoj  is  once  reenforced  by  a  reflexive  genitive:  rait  I8la.it  airroO  Swdpeffi 
(v.  47.  5),  which  has  good  warrant  in  classic  Greek  (Lobeck,  /^-.). 

A  pronoun  in  the  third  person  could  be  put  in  the  place  of  ISiot  in  every  pas- 
sage except  iii.  26.  5,  repl  S>v  ijfifls  iv  TTJ  rapaffKtvy  rijt  idLat  rpaynaTtiat  ni*)ff0ti>- 
TCJ,  where  ijnwi>  airrav  would  be  required.  In  Polybius  IStos  as  a  possessive 
has  always  the  force  of  a  reflexive. 

2.  Notes,  by  Professor  John  C.  Rolfe,  of  the  University  of  Penn- 
sylvania. 

a.  On  Plaut.  Slick.  193  ff. 

Haec  verba  subigunt  med,  ut  mores  barbaros 
Discam  atque  ut  faciam  praeconis  compendium 
Itaque  auctionem  praedicem,  ipse  ut  venditem. 

The  italicized  words  are  usually  taken  in  the  sense  of  *  spare  myself  the  expense 
of  an  auctioneer.'  The  writer  suggested  the  interpretation,  '  ply  the  trade  of  an 
auctioneer,'  and  supported  it  by  an  examination  of  the  uses  of  facere  in  this  sense 
and  by  other  arguments. 

b.  Some  References  to  Seasickness  in  the  Ancient  Writers. 

The  following  passages  were  cited  from  Greek  and  Roman  writers :  Aristoph. 
Thesm.  882;  Plato,  Legg.  639  B,  Theaet.  191  A;  Aristot.  Rhet.  iii.  4.  3;  Alciphron, 
Epist.  ii.  4;  Plaut.  Amph.  329,  Merc.  388;  Cic.  ad  Ate.  v.  13.  l,v.  21.  3,  ad  Fain. 
xvi.  ii.  i;  Caes.  B.  C.  iii.  28.  4;  Hor.  Epod.  9.  35,  Epist.  i.  1.93;  Cels.  i.  3; 
Seneca,  Epist.  53.  3,  4,  5,  108.  37,  de  Ira  iii.  37.  3;  Petr.  103;  Suet.  Caiig.  23; 
Fronto,  p.  15  N.;  Comm.  EinsH.  viii.  214.  32  K.  There  are  also  indirect  refer- 
ences, such  as  Soph.  Ajax,  1142  ff.,  Synesius,  Epist.  iv.  p.  163  D.,  and  perhaps 
Liv.  xxi.  26.  5.  The  writer  would  be  glad  to  have  his  attention  called  to  others, 
both  direct  and  indirect. 

The  general  subject  was  discussed,  and  also  the  orthography  of  the  word  for 
seasickness.  In  Latin  it  is  apparently  always  nausea  (nausia),  while  nautea 
means  '  bilge-water.'  So  Plaut.  Asin.  894,  Cure.  IOO,  and  probably  Artemo,  ap. 
Fest.  p.  1 66  Th.  The  latter  gave  place  at  an  early  period  to  sentina. 

These  notes  will  be  published  in  full  elsewhere. 
Remarks  were  made   by  Professors  Earle,  C.   H.  Moore,  F.  G. 
Moore,  and  Knapp. 


vi  American  PJiilohgical  Association. 

3.  The  Cult  of  the  Nymphs  as  Water- Deities  among  the  Romans, 
by  Dr.  F.  G.  Ballentine,  of  Bucknell  University. 

That  the  Lymphae  and  Nymphae  were  water-deities  among  the  Romans  has 
been  recognized  by  several  scholars,  as  Bloch,  for  example,  in  Rosch.  Lex.  s.  v.  Nym- 
phen,  and  Wissowa,  ibid.,  s.v.  Lymphen.  Few,  however,  seem  to  have  perceived 
and  no  one  heretofore,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  shown  that  the  Romans  from  a  time 
before  the  classical  period  down  to  at  least  the  third  century  A.D.  actually  honored 
the  Nymphae  or  Lymphae  as  goddesses,  who  gave  water  to  men  through  rain  or 
springs  or  rivers.  How  little  this  has  been  understood  is  well  shown  in  the  recent 
characterization  of  the  Nymphs  by  Wissowa  in  his  Rel.  u.  Kult.  d.  Rom,  p.  182. 

The  existence  of  any  general  cult  of  the  Nymphs  as  water-deities  was  first  con- 
jectured by  Professor  M.  H.  Morgan  in  a  paper  read  before  the  Association  in 
1901  entitled,  "  Rain-gods  and  Rain-charms,"  p.  108. 

The  earliest  evidence  that  the  Romans  prayed  to  the  Lymphae  for  water  is 
found  in  Varro,  Rer.  Rust.  I.  I.  6,  where,  at  the  beginning  of  his  work,  in  invok- 
ing various  deities  he  says :  "  Nee  non  etiam  precor  Lympham  et  Bonum  Eventum 
quoniam  sine  aqua  omnis  arida  ac  misera  agri  cultura  .  .  ."  Lympha  in  this 
passage  seems  certainly  to  be  a  goddess  who  bestows  water  for  agriculture  and, 
since  in  "aqua"  the  reference  would  most  naturally  be  to  rain,  we  have  here 
pretty  sure  evidence  that  at  least  by  the  first  half  of  the  first  century  B.C.  Lympha 
or  the  Lymphae  were  prayed  to  for  rain.  Still  better  proof  that  such  was  the 
case  we  obtain  also  from  Varro  through  St.  Augustine,  De  Civ.  Dei,  4.  22,  who 
says  that  we  ought  to  know  what  each  god  furnishes,  "  Ex  eo  enim  poterimus, 
inquit  (Varro),  scire  quem  cuiusque  causa  deum  invocare  atque  advocare  debe- 
mus,  ne  faciamus,  ut  mimi  solent,  et  optemus  a  Libero  aquam,  a  Lymphis  vinum." 
So  also  ibid.,  6.  i.  and  4.  34,  he  clearly  shows  that  Varro  and  those  of  his  time 
held  that  just  as  Liber  should  be  asked  for  wine,  Ceres  for  bread,  and  Vulcan  for 
fire,  so  the  Lympbae  should  be  asked  for  water. 

Vitruvius  also,  it  should  be  noted,  informs  us  that  in  this  century  temples  were 
built  for  the  worship  of  the  Lymphae;  cf.  De  Arch.  I.  2.  5. 

The  cult  of  the  Nymph  luturna  (older  Diuturna)  clearly  shows  that  already  by 
the  middle  of  the  third  century  B.C.  the  Nymphs  were  believed  to  provide  water, 
and  were  worshipped  especially  as  water-deities.  The  date  of  the  public  estab- 
lishment of  the  cult  of  luturna  we  get  with  some  certainty  from  Servius  on  Verg. 
Aen.  12.  139:  "luturna  fons  est  in  Italia.  .  .  .  Huic  fonti  propter  aquarum 
inopiam  sacrificari  solet :  cui  Lutatius  Catulus  primus  templum  in  Campo  Martio 
fecit;  nam  et  luturnas  ferias  celebrant  qui  artificium  aqua  exercent,  quem  diem 
festum  luturnalia  dicunt."  Aust,  De  Aed.  Sacr.  p.  17,  rightly,  I  think,  puts  the 
date  of  the  construction  of  this  temple  shortly  after  the  battle  at  the  Aegatian 
Islands  in  241  B.C. 

What,  then,  was  the  nature  of  this  cult  ?  That  the  temple  was  built  in  honor  of 
luturna  as  a  water-goddess  appears,  I  think,  from  the  fact,  as  Aust  rightly  observes, 
that  it  was  probably  built  in  fulfilment  of  a  vow  made  in  a  naval  battle.  Servius, 
moreover,  informs  us  that  one  part  of  her  cult  was  a  festival  celebrated  in  her 
honor  as  a  water-goddess  by  those  who  used  water  in  their  trade,  —  a  festival 
which  Ovid,  Fasti,  I.  46=:,  shows  still  existed  in  his  time.  From  this  reference  to 
the  festival  by  Ovid  and  from  Servius'  use  of  "  nam "  it  is  almost  certain  that 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  vii 

when  the  latter  speaks  of  this  festival  he  does  not  refer  to  his  own  but  an  ancient 
time,  probably  that  of  the  building  of  the  temple  by  Catulus. 

That  luturna  was  honored  in  this  festival  as  a  goddess  who  bestowed  water  is 
made  all  the  more  certain  from  Servius'  preceding  remark :  "  Huic  fonti  propter 
aquarum  inopiam  sacrificari  solet."  Servius  here  again,  no  doubt,  refers  to  the 
same  early  period l  and  shows  that  in  times  of  drought  sacrifice  was  n.ade  to  I  uturna, 
the  Nymph  of  the  spring,  for  water.  That  the  Nymph  is  here  a  rain-goddess  can 
scarcely  be  doubted. 

Still  further  evidence  that  luturna  was  honored  as  a  water-deity  is  found  in 
her  connection  with  the  Vulcanalia,  a  festival  celebrated  to  avert  danger  or  secure 
aid  in  case  of  fire.  In  the  Fasti  for  August  23d  we  find  concerning  this  festival, 
with  Mommsen's  restorations,  C.I.L.  6.  2295:  "  [Volcanalia  Feriae.]  Volcano. 
[Volcano  in  Circo  Flam.  (inio).  luturnae  et  Nymp]his  in  Campo.  Opi  Opiferfj] 
Quir  [ino],"  an  inscription  whose  date  falls  between  II  B.C.  and  1 6  A.D.  In  this 
restoration  Mommsen,  I  believe,  is  right  in  connecting  the  expression  "  [Nympj- 
his  in  Campo  "  with  the  temple  of  luturna  built  by  Catulus  in  the  Campus  Martius. 

Cicero,  De  Har.  Resp,  57,  shows  the  connection  of  luturna  and  the  Nymphs 
with  this  festival :  "  Sed  etiam  inaudita  sacra  inexpiabili  scelcre  pervertit  idemque 
earum  templum  inflammavit  dearum  quarum  ope  etiam  aliis  incendiis  subvenitur." 
The  nature  of  their  assistance  is  made  certain  by  the  information  of  Servius,  for 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  luturna  and  the  Nymphs  were  honored  in  the  Vulcan- 
alia as  goddesses  who  gave  the  water  to  be  used  in  case  of  fire.2  They  were,  more- 
over, connected  with  this  festival  at  least  before  56  B.C.,  the  date  of  the  De  Har. 
Resp.,  and  probably  at  a  very  early  time  since  the  festival  was  an  ancient  one  and 
the  temple  of  luturna  goes  back  to  the  middle  of  the  third  century  B.C. 

luturna,  finally,  presides  over  ponds  and  rivers  according  to  Verg.  Aen.  12. 
139-140,  and,  if  we  may  believe  Arnobius,  3.  29,  was  the  mother  of  Fons,  on  the 
day  of  whose  festival  wells  were  crowned  with(chaplets  to  secure  abundant  water;  8 
the  luturna  inscriptions  also,  recently  discovered,  may  well  concern  the  Nymph 
as  a  water-deity.4 

From  this  evidence  it  therefore  seems  certain  that  luturna  and  the  Nymphs 
were  worshipped  by  the  Romans  as  goddesses  who  gave  water  from  about  the 
middle  of  the  third  century  B.C.  to  at  least  the  end  of  the  first  century  B.C.  The 
revival  of  the  cult  in  the  age  of  Augustus  is  marked  by  the  restoration  of  her 
temple  in  2  B.C. 

Passing  now  from  luturna,  we  have  next  to  cite  concerning  the  Nymphs  as 
water-deities,  Hor.  Serin.  I.  5.  97-98:  "  Dein  Gnatia  Lymphis  j  Iratis  exstructa 
dedit  risusque  iocosque,"  explained  as  follows  by  Porphyrio :  "  Per  haec  quoque 
oppidulum  significat  penuria  aquae  laborare."  If  Porphyrio  is  right,  as  seems 
probable,  we  have  here  trace  of  a  belief  in  the  time  of  Horace  that  the  Lymphae 
bestowed  the  water  of  springs. 

Again  in  Ovid,  Fast.  273-275,  Egeria  furnishes  the  water  of  a  stream :  "  De- 
fluit  incerto  lapidosus  murmure  rivus:  .  .  .  Egeria  est  quae  praebet  aquas."  In  a 
very  interesting  passage  in  Statius,  Theb.  4.  683  ff.,  and  Lactantius  on  v.  717,  the 

1  So  Preller,  Rom.  Myth.  a.  p.  128. 

J  So  Mom.  u.  Mar.,  Ant.  Rom.  p.  12,  n.  2;  Wissowa,  Rel.  u.  Kult.  p.  185. 

»  Cf.  Fowler,  Rom.  Fest.  p.  240. 

4  Cf.  Notizie  degli  Scavi  1900,  pp.  292  and  293. 


viii  American  Philological  Association. 

power  of  providing  the  water  of  springs  and  rivers  is  once  more  ascribed  to  the 
Nymphs. 

That  the  Nymphs  were  held  not  only  to  dwell  in  or  near  certain  springs,  but 
also  to  provide  their  water,  is  made  more  certain  by  several  inscriptions.  When 
new  springs  were  found,  shrines  were  dedicated  and  offerings  made  to  them;  cf. 
C.I.L.  10.  4734,  C.I.L.  3  3116.  In  C.I.L.  5.  3106  the  Nymphs  have  been  asked 
to  grant  the  return  of  some  water,  probably  that  of  a  spring :  "  Nymphis  Lymphis- 
que  |  Augustis  ob  reditum  |  aquarum  |  P.  Pumponius  Cornelianus  C,  I  |  ut  vovit." 
In  C.I.L.  8.  2662,  of  the  beginning  of  the  third  century  A.D.,  the  Nymphs  appear 
in  all  probability  as  rain-goddesses ' :  "  .  .  .  Hanc  aram  Nymphis  extruxi,  nomine 
Laetus,  .  .  .  quod  dives  Lambaesem  largo  perfudit  flumine  Nympha,"  an  inscrip- 
tion of  five  hexameters. 

Further,  the  Nymphs  seem  to  have  presided  in  a  way  over  aqueducts  and  their 
water,  probably  because  of  their  connection  with  the  sources  of  the  water :  cf. 
C.I.L.  9.  5794,  C.I.L.  10.  5163,  C.I.L.  12.  1093,  Orelli,  7148,  C.I.L.  6.  551,  C.I.G. 
4616  —  inscriptions  ranging  in  date  from  the  first  to  the  third  centuries  A.D. 

Finally,  as  evidence  that  the  Nymphs  were  water-deities,  it  should  be  noted 
that  Nympha  is  often  explained  by  late  writers  and  scholiasts  as  "dea  aquarum"; 
cf.  Cor.  Glos.  Lat.  4.  125.  I,  4.  262.  10,  5.  467.  63,  5.  313.  46,  4.  124.  55,  5.  314.  I, 
Isid.  Ep.  8.  II.  96,  Ovid.  Am.  2.  14.  13-14. 

In  short,  it  seems  clear  that  the  Lymphae  were  believed  to  provide  water 
through  rain  or  springs  from  at  least  the  beginning  of  the  first  century  B.C.;  that 
luturna  from  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century  B.C.  was  honored  as  a  goddess 
who  provided  water;  and  that  the  Nymphs,  either  in  general  or  individually,  as 
luturna,  Egeria,  or  the  Nymph  of  some  spring,  from  at  least  the  middle  of  the 
third  century  B.C.  to  about  the  middle  of  the  third  century  A.D.,  were  believed  to 
preside  over  rain,  springs,  and  perhaps  rivers,  and  in  the  Roman  religion  of  the 
time  held  the  place  of  water-deities. 

Remarks  were  made  by  Professor  Morgan. 

4.  On  the  Omission  of  the  Copula  in  certain  Combinations  in 
Greek,  by  Professor  J.  E.  Harry,  of  the  University  of  Cincinnati. 

That  the  ccpula  is  regularly  omitted  with  eVoi/ios,  particularly  in  the  first  and 
second  persons,  has  become  almost  a  prepossession  among  grammarians  and  com- 
mentators. Wecklein,  in  his  edition  of  the  Prometheus  (1896),  says;  TO  irpwrov 
teal  Sevrepov  Trpfxruwov  rod  et'/ii  irapaXefirrrat  atraviuTepov,  ftAvov  5e  ev  rip  troifws 
e'lvcn  17  irapdXeii/as  ffvv^&rjy  Ka.1  Si)  Kal  &vev  rov  e>c!>  «U  <rtf,  and  then  cites  the 
stock  examples. 

The  omission  of  the  copula  belongs  to  elevated  language  (rare  in  proverbs, 
seldom  in  Pindar).  Cf.  Prom.  42  (vri\T)s  cri)),  Plato,  Protag.  313  B  (IVoi/aoj  el 
dvaXiffKfiv),  Polit.  277  E  («cai  ait  ye  ?TOI/LM>S  duroXoi/teti').  When  subj.  and  pred. 
are  juxtaposed,  they  take  care  of  themselves,  —  the  copula  is  not  needed.  In 
Prom.  475  W^'Mos  stands  alone,  el  being  understood.  The  text  is  sound;  there 
is  no  need  of  changing,  with  van  Herwerden,  to  lards  ef ;  the  person  is  indicated 
by  fftavrbv  oiiK  exe'*-  So  in  Soph.  O.  C.  461  &rci£ios  f*tvt  OiShrous,  *caToi»cri<roi, 
1  So  Dar.  and  Sag.  D.  s.v.  Fontes. 


Proceedings  for  July t   1903.  ix 

the  voc.  following  the  adj.  indicates  clearly  enough  that  the  second  person  is 
meant. 

The  copula  is  not  generally  omitted  with  froi/ios.  In  the  first  pers.  sing., 
where  the  use  of  the  adj.  is  very  common,  the  copula  is  expressed  far  more  fre- 
quently than  it  is  omitted,  —  in  other  words,  just  the  reverse  of  Wecklein's  state- 
ment is  true:  Hdt.  7.  158  troths  et>t  pwdtciv,  Plato,  Gorg.  5106  tyu  Iro^i 
elfu  tiraiveiv,  Rep.  335  E  tywy'  olv,  fy?;,  froths  elm  Koivuvtiv  TIJS  no-xv,  Legg. 
646  B,  Antisthenes,  Odysseus,  Isaeus  12.  10,  Dinarchus  I.  51,  Demosthenes  53.  23, 
18.  177  (vir&pxftf  fyfis  *T<MMOI)I  Eur.  Hec.  302,  985,  Phoen.  484,  Hel.  1058, 
Soph.  Phil.  90,  Ar.  Kan.  860.  In  the  third  pers.  there  are  at  least  a  hundred 
examples  of  the  use  of  the  copula,  the  omission  being  rare. 

In  the  older  language  the  suppression  of  the  copula  was  not  felt  as  an  ellipsis, 
as  in  the  later  stage.  Cf.  Aesch.  Prom.  47,  178,  320,  506,  987,  Eur.  Suppl.  41, 
187,  Thuc.  3.  38.  4,  Soph.  At.  710,  890,  924. 

In  Lucian  there  are  several  examples  of  the  omission  with  ?TOIAWS,  but  Lucian 
is  not  a  criterion  for  Attic  usage.  Kruger  cites  no  examples  from  him  (Spr. 
§  62.  I.  5),  when  he  says:  "Die  erste  und  zweite  Person  der  Kopula  fehlt  Qber- 
haupt  selten  .  .  .  ofter  jedoch  bei  ?roi/toj,  das  selbst  ohne  tyu  von  der  ersten 
Person  gebraucht  wird. "  But  the  careful  grammarian  adds  the  saving  clause : 
"  Doch  wird  auch  dem  Iroi/uos  oft  elfi.t  beigefiigt."  Jebb,  in  his  note  on  Ajax  813, 
is  not  so  guarded  in  his  language :  "  ZTOIHOS  without  the  verb  efyii,  as  in  O.  T.  92 : 
Eur.  El.  796:  Dem.  Or.  9.  4:  Plat.  Polit.  277  E,  and  often."  There  are  very 
few  examples  (except  those  cited)  even  in  poetry.  Some  authors,  as  Lysias  and 
Herodotus,  never  omit  the  verb.  Schneidewin-Nauck  (O.  T.  92)  merely  say: 
"  Ueber  die  Auslassung  von  elfii  bei  froi/xos  s.  Kruger." 

For  false  opinions  respecting  the  omission  of  the  copula  with  the  verbal  adjec- 
tive, see  Bishop,  Amer.  Journ.  Philol.  20.  247. 

In  Homer  £TOI/XOS  is  used  only  of  things.  In  the  lyric  poets  there  are  no 
examples.  Aeschylus  has  only  two  certain  instances  (Ag.  791,  Cho.  1025), 
Sophocles  two  of  the  omission  (already  cited)  and  three  of  the  use  of  the  verb 
(Ant.  264,  Phil.  90,  569).  Euripides  omits  the  copula  four  times  {Phoen. 
969,  Med.  612  \_Rhes. ~\  959,  Heracl.  501),  and  employs  it  four  times  {Hec.  302, 
985,  Phoen.  484,  Hel.  1052) ;  also  once  with  the  subjunctive.  In  Aristophanes 
the  verb  is  regularly  expressed  (  Vesp.  341,  Ran.  860,  Nub.  807),  the  only  excep- 
tion being  Thesm.  59  (8s  and  ?Tot/xoj  juxtaposed,  and  the  inf.  sixteen  words  dis- 
tant). The  prose  writers  seldom  omit  the  verb  with  troifws :  Herodotus  I.  42, 
86,  113,  141;  4.  42;  5.  15;  7.  140,  147,  148,  158;  8.  21;  9.46,  Thucydides  4. 

28.  2;  6.  29;   7.  3.  I,  83.  2;  8.  9.   I  and  often  (forty  examples),  Isocrates  14. 

29,  17.  16,  Lysias  I.  29;   7.  34;  12.  9;    13.  26;   20.  26;  28.  7;   34.  2  (and  often), 
Isaeus  Irot/uos  8'  tlpl  <5/ic6<rcu,  Aeschines,  2.  133;   3.  240,  Dinarchus  I.  20;    I.  51. 
Demosthenes  has  27  examples,  all  with  the  copula,  except  four,  one  of  which 
probably  had  much  to  do  with  the  framing  of  the  rule.     Plato,  of  course,  omits 
the  copula  more  frequently  than  the  orators  and  historians  (farm.  137  C,  Polit. 
277  E,  308  E,  Laches  180  A,  194  A,  Eryxias  399  E).     In  most  of  these  it  might 
have  been  omitted  with  other  adjectives.     But  even  in  Plato  the  verb  is  more 
frequently  expressed  (Theaet.   151  C,  Apol.  32  B,  Phaedr.  231  C,  Euthyd.  274 C, 
Protag.  312  D,  313  B,  Gorg.  86  B,  Rep.  391  B,  Legg.  646  A,  831  C,  Symp.  200  D, 
Epistle  i)'  3576.     Xenophon  never  omits  the  copula,  except  An.  7.  8.  II   (ws 


American  Philological  Association. 


xP1)pd'TUV)  '•  Mem*  3-  I3-  3»  Cyropaed.  4.  I    I,  5i;Xw<ras  flrt  Uroifwt  eiVt 
'?  5-  4-  24»  Anab.  I.  6.  3  voplffas  eroifwvs  efmt,  4.  6.  17  Irot/i6s  efyu  .  .  . 
iVwt,  6.  I.  2;   7.  I.  33. 

The  so-called  rule  is  not  only  not  mandatory;  it  is  not  even  permissive.  If 
we  say  simply  that  there  is  a  tendency  to  omit  the  copula  with  ?rot^ios,  all  we 
mean  is  that  this  adjective  belongs  to  a  group  of  words  frequently  used  in  sen- 
tences which  require  the  utmost  brevity.  And  this  is  true  of  English,  French, 
German  and  Italian  as  well  as  of  Greek.  The  starter  on  the  track  says  to  the 
sprinters,  "  Ready  !  "  "  Set  !  "  and  then  fires  his  pistol.  The  military  officer 
says,  "  Ready  !  "  "  Aim  !  "  "  Fire  !  "  We  might  as  well  cull  a  few  examples  of 
"Murder!  "  or  "Police!  "  from  Dickens,  and  assert  that  the  copula  is  regularly 
omitted  with  certain  words  in  English  as  to  try  to  frame  a  rule  based  on  a  few 
isolated  cases  of  the  omission  of  the  verb  with  ITOI/MS  found  in  Sophocles, 
Euripides,  and  Demosthenes. 

Remarks  were  made  by  Professor  Humphreys. 

5.  The  Succession  of  Spartan  Nauarchs  in  Hellenica  I,  by  Profes- 
sor Carleton  L.  Brownson,  of  the  College  of  the  City  of  New  York 
(read  by  Professor  Goodell). 

This  paper  appears  in  the  TRANSACTIONS. 

i 

6.  Assumed  Singulars,  by  Dr.  C.  P.  G.  Scott,  of  Radnor,  Pa. 
This  paper  will  appear  in  a  later  volume  of  the  TRANSACTIONS. 
Adjourned  at  5.45  P.M. 


SECOND  SESSION. 

Tuesday  evening,  July  7. 

The  Association  assembled  at  8  P.M.  in  the  Marquand  Chapel  of 
the  Divinity  School  to  listen  to  the  address  of  the  President.  The 
speaker  was  introduced  by  the  Rev.  Anson  Phelps  Stokes,  Jr.,  Secre- 
tary of  Yale  University,  who  welcomed  the  Association  to  New  Haven 
and  Yale  University. 

7.  Character-drawing  in  Thucydides,  by  Professor  Charles  Forster 
Smith,  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin. 

"Thucydides  aims,"  says  Bruns  (Das  Literarische  Portrat  der  Griec hen,  1896) 
in  substance,  "  in  a  strictly  objective  way  to  represent  the  cause  of  history  itself, 
not  to  give  a  succession  of  individual  pictures.  To  only  a  few  preferred  individ- 
uals does  the  historian  give  such  distinctive  features,  and  these  sparingly  touched, 
as  lift  them  from  the  mass.  The  private  life  and  personal  character  of  historical 
personages  come  into  consideration  only  as  these  influence  the  course  of  public 
events.  He  avoids  passing  judgment  in  his  own  name  on  historical  characters; 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xi 

hence  independent  characterizations  of  individual  men  apart  from  the  narrative 
are  excluded." 

The  historian's  abstention  from  direct  characterizations  is  at  first  a  disappoint- 
ment to  us,  but  the  more  we  think  of  it,  the  more  likely  we  are  to  justify  him.  It 
is  greater  art  to  make  the  narration  and  grouping  of  facts  convey  judgments, 
whether  of  commendation  or  condemnation,  than  to  pronounce  opinions.  If  we 
can  only  be  sure  of  the  facts,  the  rest  will  take  care  of  itself.  The  clear  and 
truthful  statement  of  facts  is  history  herself  pronouncing  judgment.  Facts  stand 
and  carry  their  judgment  with  them.  Some  such  austere  view  of  the  historian's 
function  Thucydidcs  seems  to  have  held,  and  when  we  read  the  whole  history 
with  this  idea  in  mind  we  can  but  admire  his  reserve  and  self-restraint. 

But  the  historian  does  give  us  very  real  pictures  of  some  of  his  men.  How 
does  he  accomplish  this  ?  Two  ways  are  open  to  him  —  narration  of  men's  deeds 
and  dramatic  presentation  of  the  motives  at  work,  in  the  speeches.  To  the  small 
list  of  preferred  characters  whom  Thucydides  treats  not  as  types,  but  as  individuals 
of  clearly  marked  features  and  impressive  personality,  belong,  on  the  one  side, 
especially  Pericles,  Cleon,  Nicias,  Alcibiades,  Demosthenes;  on  the  other,  Archi- 
damus,  Brasidas,  Gylippus,  Hermocrates.  To  these  might  be  added  a  few  minor 
—  at  least  by  comparison  minor  —  characters,  eg.  the  Athenians  Phormio  and 
Paches,  and  the  Spartans  Alcidas  and  Sthenelaidas.  Still  three  others  Thucydi- 
des makes  to  stand  out  from  the  mass,  either  by  narration  of  facts  or  by  brief 
characterizations,  the  Spartan  Pausanias,  and  the  Athenians  Themistocles,  and 
Antiphon.  But  the  exigencies  of  space  and  time  compel  a  choice  even  among 
these  few  especially  preferred  characters  of  the  history,  and  so  the  attempt  is  here 
made  to  indicate  Thucydides'  method  of  character-drawing  and  to  give  a  clear 
idea  of  what  he  thereby  accomplishes  by  four  of  the  chief  personages :  Brasidas 
and  Cleon,  Nicias  and  Gylippus.  These  are  so  set  counter  to  each  other  in  the  his- 
tory as  to  bring  out  more  effectively  by  contrast  each  other's  strength  and  weakness. 

After  Pericles,  Brasidas  seems  to  be  the  favorite  character  of  the  historian. 
He  first  appears  in  a  minor  exploit,  but  one  thoroughly  characteristic,  and  we 
feel  at  once  the  historian's  sympathy  with  the  man.  It  was  the  affair  at  Methone 
(ii.  25)  when  a  large  Athenian  and  Corcyraean  force  that  had  been  disembarked 
from  fifty  ships  was  attacking  the  place.  "  Now  Brasidas,  son  of  Tellis,  a  Spartan," 
says  Thucydides,  "  happened  to  be  in  those  parts  keeping  guard,  and  seeing  the 
danger,  came  to  the  aid  of  the  inhabitants  with  a  hundred  hoplites.  He  made 
his  way  through  the  scattered  parties  of  Athenian  troops,  whose  attention  was 
occupied  with  the  fortress,  and  threw  himself  into  Methone,  suffering  a  slight 
loss;  he  thus  saved  the  place.  The  exploit  was  publicly  acknowledged  at  Spartal, 
Brasidas  being  the  first  Spartan  who  obtained  this  distinction  in  the  war."  The 
real  Brasidas  is  now  before  us,  and  his  great  career  is  not  more  conspicuous  in 
deeds  from  this  time  on  than  their  representation,  through  bare  recital  of  facts  in 
Thucydides'  austere  history,  is  lifelike  and  effective. 

Passing  over  with  mere  mention  the  next  brief  appearances  of  Brasidas, — 
the  speech  of  the  Lacedaemonian  commanders  (ii.  87),  the  audacious  plan  to 
surprise  the  Peiraeus  (ii.  93),  the  advice  given  by  him  to  Alcidas  to  attack 
Corcyra  (iii.  79), —  we  notice  the  emphasis  given  to  Brasidas'  conduct  in  the  attack 
upon  Pylos  (iv.  n,  12),  when  the  intrepid  and  desperate  fighter,  after  receiving 
many  wounds,  swoons  away  while  his  shield  drops  off  into  the  sea,  and,  being 


jrii  America*  Philological  Association, 

washed  ashore,  is  taken  up  by  the  Atheniaus  and  used  for  the  trophy  raised  far 
their  victory. 

IB  tike  j*ar  424,  by  a.  dash  Bat  Hot  at  Methane,  he  oaks  tip  with  300  packed 
mem  mi  •••!•  Mnpu  fiium  the  AnVeaiaai  (nr.  70-73).  When  a  little  later  he 

is  sent  to  the  dissatisfied  Athenian  allies  m  Chalcidke,  tike  *•*••«"•  works  into 
the  narrative,  as  an  expnnatiBB  of  titt  ChakidiaaB*- dea%e  iv  Bnaidas,  a  masked 
characterizaltikiui  of"  the  man.  "  He  was  even  more  willing  to  go  than  they  were 
to  semi  bom.  The  Chakidians,  loo,  desired  to  have  him,  for  at  Sparta  he  had 

always  been  conffiKtered  a  mam  off  uau§j.  And  oat  this  expedition  be  pumJ. 
invaluable  to  tbe  I  in  >  dai  •!•••!  At  the  same  time  he  gave  an  impression  of 
justice  and  moderation  in  his  behav&ar  to  the  cities,  which  induced  many  of  them 
to  revolt,  while  otheis  were  betrayed  into  his  hands.  Thns  the  Lacedaemonians 
were  able  to-  lighten  the  pressure  of  war  upon  Peloponnesus,  and  when,  shortly 
after,  they  desired  to  negotiate,  they  had  places  to  give  in  return  far  what  they 
sooght  tQ.rec0iv.er.  And  at  a  later  period  of  the  war,  after  tfee  Sidiliian  expedition, 
the  honesty  and  ability  of  Braskfas,  whkh  some  had  experienced  and  of  which 
others  had  W»«l  the  onue,  manhr  *"•*•  i»«l  fhfr  Athenian  affies  to  the  l*ml*f- 
mmmmm.  For  as  he  was  die  fi^  who  was  sent  ont  and  pcored  himself  to  be  in 
cnuj  way  i  good  maa,  he  left  in  tioeir  miiais  a  firm  conviction  that  others  would 
be  Ike  Mm"  (ir.  Si). 

On  an  expeditio n  with  Perdiccas  of  Maoeonm  among  die  IHyrana,  !»••••  il«» 

displayed  extraordinary  courage  and  presence  of  nmnd.    The  nf *«  •A^Hmm*.  fgfl 
into  '-  - "  "jible  panic  and  decamped  in  the  n^ghL     Brasidas  arranged  his 

troops  for  an  orderly  retreat  and  encouraged  his  men  in  a  short  If***1**  which, 
whether  ever  made  or  mot,  dearly  sets  forth,  we  may  accept,  the  motives  under- 
lying Mi  oondbnrt  on  this  trying  occasion.     "  Mobs  Eke  these,'"  Hid.  he,  "if  an 
adversary  withsfiairi  their  firat  atta^  do  b«t  threaten  at  a  distance  and  make  a 
Boorish   ]fvil    r      i.± .  ^i   ::"    .-;   v-.r ':-   ::    :-;-    :':---•   i:t      -----    -    --    -^    :      :-.- 

after  Mm  when  there  is  no  danger1"  (nr.  126).  The  result  was  as  he  antici- 
pated, and  his  whole  army  escaped  without  km  out  of  Ike  litil1  •  of  countless 
•  an Haling,  (re.  125—128). 

la  tike  AmfUfOmt  tmtamg^  BaunoB*  mfaam:  ClennhSenteMDer,422,Thucydi- 
des  attribotes  to  Ike  uoHieBi  of  dona  sentiments  which  are  undoubtedly  his 
own.  "The  soldiers,"'  said  he,  "  drew  comparisons  between  the  generals;  what 
skill  and  enterprise  might  be  expected  on  the  one  side,  and  what  ignorance 
and  cowardice  on  the  other."  It  was  as  tbe  •"•^••»  expected.  When  Brasidas 
observed  from  within  the  waHs  the  ..army  of  dean  moving  off  in  disorder  he 
shouted:  "Those  men  do  not  mean  to  ace  us;  see  how  their  spears  and  then- 
heads  are  shakings  such  benm»im  always  shows  that  an  army  n>  going  to  run 
away.  Opes  the  gates  and  let  us  at  them! "  Them  •••  ir  4,  the  Athenian 
cenlrc  with  I  jo  hopfitcs^  speedily  supported  by  the  mam  buujv  he  was  entirely 
successful.  "Qeony  who  had  never  intended  to  remain,™  says  TTiucydides,  "fled 
at  once  and  was  overtake*  awl  sbm."  Bat  aafiuluinlilj  Brasidas  also  was 
«?g.fn..  Thucydides  pronounces  no  eulogy  upon  the  dead  hero.  He  simply 
states:  "Bcasidas  was  boned  with  pubhc  Iwrnoo  in  front  of  the  agora.  The 
whole  body  of  the  allies,  in  military  array,  followed  him  to  tbe  grave.  The  Am- 
phipolitans  enclosed  bus  sepukhre,  and  to  ton  day  they  sacrifice  to  him  as  a 
hero,  and  also  celebrate  games  and  yearly  offerings  in  his  honor"  (v.  6-n). 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  jriii 

Thncydides  has  nowhere  g»co  a  formal  risanrliriii  sliiui  of  Brasidas,  bat  we  see 
in  die  facts,  as  he  states  diem,  in  Brasidas  the  greatest  warrior  of  the  Spartan 
side,  a  winning  penonafity,  aatsfeemmm  of  farce  and  address. 

If  Brasidas  k  Thncydides'  favorite  ihmailn.  Oeon  k  hk  especial  aveniaaL 
In  other  cases  he  leaves  to  die  facts  of  hktory  dte  verdict  of  approval  or 
condemnation;  Oeon  he  has  condemned  in  few  monk,  bnt  uxtmktakably. 
Giote  suspects  die  canse  to  be  personal  — die  fact  that  Oeon  was  the  reputed 
accuser  when  dw  historian  was  baamhed,  Bat  it  was  Brasid 
Thncydides  and  caused  hk  banishment,  and  jet  Brasidas  k  bam.  dw 
bayed  widi  warm  interest.  Oeon  k  ianvdaced  hi  the  hktory  with  words  that 
betray  strong  aversion,  "Glean,  due  son  of  flcacnetus,  who  also  had  carried  the 
former  decree  of  death,  being  in  other  respects  dt£  meat  violent  of  the  «-J*i*»»*, 
and  by  Car  die  most  persuasive  at  die  time  with  the  demos,  came  forward  and 
spoke"  (in.  36).  It  was  not  hk  fust  i|i|iisisan  before  dte  Ecdesia,  but 


nation.  The  proposition  which  he  had  carried  in  a  former  assembly  aad  was 
now  defending  was  to  kffl  aD  MfeylmmemB  of  nuuunry  age— about  6000— and 
to  sdl  as  slaves  d»e  women  and  cttdrea.  We  shall  find  him  two  yens  later 
carrying  a  like  dacm.  "to  destroy  Scione  ami  put  the  <*«*•«  to  the  sword." 
The  speech  in  the  matter  of  the  BG^tesneans  k  one  of  the  mmt  remarkable  m 
Thncydides  and  justifies  the  epithet  -most  violent*  (mu  37-49). 

Once  again  he  appears  as  the  bbKtering  demagogue  (hr.  21-23  a**1  **  f.). 
When  the  I  n  i  iln  inimiioi,  m  imiomj  si  flu  iftmuiim  rflhi 
offered  advantageous  teems,  Oeon  persuaded  the  fllnraiini 
Bat  die  blockade  spmi  iludT  wat  intenmlmn%,  smi  dw  waftd* 
to  the  Athenians.  Oe*m,  penxiring  diat  he  wjs  becooring  an 
mistrust,  first  boldly  challenged  the  iijiifcfumi  Pjios;  then,  when  he  was  him- 
self delegated  to  go  ami  inspect  die  situation,  he  urged  rather  to  send  a  fleet. 
"He  declared  sarcastically  that  if  the  generak  were  good  for  •ujlhim,.  dKy 
m^t  easOy  sail  to  die  kbmd  and  take  dK  men;  that  he  wonU  do  it,  if  he  were 
generaL"  \\"ben  Nkias  ofiered  to  resign  m  Oeon's  favor,  uue  fatter  tried  to 
ba^  out,  bat  die  multitude  ridknlcd  him  into  going.  He  chose  Demosthenes 
as  hk  c«0eagne,  and  vauntingbr  said  dot  in  twenty  days  he  would  return  with 
dtt  Lacedaemonians  as  prkonem  or  wouM  smy  them  am  the  spot.  "Hk  vain 
words,"  says  Thncydides,  "moved  die  AdKnians  to  bughter;  nevenhefess  the 
wttsrtafamwmjkartwwml^liiMu*edA*wI»*mt!Oud  Itis^i  they 
could  not  fail  to  obtain  one — eidker  thene  wauii  he  mi  end  of  Oeon,  which  dbey 
would  have  greatly  pfffr"H»  wA  V  they  were  disappointed,  he  would  pnt  the 
Lacedaemonians  into  duar  hands."'  The  "mad"  promise  of  Oeon  i 
good,  for  he  did  return  with  die  pikumaa.  m  UstJOtf  dnffc 

But  Qeon's  success  at  Sphactnia  was  to  he  nil  •••  msuohm>  He 
die  Ailn'MJJi^  in  \"t  to  send  him  with  an  expedition  to  the  r^*&* MM»  ^-iti^*. 
Hk  opponent  was  nimiilss.  ami  dsej  met  at  Amphkwik,  as  described  above. 
"Brasidas  and  Oeon,*  OBUS  Thncydides,  by  way  of  swmmnry,  "  hml  wans  one  two 
'•-.'-'..•'.  -.~-r.  --.  •'_::•-.:._;  —  : " :  r.-  :•-.  .1  ---  i:  '  -J"'""  ••---:•••>  i"  1  *;:_- 

.he 


xiv  American  Philological  Association. 

Ingenious  attempts  have  been  made  to  reverse  the  verdict  of  history  in  the 
case  of  one  and  another  arch  sinner.  The  attempt  to  whitewash  Cleon  will  not 
succeed.  The  world  has  too  long  believed  in  the  self-restraint  and  impartiality 
of  Thucydides  to  be  convinced  now  that  his  aversion  to  Cleon  was  due  to  a 
personal  grudge.  The  greatest  historian  and  the  greatest  satirist  of  the  ancient 
world  have  both  branded  him  as  the  arch-demagegue,  and  their  verdict  will 
stand.  Cleon  is  pilloried  forever. 

Of  all  the  chief  men  of  the  Peloponnesian  War,  Nicias  is  perhaps  relatively 
the  least  important,  as  far  as  real  ability  and  force  of  character  are  concerned; 
but  we  have  here  a  fuller  psychological  analysis  than  in  any  other  case.  The 
reason  is  doubtless,  as  Bruns  thinks,  that  his  is  a  more  complicated  nature  and 
in  him  the  most  varying  motives  cross  each  other.  We  have  seen  above  the 
outcome  of  his  first  important  appearance,  the  tilt  with  Cleon  on  the  Sphacterian 
matter.  "  He  had  been,"  says  Thucydides,  "  the  most  fortunate  general  of  his 
day,"  and  but  for  the  Sicilian  expedition  he  would  have  come  down  to  us,  not 
indeed  as  a  great  general  and  statesman,  but  as  a  safe  leader  who  had  deserved 
well  of  his  country.  It  is  the  irony  of  fate  that  Nicias,  who  saw  so  clearly  the 
folly  and  even  the  danger  of  this  enterprise,  should  have  been  forced  by  the 
people's  confidence  in  his  integrity  and  ability  to  take  the  chief  command  in 
this  imperialistic  undertaking  (vi.  8).  The  chief  cause  of  the  fateful  expedition 
was  Alcibiades,  but  the  chief  instrument  of  fate  in  the  disaster  was  the  unhappy 
Nicias.  The  simple  course  of  historical  events  becomes  an  indirect  characteriza- 
tion of  the  man."  The  narration  and  grouping  of  events  show  unmistakably 
the  historian's  condemnation  of  the  unfortunate  general  whom  he  never  blames 
in  word.  The  one  excuse  that  could  have  been  urged  for  Nicias  was  that  he  was 
suffering  from  an  incurable  disease.  But  as  Thucydides  does  not  accuse,  so  he 
does  not  excuse;  he  simply  mentions  the  fact. 

The  cardinal  mistakes  of  Nicias  in  the  Sicilian  expedition,  as  gathered  from  the 
historian's  narration  of  facts,  may  be  summarized  as  follows : 

(i)  Nicias  rejects  Lamachus'  advice  to  sail  direct  to  Syracuse  and  fight  as  soon 
as  possible  under  the  walls.  Formidable  at  first,  he,  by  wasting  the  winter  at 
Catana,  fell  into  contempt  and  allowed  time  for  succor  to  come  from  Pelopon- 
nesus. (2)  Learning  of  Gylippus'  approach  and  despising  the  small  number  of 
his  ships,  at  first  he  set  no  watch  (vi.  104)  ;  then,  when  he  did  send  four  ships  to 
intercept  him,  was  too  late  (vii.  i).  (3)  Lets  Gylippus  get  into  Syracuse  by  way 
of  Euryalus  (vii.  2).  (4)  Allows  Gylippus  to  surprise  and  take  the  fort  Labdalon 
(vii.  3).  (5)  Sends  twenty  ships  to  waylay  at  the  Porthmus  the  Corinthian  suc- 
cors for  Syracuse,  but  too  late  (vii.  4,  7).  (6)  Allows  Gylippus  to  build  in  the 
night  the  Syracusan  cross-wall  past  the  Athenian  wall  of  circumvallation  (vii.  6). 
(7)  Permits  Gylippus  to  surprise  and  capture  Plemmyrium,  with  the  result  that 
the  Syracusans  were  henceforth  "  masters  of  the  mouth  of  the  harbor  on  both 
sides,  so  that  not  a  single  store-ship  could  enter  without  a  convoy  and  a  battle  " 
(vii.  22,  23).  (8)  Allows  Gylippus  and  the  Syracusans  to  send  to  southern  Italy 
and  cut  off  a  supply  fleet  meant  for  the  Athenians  (vii.  25).  (9)  Is  deceived  by 
a  ruse  and  drawn  into  a  sea-fight  when  the  men  are  unprepared  and  hungry 
(vii.  39-41).  (10)  Rejects  the  proposition  of  Demosthenes  and  Eurymedon  to 
leave  Sicily  immediately  after  the  failure  of  the  attack  on  Epipolae  (vii.  48,  49). 
( 1 1 )  Having  finally  consented,  in  view  of  matters  getting  worse  and  worse,  to  lead 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xv 

off  the  army,  he  is  frightened  by  an  eclipse  of  the  moon,  and  gives  orders,  obey- 
ing the  injunction  of  the  soothsayers,  to  wait  still  twenty-seven  days  (vii.  50). 
(12)  Fooled  by  the  messengers  of  Hermocrates,  on  the  night  after  the  great  sea- 
fight  he  postpones  immediate  departure  (vii.  73,  74). 

Does  this  Thucydidean  picture,  as  gathered  from  the  facts  narrated,  comport 
with  the  historian's  remark  that  "Nicias  of  all  the  Hellenes  of  his  time  least 
deserved  so  to  perish,  on  account  of  the  whole  course  of  his  life  regulated  accord- 
ing to  virtue  "?  Jebb  thinks  "  the  fate  of  Nicias  seemed  to  Thucydides  a  signal 
example  of  unmerited  misfortune,  since  Nicias  had  been  remarkable  throughout 
life  for  the  practice  of  orthodox  virtue."  But  the  facts  as  narrated  make  it  impos- 
sible to  accept  this  as  the  historian's  view.  It  is  a  statement  by  the  historian  of 
the  popular  impression  of  such  a  life,  as  Bruns  thinks;  or  it  may  be,  as  Professor 
Shorey  puts  it,  that  the  famous  words  "  convey  quite  as  much  irony  or  sense  of 
dramatic  contrast  as  moral  affirmation  ";  or  it  may  be  an  expression  of  scepticism. 

The  character  of  Gylippus,  the  Spartan  commander  at  Syracuse,  is  in  marked 
contrast  with  that  of  Nicias.  Landing  at  Himera,  he  began  immediately  to 
attract  allies,  for  "  the  impression  got  abroad  that  he  had  come  full  of  zeal " 
(vii.  i).  The  herald  of  his  approach  found  the  Athenian  circumvallalion  all  but 
complete  and  the  Syracusans  on  the  point  of  surrender.  But  Gylippus'  first 
proposition  to  Nicias  was  that  the  Athenians  might  "  quit  Sicily  within  five  days, 
taking  what  belonged  to  them  "  (c.  3).  The  next  day  Gylippus  surprises  the  fort 
Labdalon  (c.  3).  Defeated  in  the  first  battle  a  few  days  later  (c.  5),  the  next  day 
he  is  victorious  (c.  6).  The  following  night  the  Syracusan  cross-wall  gets  past 
the  Athenian  wall,  thus  forever  preventing  the  circumvallation.  Next,  Gylippus 
is  off  to  various  Sicilian  cities  for  reinforcements,  while  ambassadors  go  on  the 
same  mission  to  Lacedaemon  and  Corinth,  and  the  Syracusans  man  a  navy  (c.  7). 
Nicias  has  presently  to  confess,  in  a  letter  to  Athens,  "  We  who  are  supposed  to 
be  the  besiegers  are  really  besieged"  ^.  iv).  The  next  spring  Plemmyrium  is 
taken  (cc.  22,  23).  After  Demosthenes'  failure  in  the  night- attack  on  Epipolae, 
Gylippus  goes  again  into  the  rest  of  Sicily  to  get  still  more  troops,  "  being  now  in 
hopes  to  carry  the  Athenian  fortifications  by  storm."  In  the  speeches  of  the  rival 
commanders,  on  the  eve  of  the  final  sea-fight,  portraying  most  effectively,  by  con- 
trast, the  situation  and  the  mood  of  the  two  armies,  Nicias'  note  is  that  of  des- 
peration ;  but  the  note  with  which  men  win  battles  is  that  of  Gylippus.  In  the 
measures  taken  to  block  the  progress  of  the  Athenians  on  the  fatal  retreat,  Gylip- 
pus and  Hermocrates  are  the  joint  leading  spirits;  their  plans  are  conceived  with 
skill  and  executed  with  merciless  precision,  until  at  last  the  remnants  of  the  whole 
vast  host  have  been  bagged  or  butchered. 

We  are  accustomed  to  admire  among  Thucydides'  great  qualities  as  an  his- 
torian his  impartiality,  trustworthiness,  vivid  description,  sense  of  contrast,  con- 
ciseness, epigrammatic  sententiousness,  reserve,  austere  pathos.  Is  it  too  much 
to  claim  that  also  in  the  drawing  of  characters  like  Brasidas  and  Nicias — not 
in  what  he  says,  rather  in  what  he  does  not  say,  but  makes  facts  say  —  Thucydi- 
des is  a  great  master  ? 

This  article  is  published  in  full  in  the  American  Journal  of  Philol- 
ogy, Vol.  XXIV.,  No.  4. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  address  an  informal  reception  was  held  in 
the  Trowbridge  Library. 


xvi  American  Philological  Association. 

THIRD  SESSION. 

Wednesday  morning,  July  8. 

The  Association  came  to  order  at  9.45  A.M. 

On  behalf  of  the  Executive  Committee  the  Secretary  made  a  report 
with  reference  to  the  proposition  to  change  the  time  of  holding  the 
regular  annual  meetings.  The  substance  of  this  report  is  set  down  in 
the  following  communication  addressed  by  the  Secretary  to  the  Execu- 
tive Committee  on  the  conclusion  of  the  postal-card  ballot  taken  in 
accordance  with  the  recommendation  made  at  the  last  annual  meeting. 
Copies  of  the  report  were  distributed. 

To  the  Members  of  the  Executive  Committee  : 

In  accordance  with  the  vote  instructing  the  Secretary  to  that  effect  I  have  sent 
a  statement  to  each  member  of  the  Association  of  the  arguments  set  forth  at  the 
meeting  held  at  Union  College  with  reference  to  the  desirableness  or  undesirable- 
ness  of  a  change  in  the  date  of  the  regular  annual  meetings  of  the  Association. 
The  result  of  the  ballots  cast  by  the  307  members  who  expressed  an  opinion 
(24  were  undecided)  is  as  follows. 

The  following  (187)  members  voted  in  favor  of  a  meeting  in  July: 

Abbott,  Alexander,  Arrowsmith,  Ashmore,  Austin,  Ball,  Bartholomew,  F.  O 
Bates,  W.  N.  Bates,  Beach,  Biddle,  Birmingham,  C.  E.  Bishop,  Bocock,  Bourland 

F.  W.  Brown,  Burchard,  Burrage,  H.  E.  Burton,  Buttz,  Bytel,  Carpenter,  Castle, 
Franklin  Carter,  Cheek,  Clark,  Cole,  Collins,  Dickerman,  B.  L.  D'Ooge,  M.  L. 
D'Ooge,  Button,  Earle,  Ebeling,  Eckels,  Eckfeldt,  G.  V.  Edwards,  Elmer,  Elwell. 
Ely,  Emery,  Faduma,  E.  W.  Fay,  Fitch,  Fairbanks,  H.  B.  Foster,  F.  H.  Fowler, 
Franklin,  Gallup,  Grant,  E.  L.  Green,  Greer,  Haight,  A.  P.  Hall,  F.  A.  Hall, 
Hallett,  Hamilton,  A.  Harkness,  Hanna,  Harry,  Harstrom,  Hart,  Hawes,  Heidel, 
Hempl,  Hewitt,  Higley,  Hildreth,  Hodgman,  Hoffman,  Hodges,  Holmes,  E.  W. 
Hopkins,  H.  M.  Hopkins,  Houghton,  A.  A.  Howard,  Huling,  Humphreys,  Hunt- 
ington,   Hussey,   Ingraham,   G.  E.  Jackson,  C.  W.  L.  Johnson,  H.  C.  Johnson, 
Kieffer,  Kirk,  Kirtland,  Kittredge,  Klapp,  Knapp,  Lawton,  Leach,  Leacock,  Little, 
Livingstone,  Long,  Lutz,  MacLean,  Magoun,  March,  Mather,  McDaniel,  McKib- 
ben,  McKinstry,  McLain,  Michelson,  W.  Miller,  Mecklin,  Merchant,  F.  G.  Moore, 

G.  F.  Moore,  J.  L.  Moore,  M.  H.  Morgan,  Morris,  Newcomer,  Newhall,  Nicolson, 
Nitze,  W.  B.  Owen,  Packard,  E.  H.  Palmer,  Paton,  Paxton,  Peck,  Pel'ett,  Penick, 
Peppier,  Perkins,  Perrin,  Perry,  Piper,  Plainer,  Porter,  Post,  Potter,  Prentice,  B.  F. 
Prince,  Radford,  Rand,  Robbins,  Robinson,  Rockwell,  Rogers,  Rupp,  Ryder,  Sawyer, 
Scarborough,  C.  P.  G.  Scott,  J.  A.  Scott,  Seely,  Seelye,  Showerman,  Sihler,  Smart, 
C.  S.  Smith,  Sitterly,  Spieker,  Stacey,  Stary,  Steele,  Stoddard,  Sturtevant,  Tarbell, 
Terrell,  Thompson,  Tilden,  Tufts,  Wait,  Walden,  Warner,  Waters,  Watson,  Welles, 
West,  Wescott,  J.  R.  Wheeler,  A.  C.  White,  G.  A.  Williams,  M.  G.  Williams, 
Woodman,  Woodruff,  E.  D.  Wright,  C.  C.  Wright,  J.  H.  Wright,  Youngman. 

Of  these  about  15  may  be  called  regular  attenders,  about  20  come  often,  about 
40  infrequently,  and  about  1 10  very  rarely  or  never. 


Proceedings  for  filly,   1 903 . 


xvu 


The  following  (120)  members  are  in  favor  of  holding  the  meeting  in 
December : 

Adams,  Allinson,  Amen,  Barbour,  Barss,  Barry,  Battle,  Baur,  C.  E.  Bennett, 
Bloomfield,  Bowen,  Bradley,  Brady,  Bright,  C.  N.  Brown,  D.  C.  Brown,  Brownson, 
T.  C.  Burgess,  J.  M.  Burnam,  Bushnell,  H.  F.  Burton,  Carroll,  Caverno,  Jesse  B. 
Carter,  G.  D.  Chase,  G.  H.  Chase,  Clement,  Cooley,  Cowles,  W.  K.  Denison, 
Walter  Uennison,  Derby,  Doane,  Drake,  Edmiston,  K.  M.  Edwards,  A.  M.  Elliott, 
Emens,  Fessenden,  Fiske,  Htz-Hugh,  Gifford,  Given,  Gleason,  Goodell,  C.  J. 
Goodwin,  John  Greene,  Gudeman,  Guernsey,  Gulick,  Hale,  Hammond,  Harring- 
ton, Harper,  W.  A.  Harris,  Haupt,  Hazen,  Helm,  Hendrickson,  Howes,  Hubbard, 
Hirst,  Hoeing,  Hoppin,  von  Jagemann,  W.  H.  Johnson,  E.  Johnson,  G.  D. 
Kellogg,  Kelsey,  Laird,  Laing,  Lanman,  Lease,  Lindsay,  Lord,  Main,  Manly, 
McCrea,  C  W.  E.  Miller,  C.  H.  Moore,  L.  B.  Moore,  J.  H.  Morgan,  Mott,  von 
Minckwitz,  Neville,  Olcott,  Pease,  F.  W.  Price,  J.  D.  Prince,  Riess,  Rockwood, 
Rolfe,  Sachs,  Sanborn,  Sanders,  Sanford,  Schlicher,  Seymour,  Sharp,  Shaw, 
Sheldon,  Slaughter,  C.  L.  Smith,  C.  F.  Smith,  H.  deF.  Smith,  J.  R.  Smith,  Kirby 
F.  Smith,  Southworth,  Tisdall,  Todd,  Tomlinson,  Turk,  Walker,  Walton,  Minton 
Warren,  Weston,  A.  L.  Wheeler,  J.  W.  White,  Wild,  Wilson. 

Of  this  number  10  maybe  called  regular  attenders,  the  same  number  come 
often,  about  40  come  infrequently,  and  about  60  rarely  or  never.  It  will  be 
observed  that  the  members  who  favor  the  December  meeting  present  a  somewhat 
better  average  of  attendance  in  July  than  those  who  advocate  no  change. 

It  may  be  of  interest  to  note  the  place  of  residence  of  the  members  voting : 


STATES 

Maine 

N.H. 

Vt. 

Mass. 

R.I. 

Conn. 

N.Y. 

N.J. 

Pa. 

Md. 

D.C. 

Va. 

N.C. 

S.C. 

Ky. 

Tenn. 


JULY 

DECEMBER 

STATES 

2 

6 

I 

3 

Ga. 

La. 

2 

Tex. 

18 

19 

Ohio 

4 

I 

Ind. 

10 

8 

111. 

36 

17 

Mich. 

10 

3 

Wis. 

IO 

9 

Minn. 

I 

8 

S.D. 

2 

2 

Iowa 

3 

3 

Neb. 

I    • 

i 

Kans. 

2 

Mo. 

2 

Okla. 

4 

DECEMBER 


It  is  needless  to  say  that  every  possible  reason  for  and  against  the  proposed 
change  was  urged,  but  in  general  the  reasons  adduced  were  those  set  forth  in 
the  Secretary's  circular.  Some  of  the  suggestions  made  may  deserve  your 
consideration. 


xviii  American  Philological  Association. 

Of  those  who  voted  in  favor  of  retaining  the  July  meeting,  few  urged  that  they 
could  not  attend  in  December,  but  many  believed  that  Convocation  Week  was 
already  crowded  with  meetings  ("A  Convocation  Week  for  everybody  is  no  place 
for  anybody  ")  or  was  not  a  time  for  intellectual  activity;  that  our  meetings  would 
suffer  if  held  at  the  same  time  and  place  as  those  of  the  Archaeological  Institute 
of  America;  that,  because  the  sessions  of  the  Institute  were  held  in  the  winter, 
our  sessions  should  be  held  in  the  summer.  The  summer,  it  was  urged,  would 
suit  members  in  the  south.  One  member  suggests  that  we  hold  a  special  biennial 
meeting  in  December  in  addition  to  our  regular  July  meetings;  another,  that  we 
move  our  date  of  meeting  one  week  earlier. 

Of  the  members  who  favor  the  December  meeting  many  state  that  they  will 
never  be  able  to  attend  in  July  by  reason  of  the  summer  schools;  others  say  that 
they  are  frequently  in  Europe;  others,  that  it  is  inconvenient  and  expensive  to 
leave  the  place  at  which  they  have  settled  for  the  summer.  Several  members 
urge  that  the  experiment  of  a  change  be  made,  and  then,  if  it  prove  disadvanta- 
geous, a  return  be  made  to  our  present  plan.  A  considerable  number  desire  that 
we  meet  at  the  same  time  and  place  as  the  Archaeological  Institute  or  the  Modern 
Language  Association  (or  other  societies),  in  support  of  which  plan  they  call 
attention  to  the  great  saving  in  expense,  especially  because  it  is  possible  to  secure 
reduced  railroad  fares  during  Convocation  Week ;  whereas  in  summer  it  has  been 
found  impossible  to  arrange  for  such  reduction.  Two  members  propose  that  our 
Association  meet  at  the  same  place  as  the  Archaeological  Institute,  and  that  the 
meetings  of  the  two  organizations  overlap  for  one  or  two  days.  One  member 
favors  one  meeting  in  December  and  another  in  July  in  order  to  stimulate  philo- 
logical activity.  Some  express  the  hope  that  a  meeting  held  during  Convocation 
Week  in  conjunction  with  the  other  societies  may  ultimately  bring  about  a  union 
of  the  various  learned  bodies  of  America  that  have  interests  in  common. 

It  is  apparent,  from  their  ballots  cast  in  December,  that  a  majority  of  the 
present  officers  was  then  in  favor  of  retaining  the  July  meeting.  The  Association 
expects  a  report  from  the  Executive  Committee  at  the  New  Haven  meeting.  It 
is  hoped  that  all  the  members  will  attend  the  meeting  of  the  Committee,  which  is 
to  be  held  shortly  before  the  opening  session  of  the  Association,  and  that  sug- 
gestions will  then  be  made  and  action  taken  in  the  light  of  the  above  report. 

Your  obedient  servant, 

HERBERT  WEIR  SMYTH, 

Secretary. 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASS.,  May  29,  1903. 

In  order  to  gain  more  ample  information  on  the  subject,  and  there- 
with to  assist  the  preparation  of  its  report,  the  Executive  Committee 
gave  notice,  through  the  Secretary,  that  the  question  of  the  change  in 
time  of  the  regular  meetings  would  be  thrown  open  to  discussion  from 
12.30  to  i  P.M.,  and  that  a  ballot  of  the  members  present  would  be 
taken  at  four  o'clock. 

The  Secretary  then  presented  the  following  recommendation  of 
the  Executive  Committee,  which  was  carried : 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xix 

The  Executive  Committee  recommends, 

1.  That  the  Committee  to  nominate  officers  be  constituted  a  Standing  Com- 
mittee of  the  Association,  to  serve  for  five  years;   that  it  consist  of  five  members, 
to  be  appointed  at  this  session  by  the  President  of  the  Association. 

2.  That  one  member  of  said  Committee  retire  at  the  end  of  each  year,  his 
place  to  be  filled  on  the  nomination  of  his  successor  by  the  President  of  the 
Association  for  the  time  being. 

3.  That  the  members  of  said  committee  cast  lots  to  determine  the  order  of 
their  retirement. 

4.  That  the  Association  determine  at  the  end  of  five  years  whether  the  plan 
in  question  has  proved  effective,  and  order  its  continuance  or  a  return  to  the 
previous  system,  as  may  seem  advisable. 

The  Executive  Committee  further  reported  a  proposition  to  create 
the  office  of  Assistant  Secretary,  said  officer  to  assist  the  Secretary 
during  the  sessions  of  the  Association,  but  not  to  be  a  member  of  the 
Executive  Committee.  In  accordance  with  Article  VI.  of  the  Consti- 
tution this  proposition  will  be  voted  on  in  July,  1904. 

8.  The  Codex  Canonidanus  Lai.  XLI  and  the  Tradition  of  Juve- 
nal, by  Professor  Harry  L.  Wilson,  of  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

The  object  of  this  paper  was  to  'show  how  the  thirty-six  verses  of  the  sixth 
satire,  discovered  in  1899  by  Winstedt,  may  have  found  their  way  into  the  Bodleian 
Ms.  (0),  and  to  support  the  view  of  the  tradition  which  was  suggested  in  the 
writer's  recent  edition  of  Juvenal.  Mr.  S.  G.  Owen's  valuation  of  the  new  Ms. 
(recensio  ceteris  omnibus  antiquior  planequqsingularis)  was  rejected  as  too  high, 
and  his  opinion  that  the  verses  in  question  were  removed  from  the  text  in  the 
Nicaean  recension  was  considered  improbable  and  out  of  harmony  with  the  facts. 
It  may  be  supposed  that  in  the  archetype  of  all  the  Mss.  the  recently  discovered 
additions  had  their  place  on  the  margin;  for  the  longer  fragment  seems  to  be  an 
alternative  passage  to  verses  346-348.  This  may  well  point  to  a  double  recension 
of  the  satires  by  Juvenal  himself,  as  the  writer  tried  to  show  in  the  twenty-first 
volume  of  the  American  Journal  of  Philology.  In  the  better  tradition  (/>)  the 
marginal  passages  were  not  preserved  entire;  only  two  verses  were  quoted  by 
the  scholiast  on  verse  348,  and  were  formerly  supposed  to  be  a  metrical  note  by 
some  early  commentator.  In  a  similar  way  the  passages  in  question  dropped 
out  of  the  inferior  tradition. 

An  Italian  Ms.  of  the  inferior  class,  however,  from  which  0  was  copied,  may  be 
supposed  to  have  received  corrections  and  additions,  either  in  the  body  of  the 
text,  on  the  margin,  or,  in  the  case  of  the  longer  fragment,  on  a  leaf  inserted  for 
the  purpose,  from  the  archetype  or  a  Ms.  of  similar  antiquity  and  value,  in  all 
probability  also  Italian.  This  theory  accounts  for  the  peculiarities  of  O;  namely, 
the  Lombardic  hand,  the  verses  and  readings  which  exist  in  no  other  known 
Ms.,  the  general  agreement  with  the  inferior  class,  and  at  the  same  time  the  more 
frequent  coincidence  of  its  readings  with  those  of  the  better  tradition. 

Remarks  were  made  by  Professor  Warren  and  by  the  author. 


xx  American  Philological  Association. 

9.  The  Fiscal  Joke  of  Pericles,  by  Professor  B.  Perrin,  of  Yale 
University. 

An  attempt  to  defend,  as  against  Busolt  and  Eduard  Meyer,  the  traditional 
reference  of  the  efc  r6  dtov  atrfXtiJcra.  of  Pericles  (Plut.  Per.  xxiii;  Aristoph.  Nub. 
859)  to  the  year  445  B.C.,  and  the  mysterious  withdrawal  of  the  Peloponnesian 
army  under  King  Pleistoanax  from  its  invasion  of  Attica.  In  the  year  when  the 
Clouds  of  Aristophanes  was  composed  (424-423  B.C.),  the  events  of  so  remote  a 
year  as  445  had  been  brought  freshly  to  Athenian  remembrance  by  repeated  Pelo- 
ponnesian invasions  of  Attica  (Thucyd.  ii.  21),  and  above  all  by  the  spectacular 
and  scandalous  restoration  of  Pleistoanax  to  the  throne  of  Sparta  after  a  banish- 
ment of  nineteen  years.  "He  had  been  banished  on  account  of  his  retreat  from 
Attica,  when  he  was  supposed  to  have  been  bribed"  (Thucyd.  v.  16).  This  tra- 
ditional reference  of  the  Periclean  mot  is  supported  by  the  oldest  and  best  Aris- 
tophanic  scholia. 

10.  Danielsson's    Assimilation    mit  nachtr'dglicher   Diektasis    in 
Homer :    a   Criticism   by  Professor   H.   C.  Tolman,  of  Vanderbilt 
University. 

In  endeavoring  to  explain  the  familiar  Homeric  phenomena  of  diektasis  in  dw 
verbs,  Danielsson  (Zur  metr.  Dehnung,  p.  64)  supports  the  old  view  of  assimila- 
tion only  where  a  short  syllable  is  followed  by  one  etymologically  long,  eg. 
6p6w<6pdw.  The  vowel  of  such  forms  as  ijpduvrfs  he  interprets  as  metrical 
lengthening,  but  where  an  original  long  vowel  is  the  first  component,  e.g.  fivdaffffai, 
he  sees  pure  distraction.  The  anomaly  of  a  short  syllable  succeeded  by  a  long 
which  would  etymologically  be  short,  e.g.  6p6<avres,  he  explains  as  assimilation 
with  subsequent  diektasis  through  the  process  hqrggntes  ;  horggntes. 

As  is  well  known,  the  early  Alexandrians  were  little  concerned  with  such 
anomalous  vowel  resolutions.  Aristarchus  and  Aristophanes  passed  them  by  as 
genuine  Homeric  forms.  The  terms  applied  by  the  ancient  grammarians  to  this 
class  of  phenomena,  e.g.  fw^Kraffiv  Tronr)riK^v  (Schol.  to  S  229),  Siaipetriv  (Hero- 
dian,  II,  49),  wa.pfvOeffiv  (Eustath.  20),  ir\eova.<Tfj.6v  (Et.  M.),  indicate  that  they 
at  least  believed  that  contracted  forms  were  metrically  resolved  again. 

It  was  in  1835  tnat  Gottling  (Allg.  Lehre  vom  Accent  der  griech.  Spr.  p.  97) 
proposed  the  theory  (now  so  generally  in  vogue)  of  the  assimilation  of  dissimilar 
vowels  as  an  incident  to  contraction,  i.e.  that  opdu,  before  contracting  into  opw,  must 
pass  through  the  intermediate  stage  6p6w.  Leo  Meyer  (A'.Z.  X,  p.  45)  accepted 
Gottling's  view,  hut  he  went  so  far  as  to  attempt  to  develop  the  third  plural  -owtrt 
and  the  fern,  partic.  -o<a<ra  (cf.  Kuhner,  Griechische  Grammatik*,  I,  p.  252)  from 
the  original  OVTI  (owi)  and  ovria  (owra),  forms  of  which  the  Homeric  dialect 
could  not  be  expected  to  take  account.  On  the  other  hand,  he  proposed  to 
change  all  such  syllables  as  -owires,  -owirai,  -oyev  into  -oo»res,  -OOITCU,  -ooiev.  We 
remember  how  Mangold  (Curtius'  Studien,  VI,  p.  141)  essayed  to  classify,  in 
accordance  with  vowel  quantity,  the  processes  of  assimilation  into  (i)  progres- 
sive, f.g.  d(rxa\da>'<<l(TxaX<i«i',  (2)  regressive,  e.g.  diri6«  <dirtdw,  (3)  recipro- 
cal, eg.  Tf/Jwcjo-a  <  ^/3dou<ra.  So  Brugmann  (Griechische  Grammatik*,  p.  62), 
who  favors  the  assimilation  theory,  believes  that  in  the  contraction  of  opdw,  opde- 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xxi 

ffOai  to  Apw,  bpaffOai  the  pronunciation  wavered  between  horoy  and  horq,  haraa- 
sthai  and  hordsthai  ;  yet  even  he  regards  the  w  in  ipiwtret  <6pdoir«  as  in 
correspondence  with  the  contracted  opwvrts,  and,  furthermore,  he  sees  a  metrical 
lengthening  of  the  first  of  the  components  in  ^/3wot/u,  since,  according  to  his 
view,  between  ipdoi/u  and  rjft^fii,  there  must  have  been  the  intermediate  rjfiooifju. 
Meyer  {Grieckische  Grammatik*,  p.  96)  derives  rjftuoifit  from  r^doiji,  believing 
that  the  original  a  has  again  entered  the  present  through  the  influence  of  such 
forms  as  rtjixoVw,  trifid&a. 

As  is  well  known,  neither  the  assimilation  hypothesis  nor  any  modification  of 
that  hypothesis  is  altogether  sufficient  to  cover  this  class  of  phenomena,  for  even 
its  adherents  have  to  resort  to  metrical  lengthening,  analogy,  or  distraction,  in 
case  of  forms  which  under  their  theory  are  still  inexplicable.  And,  again,  Curtius' 
conjecture  {Eriduterungen,  p.  96)  that  the  u  in  ow«r«  came  by  the  transfer  of 
quantity  of  an  originally  long  a  is  not  plausible,  since  that  transfer  would  not  be 
likely  to  be  limited  to  a  few  Epic  forms  and  not  extended  to  others. 

That  there  is  diektasis  in  Homer,  it  would  be  difficult  to  deny.  Wackernagel's 
unique  conjecture  (5.  B.  IV,  259)  that  these  forms,  uncontracted  in  the  original 
language  of  the  poem,  were  subsequently  contracted  and  at  last  resolved  into  two 
syllables  to  restore  the  metre,  e.g.  opdw —  opw  —  6p6w  (cf.  Cauer,  Grumifr.,  p.  70 
fg.),  forces  us  to  the  improbable  conclusion  that  genuine  uncontracted  Homeric 
forms  were,  contra  melrum,  contracted  in  transmission,  while  others  were  left 
intact,  and  that  later  these  contracted  but  unmetrical  forms  were  resolved  into 
forms  both  uncouth  and  unfamiliar.  Even  Munro  {Homeric  Grammar,  p.  53) 
suggests  that  the  influence  of  the  familiar  contracted  6p<2>,  oppt  caused  a  partial 
assimilation  6p6u>,  opdas. 

Instead  of  supposing,  as  Danielsson  does,  that  different  processes  which  baffle 
analysis  were  at  work  in  these  distracted  forms,  why  not  believe  that  they  were 
really  written  contracted  in  the  Homeric  poems  themselves,  and  that  the  long 
vowel  vi  recitandi  was  pronounced  as  two  metrical  syllables  (cf.  Valori,  De  voca- 
libus  apud  Homerum  non  coniractis,  p.  12,  1902),  which  pronunciation,  in  written- 
transmission,  was  represented  by  the  repetition  of  the  vowel  ?  Illustration  o" 
such  distraction  to  fit  the  musical  accompaniment  is  abundantly  seen  in  the  famil- 
iar Apollo  Hymns  discovered  at  Delphi  {Philol.  53,  B.C.H.  18),  eg.  pp&povov, 
$010  ?/3oi',  raoVSe,  d^ya/cXuTatets,  Aff\<piffuv,  (Vp]w<2»>a,  /uaarreietoi',  <j5adi>.  Thus, 
I  believe  it  may  be  that  the  repeated  vowel  has  come  into  our  recension  of 
the  poems:  aa<d  <  ae  (57  times),  ow[wo]  <  w<  aw  (188  times),  ow[ww]  <  w 
<  aw  (50  times),  aafaa]  <  a  <  a«  (42  times),  ow[wo]  <  w  <  aou  (80  times),  aa 
<a<a7j  (3  times),  ow<w<aot  (15  times).  Total,  435  times  (cf.  Valori,  of. 
cit.  p.  n). 

Sanskrit  students  are  familiar  with  the  frequent  occurrence  of  distraction  in 
the  Vedic  metres.  The  Veda  shows  the  phenomenon  of  the  long  vowel  resolved 
—  very  frequently  that  of  d  into  ad.  While  a  historical  explanation  may  be  given 
in  some  cases,  yet  the  vast  majority  are  simply  distracted  to  fit  the  metre.  Let  us 
quote  a  few  examples  (selected  at  random)  in  order  to  observe  the  ratio  between 
the  single  long  vowel  and  the  resolved  syllable:  adhvaranam  (10  times)  leg.  .  .  . 
aam  (5  times),  apam  (93  times)  leg.  .  .  .  aim  (20  times),  acvanam  (5  times) 
leg.  .  .  .  aam  (2  times),  devanam  (46  times)  leg.  .  .  .  aim  (10  times),  nrnam 
(14  times)  leg.  .  .  .  aim  (u  times),  pitfnam  (6  times)  leg.  .  .  .  aam  (3  times), 


xxii  American  Philological  Association. 

raartyanam  (9  times)  leg.  .  .  .  aam  (6  times),  vasunam  (29  times)  leg.  .  .  .  aam 
(n  times),  rajanam  (2  times)  leg.  .  .  .  aam  (8  times).  Even  a  particle,  as  con- 
sistently monosyllabic  as  at  (over  100  times)  in  one  case  surely  and  probably  in 
another  is  to  be  pronounced  aat. 

This  Vedic  resolution  of  syllables,  as  well  as  that  in  the  Apollo  Hymns  noted 
above,  seems  to  the  writer  to  have  an  important  bearing  on  diektasis  in  Homer. 

IT.  Notes,  by  Professor  Mortimer  Lamson  Earle,  of  Columbia 
University. 

a.    On  Horace,  Carmm.  I.  3.  1-8. 

If  the  first  two  stanzas  of  this  ode  mean  what  most  of  the  editors  ha%-e 
thought  they  meant,  two  things  follow:  first,  there  is  no  reason  why  the  first 
stanza  should  have  been  the  first  and  the  second  stanza  the  second  —  indeed,  it 
would  be  a  great  improvement  if  the  two  stanzas  were  to  change  places;  secondly, 
Horace  wrote  arrant  nonsense  here;  for  surely  no  one  that  gave  thought  to  what 
he  wrote  would,  in  the  days  before  navigation  by  steam,  have  begun  a  poem 
addressed  to  a  friend  about  to  sail  for  England  on  this  wise  : 

O  ship  that  bear'st  my  friend  away, 

If  thou  shall  bring  him  safe  to  land, 
May  western  gales  speed  well  thy  way, 

Until  thou  reachest  that  far  strand. 

But  these  two  stanzas  do  not  mean  what  most  of  the  editors  have  thought  they 
meant.  Among  recent  editors  of  the  Odes  Professor  Bennett  alone  seems  to 
have  rightly  explained  the  connection  of  thought  in  this  passage.  The  explana- 
tion amounts  to  this,  that  the  words  finibus  atticis  reddas  incolumen  et  sen-es 
animae  dimidium  meae  express  —  not  the  condition  of  a  benediction,  but  — 
the  result  of  a  desired  action  (regaf).  In  other  words,  sic  is  not  =  hac  lege  or 
hac  condicione,  but  is  —  hoc  inodo.  Mr.  Bennett  writes :  "  We  should  naturally 
expect  these  words  \Sic  .  .  .  Vergiliutri]  to  be  followed  by  an  w/'-clause  («/  reddas, 
serves},  instead  of  which,  by  a  simple  anacoluthon,  the  poet  employs  jussive 
[read:  precative]  subjunctives  (reddas,  serves},  explanatory  of  sic,  —  'may  the 
goddess  guide  thee  thus  [better :  may  the  west  wind  guide  thee  thus] ;  bring 
Vergil  unharmed  to  the  Attic  shores,  and  save  the  half  of  my  life.' "  This  expla- 
nation of  the  connection  of  thought,  though  it  is  original  with  Mr.  Bennett,  and 
has  also  been  advocated  by  Professor  Knapp  in  his  teaching,  is  far  from  being 
new.  C.  W.  Nauck's  explanation  in  his  edition  (i3te  Aufl.,  1889;  I5te  Aufl., 
by  Weissenfels,  1899)  ought  to  amount  to  the  same  thing,  but  is  not  clear  either 
in  thought  or  expression.  In  the  edition  of  Horace  brought  out  by  Anthon  in 
1830  the  same  explanation  is  adopted  from  the  edition  of  Hunter  of  1797. 
Here,  as  in  many  another  place,  the  older  students  of  Horace  seem  to  have  been 
wiser  than  the  iiriyovoi.  Anthon  himself  backslid  in  his  smaller  edition. 

But  I  believe  that  we  can  and  should  go  farther  than  Hunter  and  Mr.  Bennett 
have  gone  and  that  we  should  restore  the  ut  after  Vergilium.  I  base  this 
opinion  not  so  much  on  the  surprising  parataxis  as  on  the  position  of  the  word 
precor.  Read  the  two  stanzas  as  Mr.  Bennett  would  have  us  do,  and  the  precor 
falls  heavily  with  reddas  and  serves,  the  sentence  still,  by  reason  of  the  parataxis, 


Proceedings  for  July  \  1903.  xxiii 

breaking  pretty  sharply  in  the  middle.  But  the  precor  should  surely  be  brought 
into  connection  with  the  «V-clause.  Insert  ut  after  Vergilium,  read  with  proper 
emphasis  and,  so  far  as  possible,  in  one  breath,  and  precor  knits  up,  as  it  were, 
the  two  strands  of  the  sentence,  and  its  force  is  clearly  felt  to  pervade  the  whole, 
the  et  serves  animae  dimidium  meat  falling  in  as  a  sort  of  graceful  and  emphatic 
afterthought. 

This  restoration,  as  I  am  convinced  that  it  is,  of  Horace's  text  had  been 
suggested  before;  in  Keller's  Epilegomena  zu  Horaz  Doederlein  is  sneered  at 
for  advocating  the  insertion  of  ut.  I  can  at  least  rejoice,  like  Odysseus,  oi/*«x' 
iraipov  ivyta.  \cfoffw  iv  d-yum. 

b.  On  Plato,  Rep.,  423  B. 

I  propose  to  read  here  for  &TIJV  5e?  rb  fi&yeOot  r^v  ir6\iv  voifurOat,  which 
seems  to  be  dubious  Greek,  oiav  Set  rb  /*£ye0os  KT&.  The  Greek  equivalent  of 
tot  is  ovrttt  woXXof  (iroXXd)  or  roffovroi  (roffavra*)  rb  r\ijt)os  (unless  roaovroi 
alone  is  clearly  shewn  by  the  context  to  be  =  tof).  But  the  resolution  of  TO<roOrof 
is  either  ovrw  /x^yos  or  TOIOVTOS  TO  ptyedot  (cf.  Lysias  12.  I),  or  TjjXucoCros  rb 
(ttyeOos  (cf.  Lysias  26.  23).  Similarly  the  resolution  of  irfooi  or  &rot  indicating 
multitude  is  ir6aoi  (&roi)  rb  irX^tfos  (cf.  Dem.  29,  51);  that  of  foot  indicating 
magnitude  would  be  ofos  TO  /z£ye0os.  —  Incidentally  I  would  emend  Hdt.  4.  143 
so  as  to  read  TOVOVTO  {7-6)  «-XiJ0os  yevfff&at  foot  {o/)  iv  rrji.  poiiji.  KOKKOI,  and  Isocr. 
4.  33  so  as  to  read  8<i>pf{i)&.v  roia^mjv  TO 


Remarks  on  the  first  paper  were  made  by  Professors  C.  H.  Moore, 
Elwell,  Knapp,  Morgan,  Harry,  and  by  the  author. 

12.  Rousselot's  Phonetic  Synthesis,  by  Professor  E.  Washburn 
Hopkins,  of  Yale  University. 

The  speaker  presented  an  abstract  of  the  SyntKese  Phonetique  of  Meillet  and 
Rousselot,  remarking  on  the  great  importance  of  these  investigations  and  the 
good  fruit  already  gained  from  them.  He  criticised  adversely  only  the  terminology 
contained  in  such  phrases  as  des  j,  j,  forts,  medio-soitrds,  nasalises,  et  des  nasales 
a  debut  sourd,  since  any  one  sound  at  any  one  instant  is  either  surd  or  sonant  and 
cannot  be  half-surd. 

Remarks  were  made  by  Professors  Perry,  Tolman,  Hempl,  and  by 
the  author. 

1  3.  Notes  on  Greek  Grammar,  by  Professor  Milton  W.  Humphreys, 
of  the  University  of  Virginia. 

This  paper  was  not  devoted  so  much  to  original  investigation  as  to 
criticism  of  the  prevalent  treatment  of  the  following  topics  : 

1.  Uapd  with  Dative  and  Accusative. 

2.  ~Li>v  in  Attic  Prose. 

3.  AOK€IV  in  the  sense  of  "  to  seem." 

4.  A  seemingly  pleonastic  use  of  *af  as  in  ttre  teal  .  .  .  efre  *al  .  .   . 

5.  Ka(  emphasizing  the  predication. 


xxiv  American  Philological  Association. 

6.  The  Optative  (pure)  used  interrogatively. 

7.  'Edv  as  an  indirect  interrogative. 

8.  "  And  so  forth  "  or  "  and  so  on  "  in  Greek. 

9.  The  general  ideal  condition. 
10.  The  gender  of  l*c/tijws. 

Remarks  were  made  by  Dr.  Scott. 

14.  Is  the  Present  Theory  of  Greek  Elision  sound?  By  Professor 
H.  W.  Magoun,  of  Redfield  College. 

Elision  is  defined  as  the  "  dropping  "  of  a  final  short  vowel  (in  Greek)  before 
a  word  beginning  with  a  vowel;  Apocope,  as  the  "cutting  off"  of  a  final  short 
vowel  before  a  word  beginning  with  a  consonant.  If  each  means  the  loss  of  a 
final  short  vowel,  why  should  apocope  give  K&T  and  elision  KO.T  ?  Why  should 
the  accent  be  recessive  in  one  case  but  not  in  the  other,  and  why  does  an  apos- 
trophe mark  the  omission  in  one  case  but  not  in  the  other?  Is  the  character  of 
the  sound  which  follows  in  the  next  word  sufficient  to  account  for  the  difference 
in  the  writing  and  accent?  What  is  the  accent  of  fcar'?  If  it  is  proclitic  in 
effect,  what  is  to  be  done  with  an  elided  enclitic  like  7^,  as  in  d\\'  5  y  dvat|as, 
Horn.  Oaf.  ix.  288?  Is  the  accent  enclitic  and  the  7  proclitic,  or  is  such  an  idea 
absurd  ?  How  is  the  second  X  in  dXX'  to  be  sounded  with  the  following  rough 
breathing?  Are  the  four  words  to  be  pronounced  as  practically  one?  What  of 
ous  ITOT'  aw  Alvelav,  Horn.  //.  viii.  108?  Are  these  four  words  to  be  pronounced 
in  effect  as  one?  How  else  can  present  usage  be  observed  ?  Is  there  but  one 
accent  in  ol  8'  etj  6p^r\ar{jv  re,  Od.  i.  421,  and  do  these  five  words,  in  pronun- 
ciation, become  practically  but  one? 

Again,  if  the  final  vowel  is  dropped  so  that  the  preceding  consonant  becomes 
attached,  in  pronunciation,  to  the  initial  vowel  of  the  following  word,  how  can  the 
two  aspirations  be  sounded  in  such  combinations  as  oC0"  erdptav,  Od.  ix.  278,  and 
ff  fi/xa,  Od.  x.  123?  If  such  a  running  together  of  the  words  is  to  be  the  accepted 
practice,  what  of  the  pause  after  the  second  comma  in  Odu.pi)ffcv  8'  'Ax«Xei5s, 
tier  a.  8'  fTpd-irer',  avriica.  8'  eyvw,  11.  i.  199?  The  sense  demands  an  interrup- 
tion. How  can  it  be  observed?  Can  it  be  imagined  that  the  comma  and  the  T 
exchange  places?  On  the  same  basis,  what  shall  be  done  with  fu/ipC  exija, 
//.  i.  40,  etc.?  Do  the  two  acute  accents,  on  the  two  short  vowels  thus  run 
together,  agree  with  the  law  of  dissyllabic  enclitics?  And,  if  elision  is  used  here 
to  avoid  hiatus,  as  is  elsewhere  the  case,  what  has  been  gained  so  far  as  the  jux- 
taposition of  two  vowel  sounds  in  adjacent  words  is  concerned?  If  this  is  called 
an  exception,  is  it  thereby  explained?  Why  is  the  acute  accent  retained  in  /«;;>£'? 
Why  do  such  words  as  iva  and  o6re  become  Iv  and  oCr'  by  elision,  but  never  \v 
and  O&T',  although  apocope  gives  K&5  5',  etc.?  Wrhat  do  those  acute  accents 
mean? 

If  our  present  usage  in  Greek  is  correct,  why  should  it  be  so  difficult  to  observe 
it,  in  the  above  cases,  and  still  read  the  lines  metrically?  Similar  examples  occur 
in  prose;  but  prose  has  no  fixed  metrical  form.  By  purposely  stretching  certain 
syllables  in  the  lines  from  which  the  examples  are  taken,  a  metrical  result  can  be 
obtained;  but  is  such  a  process  natural?  Is  the  result  poetry  or  a  "jingle"? 


Proceedings  for  July \   1903.  xxv 

Making  due  allowance  for  the  influence  of  adjacent  vowel  sounds  in  the  uncon- 
tracted  forms  of  Homer,  as  well  as  for  the  presumption  involved  in  modern  Greek 
usage,  is  there  just  ground  for  supposing  that  Classical  and  Homeric  Greek  fol- 
lowed a  French  usage,  in  elision,  rather  than  an  English  one?  We  write  "th' 
horse  "  and  "th'  apple  ";  but  does  any  one  ever  call  the  first  tkbrse  or  the  second 
thapple?  The  Irishman,  to  be  sure,  closely  approaches  it  at  times;  but  does  he, 
in  his  pronunciation,  ever  really  lose  the  identity  of  either  word  by  combining 
the  two  into  one,  as  is  done,  to  all  intents  and  purposes,  by  the  present  method 
of  pronouncing  such  combinations  in  Greek  ?  Or,  supposing  for  the  sake  of  the 
argument  that  he  does,  is  the  result  elision?  Is  it  not  rather  crasis?  How  can 
elision  mean  "dropping,"  when  the  verb  lacdo  means  to  'injure  by  striking'? 
Does  'bruising  out  of  (shape)  '  —  e  does  not  mean  'off'  —  mean  "dropping"? 
The  word  "  apostrophe  "  stands  for  dir6o"rpo</>os  irpojyoia,  'turned  away  tone.' 
Does  that  mean  "  dropping  "  ? 

If  it  is  assumed  that  elision  in  Greek  means  a  more  or  less  complete  '  loss  of 
color'  in  a  final  vowel,  such  as  takes  place  in  English  "the"  (th?),  rather  than 
a  complete  dropping  of  the  vowel  sound,  as  at  present  taught,  is  there  one  of  the 
above  difficulties  which  will  not  disappear  ?  May  it  not  even  be  supposed  that 
some  trace  of  a  grave  accent  survives  with  the  remnant  of  an  elided  vowel  ?  Is 
it  unnatural  to  suppose  that  (card  becomes  tears,  or  dXXa,  aXX-?,  or  'iva,  lvJ, — 
written  KCIT',  dXX',  and  iV,  like  English  "  th'  "  (tto)  ?  Is  there  any  difficulty  with 
two  aspirations  in  "th'  horse"  ?  Would  there  be  any,  on  the  basis  suggested,  in 
ff  &fj.a  ?  Would  there  be  any  trouble  with  a  pause  after  an  elided  vowel,  or  with 
a  case  of  hiatus  in  which  a  vowel  precedes  an  elided  syllable  ?  If  the  well-known 
difficulty  of  reading  Homer  naturally  and  at  the  same  time  metrically  disappears 
for  the  most  part  when  a  change  in  the  treatment  of  elided  syllables,  like  the  one 
here  suggested,  is  made,  is  there  nothing  q/significance  in  the  fact  ?  IS  there 
not  a  strong  presumption  that  elision  in  Greek  did  not  differ  essentially  from 
elision  in  Latin  ?  And  if,  as  Cicero  and  Quintilian  plainly  imply,  Latin  elision 
was  merely  a  natural  obscuring  of  certain  final  syllables  so  as  to  allow  them  to 
blend  with  a  following  vowel  sound  when  necessary,  is  it  too  much  to  assume 
that  Greek  elision  was  a  similar  obscuring  of  a  final  vowel  sound  ?  What  was 
Greek  elision  ? 

Remarks  were  made  by  Professors  Radford  and  Morgan,  and  by 
the  author. 

The  President  then  appointed  the  following  Committees  : 

Committee  on  Time  and  Place  of  Meeting  in  1904:  Professors  Perry,  Goodell, 
and  Pickard. 

Standing  Committee  on  Officers:  Professors  Wright,  Humphreys,  Hart,  Sey- 
mour, and  Hale. 

At  12.30  the  discussion  of  the  change  in  the  time  of  holding  the 
regular  annual  meeting  was  begun.  The  discussion  was  participated 
in  by  Professors  C.  F.  Smith,  Perry,  Elwell,  Knapp,  Eckels,  Hempl, 
Wright,  Harrington,  and  Dr.  Scott. 

Adjourned  at  i  P.M. 


xxvi  American  Philological  Association. 

FOURTH  SESSION. 

Wednesday  afternoon,  July  8,  1903. 
The  Association  assembled  shortly  after  3  P.M. 

15.  The  Latin  Monosyllables:  their  Relation  to  the  Accent  and 
to  Syllable-Shortening   in   Early  Latin,  with   especial   reference   to 
the  Verse  of  Terence,  by  Professor  Robert  S.  Radford,  of  Elmira 
College. 

This  paper  is  printed  in  full  in  the  TRANSACTIONS.  Remarks  were 
made  by  Dr.  Scott. 

1 6.  The  Question  of  the  Coincidence  of  Word- Accent  and  Verse- 
Ictus  in  the  Last  Two  Feet  of  the  Latin  Hexameter,  by  Dr.  H.  J. 
Edmiston,  of  Bryn  Mawr  College. 

It  is  now  pretty  generally  agreed  that  the  partial  coincidence  of  word-accent 
and  verse-ictus  is  a  fact  observable  in  a  number  of  Latin  verse-forms.  Bentley, 
in  his  Schediasma  de  Aletris  Terentianis,  laid  down  the  principle  that  the  Latin 
comic  poets  avoided  as  far  as  possible  putting  the  thesis  of  a  verse  on  the  final 
unaccented  syllable  of  a  word ;  and  that  more  especially,  with  certain  definite 
and  explicable  exceptions,  they  did  not  allow  the  ictus  to  fall  on  the  final  syllable 
in  the  second  dipody  of  the  iambic  senarius.  In  the  first  and  last  dipodies  this 
could  not  be  avoided.  Bentley's  theory  was  adopted  by  G.  Hermann  and,  in  a 
modified  form,  by  Ritschl ;  and,  although  it  had  been  assailed  by  Ritter,  Bockh, 
and  Corrsen,  is  in  its  main  features  generally  accepted  by  contemporary  scholars. 
Likewise,  Bentley's  observation  in  his  note  on  Terence,  Heaut.  271,  that  Plautus 
and  Terence  in  proceleusmatic  words  (w  w  w  o)  \\k-G  facilius,  mulierem,  almost 
always  put  the  ictus  on  the  first  syllable,  can  be  explained  on  the  assumption  that 
in  their  day  the  old  rule  of  accentuation  had  not  yet  been  supplanted  by  the 
Paenultema  Law  (Lindsay,  Philologus,  LI,  pp.  364  ff.,  Latin  Language,  pp.  157  ff.). 
In  the  fourth  volume  of  Harvard  Studies,  Greenough  showed  that  in  Horatian 
Sapphics  there  is  a  general  correspondence  between  ictus  and  accent,  and  it  is  a 
well-known  fact  that  before  the  close  of  the  Hellenizing  era  of  Latin  poetry, 
accent  began  to  assert  itself  in  opposition  to  quantity  in  such  hexameters  as 
cetera  mando  focis  spernunt  quae  denies  acuti. 

In  the  time  of  Augustine  there  was  no  feeling  for  quantity  left.  Indeed,  it  is 
probable  that  in  popular  verse  the  accentual  principle  never  entirely  disappeared. 

The  facts  in  regard  to  the  Latin  hexameter  may  be  stated  as  follows :  — 

In  the  poets  of  the  best  period,  word-accent  and  verse-ictus  usually  coincide  in 
the  last  two  feet  of  this  measure.  Professor  Humphreys  (T.A.P.A.  1878)  shows 
that  in  Ennius  this  coincidence,  occurring  in  about  75  per  cent  of  his  extant 
verses,  is  entirely  accidental;  but  that  the  percentage  of  conflicts  between  ictus 
and  accent  decrease  in  the  later  poets,  until  in  Virgil  we  find  only  4  per  cent  of 
them.  Horace  is  an  exception.  Satires,  book  I.,  show  28  per  cent  of  conflicts, 
but  the  Epistles,  more  carefully  composed,  only  17  per  cent.  Humphreys's  statis- 
tics are  based  on  Ennius,  Lucilius,  Lucretius,  Virgil,  and  Horace.  Other  facts 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xxvii 

are  that  in  Cicero's  hexameters  there  are  only  five  cases  of  conflict;  in  Catullus's 
only  two  that  cannot  be  explained  away. 

Schulze  (Zeitschr.  f.  d.  Gymnas.  XXIX.  pp.  590  ff.),  after  examining  the  poets 
of  the  strictly  classical  school,  excluding  Virgil  and  Horace,  finds  that  in  Tihullus, 
Lygdamus,  Propertius,  Ovid,  and  Statius  the  cases  of  conflict  are  so  very  few  as 
to  be  negligible. 

Here  appears  to  be  a  strong  case,  therefore,  for  the  theory  that  this  agreement 
of  accent  and  ictus  was  by  design.  But  this  explanation  has  been  vigorously 
attacked  by  Wilhelm  Meyer  (Sitzungsb.  der  k.  b.  Akad.  der  Wissemch.  zu  Afiin- 
chen,  1884,  pp.  979-1087).  He  is  followed  by  Lucian  M  tiller  in  his  De  He  Metrica, 
and  by  Plessis  in  his  J^raite  de  Mitrique  Grecque  et  Latine. 

Plessis  states  the  case  as  follows:  The  strict  rule  is  that  the  hexameter  shall 
end  with  a  dissyllable  preceded  by  at  least  a  trisyllable,  or  with  a  trisyllable  pre- 
ceded by  at  least  a  dissyllable.  Prepositions  and  monosyllabic  conjunctions  like 
sed  and  et  are  proclitic  or  enclitic.  Although  this  rule  secures  the  agreement  of 
accent  and  ictus,  such  agreement  is  also  secured  by  endings  like  |  di  genu\erunt 
and  pari\terque  ani\matas,  which  are  contraband.  Therefore  the  coincidence  of 
accent  and  ictus  is  accidental.  The  two  permitted  types,  ctilmina  \  tecti  and 
caecus  a\more,  came  to  prevail  because,  if  the  hexameter  end  otherwise  than  in  a 
word  of  two  or  three  syllables,  the  result  must  be  either  that  a  masculine  caesura 
is  produced  in  the  fifth  or  sixth  foot,  or  in  both  at  once,  or  that  the  fifth  and  sixth 
feet  are  contained  in  one  word,  like  sollicitabant.  In  the  former  case  the  end  of 
the  verse  bears  too  close  a  resemblance  to  the  beginning,  in  which  the  masculine 
caesura  is  pleasing  and  often  repeated.  As  to  the  latter  case,  that  of  sollicitabant, 
it  does  not  of  course  contain  a  masculine  caesura,  but  neither  does  it  a  feminine. 
That  is,  in  the  last  two  feet  masculine  caesura  was  not  only  avoided,  but  feminine 
caesura  was  sought.  |^ 

Meyer  points  out,  besides,  that  the  avoidance  of  caesura  after  the  fifth  thesis 
was  in  imitation  of  Alexandrian  usage. 

It  seems  to  me  that  Meyer  and  Plessis  prove  their  positive  argument  beyond 
the  possibility  of  a  doubt.  But  proof  that  the  classical  poets  avoided  this  mascu- 
line caesura  is  not  proof  that  they  left  the  coincidence  of  accent  and  ictus  entirely 
out  of  account.  If  we  can  show  that  the  clausulae  in  which  the  objectionable 
caesura  is  avoided,  but  in  which  ictus  and  accent  do  not  agree,  are  also  shunned 
by  the  classical  poets,  we  make  it  certain  that  they  sought  the  concord  of  the  two. 

An  examination  of  the  metrical  scheme  of  the  hexameter  reveals  three  ways  of 
closing  it,  which  obtain  feminine  caesura  or  diaeresis  of  the  fifth  foot,  avoiding 
masculine  of  the  fifth  and  sixth  feet,  but  in  which  accent  and  ictus  conflict ;  to  wit :  — 

(1)  eva\sisse  tot  \  urbes,  Aen.  III.  282  —  the  monosyllable  in  this  type  must 
of  course  be  non-enclitic. 

(2)  re\spexit.    Ibi  \  cmnes,  Georg.  IV.  491  —  the  dissyllable  with  final  elision 
must  also  be  non-enclitic. 

(3)  suppetere  \  ipsue,  Lucr.  I.  1050. 

There  are  no  instances  of  any  of  these  types  in  Catullus,  Propertius,  Ovid,  or 
Statius,  and  of  (2)  and  (3)  there  are  likewise  none  in  Tibullus.  In  Virgil's 
Bucolics  none  of  the  three  kinds  is  found  ;  in  his  Georgia,  no  cases  of  (l)  and 
(3).  Of  (i)  there  are  two  instances  in  Tibullus,  I.  8,  II,  and  23;  in  the  Aeneid 
six,  I.  47,  76,  II.  150,  III.  282,  480,  X.  482.  Of  (2)  there  is  one  example  in  the 


xxviii  American  Philological  Association. 

Georgia,  IV.  491,  and  one  in  the  Aeneid,  IX.  351.  Of  (3)  there  is,  according 
to  Professor  Humphreys's  statistics,  only  one  genuine  instance  in  Virgil,  Aen.  III. 
581,  |  intremere  \  omnem.  There  are  a  number  of  cases  in  which  the  final  syllable 
of  the  quadrisyllable  is  -que.  But  it  is  very  doubtful  if  -que  when  elided  caused 
the  accent  to  fall  on  a  short  syllable  immediately  preceding.  Lindsay  has  shown 
that,  when  -que  and  -ne  are  elided  in  Plautus,  the  preceding  word  appears  to 
retain  its  usual  accent  (A.J.P.  XIV.  313). 

Therefore  the  law  of  the  hexameter-close  should  read  somewhat  as  follows: 
The  hexameter  poets  of  the  classical  school,  —  according  to  our  results  we  may 
include  Cicero  and  Catullus,  —  in  dactylic  verses  generally  avoid  masculine  caesura 
of  the  fifth  and  sixth  feet,  and  pentasyllabic  closes  ;  and  they  very  rarely  allow  a 
dissyllable  preceded,  first,  by  a  short  non-enclitic  monosyllable;  second,  by  a 
non-enclitic  pyrrhic  or  iambic  word  with  final  elision;  and  third,  by  a  first  paeonic 
or  choriambic  word  with  final  elision. 

The  article,  amplified  in  consequence  of  a  suggestion  from  Dr. 
Radford,  will  appear  in  full  in  the  Classical  Review. 

Remarks  were  made  by  Professors  Magoun  and  Radford,  and  by 
the  author. 

17.  Word-accent  in  Catullus's   Galliambics,  by  Professor  T.  D. 
Goodell,  of  Yale  University. 

This  article  appears  in  the  TRANSACTIONS. 

1 8.  Studies  in  the  Metrical  Art  of  the  Roman  Elegists,  by  Profes- 
sor Karl  P.  Harrington,  of  the  University  of  Maine. 

Though  the  acme  of  art  is  reached  in  the  most  skilful  concealment  of  its  arti- 
ficial elements,  a  detailed  study  of  the  principles  that  underlie  even  such  artistic 
perfection  as  that  which  the  Roman  elegists  realized  in  the  matter  of  poetic  form 
is  interesting  for  its  own  sake,  and  valuable  for  comparison  with  the  works  of 
other  Latin  poets  of  about  the  same  period.  Certain  studies  of  which  the  results 
are  here  given  may  be  regarded  as  preliminary  to  a  more  complete  treatment,  to 
appear  in  connection  with  an  edition  of  selections  from  the  Elegiac  writers.  The 
studies  concern  both  the  hexameter  verses  and  the  so-called  pentameters. 

I.   HEXAMETERS 

I.  Monosyllabic  endings:  Catullus  and  Propertius  employ  them  frequently; 
Tibullus  and  Ovid,  very  rarely. 

(a)  Catullus  has  13  examples,  including  pronouns,  forms  of  esse,  and  forms 
of  res.  Four  times  his  verse  ends  in  two  monosyllables. 

(£)  Of  the  31  cases  in  Propertius,  20  are  some  form  of  the  first  or  second 
personal  pronoun  in  the  singular;  5  are  forms  of  qui ;  4,  forms  of  esse;  fles 
occurs  once,  and  iam  once. 

(<•)  Ovid  in  the  Amores  (which  are  used  for  these  tests)  has  3  cases,  viz.,  a 
form  of  esse,  and  me  twice. 

(d)  Tibullus  (Bks.  I.  and  II.,  which  are  the  only  safe  ground  for  an  investi- 
gation of  his  usage)  has  sint  once.  No  instance  occurs  in  the  book  of  Lygdamus. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xxix 

2.  Polysyllabic  endings :  these  are  more  rare.    They  are  occasional  in  Catullus; 
twice  Ovid  uses  a  quadrisyllable  proper  name;   Propertius  has  similar  instances; 
Tibullus  has  none. 

3.  Spondees  still  play  an  important  part  in  the  hexameters  of  Catullus,  whose 
taste  is  like  that  of  Ennius.     This  appears  most  strikingly  at  the  end  of  the  verse. 
He  has  13  spondaic  verses  out  of  322;  of  these  one  ends  in  a  monosyllable,  one 
in  a  trisyllable,  the  other  1 1  in  words  of  not  less  than  four  syllables.    68,  87  has  5 
spondees;    116,    3   is   worthy  of  Ennius   himself,  being   composed   entirely   of 
spondees. 

In  the  other  elegists,  however,  the  proportion  of  dactyls  and  spondees  is  not 
unlike  that  of  the  other  Augustan  writers. 

4.  Rhyme :  A  species  of  middle,  or  Leonine,  rhyme  begins  to  be  noted  in 
Catullus,  and  continues  throughout  the  whole  group  of  writers,  being  apparently 
an  extension,  or  an  echo,  of  the  very  common  similar  rhyme  in  the  pentameter. 
In  the  hexameter  this  rhyme  occurs  between  the  last  syllable  of  the  verse  and  that 
preceding  the  verse  caesura,  i.e.  between  the  endings  of  the  two  parts  of  the 
verse.     Not  less  than  41  examples  of  this  may  be  found  even  in  Catullus,  eg. 
(96,  l)  :   Si  quicquam  mutis  \gratutn  acceptumve  septtlchris. 

When  this  is  combined  with  the  common  pentameter  middle  rhyme,  and  is  at 
the  same  time  an  end  rhyme,  we  have  a  still  greater  refinement,  as  in  Tibullus  I. 
9,  25-26: 

ipse  deus  tacito 

permisit  lingua  ministro 

ederet  ut  multo 

libera  verba  mero. 

c 

cf.  Ovid,  Am.  III.  2,  17-18;   Prop.  I.  6,  17-18. 

In  many  cases,  though  the  rhyme  is  imperfect,  the  similarity  of  sounds,  as  of  a 
long  vowel  to  a  diphthong,  or  of  one  vowel  followed  by  s  to  another  vowel  and  s, 
produces  a  pleasing  effect,  which  was  frequently  sought  by  these  poets,  eg. 
Tibull.  II.  5,69-70: 

quasque  Aniena  sacras 
Tiburs  per  Jlumina  sortes 
portarit  sicco 
perluleritque  sinu. 

The  variety  of  these  effects  is  countless. 

5.  Verse  caesura.    This  depends,  of  course,  upon  the  individual  taste  of  the 
different  authors. 

(a)  Catullus  is  fairly  orthodox,  with  267  out  of  318  hexameters  exhibiting  the 
penthemimeral  caesura,  30  the  hephthemimeral,  16  the  feminine  caesura  in  the 
third  foot,  and  5  the  so-called  "  Bucoflc  "  diaeresis.  One  or  two  w.  have  no  verse 
caesura  at  all. 

(£)  But  Tibullus,  with  nearly  double  the  number  of  w.,  shows  his  fondness  for 
the  hephthemimeral  caesura  by  using  it  five  times  as  often,  152  times  in  all,  32 
times  without  the  customary  accompanying  trithemimeral.  A  frequent  added 
refinement  is  a  rhyme  subsisting  between  the  syllables  preceding  the  two  caesuras, 
e.g.  I.  i,  47 : 


xxx  American  Philological  Association. 

out,  gelidas 
hibernus  aquas 
cum  fuderit  ouster. 

In  still  other  cases  there  is  a  similar  sound,  but  not  a  perfect  rhyme. 

Tibullus  employs  a  still  smaller  proportion  of  feminine  caesuras,  19  in  all,  but 
has  also  19  Bucolic  diaereses,  which  looks  as  if  he  did  not  regard  these  as 
blemishes. 

(f)  Lygdamus  is  so  orthodox  as  to  be  positively  dull,  having  but  10  of  his  145 
hexameters  that  are  not  of  the  penthemimeral  type.  Of  these,  7  are  perfect  tri- 
themimeral-hephthemimeral  cases,  I  is  a  feminine,  and  3  are  bucolics. 

* 

II.  PENTAMETERS 

All  the  elegists  show  in  these  rather  more  care  than  in  the  hexameters. 

1.  Monosyllabic  endings:  Catullus  has  one  instance;  Tibullus,  Lygdamus,  and 
Ovid,  none;    Propertius,  with  characteristic   independence,  4,  all  being  of  the 
same  form,  viz.,  Sat  est. 

2.  Verse-endings- longer  than  a  dissyllable :  Catullus  has  83  trisyllabic  endings, 
Tibullus  but  22  out  of  twice  as  many  verses,  Lygdamus  but  3.     Of  polysyllabic 
endings  Catullus  has  92  (18  pentasyllable,  and  I  heptasyllabic),  Tibullus  23,  Lyg- 
damus but  7.     Indeed  Lygdamus  in  such  matters  of  formal  comparison  usually 
more  than  holds  his  own.     In  Ovid  the  law  of  a  uniformly  dissyllabic  ending  is 
thoroughly  established. 

3.  Endings  of  first  half  of  pentameter :  The  tendency  toward  the  dissyllable 
here   is   not   so   completely   followed.     Catullus   has  36   monosyllabic    endings, 
Tibullus  7.     Almost  as  many  trisyllables  as  dissyllables  appear  in  Tibullus;  but 
Ovid  holds  closely  to  the  dissyllable. 

4.  The  separation  of  the  two  halves  of  the  pentameter  becomes  increasingly 
careful.     In  Catullus  there  are  18  cases  where  they  are  run  together  by  elision, 

t-g-  67.  44 : 

speraret  nee  linguam  esse  nee  auriculam. 

5.  The  preference  for  dactyls  or  spondees  in  the  first  half  remains  to  be  more 
carefully  worked  out.     Catullus  seems  slightly  to  prefer  verses  of  the  form,  dactyl, 
spondee,  long  syllable;   but    the   form  spondee,  spondee,  long  syllable  (i.e.  5 
successive  long  syllables)  is  a  close  second,  which  can  hardly  be  true  of  any  of 
his  successors.     Next  comes  the  form,  spondee,  dactyl,  long  syllable;  last,  dactyl, 
dactyl,  long  syllable. 

6.  Middle  rhyme :  22  per  cent  of  the  pentameters  of  Catullus  exhibit  this, 
and  17  per  cent  have  similar  endings.     In  the  later  writers  the  proportion  fre- 
quently far  exceeds  this.     Often,  too,  this  rhyme  is  combined  with  the  same 
phenomenon  in  adjacent  hexameters,  to  a  noteworthy  extent.     In  Propertius,  II. 
34  (a  poem  of  94  vv.)  there  are  38  instances  of  the  middle  rhyme,  and  the  6 
consecutive  w.  85-90  have  it  throughout. 

7.  End  rhyme :    There  are  over  200   examples    in  Catullus,  Tibullus,  and 
Lygdamus,  fewest  of  all  in  Lygdamus.     Propertius  has  I  in  every  14  vv.     Some- 
times they  occur  in  triplets.     Propertius  has  one  quadruplet  rhyme. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xxxi 

19.  Notes  on  the  Order  of  Words  in  Latin,  by  Dr.  C.  L.  Meader, 
of  the  University  of  Michigan. 

The  ancient  rhetoricians,  who  differ  widely  from  each  other  in  their  views 
both  as  to  the  nature  of  the  hyperbaton  and  as  to  the  range  of  particular  phe- 
nomena to  be  comprehended  under  the  term,  regarded  it  as  a  rhetorical  device 
employed  for  securing  certain  effects,  such  as  smoothness  and  rhythm.  This  is 
also  the  point  of  view  from  which  most  modern  authorities  have  discussed  it, 
although  Volkmann,  Die  Rhetorik  der  Griechen  und  Corner,  1st  ed.  p.  372,  3d 
ed.  revised  by  Hammer,  p.  42,  and  Kiihnir,  Ausfuhrliche  Grammatik  der  lat. 
Sprache,  II,  p.  1077  (cf.  Kiihner,  Gr.  Gram.  II,  p.  noi)  state  that  for  the  most 
part  the  hyperbaton  is  due  to  disarrangement  of  words  brought  about  by  emphasis. 
This  last  explanation  is  never  more  than  a  partial  one  and*  in  many  cases  is 
wholly  incorrect,  while  the  arbitrary  changes  in  order  mentioned  by  the  ancient 
writers  are  possible  only  on  the  basis  of  peculiarities  of  word  order  already  estab- 
lished by  the  normal  and  unconsciously  operating  psychical  processes.  It  is 
therefore  important  that  these  processes  be  studied  with  reference  to  their  bearing 
upon  the  hyperbaton.  It  is  well  known  that  the  general  conditions  that  make 
the  hyperbaton  possible  are  found  in  the  synthetic  unity  of  apperception.  A 
more  particular  cause,  yet  one  which  manifests  itself  in  many  different  forms,  is 
implied  in  the  concluding  phrases  of  Wundt's  definition  of  a  sentence,  Volker- 
psychologie,  I,  2,  p.  240,  "Der  Satz  ist  der  sprachliche  Ausdruck  fur  die  willkiir- 
liche  Gliederung  einer  Gesammtvorstellung  in  seine  in  logische  Beziehungen  zu 
einander  gesetzten  Bestandtheile,"  i.e.  the  order  of  words  in  a  sentence  will  be 
determined  by  the  logical  relations  of  the  concepts  they  represent,  to  which 
relations  the  succession  of  the  concepts  in  apperception  will  normally  correspond. 
(This  view  is  foreshadowed  by  H.  Weil,  llfrdre  des  mots  dans  Us  langues  an- 
ciennes  comparees  aux  langues  modernes,  passim.}  Following  up  this  principle, 
if  we  represent  any  two  concepts  that  '  regularly  stand  together '  by  A  and  B 
respectively  and  any  third  concept  by  C,  it  is  apparent  that  at  least  two  condi- 
tions are  necessary  to  produce  an  hyperbaton:  («)  either  A  or  B  must  for  some 
reason  occupy  the  first  position  in  the  given  locution,  while  (ft)  C  must  be  more 
closely  related  to  A  or  to  B  than  to  any  other  concept  in  the  sentence,  and  if 
more  closely  related  to  B,  must  for  some  special  reason  precede  B.  The  result 
will  be  the  order  ACB,  which  we  usually  designate  as  an  hyperbaton.  The 
following  are  some  of  the  simplest  special  types  that  fall  under  this  head  : 

1.  Rhet.  ad Heren.  1, 8  p.  benivolum  (A)  efficiemus  (C)  auditorem  (B).    The 
close  connection  between  the  predicate  accusative  (loosely  so  called)  and  the 
verbs  facio  (efficio*),  reddo,  pulo,  appello,  nomino,  and  voco  when  accompanied 
by  the  double  accusative,  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  in  Cicero's  orations,  Caesar, 
and  the  Rhetorica  ad  Herennium  the  predicate  accusative  and  the  verb  stand 
adjacent  to  each  other  in  ninety  to  ninety-seven  cases  out  of  a  hundred. 

2.  Caes.  B.  G.  7,  28  toto  (.4)  undique  (C)  muro  (B)  circumfundi. 
Cic.  Rose.  Am.  64  eo  {A)  potissimum  (C)  tempore  (jff). 

3.  Cic.  Plane.  101  o  excubias  tuas  (A)  Gn.  Pompei  (C)  miseras  (Z?). 

4.  Cato  Orig.  fr.  Bk.  5,  p.  80  (/>)  mons  (A)  ex  sale  mero  (C)  magnus  (B). 
Rarely,  if  ever,  is  an  hyperbaton  adequately  accounted  for  by  a  single  explana- 
tion.    Usually  two  or  three  causes  are  operative  in  producing  it.     In  the  follow- 


xxxii  American  Philological  Association. 

ing  example  at  least  three  are  to  be  recognized  in  addition  to  the  synthetic 
unity  of  apperception:  Cic.  Verr.  5,  113  graviorem  (<4)  apud  sapientis  iudices 
(C)  se  fore  ab  inferis  testem  (#).  (A)  has  the  initial  position,  since  it  is  the 
dominating  concept,  (C)  immediately  follows  it  because  of  its  close  logical 
relations  to  it,  (jff)  is  given  the  final  position  in  order  to  secure  the  clausula 

w w.     An  extended  paper  on  the  hyperbaton  based  on  these  notes  and 

other  material  will  be  published  in  the  University  of  Michigan  Studies,  Human- 
istic Series,  Vol.  II. 

20.  The  Land  of  Cocaigne  in  Attic  Comedy,  by  Professor  Edwin 
L.  Gree.n,  of  South  Carolina  College. 

In  a  fabliau  (Barbazan,  Fabliaux  et  Contes,  ed.  Meon,  iv.  175-181)  of  the 
thirteenth  century  ts  the  description  of  a  country  whose  inhabitants  had  only  to 
wish  in  order  to  have  all  they  desired.  The  name  of  this  country  is  Cocaigne, 
and  the  poem  is  a  satire  on  the  monastic  orders  and  a  burlesque  of  Paradise. 
In  Attic  Comedy  is  a  description  of  a  Cocaigne  country,  which  is  found  mainly  in 
the  fragments  preserved  by  Athenaios  (267  €-270  a),  and  is  a  burlesque  of 
the  Golden  Age. 

Kronos  was  king.  Peace  reigned,  and  there  was  an  abundance  of  food,  which 
one  had  but  to  call  for  and  it  came  of  its  own  accord.  That  was  not  all,  for 
loaves  of  bread  fought  around  men's  mouths,  begging  to  be  eaten;  cakes  jostled 
each  other  in  their  eagerness  to  get  into  the  mouth ;  roasted  thrushes  flew  down 
the  throat.  Rivers  of  soup  and  of  porridge  ran  along  the  streets,  rolling  pieces 
of  meat  here  and  there  and  tossing  up  on  their  banks  piles  of  hot  sausages. 
Raisins  dripped  from  the  sky.  Ripe  apples  hung  over  the  head,  suspended  from 
nothing.  Wine  rained  from  the  skies  in  torrents,  which  young  and  fair  maidens 
carried  around  at  the  banquets  and  poure  1  through  funnels  down  the  throats  of 
those  who  wished  it.  In  those  days,  says  the  poet,  men  were  fat  and  giants. 

21.  Studies  in  Tacitean  Ellipsis:    Descriptive  Passages,  by  Pro- 
fessor F.  G.  Moore,  of  Dartmouth  College. 

This  article  will  be  found  in  the  TRANSACTIONS.     Remarks  were 
made  by  Professor  Sihler. 
Adjourned  at  5.30  P.M. 

FIFTH  SESSION. 

Wednesday  evening,  July  8,  1903. 

The  Association  assembled  shortly  after  8  o'clock  in  Osborn  Hall, 
and  listened  to  the  reading  of  the  following  papers. 

22.  The  Prooemium   to  the  Aeneid,  by  Professor  Thomas  Fitz- 
Hugh,  of  the  University  of  Virginia. 

In  29  B.C.  Vergil  began  the  Aeneid.  By  about  26  B.C.  Propertius,  fresh  from 
the  poet's  recitation  of  parts  of  the  poem,  is  able  to  write  as  in  III.  34.  59-66. 
Here  qui  nunc,  etc.,  seems  to  be  a  verbal  echo  of  the  qui  .  .  .  at  nunc  of  the 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xxxiii 

Prooemium.  In  w.  75-76  Propertius  alludes  to  the  eclogues  with  Vergil's  expres- 
sion avena  in  the  Prooemium.  Finally,  in  vv.  77-78  of  Propertius,  the  thought 
reproduces  w.  2-3  of  the  Prooemium,  and  the  idea  and  expression  ingrata  in 
vv.  81-82  seems  to  have  been  suggested  by  v.  4  of  the  Prooemium,  gratum  opus 
agricolis. 

Now  Vergil  left  the  Aeneid  in  an  unfinished  state,  and  by  command  of 
Augustus,  who  ordered  that  it  should  be  put  in  general  good  shape,  what  seemed 
superfluous  being  omitted,  but  no  additions  being  made  to  it,  Varius,  the  poet's 
friend,  edited  it.  A  respectable  oral  tradition  from  the  time  of  Varius  to  the  time 
of  Suetonius  declares  that  Varius  dropped  the  four-lined  Prooemium  from  the 
first  book.  The  tradition  is  not  open  to  suspicion  on  chronological  grounds. 
Moreover,  there  is  good  reason  why  Varius  should  have  felt  impelled  to  drop  the 
verses:  they  are  superflua,  their  substance  being  given  G.  IV.»559~566;  they  are 
un-Homeric,  and  so  not  in  unison  with  Propertius'  prophecy,  III.  34.  65-66. 

The  publication  of  the  archetype  would  naturally  fix  the  first  line  as  Arma 
virumque,  etc.,  for  all  earlier  manuscripts,  for  all  subsequent  literary  reference, 
and  for  all  inscriptions  and  Pompeian  graffiti;  and  oral  tradition  alone  must  at 
least  for  a  time  have  kept  alive  the  memory  of  the  Prooemium  (Suet.  ap.  Donat., 
15,  60).  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  not  surprising  that  a  number  of  later  manu- 
scripts should  find  an  interest  in  recording  the  verses,  always  apart  from  the  main 
text  and  sometimes  in  second  hand. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  I.  Thai  there  is  no  sufficient  ground  for  declaring  the 
Prooemium  spurious. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  internal  evidence  in  Vergil's  poetry  is  entirely  in  unison 
with  the  Prooemium's  claims  to  genuineness.  In  the  A.  J.  A.,  Vol.  VII.  I.  88, 
Professor  Tracy  Peck  outlines  very  clearly  fad  forcibly  a  characteristic  trait  of 
all  Roman  literary  expression,  namely,  its  personal  and  subjective  character. 
This  racial  self-consciousness  assumes  a  twofold  form  in  the  poetry  of  Vergil :  it 
appears  as  a  self-consciousness  of  the  author,  and  as  a  self-consciousness  of  the 
reciter;  and  both  are  conspicuous  in  the  Prooemium.  Eel.  I.  I  and  G.  IV.  566 
taken  together  tie,  as  it  were,  a  neat  little  literary  ribbon  about  the  two  com- 
pleted works.  In  G.  I.  1-5  the  poet  in  the  first  person  outlines  to  Maecenas  in 
the  second  the  whole  plan  of  the  Georgics,  and  the  last  two  verses  of  the  poem 
(IV.  565-566)  couple  it  explicitly  and  chronologically  with  the  Eclogues.  In 
G.  III.  46-48  Vergil  proclaims  his  epic  aspirations  and  intentions,  and  finally  in 
the  Prooemium  after  taking  once  more  a  formal  inventory  of  his  literary  property 
to  date  he  adds  thereto  his  latest  task,  which  is  thus  labeled  as  his  own  along 

with  the  rest : 

Ille  ego,  qui  quondam  gracili  modulatus  avena 

Carmen  et  egressus  silvis  vicina  coegi 

Ut  quamvis  avido  parerent  arva  colono, 

Gratum  opus  agricolis,  at  nunc  horrentia  Martis 

Arma  virumque  cano  .  .  . 

The  rhythm  and  expression  are  Vergilian;  the  otherwise  unusual  present  cano, 
instead  of  canam,  as  elsewhere,  is  accounted  for  ;  and  the  abrupt  hendiadys, 
arma  virumque,  with  its  isolated  arma,  is  smoothly  and  naturally  introduced. 

We  conclude,  therefore,  II.  That  there  is  sufficient  internal  evidence  for  declar- 
ing the  Prooemium  authentic. 


xxxiv  American  Philological  Association. 

23.  The  Greek  Comic  Poets  as  Literary  Critics,  by  Dr.  William 
W.  Baker,  of  Harvard  University. 

Apart  from  what  may  be  termed  direct  criticism,  there  also  exists  in  Greek 
comedy  a  great  mass  of  indirect  criticism,  including  re-use  of  titles,  repetition  of 
verses,  both  in  parody  and  otherwise,  similarity  of  subject  matter,  re-editing  of 
plays.  All  this  carries  with  it  conscious  or  unconscious  approval,  and  claims  a 
part  in  a  complete  treatment  of  the  subject. 

Of  direct  criticism,  which  can  alone  be  considered  here,  the  Doric  comedy  has 
little  or  nothing.  Cratinus  is  really  the  first  name  to  demand  attention :  his  plays 
in  their  complete  form  must  have  had  many  outspoken  judgments.  His  Archilo- 
choi,  the  very  title  of  which  presents  an  interesting  problem,  had  a  spirited  con- 
test in  poetry  and  forms  the  first  of  a  numerous  class  of  such  "  literary  comedies." 
In  the  other  plays  there  are  many  other  direct  criticisms  in  the  field  of  tragedy, 
comedy,  minor  poetry,  and  oratory,  and  frequent  allusion  by  the  poet  to  himself, 
his  art,  and  the  literary  tastes  of  the  spectators. 

Among  later  poets  worthy  of  note  are  Eupolis,  with  his  striking  praise  of 
Pericles,  and  Phrynichus  with  his  feeling  appreciation  of  Sophocles.  Aristopha- 
nes, so  far  as  one  may  judge  from  the  fragments,  showed  the  same  well-known 
propensity  for  criticism  in  the  lost  plays  as  in  those  extant.  In  comedies  of  the 
former  group  he  had  certainly  direct  criticism  of  many  writers,  among  them 
Aeschylus,  Sophocles,  Sthenelus.  Plato,  also,  has  a  number  of  interesting  allusions. 

Antiphanes  of  the  so-called  Middle  Comedy  has,  among  other  things,  jibes  at 
Euripides  and  Philoxenus,  and  one  long  passage  of  seeming  praise  of  the  latter; 
a  jest  about  Demosthenes's  famous  metrical  oath,  and  a  discussion  of  the  initial 
advantage  which  tragic  writers  have  over  comic.  Timocles  has  (extant)  lines  on 
the  function  of  tragedy  that  resemble  remarkably  Aristotle's  great  definition; 
and  several  critiques  of  the  orators.  Xenarchus  compares  the  poets  of  his  day 
with  fish-hucksters,  considerably  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  poets.  Philemon 
and  Apollodorus  treat  the  matter  of  the  essence  of  brevity,  and  use  Homer  to 
illustrate  their  words. 

A  careful  study  of  the  remains  of  the  Greek  comic  poets  leads  to  the  conclu- 
sion, not  merely  that  they  were  the  first  to  engage  in  anything  approaching 
criticism  of  literature,  but  that  so  far  as  Old  Comedy  is  concerned,  —  despite  the 
statements  to  the  contrary  of  not  a  few  modern  scholars,  —  this  close  attention  to 
literature  is  practically  universal.  Aristophanes  is  admitted  to  have  exhibited  in 
his  plays  a  great  interest  in  things  literary,  yet  any  one  of  four  or  five  different 
poets  has  more  criticism  in  proportion  than  Aristophanes. 

In  the  "  Middle  Comedy,"  on  the  other  hand,  whose  poets  are  sometimes  said 
to  have  devoted  themselves  especially  to  playing  the  critic,  and  in  the  New  Com- 
edy, criticism  drops  quickly  to  a  position  of  minor  importance,  then  almost 
disappears. 

Upon  the  whole,  for  all  the  exaggeration  inherent  in  their  art,  the  Greek 
comic  poets  were  clear-sighted  critics  of  literature.  Their  criticisms  present  not 
a  few  close  analogies  with  the  judgments  of  Aristotle  and  the  author  of  the 
treatise  "  On  the  Sublime." 

The  article,  of  which  this  paper  forms  a  part,  will  appear  in  full  in 
the  Harvard  Sfudies  in  Classical  Philology,  Vol.  XV. 


Proceedings  for  July ;   1903.  xxxv 

24.  Cicero's  Appreciation  of  Greek  Art,  by  Professor  Grant 
Showerman,  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin  (read  by  Stephen  A. 
Hurlbut,  Esq.). 

A  superficial  knowledge  of  the  life  of  Cicero  might  lead  to  false  conclusions 
regarding  the  attitude  of  the  great  orator  toward  the  products  of  classical  Greek 
art.  During  his  early  years  at  Rome  he  was  constantly  in  touch  with  Greek  cul- 
ture. He  was  thoroughly  trained  in  the  Greek  language,  and  his  most  intimate 
teachers  were  Greeks  who  represented  all  the  great  schools  of  philosophy;  he  had 
constantly  before  his  eyes  many  of  the  famous  works  of  Greek  art  with  which  the 
capital  was  filled  after  the  conquest  of  Greece;  he  finished  his  education  by  spend- 
ing two  years  in  the  East  in  study  and  travel,  six  months  of  the  time  being  passed 
in  Athens  itself;  as  quaestor  in  Sicily  he  again  had  the  opportunity  of  becoming 
familiar  with  monuments  of  Greek  art ;  his  orations  against  Verres,  his  letters, 
and  his  essays  all  show  his  familiarity  with  and  admiration  for  the  products  of 
the  Greek  intellect.  All  this  creates  a  presumption  that  Cicero  appreciated  and 
enjoyed  not  only  the  literary  monuments  of  Greece,  but  Greek  art  in  all  its  phases. 

A  critical  examination  of  Cicero's  works,  however,  does  not  show  him  to  have 
had  a  special  predilection  for  those  material  monuments  of  Greek  art  which  had 
already  come  to  be  considered  among  the  crowning  glories  of  civilization. 

In  the  field  of  painting  he  makes  mention  of  the  following  artists:  Aglaophon, 
Polygnotus,  Zeuxis,  Parrhasius,  Timanthes,  Nicomachus,  Action,  Apelles,  and 
Protogenes.  Only  one  of  the  names  is  even  approximately  dated,  there  is  only 
one  item  on  process,  and  only  one  criticism  of  technique.  On  the  whole,  what 
Cicero  has  to  give  us  is  a  number  of  names  oLfamous  painters,  with  very  common- 
place and  superficial  comment,  and  with  no  utterance  whatever  which  has  even  a 
tendency  to  convince  the  reader  that  he  cared  for  the  art  of  painting  to  any 
degree  worthy  of  the  name  of  enthusiastic  admiration. 

Among  sculptors,  Cicero  makes  mention  of  Calamis,  Canachus,  Myron,  Alca- 
menes,  Phidias,  Polyclitus,  Chares,  Lysippus,  Praxiteles,  Scopas,  Silanion,  Poly- 
cles,  and  Myrmecides.  As  a  result  of  an  examination  of  his  mention  of  sculpture 
and  sculptors,  it  may  be  noted:  (i)  that  the  names  he  employs  are  fairly  repre- 
sentative of  the  history  of  sculpture  during  the  fifth  and  fourth  centuries :  if  we 
should  add  the  names  of  Cresilas  and  Paeonius,  we  should  have  before  us  all  of  the 
very  famous  names  employed  by  the  historian  of  ancient  sculpture,  and  the  addi- 
tion of  a  half  dozen  less  important  names  would  give  us  a  very  complete  list  of  all 
Greek  sculptors  who  were  well  known  ;  (2)  that  Cicero's  knowledge  of  sculpture 
seems  to  be  called  into  play  more  often  than  his  knowledge  of  painting,  and  that 
he  seems  to  have  a  greater  familiarity  with  it  —a  fact,  however,  which  calls  for  no 
special  comment,  considering  the  relative  importance  of  the  two  arts  in  antiquity, 
and  the  relative  endurance  of  their  monuments ;  (3)  that  there  is  slightly  more 
critical  knowledge  of  sculpture  displayed  than  of  painting.  The  comparison  of 
the  work  of  Daedalus  with  the  plays  of  Livius  Andronicus,  and  of  early  sculpture 
as  represented  by  Myron  with  early  literature  as  represented  by  Naevius ;  the 
mention  of  Canachus,  Calamis,  Myron,  and  Polyclitus,  as  a  series  whose  works 
represent  the  course  of  the  development  of  sculpture  ;  the  statement  that  Phid- 
ias's  model  was  the  ideal  which  was  indwelling  in  the  artist's  soul  —  such  utter- 
ances as  these  betoken  some  appreciation  of  the  qualities  of  archaic  art.  of  the 


xxxvi  American  Philological  Association. 

history  of  its  development,  and  of  the  nature  of  the  artist's  inspiration.  The 
amount  of  such  criticism,  however,  in  comparison  to  the  total  mention  of  sculp- 
ture and  sculptors,  is  small,  and  there  is  little  to  indicate  more  than  a  very  ordi- 
nary familiarity  with  or  love  for  the  art  of  sculpture. 

References  in  Cicero's  works  to  architecture  and  other  forms  of  art,  not  already 
mentioned,  are  a  negligible  quantity ;  practically  it  is  only  with  sculpture  and 
painting  that  we  are  concerned  in  our  study. 

With  exceedingly  few  exceptions,  Cicero's  references  to  the  arts  of  painting 
and  sculpture  betoken  nothing  more  than  superficial  knowledge  and  interest. 
All  of  them,  with  the  exception  of  those  in  the  Verrine  orations,  are  introduced 
for  purposes  of  illustration.  They  are  the  writer's  stock  in  trade,  commonplaces 
in  art,  and  afford  one  more  illustration  of  the  manner  in  which  Cicero's  interest  in 
rhetoric  swallowed  up  every  other  interest.  A  knowledge  of  art  was  to  him  only 
one  item  in  the  catalogue  of  intellectual  accomplishments  demanded  of  the  ideal 
orator.  It  is  significant  that  the  most  ornate  passages  referring  to  artists  and 
their  works  are  found  in  his  essays,  especially  in  those  written  on  rhetorical  sub- 
jects, and  that  in  the  orations  and  letters,  where  utterances  of  a  more  personal 
nature  might  be  expected,  there  is  almost  a  total  absence  of  such  reference. 

Further,  Cicero  himself  strengthens  our  conclusions  by  disclaiming  knowl- 
edge of  art  (  Verr.  IV,  43,  94,  where  we  take  him  to  mean  what  he  says) ;  by 
expressing  his  contempt  for  those  who  allow  themselves  to  be  enslaved  by  a 
passion  for  works  of  art  {Pardd.  V,  2,  36-38);  by  ordering  as  sculptural  equip- 
ment for  his  Tusculan  villa  works  which  were  merely  for  ornament,  wrought  by 
artists  or  workmen  of  no  reputation,  and  possessing  no  artistic  importance  (Att. 
Bk.  I.,  passim} ;  by  the  sentiment  of  his  letter  to  Fadius  Callus  (Fam.  VII,  23,  2). 

The  argumentum  ex  silentio  may  also  be  employed  here,  because  of  the  ex- 
ceeding frankness  of  Cicero  in  his  correspondence,  three-fourths  of  the  thousand 
pages  of  which  are  addressed  to  intimate  friends  to  whom  he  lays  bare  all  his 
thoughts.  In  his  letters,  which  cover  the  period  from  68  to  44,  there  are  but 
three  references  to  Greek  art  of  the  good  period,  and  of  these,  two  are  in  letters 
which  are  not  addressed  to  his  most  intimate  friends,  and  are  as  formal  and 
rhetorical  as  any  of  his  essays  (Fam.  V,  12,  7;  I,  9,  15).  The  third  is  a  mere 
illustration  (Att.  II,  21,  4).  Such  silence  concerning  the  famous  monuments  of 
art  known  to  the  world  of  his  time,  monuments  which  he  had  abundant  oppor- 
tunity to  see,  and  in  the  very  sight  of  which  he  sometimes  wrote  to  his  most 
intimate  friend  Atticus  (Att.  V,  10,  5;  VI,  9,  5),  can  only  mean  that  Cicero 
had  no  enthusiasm  for  things  of  that  kind.  The  perusal  of  his  letters  leaves 
in  the  mind  of  the  reader  no  doubt  as  to  his  enjoyment  of  life  in  his  villas,  his 
love  of  books,  his  passion  for  public  life,  his  devotion  to  the  rostra  and  the  stilus. 
If  Greek  painting,  sculpture,  and  architecture  had  really  reached  his  heart,  his 
letters  would  have  evidenced  the  fact. 

To  sum  up :  Cicero  was  keenly  appreciative  of  Greek  thought  as  manifested  in 
Greek  literature.  As  to  those  products  of  Greek  genius  which  were  manifested 
in  the  arts,  he  has  nothing  to  say  of  architecture,  refers  a  few  times  to  Corinthian 
and  Delian  bronze  work  and  vases,  and  speaks  only  of  the  arts  of  sculpture  and 
painting  as  though  he  were  familiar  with  them.  While  his  equipment  of  knowl- 
edge regarding  these  two  arts  may  have  been  greater  than  is  apparent  in  the 
pages  of  his  works,  it  is  altogether  likely  that  it  was  very  superficial;  and  it  is 


Proceedings  for  July,  1903.  xxxvii 

certain  that  his  use  of  it  sprang  rather  from  the  instinct  of  the  stylist  than  from 
the  enthusiasm  of  the  lover  of  art. 

[Cicero's  attitude  toward  art  has  been  discussed  by  Koenig,  Diss.  De  Cicerone 
in  Verrinis  artis  operum  aestimatore  et  iudice;  by  Stahr,  in  an  essay  in  his 
Torso,  II,  pp.  209-230,  Braunschweig,  1878;  byGoehling,  Diss.  De  Cicerone  artis 
aestimatore,  Halle,  1877;  and  by  Sandys,  introduction  to  his  Orator,  pp.  Ixxi-lxxiv, 
Cambridge,  1885.  Koenig  and  Stahr  credit  Cicero  with  more  knowledge  and 
enthusiasm  in  matters  of  art  than  he  possessed.  Sandys  and  Goehling  are  sub- 
stantially agreed  in  denying  that  Cicero  possessed  more  than  a  superficial  knowl- 
edge of  art.  Goehling  is  the  only  one  of  the  four  who  aims  to  present  evidence 
in  full  from  the  whole  body  of  Cicero's  works.  He  lays  especial  emphasis  on 
Cicero's  deficiency  in  knowledge  of  art.  The  conclusions  expressed  in  the  above 
paper  were  reached  independently  of  the  works  cited  and  without  reference  to 
them.  They  emphasize  rather  Cicero's  lack  of  enthusiasm  for  art  than  his 
deficiency  in  knowledge  of  it.] 

25.  Three  Terra  Cotta  Heads,  by  Dr.  O.  S.  Tonks,  of  the  Boston 
Museum  of  Fine  Arts. 

The  following  three  heads  from  Asia  Minor,  which  suggest  respectively  the 
styles  of  Polycleitus,  Lysippus,  and  Scopas,  I  am  able  to  publish  through  the 
courtesy  of  Mr.  Stals  of  the  Athens  Museum.  They  may  throw  more  light  on 
the  influence  of  sculpture  upon  the  art  of  the  coroplast. 

The  Polycleitan  head.  There  is  some  variation  from  the  Doryphoros  head  in 
Naples.  But  both  have  a  broad,  flat  crown,  flinging  locks  parted  in  the  middle 
of  the  forehead,  a  broad  nose  with  parallel  sides,  heavy  lips,  and  dreamy  eyes. 
In  both  the  lower  part  of  the  face  tends  to  flatness,  and  the  jaw  is  strong.  The 
terra  cotta  is  turned  —  with  some  exaggeration  —  in  the  manner  of  the  Naples 
head,  and  both  heads  do  not  look  downward,  but  straight  away. 

The  Lysippan  head.  From  the  time  of  Scopas  to  the  Hellenistic  Age  only 
Scopas  and  Lysippus  made  statues  of  Heracles.  Scopas  represented  the  hero  as 
beardless.  Not  so  Lysippus.  So  our  head,  which  is  bearded,  must  have  been 
copied  from  some  Lysippan  Heracles.  Finally,  inasmuch  as  our  head  shows  a 
wearied  expression  we  are  able  to  reject  of  the  five  representations  of  Heracles 
assigned  by  the  ancients  to  Lysippus  all  but  the  statue  which  stood  in  the  gym- 
nasium at  Sicyon.  This  may  have  been  its  prototype. 

The  Scopasian  head.  The  eyes  are  deep-set  and  have  an  accented  upward 
look,  the  frontal  bone  is  very  strongly  marked,  and  the  outer  edge  of  the  brow  is 
brought  down  so  far  as  almost  to  hide  the  eyelid  in  that  quarter.  Like  those  of 
the  Tegean  head  the  locks  are  curly,  and  not  worked  out  individually.  The 
head,  moreover,  is  square,  and  the  jaw  is  heavy.  When  measured  by  the  Kalk- 
mann  system  the  head  corresponds  very  closely  with  the  head  from  Tegea.  By 
elimination  we  may  narrow  the  possibility  of  finding  its  prototype  to  Ares,  Hermes, 
and  Heracles.  Beyond  this  we  cannot  go. 

26.  Head  of  an  Ephebos  from  the  Theatre  at  Corinth,  by  Dr. 
Rufus  B.  Richardson. 


xxxviii  American  Philological  Association. 

This  head  of  Parian  marble,  which  is  well  preserved  with  the  exception  of  the 
nose,  is  that  of  a  youth  of  from  fourteen  to  sixteen  years  of  age.  Its  chief  interest 
lies  in  the  fact  that  it  serves  as  a  link  to  bind  more  firmly  together  a  group  of 
heads  which  has  been  considered  Myronian,  but  which  has  been  broken  up  in 
recent  times  from  the  strong  desire  to  find  a  Pythagorean  group. 

The  Corinth  head  has  such  strong  resemblances  to  the  Perinthos  head  in 
Dresden  on  the  one  hand,  and  to  the  Ince  Blundell  head  and  the  Riccardi  head 
in  Florence  on  the  other,  that  it  seems  difficult  to  take  away  any  one  of  them  and 
assign  it  to  a  different  sculptor.  The  form  of  all  four  heads,  setting  aside  slight 
variations,  is  that  of  the  Massimi  Discobolos. 

Furthermore,  the  hair  of  the  Corinth  head  is  strikingly  like  that  of  the  Idolino, 
which  Kekule  and  Collignon  assign  to  Myron.  The  effort  to  build  up  a  Pythagorean 
group  of  sculpture  is  thus  confronted  with  greater  difficulties  than  ever. 

This  article  will  be  published  in  full  in  the  Athenische  Miitheil- 
ungen  of  the  German  Archaeological  Institute. 
Adjourned  at  10.15  P-M' 

SIXTH  SESSION. 

Thursday,  July  9. 

The  Association  was  called  to  order  by  the  President  at  9.40  A.M. 
in  the  Trowbridge  Library. 

27.  The  Gerund  and  Gerundive  in  Livy,  by  Dr.  R.  B.  Steele,  of 
Vanderbilt  University  (read  by  Professor  Tolman). 

Next  to  the  ablative  absolute,  the  gerund  in  its  various  forms  is  the  most  com- 
monly occurring  construction  in  Livy.  Expressing  the  oblique  case  relations  of 
the  participle,  its  different  phases  are  worthy  of  exhaustive  presentation.  By  the 
time  of  Livy  the  leading  features  in  its  use  had  become  fixed,  and  for  that  reason 
we  shall  leave  the  question  of  origins  untouched,  and  shall  consider  the  construc- 
tion merely  as  an  element  in  the  style  of  Livy.  To  give  a  complete  statistical 
setting-forth  would  require  three  sets  of  figures,  —  one  for  the  gerund  forms, 
another  for  the  governing  expressions,  and  still  another  for  the  dependent  nouns 
and  pronouns  ;  but  we  shall  give  the  figures  for  the  first  only,  the  numbers  being 
considerably  less  for  the  other  two. 

The  use  of  the  gerund  with  an  object,  or  of  the  gerundive,  is  a  matter  of 
selection  in  stylistic  presentation,  and  the  two  are  frequently  used  side  by  side. 
A  noun  and  a  gerund  are  frequently  parallel  in  construction,  and  the  two  are 
sometimes  in  apposition.  As  with  the  ablative  absolute,  correlative  particles  are 
freely  used  with  successive  gerunds,  and  at  times  a  noun  must  be  supplied  from 
the  context,  as  in  29,  I,  10:  Si  cults  Romani  cquites  subslituti  .  .  .  doccndorum 
atquc  exercendorum  curam  Siculi  habuerunt.  Another  feature  of  some  interest 
is  Livy's  economy  in  the  use  of  prepositions,  especially  of  in,  which  is  sometimes 
found  with  a  noun  and  gerundive  where  ad  would  be  expected  with  the  latter,  as 
in  I,  6,  I :  in  arcem  praesidio  armisqtu  obtinendam. 

GENITIVE.  —  The  entire  number  of  genitives  of  the  gerund  is  1127,  but  the 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xxxix 

number  of  containing  passages  is  about  100  less.  The  gerunds  are  slightly  in 
excess  of  the  gerundives,  572  to  555,  though  the  latter  is  the  regular  form  with 
causa  and  gratia.  In  the  use  of  the  singular  and  plural  a  few  points  should  be 
noticed:  A  strong  preference  is  shown  for  the  gerundive  singular  instead  of  the 
gerund  with  an  object  (447  to  57).  On  the  other  hand,  the  gerund  with  the 
accusative  plural  is  preferred  to  the  gerundive  plural  (136  to  78).  Causa  is 
quite  freely  used,  but  gratia  (4  times)  is  confined  to  the  earlier  portions  of  the 
history.  Exclusive  of  these  two,  131  nouns  were  noticed  with  gerund  forms,  and 
60  of  them  but  once  each.  Compared  with  other  writers,  Livy  uses  adjectives 
freely  with  the  gerund,  and  has  an  occasional  instance  with  esse. 

In  a  few  passages  the  gerund  dependent  on  a  noun  or  on  esse  may  be  taken  as 
genitive  or  dative,  the  nouns,  exceptingyfaW,  being  of  the  first  declension. 

DATIVE.  —  The  dative  is  dependent  on  adjectives,  nouns,  and  verbs  —  about  a 
score  of  each,  —  aplus,  intentus,  and  opportunus;  co»titia&n<\  titles  of  officers,  dare 
and  esse  occurring  most  frequently.  The  dative  is  frequently  susceptible  of  a 
double  interpretation  indicating  either  mere  fitness  or  design  as  we  associate  the 
gerund  with  the  noun  or  with  the  complex  of  noun  and  verb  in  the  statement. 

ACCUSATIVE  WITH  PREPOSITIONS.  — According  to  Fugner's  Lexicon,  ad  occurs 
with  the  accusative  of  the  gerund  or  gerundive  137^  times,  971  times  with  verbs, 
277  with  nouns,  103  with  adjectives,  and  20  with  adverbs.  The  construction  is 
akin  to  the  dative  and  many  words  are  used  with  both,  and  as  with  the  dative 
the  construction  can  at  times  be  taken  as  expressing  fitness  or  design  according 
to  the  interpretation.  Design,  however,  is  expressed  with  most  verbs,  though  with 
a  few,  such  as  excitare  and  compellere,  the  result  is  attained  or  is  so  conceived. 

The  use  of  other  prepositions  is  limited  to  View  occurrences  of  //;,  inter,  and 
ante,  Pref.  6  ante  conditam  condendamve  urbeni. 

ABLATIVE. — The  ablative  occurs  with  the  same  frequency  as  the  genitive 
(1139  to  1127),  the  gerund  in  65%  of  the  occurrences, —  736.  With  but  16 
exceptions  the  gerunds  are  used  without  a  preposition,  but  only  40%  of  the 
gerundives.  A  preference  is  shown  for  the  gerund  with  an  accusative  rather 
than  a  gerundive  (270  to  160),  and  this  is  still  more  strongly  shown  in  the  few 
occurrences  of  se.  In,  de,  ab,  and  pro  are  the  prepositions  used,  though  the  last 
occurs  but  once. 

There  are  three  features  in  the  use  of  the  ablative  worthy  of  special  notice : 
(i)  Its  use  with  a  pronominal  subject,  (2)  Its  equivalence  to  a  present  participle, 
(3)  Its  use  as  an  ablative  absolute. 

1.  The  pronominal  subject  of  the  principal  verb,  usually  ipse  or  quisque,  is 
occasionally  accompanied  by  a  gerund.     The   use  of  the  pronoun  is  perfectly 
normal,  and  the  introduction  of  the  gerund  into  the  statement  must  be  considered 
the  abnormal  feature,  as  it  is  used  without  apparent  case  force,  as  are  those  con- 
sidered under  2. 

2.  In  24,  4,  9,  we  find  dictitans  .  .  .  deponendo  .  .  .  conrertit,  where  the 
gerund  is  to  all  intents  and  purposes  the  equivalent  of  the  present  participle.     In 
some  other  passages  the  ablative  of  the  gerund  is  used  parallel  with  the  nomina- 
tive of  the  present  participle,  while  elsewhere  it  is  used  alone,  but  generally  with 
a  verb  that  denotes  continuance,  —  a  compound  with  per-  or  in  the  imperfect 
tense.    The  continuative  force  of  the  ablative  can  be  clearly  seen,  and  the  gerund 
has  the  force  of  a  dum  clause. 


xl  American  Philological  Association. 

3.  Is  the  ablative  of  gerund  used  as  an  ablative  absolute?  Theoretically  this 
is  the  most  interesting  question  connected  with  the  ablative,  and  commentators 
show  abundant  evidence  of  lack  of  agreement  on  thii  point.  The  comments  in 
the  Weissenlx>rn-Mueller  edition  on  about  thirty  passages  show  considerable 
variety  in  interpretation,  as  some  occurrences  are  several  times  cited  as  illustrations 
of  slightly  varied  interpretations,  the  gerund  being  mentioned  as  an  actual  abla- 
tive absolute,  as  the  equivalent  of  a  cum  or  dum  clause,  as  equal  to  bei  or  indem, 
as  used  without  in,  or  as  illustrating  passages  mentioned  under  several  of  the 
above  interpretations.  In  some  of  these  a  noun  is  used  parallel  with  the  gerund; 
in  others  the  verbs  used  occur  elsewhere  with  nouns  without  prepositions,  so  that 
in  all  the  passages  the  construction  should  be  considered  as  a  free,  not  absolute, 
use  of  the  ablative,  and  parallel  to  a  freedom  in  the  use  of  nouns  without  prepo- 
sitions which  finds  frequent  illustration  in  Lavy. 

GERUNDIVE.  —  The  gerundive  —  future  passive  participle  —  expressing  design 
is  fairly  common  after  verbs  of  transferring,  but  after  a  few  verbs,  especially  curare, 
the  action  expressed  by  the  gerundive  is  conceived  as  an  accomplished  result,  as 
in  3,  51,  9:  eundem  numerum  ab  suis  creandum  curat. 

28.  The  Ablative  of  Time  in  Sanskrit,  by  Professor  E.  Washburn 
Hopkins,  of  Yale  University. 

This  paper  will  appear  in  Vol.  XXIV  of  the  Journal  of  the  Ameri- 
can Oriental  Society. 

29.  On  some  Verb-Forms  in  the  Ramayana^  by  Truman  Michel- 
son,  Esq.,  of  Harvard  University. 

a.  The  following  should  be  added  to  Whitney's  Root-Book  as  occurring  in  the 
Rdmdyana  :  the  pluperfect  ababhramafi  (i.  43.  9)  ;   the  gerund  ydtvd  (ii.  50.  I ; 
ii.  105.  36),  which  is,  according  to  \V.,  found  in  B.  and  S.  only;   the  participle 
stunvdna  (vi.  90,  4),  noted  previously  only  in  Upanishads;   the  middle  participle 
harsamdna  (vi.  73.  IO;   vi.  90.  4). 

b.  The  gerund  smayitvd  occurs  at  vi.  71.  46;   Whitney,  I.e.,  gives  it  as  occurring 
in  compounds  only. 

c.  The  following  should  be  added  to  Whitney's  Sanscrit  Grammar: 

§  618  end:  the  imperative  brav'ta  (vi.  14.  10),  which  the  commentator 
glosses  by  brftta. 

§  793  h:  the  perfects  jagrahus  (i.  45.  37),  for  which  Peterson  has  jagrhus, 
dadarc^atus  (iii.  69.  33),  and pasparc^atus  (vi.  80.  24). 

§  938:  the  future  imperative  vatsyantu  (vii.  40.  17). 

§   1042  n :  the  causatives  tarjdpayati  and  bhartsdpayati  (both  vi.  34.  9). 

d.  The  perfect  juttava  occurs  as  a  third  person  singular  active  at  vi.  80.  5. 

1  The  references  in  parentheses  are  to  the  1902  Bombay  edition  of  the  Ramayana. 

*  Or  possibly  an  imperfect  of  the  reduplicating  class  of  the  present  system  transferred  to  the 
^-conjugation.  That  ababhramat  is  not  a  reduplicated  aorist  is  shown  by  its  reduplicating 
vowel  -a-,  not  -i-  (as  in  abibhramaf),  (see  Whitrey,  Skt.  Gr.  S§  782,  858,  859,  860).  The 
reduplicated  aorist  acakamata  from  the  root  kam  Move'  is  indeed  parallel  to  ababhramat  in 
that  its  reduplicating  vowel  is  -a-  and  not  -i-,  but  the  form  is  nnn  quotable,  while  the  normal 
acikamata,  a  reduplicated  aorist  of  the  same  root,  is  found  in  the  Brahmanas. 


Proceedings  for  July \   1903.  jcli 

The  scholiast  notes  the  form  and  says  it  is  Vedic  —  '  juhava  juJidva,  vrddhya- 
bhdva  drsaA.'  Observe,  however,  that  in  the  Veda  the  first  a  would  be  short 
only  when  the  form  was  a  first  person  singular  (Whitney,  Gr.  §  793  d.).  juhava 
here  is  metri  causa. 

e.  The  only  example  of  a  sis  aorist  in  the  first  two  books  of  the  Rdmdyana  I 
have  noted  is  aydsisam,1  ii.  72.  27. 

30.  Notes  on  Andocides  and  the  Authorship  of  the  Oration  against 
Alcibiades,  by  Professor  VV.  S.  Scarborough,  of  Wilber force  University. 

The  genuineness  of  the  Oration  against  Alcibiades  has  long  been  a  matter  of 
dispute.  Andocidean  authorship  is  rejected  by  Dionysius,  Harpocration,  and  in 
modern  times  by  Taylor,  Markland,  Grote,  Blass,  and  Jebb.  The  language  of  the 
oration  is  simple  and  just  what  one  might  expect  of  a  man  speaking  under  great 
stress  of  excitement  and  provocation.  Mistakes  both  of  fact  and  history  are  likely 
to  follow  unless  the  subject  is  well  in  hand. 

Considering  the  subject  from  the  standpoint  of  internal  evidence,  and  compar- 
ing the  style  of  this  with  that  of  other  speeches  said  to  have  been  delivered  by 
this  orator,  there  is  a  strong  possibility  that  the  author  of  the  Ilepi  rwv  fj.vffTi)plwi>, 
Ilepl  TTJS  KaO&dov,  Ilepi  TTJS  Efpijjojj,  and  the  Kar"  'A\Kifiid5ov  was  one  and  the 
same  man. 

Transition  (Transitio  vocatur,  quae  quum  ostendit  breviter,  quid  dictum  sit, 
proponit  item  brevi,  quid  sequatur  —  Cornificius)  is  common  to  all  the  Andocidean 
orations.  To  denote  it  ntv  and  5^,  ^v  oZv  and  5^  play  an  important  part. 

"Ac  primum  quidem  vocibus  ^v  otiv  indicator  ira\t\\oyia  vel  6pto>6s  turn  voce 
oV  significatur  irp68e<Tis."  —  Linder,  De  rerum  dispositione  apud  Antiphontem  et 
Andocidem  oratores.  The  same  scholar  says : 

"  Eodem  loquendi  modo  (fj.ti>  ot>v  .  .  3^),  sed  non  eadem  vi  et  significatione 
aditus  ad  /3e/3aio«riv  patefactus  est." 

In  §  10  (or  IV.),  where  ii£v  oZv  ...  5^  occur,  the  utv  otv  do  not  indicate  a 
repetition  (ira\iXXo7/a,  recapitulation),  but  rather  a  premonition  (praemunitionem) 
whereby  the  orator  prepares  the  minds  of  his  audience  for  what  is  to  follow. 

Cf.  Andocides,  IV.  7,  irepl  i^v  o5v  rotiruv  .  .  .  8^o/j.<u  S'  iftu>v,  K.T.\.  This  is 
only  one  of  the  many  examples  that  might  be  mentioned  to  illustrate  the  points 
in  question,  and  to  show  the  common  authorship  of  the  four  orations. 

31.  The  Meaning  of  Sfifw.  rirpairrai,  Euripides,  Hippolytus  246, 
by  Professor  J.  E.  Harry,  of  the  University  of  Cincinnati. 

Wilamowitz  renders :  "  die  gesichtsfarbe  schlagt  urn,"  comparing  xP&s  r^rpa- 
irrat  N  279.  To  this  I  took  exception,  translating:  "my  eye  has  turned." 
Ellershaw  (in  a  review  of  my  edition,  Class.  J\'ev.  June,  1901)  agreed  with 
Wilamowitz.  But  note  the  tense  (as  compared  with  the  preceding)  and  the 
constant  reference  to  consciousness  and  unconsciousness.  Phaedra  is  thinking 
of  the  awakening  to  the  terrible  reality,  as  opposed  to  the  previous  illusions. 

1  -j'naslt,  ii.  87.  16  noted  by  Bohtlink,  B.  d.  phil.-hist.  Cl.  d.  kdn.  Sachs.  Get.  d.  Wiss. 
1887,  p.  222  was  overlooked.  Bohtlink  also  overlooked  ay&sisam. 


xlii  American  Philological  Association. 

Cp.  404,  420,  423,  427,  430.  She  might  comment  on  another's  change  of  color, 
but  not  on  her  own,  might  say,  with  Gautier,  "  Votre  pileur  nacree  en  incarnat 
se  change."  But  rptireffOai  here  is  not  se  changer.  Both  alSovfteOa.  and  aiffx^^" 
refer  to  her  inward  shrinking.  She  fears  the  aiVxos  *a'  ^tryov. 

With  xpws  the  verb  Tp^reiv  can  be  rendered  by  the  English  copula  turn. 
But  XPu*  is  not  6/j.ft.a..  Plato  says  iravTodaira.  r/<piei  xpw/xaTa  (Lysis  222  B),  but 
not  rptireiv  fyi/ia.  Even  in  the  sense  of  os  fytjta  is  never  used  with  rptireiv  to 
express  an  idea  similar  to  N  279;  in  the  sense  of  oculus  fl/t/xa  is  frequently  com- 
bined with  rptirfiv  and  pd\\eiv:  Aesch.  Prom.  706  (M  ffTptya<ra.,  the  other  Mss. 
rptyaffa,  which  Herm.  adopts),  fr.  311  6fi./j.a  rptirovffa.,  Ag.  779  iraXiirpoirotj 
6/j.jjMffi  (cp.  Prom.  882),  Fr.  297  TO  fficaibv  6fj.fj.cL  irpoffftaXtav.  Cp.  CAo.Sopbi.  99, 
Ai.  69,  Eur.  /.  T.  68,  Hel.  1573,  1147,  Rep.  Lac.  3.  4.  wot  fyi/ua  Tpttrwv  =  irot 
/SX^Trwv  (Soph.  ^».  1290).  The  usual  prep,  is  ^jrf:  Eur.  /.  ^.646,  Soph.  Ai. 
772,  Ar.  Ran.  1025,  ./Vw^.  859,  Plut.  317,  F<w/.  986,  Lysias  2.  64,  10.  30,  12.  5, 
18.  18,  Dem.  9.  14,  Hdt.  I.  117,  7.  16,  2.  In  a  fragment  attributed  to  Theognis 
occurs  the  sentence  ijv  T'  tiri  atixftpovvvriv  Tpe<p6rj  v6os.  Cp.  Soph.  El.  903  ^vxv 
tyvyOes  6fj.fj.a.  The  best  parallel  is  Plato  519  A:  us  dpifiv  /j£v  /SX^iret  r6  \f/vxdpiov 
Ka.1  <5£^ws  Oiopo.  TO.VTO.  i<p'  &,  T^TpairTai  ws  01)  </>a>!>\r)v  exov  T^1V  fy"-v-  Cp.  591  c 
oi>x  6ira>5  TTJ  OijpiuiSet  KO.I  aXoytp  rjdovy  tiriTptyas  ivravffa.  rerpa^u^vos  ^<ret,  dXX' 
oi>8£  irpos  vyieiav  flXtirwv.  irol  pMiruv,  like  T£  naduv,  is  a  common  phrase  for  5id 
ri  (Laches  195  A,  197  E,  Soph.  El.  887  f.).  Phaedra  says  Trpds  at'o-x^^"  /SX^ira;, 
hence  car'  fitrtrwv  5d.Kpv  ftoi  fiaivfi.  She  is  now  ?rp6s  r6  K^pSiffTov  Tpaireis  yvufiTjs 
(Soph.  ^j.  743). 

The  eye  is  very  frequently  expressed  by  d/*/«x.  Aeschylus  rarely  uses  6<p9a,\tJ.fa 
of  the  actual  eye ;  Sophocles  and  Euripides  not  very  frequently.  It  is  the  6/j.fi.a. 
that  sees  (SeSopKOs  dfi.fj.a,').  Aeschylus  never  uses  6/j./j.a  for  face.  In  compounds 
with  a  privative  Tpiireiv  and  aTptyeiv  are  used  absolutely  to  signify  respicere. 

Shame,  pity,  fear,  love,  are  chiefly  manifested  through  the  eye.  Sappho  says 
eu'Sws  ict  ff'  OVK  8.v  eixe"  6ftfia.Ta.  Cp.  Eur.  Sufpl.  176  ff.  So  Tecmessa  speaks  of 
looking  on  one's  sufferings  as  being  equivalent  to  spreading  for  one's  self  a  bed 
of  woes  (Ai.  260) ;  like  Ajax,  Phaedra  has  just  recovered  *cai  vvv  <pp6vi/ju>s  v4ov 
4X70$  «x«-  Cp.  345.  So  Hippolytus  wishes  for  a  mirror  that  he  may  weep  TO, 
eavTov  irdOi)  tffXevffcruv,  The  ancients  regarded  the  eye  as  the  seat  of  alduis 
(Ar.  Rhet.  2.  6.  18).  Cp.  Suidas  (s.v.  aiSAs),  Ctesph.  Fr.  18  (Dind.),  Ar. 
Vesp.  446,  Athen.  13.  564  b,  Theog.  85,  Theocr.  27.  69,  Eustathius  on  //.  N  923. 
1 8  ' ApiffTOT^Xovs  yap  0tXoffo<^u>rora  irapado^vov  oiKijTripiov  aidovs  elvat  TOI)J 
6<p6a.\iju»js.  Even  justice  and  fear  reside  in  the  eyes  (Aesch.  Pers.  168,  Soph. 
Ai.  139,  O.  C.  729).  Grief  is  found  there  (Ai.  7<36). 

The  fact  that  the  queen  begs  the  nurse  twice  to  cover  her  face  is  no  proof 
that  iir'  a.iffx^trnv  ^MM*  T^TpairTai  means  "  es  farbt  meine  wangen  die  rote  der 
scham."  The  ancients  were  wont  to  cover  the  head  (£y*caXityao-0eu,  capnt  obvol- 
vere,  operire,  velare)  in  case  of  great  affliction:  6  92  'OStxro-eih  KO.TO.  KPO.TO. 
Ko.\v^6.pjevo^  yodaffKev,  Soph.  Ai.  245  f.,  1145,  Lwv  4.  12,  Hor.  5a/.  2.  3.37,  Plaut. 
Afostell.  2.  2.  89,  Sueton.  Calig.  51. 

This  paper  will  be  published  in  full  in  the  Classical  Review. 
Remarks  were  made  by  Professors  Earle  and  Miller,  and  by  the 
author. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xliii 

32.  Did  Cicero  write  bellum  Poenicum  in  Brutus,  §  75?  by  Pro- 
fessor Minton  Warren,  of  Harvard  University. 

Woelfflin  has  shown  in  Khein.  Mus.  37,  p.  87,  that  it  is  an  anachronism  to 
speak  of  the  bellum  Punicum  of  Naevius,  and  he  adduces  evidence  from  inscrip- 
tions—  Cato,  Varro,  Nepos,  and  Gellius  —  to  support  the  spelling  Poenicum.  It 
is  probable  that  Cicero  referred  to  the  work  of  the  old  poet  by  its  exact  title. 
In  Brutus,  §  75,  the  editors  read,  Tamen  illius,  quern  in  vatibus  el  Founts  annu- 
merat  Ennius,  bellum  Punicum  quasi  Afyronis  opus  delectat.  But,  according  to 
Martha  (Brutus,  1892),  five  Mss.,  —  O.  G.  B.  H.  M.,  —  which  are  derived  directly 
or  indirectly  from  the  ancient  codex  Laudensis,  read  hello  punico  eum.  This  cor- 
ruption may,  perhaps,  be  explained  by  supposing  that  in  some  early  Ms.  bellum 
Punicum  was  corrected  to  bellum  Poenicum  by  writing  oe  above  the  first  u, 
plinicum.  A  later  copyist  carelessly  put  the  oe  above  the  second  u,  punicifm, 
and  this  led  to  bellum  punico  eum  and,  finally,  by  making  bellum  conform  to 
punico,  to  hello  punico  eum.  This  would  explain  the  senseless  variant.  If  Cicero 
wrote  Poenicum  here,  he  probably  wrote  Poenico  in  Cato,  §  50,  quant  gaudebat 
bello  suo  Punico  Naevius!  as  it  is  still  given  in  the  editions. 

Remarks  were  made  by  Dr.  Scott  and  Professor  Earle. 

33.  The  Incongruities  in  the  Speeches  of  Ancient  Historians,  from 
Herodotus  to  Ammianus  Marcellinus,  —  Introduction,  by  Professor 
Alfred  Gudeman,  of  Cornell  University  (read  by  Professor  Paton). 

Among  the  many  significant  points  ofSihfference  between  the  methods  of 
historiography  in  ancient  and  modern  times,  perhaps  none  is  more  characteristic 
than  the  habitual  practice  of  the  ancient  historian  to  put  speeches  into  the  mouths 
of  his  dramatis  personae.  The  causes  which  prompted  him  to  do  so;  the  specific 
object  which  these  speeches  are  designed  to  subserve,  no  less  than  the  measure 
of  success  they  achieved;  finally,  their  claims  to  being  considered  justifiable  as  an 
integral  part  of  historical  composition,  —  all  these  are  subjects  of  interest  and 
importance.  But  they  have  one  and  all  received  due  attention,  and  I  do  not  pro- 
pose, even  if  the  time  allotted  to  me  were  less  limited,  to  carry  coals  to  New- 
castle by  reiterating  what  has  elsewhere  been  said  on  these  topics,  albeit  such  a 
carbonic  transaction  would  possibly  not  meet  with  the  serious  objections  it  might 
have  encountered  at  this  very  time  last  year. 

My  somewhat  elaborate  analysis  of  the  speeches  in  Greek  and  Roman  histori- 
ans, begun  some  years  ago  and  only  now  completed,  aims  at  something  different; 
but  the  limits  to  which  I  am  confined  will  prevent  me  from  presenting  anything 
more  than  a  kind  of  introduction  to  the  subject.  Given  the  object  which  the 
author  aimed  at,  I  endeavored  to  discover  to  what  extent  he  succeeded  in 
preserving  or  failed  in  maintaining  throughout  a  requisite  historical  coloring 
or  verisimilitude  as  regards  the  time  and  the  occasion  of  the  speech.  I,  there- 
upon, proceed  to  determine  the  accuracy  or  inaccuracy  of  the  oration  from 
the  point  of  view  of  the  orator  himself;  that  is,  whether  the  statements  or  reflec- 
tions attributed  to  him  are  in  conformity  with  his  character  and  his  cultural 
equipment,  in  a  word,  his  career,  so  far  as  this  is  known  to  us  from  trustworthy 
sources,  outside  of  the  information  furnished  by  the  speech  or  speeches  under 


xliv  American  Philological  Association. 

discussion.  Finally,  it  frequently  happens  that  more  than  one  speech  is  attributed 
to  a  single  individual  in  the  works  of  the  same  author,  or  that  a  speech  is  assigned 
to  the  same  speaker  on  the  identical  occasion  in  two  or  more  authors.  In  such 
cases,  questions  as  to  inconsistency  of  character-drawing,  of  authenticity  or  origi- 
nality arise,  and  incongruities  in  details,  which  by  themselves  were  indeterminable 
or  had  escaped  detection  altogether,  are  unexpectedly  revealed  by  an  analytical 
comparison  or  a  comparative  analysis. 

Such  is,  in  brief,  the  aim  and  scope  of  the  present  investigation.  The  histori- 
ans examined  under  the  view-points  just  outlined  are  the  following: 

Greek  —  Herodotus,  Thucydides,  Xenophon,  Polybius,  Dionysius,  Diodorus, 
Josephus,  Appian,  Arrian,  Herodian,  and  Dio  Cassius. 

Latin — Caesar,  Sallust,  Livy,  Curtius,  Tacitus,  Justinus,  and  Ammianus  Mar- 
cellinus.  Velleius,  Suetonius,  and  the  Scriptores  Historiae  Augustae  were 
excluded  for  obvious  reasons. 

If  our  results  are  to  rest  upon  a  solid  foundation,  it  is,  of  course,  essential  to 
know  what  kind  of  an  historian  we  are  dealing  with,  whether,  for  example,  he  was 
a  slave  to  the  canons  of  rhetoric,  like  Dionysius,  or  rose  superior  to  them  by  utiliz- 
ing all  the  resources  of  his  art  for  definite  ends,  like  Thucydides  and  Tacitus. 
Again,  where  a  historian  takes  the  reader  into  his  confidence  and  tells  him 
how  his  speeches  are  to  be  viewed,  or  informs  him  why  certain  speeches  are 
open  to  censure,  as  does  Polybius  who,  in  criticising  the  speeches  of  Timaeus, 
indirectly  implies  what  we  are  to  expect  in  his  own,  the  speeches  must,  of 
course,  be  examined  in  the  light  of  this  knowledge,  lest  we  judge  them  by  criteria 
which  the  author  would  have  repudiated.  Due  circumspection  having  been  thus 
exercised,  we  may  proceed  to  a  classification  of  the  speeches  themselves.  Here 
two  methods  appear  to  me  possible.  We  may  divide  them  according  to  the  sub- 
ject-matter, in  which  case,  three  large  classes  will  include  all  the  orations  examined 
by  me.  (i)  Political  speeches,  (2)  Military,  (3)  Epideictic.  This  division, 
though  not  strictly  logical,  has  the  distinct  advantage  of  at  once  revealing  an 
astonishing  family  likeness  between  all  the  speeches  of  one  type,  thus  proving, 
not  so  much  that  similar  conditions  will  lead  to  an  accumulation  of  similar  senti- 
ments, as  e.g.  in  the  speeches  of  generals  on  the  eve  of  a  battle,  but  rather  that 
a  somewhat  stereotyped  norm  for  addresses  of  this  character  had  become  canonic 
and  traditional.  And  if  in  such  instances  numerous  incongruities  appear,  as  I 
find  that  they  do,  the  fault  cannot  always  be  imputed  to  the  individual  author,  but 
must  rather  be  attributed  to  the  original  creator  of  this  particular  type. 

A  far  more  useful  classification  for  my  purpose  (and  the  one  which  I  have 
adopted)  also  comprises  three  broad  categories. 

I.  To  Class  I.  belong  all  speeches  which  are  known  to  have  been  historical  or 
whose  actual  delivery  is,  at  least,  intrinsically  probable.  These  speeches  are  of 
five  kinds. 

(a)  It  is  the  author's  own :  e.g.  Cato  in  the  Origines,  Caesar. 

(£)  It  was  published  and  accessible  to  the  historian :  eg.  the  speech  of  Clau- 
dius in  Tacitus. 

(c)  It  was  delivered  in  the  author's  presence;  eg.  some  speeches  in  Thucydi- 
des, Polybius,  and  Ammianus. 

(</)  Its  contents  reached  the  historian  at  second  hand,  either  through  oral  or 
written  channels.  Exx.  of  this  type,  I  recognize  in  Thucydides,  Polybius,  pos- 


Proceedings  for  July,  1903.  xlv 

sibly  in  Sallust's  speeches  of  Caesar  and  Cato  in  the  Catiline,  and  Agricola's  in 
Tacitus's  biography.  Finally,  some  of  the  speeches  in  Livy  which  he  found  in  the 
sources  followed  by  him,  such  as  Polybius,  Fabius  Pictor,  and  Cato,  may  belong 
here. 

(e)  The  author  knew  only  by  tradition  of  the  delivery  of  a  speech,  and  there- 
fore inserted  an  address,  the  contents  of  which  are  wholly  his  own  invention. 
Possibly  the  long  speech  of  Calenus  in  Dio  Cassius  is  a  case  in  point. 

II.  The  delivery  of  the  speech  at  the  time  and  place  alleged  is  for  one  reason 
or  another  highly  improbable.     To  this  class  belong : 

(a)  Certain  speeches  on  the  eve  of  a  battle  whose  contents,  even  if  an  address 
had  been  delivered,  could  not  well  have  come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  historian. 
This  type  is  of  very  frequent  occurrence,  battle  speeches  in  general  being  not 
only  the  most  common  of  all  in  extant  historians,  but  they  at  the  same  time 
exhibit  the  largest  number  of  constantly  recurring  '  loci  communes.' 

(£)  E.g.  the  speech  of  Mucianus  before  Vespasian,  of  Galba  on  the  adoption 
of  Piso  in  Tacitus,  of  the  Scythians  before  Alexander  in  Curtius. 

III.  Speeches  that  from  their  very  nature  could  never  have  been  delivered: 
eg.  the  speeches  of  Romulus  in  Dionysius,  of  Calgacus  in  the  Agricola,  of  Boudicca 
and  Maecenas  in  Dio  Cassius. 

IV.  A  fourth  class,  though  not  strictly  exclusive,  is  taken  up  by  the  many 
instances  of  two  set  speeches,  pitted  against  each  other.     In  these  cases,  both  are 
apt  to  be  mere  inventions,  as  the  speeches  of  Scipio  and  Hannibal  in  Livy,  of 
Cicero  and  Philiscus  in  Dio  Cassius,  or  else  one  may  have  a  certain  historical 
background,  while  the  other  has  little  or  none,  thus  coming  under  II.  or  III.; 
Exx.  are  Calgacus  and  Agricola,  some  of  the*  ambassador's  speeches  in  Thucydides, 
or  those  of  the  Syracusans  in  the  sixth  book.      The  nearest  approach  to  both 
speeches  being  fairly  historical  is  found  in  those  of  Ariovistus  and  Caesar. 

It  is  in  these  double  speeches  that  the  historians  exhibit  the  largest  number  of 
incongruities,  in  that  the  various  speakers  are  often  made  to  anticipate  points 
adduced  later  by  opponents,  and  in  Thucydides  this  even  occurs  in  addresses  de- 
livered at  different  places  and  occasions,  cross  references,  as  it  were,  giving  the 
impression  of  strictly  contemporaneous  replies.  Occasionally,  I  have  found  allu- 
sions to  facts  with  which  the  reader  had  just  been  made  acquainted,  but  which 
the  speaker  cannot  have  known  or  which  must  have  been  unintelligible  to  his 
audience,  e.g.  in  the  §peeches  of  Piso  and  of  Civilis  in  Tacitus. 

Still  another  kind  of  incongruity  is  one  that  might  be  put  under  the  general 
head  of  anachronism.  I  have  noticed  no  instances  of  this  in  the  greatest  histo- 
rians such  as  Thucydides,  Polybius,  Tacitus,  and  Ammianus,  but  one  reason  for  this 
is  doubtless  the  fact  that  they  to  a  very  large  extent  dealt  with  the  history  of  their 
own  times  ;  not  a  few  examples,  however,  occur  in  Dionysius,  Sallust,  Livy,  Cur- 
tius, and  Appian,  because  these  authors  unconsciously  at  times  project  their  own 
knowledge  or  feelings  into  the  past.  These  inconsistencies  are  of  a  rather  subtle 
and  elusive  nature,  and  I  do  not  pretend  that  I  have  detected  them  all.  I  have 
found  but  little  help  in  existing  commentaries  and,  in  fact,  I  may  say,  that  the 
exegetical  labors  of  editors  have  hitherto  not  been  devoted  to  the  discovery  of 
these  incongruities,  even  where  they  were  hidden  but  little  beneath  the  surface. 

The  one  cardinal  incongruity,  however,  which  characterizes  every  speech  in  an 
ancient  historian  —  the  only  exceptions  being  found  where  author  and  speaker 


xlvi  American  Philological  Association, 

were  identical  —  and  which  would  alone  suffice  to  stamp  these  oratorical  pro- 
ductions as  unhistorical  has  not  yet  been  referred  to,  simply  because  of  its  univer- 
sality and  general  recognition.  I  mean,  of  course,  the  style  in  which  all  these 
speeches  are  written.  No  ancient  historian  ever  ventured  to  quote  an  entire  speech 
or  a  part  of  one  in  the  original,  even  where  such  had  been  readily  accessible.  An 
inexorable  law  of  stylistic  uniformity  forbade  this,  the  historians,  therefore,  invari- 
ably cast  original  documents  into  their  own  stylistic  mould,  and  in  the  case  of 
speeches  spent  upon  their  elaboration  all  the  resources  of  their  rhetorical  art. 
Alcibiades  and  Pericles  and  Hermagoras  speak  the  language  of  Thucydides,  Han- 
nibal and  Scipio  indulge  in  the  milky  richness  of  Livy,  the  speakers  in  Sallust 
and  Tacitus  aim  at  conciseness  and  epigrammatic  expression.  It  is,  indeed,  a 
case  of  "Tros  Tyriusque  mihi  nullo  discrimine  agetur." 

Of  the  speeches  which  we  now  read  in  ancient  historians  many  were  doubtless 
delivered  by  the  persons  to  whom  they  are  attributed,  but  with  one  solitary 
exception,  the  originals  have  not  come  down  to  us,  and  hence  we  are  unable  to 
determine  what  liberties  later  writers  permitted  themselves  in  the  reproduction 
of  the  contents  as  distinguished  from  the  stylistic  transformation  to  which  these 
speeches  were  unmercifully  subjected.  The  extant  speech  of  the  Emperor 
Claudius  when  compared  with  what  purports  to  be  his  address  in  Tacitus  sug- 
gests the  probability  that  the  gist  of  what  was  actually  said  was  not  materially 
altered,  and  Thucydides's  famous  statement  confirms  this  view;  but  to  assume 
that  the  practice  of  men  like  Thucydides  and  Tacitus  was  representative  or  typical 
of  the  general  procedure  is  a  very  precarious  inference.  I,  at  least,  have  no  doubt 
that,  if  the  historical  originals  of  the  speeches  put  into  the  mouth  of  their  heroes 
even  by  writers  like  Polybius,  Sallust,  and  Livy  were  extant,  the  number  of  incon- 
gruities would  be  multiplied  considerably. 

I  have  in  the  foregoing,  in  the  briefest  possible  outline,  endeavored  to  sketch 
the  purpose,  scope,  and  method  of  treatment  of  the  work  here  undertaken.  The 
detailed  evidence  for  the  results  attained  will  be  found  in  the  completed  mono- 
graph. If  any  one  after  its  perusal  should  find  that  the  promise  here  held  out 
was  not  fulfilled  in  the  performance,  I  can  only  plead  si  desint  vires,  tamen  est 
laudanda  voluntas,  for  the  subject  seems  to  me  one  of  genuine  interest  and 
importance,  and  it  was  therefore  better  to  have  it  treated  inadequately  than  not 
at  all. 

The  Committee  appointed  to  nominate  a  Standing  Committee  on 
the  Nomination  of  Officers  reported,  through  Professor  Wright,  as 

follows : 

To  serve  for  one  year,  Professor  J.  H.  Wright. 

To  serve  for  two  years,  Professor  W.  G.  Hale. 
To  serve  for  three  years,  Professor  T.  D.  Seymour. 
To  serve  for  four  years,  Professor  Samuel  Hart. 
To  serve  for  Jive  years,  Professor  M.  VV.  Humphreys. 

Professor  Wright  was  requested  to  serve  on  the  Standing  Com- 
mittee until  his  successor  is  appointed  at  the  next  annual  meeting. 

On  behalf  of  the  entire  Standing  Committee  the  three  members 
present  united  in  reporting  the  following  nominations  for  the  ensuing 
year: 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xlvii 

President,  Professor  George  Hempl,  University  of  Michigan. 

Vice  Presidents,  Professor  Mortimer  Lamson  Earle,  Columbia  University. 

Professor  Elmer  Truesdell  Merrill,  Wesleyan  University. 

Secretary  and  Treasurer,  Professor  Herbert  Weir  Smyth,  Harvard  University. 
Executive  Committee,  The  above-named  officers,  and 

Professor  Charles  E.  Bennett,  Cornell  University. 

Professor  Francis  A.  March,  Lafayette  College. 

Professor  Morris  H.  Morgan,  Harvard  University. 

Professor  Bernadotte  Perrin,  Yale  University. 

Dr.  Charles  P.  G.  Scott,  Radnor,  Pa. 

The  report  of  the  Standing  Committee  was  adopted,  and  the 
Secretary  was  directed  to  cast  the  ballot  of  the  Association  for  the 
persons  nominated. 

The  Secretary  reported  that  the  result  of  the  ballot  cast  on  the 
question  of  transferring  the  time  of  holding  the  regular  annual  meet- 
ings was  47  in  favor  of  a  summer  meeting,  19  in  favor  of  a  meeting 
during  Convocation  Week. 

The  Executive  Committee  reported  through  the  Secretary  that  for 
the  present  it  was  advisable  to  retain  the  summer  meeting  of  the 
Association. 

Professor  Warren  moved  the  acceptance  of  the  report.     Carried. 

On  behalf  of  the  Committee  on  T&viie  and  Place  of  Meeting  in 
1904,  Professor  Perry  recommended  that  the  meeting  of  1904  be 
held  before  July  4,  and  at  St.  Louis. 

A  motion  to  consider  separately  the  recommendations  of  the  Com- 
mittee was  carried. 

Professor  Pickard  urged  the  acceptance  of  the  invitation  from 
St.  Louis. 

Professor  Knapp  moved  to  substitute  Cornell  University  for 
St.  Louis.  The  discussion  that  ensued  was  participated  in  by  Messrs. 
C.  H.  Moore,  Scott,  Goodell,  Smyth,  Harrington,  and  Perrin. 

The  amendment  was  carried  by  19  to  15. 

Professor  Smyth  moved  to  amend  the  report  of  the  Committee 
and  to  the  effect  that  the  next  meeting  should  begin  July  5,  1904. 
Carried. 

Professor  Perry  proposed  the  following  motion,  which  was  carried 
unanimously  by  a  rising  vote  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Secretary  be  directed  to  express  the  hearty  thanks  of  the 
American  Philological  Association  to  the  authorities  of  Yale  University  for  their 
courtesy  in  inviting  the  Association  to  hold  its  annual  meeting  of  1903  in  New 
Haven,  and  for  the  generous  provision  made  for  the  comfort  and  convenience  of 
the  members  attending;  to  the  members  of  the  Local  Committee  of  Arrange- 


xlviii  American  Philological  Association. 

ments,  and  in  particular  to  its  Chairman  Professor  Perrin  and  to  Professor 
Reynolds,  for  the  excellent  care  with  which  the  many  details  of  entertainment 
have  been  managed;  and  to  the  Classical  Club  of  Yale  University  for  the  excur- 
sion and  supper  offered  to  the  Association  on  the  evening  of  Thursday,  July  9. 

Dr.  Scott  then  offered  the  following  resolution  : 

Resolved,  That  the  Executive  Committee  be  requested  to  consider,  and  to 
report  at  a  future  meeting  of  the  Association,  whether  it  is  expedient  to  change 
the  method  of  publishing  the  papers  read  before  the  Association;  and  whether, 
in  particular,  it  is  desirable  to  publish  the  papers,  or  those  chosen  for  the  pur- 
pose, each  in  a  separate  monograph  with  a  separate  title  page,  but  all  bearing  the 
name  and  sanction  of  the  Association,  and  a  serial  number;  and  whether,  if  this 
be  done,  it  is  expedient  to  abolish  the  TRANSACTIONS  as  such  and  to  reduce  the 
PROCEEDINGS  to  a  mere  official  record. 

Professor  Knapp  moved  to  refer  to  the  Executive  Committee,  with 
power  to  act,  the  question  of  the  expediency  of  continuing  the  sub- 
scription of  the  Association  to  the  Platonic  Lexicon. 

Adjourned. 

SEVENTH  SESSION. 

Thursday  Afternoon,  July  9. 
The  Association  assembled  at  3  P.M. 

34.  Hephaestion  and  the  Resolutions  of  the  Greek  Comic  Trimeter, 
by  Professor  C.  VV.  E.  Miller,  of  the  Johns  Hopkins  University. 

This  paper  is  printed  in  full  in  the  TRANSACTIONS.  It  was  discussed 
by  Professors  Humphreys  and  Radford. 

35.  Quintilian's  Criticism  of  the  Metres  of  Terence,  by  Professor 
Alfred  Gudeman,  of  Cornell  University  (read  by  title). 

Since  the  days  of  Bentley  it  has  been  a  conviction  generally  shared  by 
scholars  that  the  Romans,  however  delicately  attuned  their  ears  were  for  the 
harmonies  of  verse,  exhibited  a  singular  obtuseness  iu  their  criticisms  of  the 
metres  of  Latin  Comedy. 

It  was  a  small  matter  that  Cicero,  in  a  well-known  passage  of  the  Orator 
(55>  l84)>  spoke  of  the  comic  senarius  in  a  way  that  ought  to  be  a  perpetual 
source  of  joy  to  Gitlbauer,  so  long  as  unsympathetic  publishers  refuse  to  inflict 
his  epoch-making  discovery  upon  a  long-suffering,  philological  public !  For 
Cicero,  we  are  assured,  was  but  an  indifferent  versifier  and  hence  no  competent 
judge,  albeit  the  greatest  poet  whom  Rome  produced  paid  him  the  highest  com- 
pliment that  genius  can  bestow —  that  of  imitation  ! 

That  the  Muses  never  reciprocated  the  (at  best)  lukewarm  affection  of  Varro 
will  perhaps  be  readily  conceded,  and  hence  we  need  not  be  surprised  to  find 
him  speaking  of  the  numeri  innumeri  of  Plautus,  the  only  really  surprising 
circumstance  about  this  criticism  being  the  fact,  that  there  are  still  scholars  of 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  xlix 

repute  who  insist  on  misinterpreting  the  oxymoron  or  who  fancy  that  Plautus 
himself  was  the  author  of  the  epitaph  in  which  his  "unrhythmical  rhythms"  are 
said  to  have  all  fallen  aweeping  together,  and  well  they  might  in  prophetic  antici- 
pation of  the  way  in  which  they  were  destined  to  be  maligned  even  by  Horace, 
whose  melodious  verses  have  not  held  captive  the  ears  of  Ovid  alone. 

But  it  is  just  because  Horace  was  so  supreme  a  metrical  artist  that  I  have 
never  been  able  to  convince  myself  that  his  famous  disparagement  of  the  verse 
of  Plautus  (A.  P.  270-274)  was  due  to  any  genuine  lack  of  appreciation  of  the 
marvellous  versatility  and  facility  displayed  by  the  comic  poet  in  the  domain  of 
versification.  His  criticism  is  rather  to  be  understood  as  emphasizing  the  unde- 
niable progress  and  perfection  of  metrical  technique  in  his  day,  a  consummation 
to  which  he  himself  was  conscious  of  having  contributed  no  despicable  share. 
But  goaded  by  a  class  of  fanatical  laudatores  temporis  acti,  who  praised  the  past 
simply  because  it  was  such  and  who  did  so  at  the  expense  of  the  present,  Horace 
was  in  his  turn  betrayed  into  an  injustice  to  the  old  poets  which  under  other  cir- 
cumstances he  would,  I  fain  would  think,  have  been  most  anxious  to  avoid. 

But  this  depreciation,  unwarranted  though  it  was,  became  traditional  and 
finds  its  most  typical  expression  in  a  famous  or  rather  notorious  note  of  Piiscian, 
who,  in  relieving  his  feelings,  is  nevertheless  merely  echoing  as  usually  the 
deliverance  of  some  earlier  critics: 

"  Quosdam  vel  abnegare  esse  in  Terentii  comoediis  metra  (some  ancient 
ancestors  of  Gitlbauer  are  meant,  of  course!)  vel  ea  quasi  arcana  quaedam  et 
ab  omnibus  doctis  semota  sibi  solis  esse  cognita  confirmare." 

In  the  light  of  so  time  honored  an  aberration,  it  need  cause  no  surprise  that 
the  passage  of  Quintilian,  with  which  we  arlt^here  more  immediately  concerned, 
has  been  habitually  regarded  as  merely  another  illustration  of  that  obtuseness 
in  things  metrical  just  noticed. 

After  stating,  it  will  be  recalled,  that  in  the  conviction  of  Aelius  Stilo  the 
Muses,  if  they  had  occasion  to  speak  Latin,  would  speak  iu  the  language  of 
Plautus,  in  which  case,  let  us  hope,  Stilo  was  prepared  to  furnish  these  iadies  with 
an  expurgated  edition,  Quintilian  (X,  I,  99)  continues  as  follows: 

"  Licet  Terentii  scripta  ad  Scipionem  Africanum  referantur  quae  tamen  in  hoc 
genere  elegantissima  et  plus  adhuc  habitura  graliae  si  intra  versus  trimetros 
itetissent. " 

This  apparently  eccentric  piece  of  criticism  aroused  the  anger  of  Richard 
Bentley  and  his  pent-up  feelings  found  vent  in  this  characteristic  outburst : 

"  Mirificum  sane  magni  rhetoris  iudicium.  Optabat  scilicet  ut  Fabulae  Teren- 
tianae  quae  in  primo  cuiusque  actu  et  scena  a  trimetris  inchoantur,  eodem 
metro  ac  tenore  per  omnes  actus  scenasque  decucurrissent.  Crederes  profecto 
hominem  numquam  scaenam  vidisse,  numquam  comoedum  partes  suas  agentem 
spectavisse.  Quid  voluit?  quod  nee  Menander  nee  ullus  Graecorum  fecit, 
Terentius  ut  faceret !  ut  ira,  metus,  exultatio,  dolor,  gaudium  et  quietae  res 
et  turbatae  eodem  metro  lente  agerentur?  ut  tibicen  paribus  tonis  perpetuoque 
cantico  spectantium  aures  vel  declarasset  vel  offenderet?  Tantum  abest,  ut  eo 
pacto  plus  gratiae  habitura  esset  fabula,  ut,  quantumvis  bene  morata,  quantumv  is 
belle  scripta,  gratiam  prorsus  omnem  perdidisset"  (Schediasma  de  metris 
Terentianis). 

"An  amazing  judgment  of  the  great  critic,  surely,"  we  may  say;  and  yet  so  far 


1  American  Philological  Association. 

as  I  know  no  subsequent  scholar  has  come  to  the  rescue  of  Quintilian  against 
this  flagrant  interpretation. 

In  the  first  place  it  must  be  observed  that  when  Quintilian  opines  that  the 
charm  of  Terence's  plays  would  be  enhanced  if  only  trimeters  had  been  employed, 
he  thereby  conclusively  proves  that  he,  unlike  Cicero,  Horace,  Varro,  and  Pris- 
cian,  had  a  very  high  opinion  of  the  old  comic  poet's  iambic  verses. 

But  the  real  difficulty  of  the  passage  under  notice  is  not  whether  Quintilian  is 
wrong  —  and,  indeed,  we  moderns  will  scarcely  agree  with  him  —  but  rather  how 
he  ever  came  to  pronounce  this  judgment.  The  question  has  hitherto  not  even 
been  asked,  much  less  answered.  To  do  so  is  the  object  of  this  paper  and  inci- 
dentally to  solve  still  another  problem  intimately  connected  with  the  other, 
namely,  this:  If  the  exclusive  use  of  the  senarius  would  have  added  to  the 
enjoyment  of  Terence's  plays,  few  as  are  his  metrical  types,  what  can  Quintilian's 
attitude  have  been  toward  the  marvellous  metrical  variety  in  Plautns?  Why  did 
ha  not  make  a  similar  demand  in  the  case  of  one  whose  language  was  a  fit  ver- 
nacular for  the  Muses? 

The  simple  solution  of  the  first  crux  is  furnished  by  a  passage  of  Ps.  Demetrius, 
de  elocutione  (c.  204),  hitherto  overlooked. 

In  discussing  the  prerequisites  of  the  plain  style  to  which  Comedy  preeminently 
belongs,  the  author  lays  down  the  following  rule : 

<f>ei/yet>'  5£  kv  rrj  yvvdlffti  rov  xapafCTTjaos  TOVTOV  (i.e.  the  plain  style)  irpwrov 
H^v  TO.  fi.T)Kij  r!av  K<j)\<av  fjLfya\oirp€TT^  yap  irdv  ftTJKos,  ojjTrep  icai  firl  ruv  /j.4rp<i)v 
rb  e^dfierpov  ripuiKbv  KaXeirat  vwb  TOV  /j.ey£9ovs  Kal  Trptvov  tfpwviv,  i]  K<i}(j.(p8ia, 
de  <rvvtffTa\Tai  els  rb  rplperpov  17  vta. 

It  is  a  commonplace  that  the  rhetorical  and,  to  a  large  extent,  the  stylistic 
canons  as  well,  which  Quintilian  and  the  Romans  generally  followed  more  or 
less  slavishly,  were  one  and  all  of  Greek  origin.  The  various  types  of  style  are 
discussed  at  length  by  Cicero,  Quintilian,  and  others,  and  they  do  not  fail  to  give 
the  Greek  terminology  together  with  their  Latin  equivalents. 

Now  when  Ps.  Demetrius  tells  us  that  the  New  Comedy,  in  strict  conformity 
with  the  dictates  of  the  plain  style  to  which  it  belonged,  confined  itself  to  the 
iambic  trimeter,  his  statement  based  upon  an  acquaintance  with  the  plays  them- 
selves must  be  given  greater  weight,  I  take  it,  than  Bentley's  undemonstrable 
assertion  to  the  contrary.  But  if  so,  it  was  all  but  inevitable,  certainly  very 
natural,  that  Quintilian,  following  as  he  did  almost  exclusively  Greek  teachers, 
should  reach  the  conviction  that  Terence,  the  dimidiatus  Afenander,  had  some- 
how violated  established  canons  by  his  indulgence  in  other  than  the  specially 
prescribed  metrical  types,  and  it  grieved  him  owing  to  his  admiration  for  Terence's 
plays  which  were  otherwise  in  hoc  genere  elegantissima.  No  Roman  before  or 
after  him  had  ventured  to  emancipate  himself  from  the  thraldom  of  the  inexora- 
ble laws  of  Rhetoric.  So  why  should  he  do  so?  You  may  call  him  a  slave  to 
Greek  theory  or  a  pedant,  if  you  will,  but  we  now  for  the  first  time  can  clearly  see 
how,  granting,  as  we  must,  his  point  of  view,  he  came  to  make  the  remark  which 
he  did.  We  may  add  in  conclusion,  that  the  very  use  of  the  word  gratia,  the 
exact  equivalent  of  the  Greek  x<*P1*,  seems  to  imply  that  some  such  Greek  canon 
was  in  his  mind  when  he  penned  the  paragraph  under  discussion,  for  x^P's 
is  preeminently  the  special  characteristic  of  the  tenue  genus  dicendi  or  the 
flain  style. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  li 

,  There  remains  the  question  why  Plautus  is  exempted  from  Quintilian's  censure, 
for  as  a  writer  of  comedies  the  older  poet  certainly  was  guilty  of  a  far  more 
flagrant  violation  of  the  rule  of  Fs.  Demetrius  than  Terence.  The  answer  was 
suggested  to  me  by  a  perusal  of  H.  Reich's  great  work,  entitled  Der  Mimus,  in 
particular,  hy  the  brilliant  chapter  on  the  Canon  of  Volcacius  Sedigitus  (Vol.  I.  pp. 
337  ft-)-  Reich  has  there  triumphantly  demonstrated  that  this  much  maligned 
critical  estimate  of  ten  Roman  comedians  is  far  from  being  the  capricious  and 
eccentric  vagary  that  it  had  been  pronounced  to  be. 

In  this  canon,  it  will  be  remembered*  the  first  rank  is  assigned  to  Caecilius,  the 
second  to  I'lautus,  while  Terence  is  relegated  to  sixth  place,  the  critic  taking  as 
his  standard  the  power  to  excite  laughter.  Caecilius  and  I'lautus,  in  other  words, 
were,  in  the  conviction  of  Volcacius,  true  types  of  the  Mimus,1  while  the  polished 
Terence,  the/«/-*  sermonis  aviator,  was  preeminently  the  Roman  representative 
of  the  refined  classical  society-drama  of  Menander. 

Now  it  was  precisely  to  this  classical  type  that  a  rhetorician  like  Quintilian  was 
naturally  attracted.  His  entire  survey  of  Roman  Literature  in  Bk.  X.  is  not 
given  for  its  own  sake,  but  aims  rather,  as  he  tells  us  himself  repeatedly,  to 
serve  as  a  practical  guide,  and  hence  only  those  authors  are  singled  out  for 
special  commendation  the  study  of  whose  works  would  be  of  real  use  to  the 
young  orator.  It  is,  therefore,  evident  that  the  writers  of  the  burlesque  Mimus, 
whose  sole  ambition  was  to  excite  the  risus  mimicus,  could  no  more  be  pitted 
against  the  classical  polish,  refinement,  and  grace  of  Terence  when  considered 
as  oratorical  models,  than  Aristophanes's  comedy  of  caricature  could,  from  the 
same  point  of  view,  be  put  on  a  level  ^ith  the  rhetorical  finish  and  stylistic 
perfection  of  Menander.  That  is  the  reason  why  Quintilian  could  with  impunity 
ignore  Plautus  and  Caecilius  and  he  had  no  hesitation  in  doing  so. 

The  ultimate  aim  of  all  scientific  research,  says  Spinoza,  is  neither  to  ridicule 
nor  to  condemn,  neither  to  censure  nor  to  praise,  but  simply  to  endeavor  to 
understand.  If  I  have  succeeded  in  showing  that  Quintilian's  criticism  of  the 
versification  of  Terence,  contrary  to  the  prevailing  opinion,  is  perfectly  intelligible, 
consistent,  and  rational,  even  if  we  cannot  accept  it  as  true,  the  object  of  this 
paper  will  have  been  attained. 

36.  The  Dactylic,  Heroic,  and  KO.T  tvorrXiov  Forms  of  the  Hexame- 
ter, and  their  relation  to  the  Elegiac  Pentameter  and  the  Prosodiac 
Tetrameter,  by  Professor  H.  W.  Magoun,  of  Redfield  College. 

Plato  (quoting  Damon)  mentions  three  forms  of  the  hexameter.  He  says 
(Rep.  400  b)  :  o'1/j.at  5^  fie  dicTjKotvai  ov  cra(/>uis  ivbir\ibv  rt  TLVO.  6vo/j.d£ovTos  at/roG 
tyvOerov  /cai  5d.KTV\ov  Kai  ijptfdv  7e,  oiiK  olda  dirwj  diaKOfffwvvros  *cal  tvov  Hvw  KO.I 
K&TW  Tt0^»Toj,  els  ftpa-xy  re  KOLI  /xa«cp6p  yiyvfifjievov,  Kal,  w$  tytpfjiai,  tapfiov  ical  TIV 
S.\\ov  rpoxaiov  wv6na£e,  /X^KT?  5£  »cal  f3pax<jTtiTa.s  irpo<rijirTf.  The  same  variations 
are  referred  to  elsewhere.  Aristophanes  speaks  of  the  Dactylic  and  tear  tvinc\iov 
forms.  He  represents  Socrates  {Clouds,  649  ff.)  as  saying:  irpCrrov  ntv  clvai 
KOfj.-j/bv  tv  ffvvovfflq.  ||  tiratovff  oiroifa  tffri  ruv  pv&fiav  ||  /COT"  ivbir\iov,  xwirotos  a5 
icard  S6.KTv\ov.  But  if  the  knowledge  in  question  would  enable  a  man  to  shine  in 
society,  he  implies  by  what  follows  that  these  two  forms  of  the  hexameter,  in  hi? 

1  For  the  detailed  proof,  see  Reich,  /  c . 


lii  American  Philological  Association. 

opinion,  are  as  much  alike  as  a  cock  and  a  hen.  Marius  Victorinus  says  of  the 
third,  the  Heroic  form  (Keil,  Grammatici  Latini,  Vol.  VI.  p.  70)  :  Dijfert  enitn 
a  dactylico  heroum  eo,  quod  et  dactylicum  et  spondiacum  est,  et  in  duas  caeditur 
partes  .  .  .  penthemimeren  et  hephthemimeren.  dactylicum  enim,  licet  isdem  sub- 
sistat  pedibus,  non  tamen  isdem  divisionibus  ut  herous  caeditur  versus.  A 
scholion  of  Hephaestion  is  quoted  by  Goodell  {Chapters  on  Greek  Metric,  p.  185), 
as  follows:  KO.T'  fv6ir\iov  ft£v  o$v  (sc.  KJTOS)  fort  rb  %xov  5i5o  SajcriiXous  »cai  tva 
ffirovSeTov,  olov 

d5i  <f>dro  SaKpvx^uv  TOV  d'  <eic\ve  forvia  /xijrijp. 


But  if  this  line  from  Homer  (77.  I.  357)  is  a  KO.T  iv(nr\iov  measure,  does  it  offer 
any  help  in  solving  the  riddle  which  the  above  quotations  present  ?  The  Heroic 
and  KO.T  tv6ir\i.oi>  lines  referred  to,  are  plainly  variations  of  some  sort  from  the 
regular  form,  or  movement  of  the  Dactylic  hexameter.  Their  peculiarities,  more- 
over, whatever  they  are,  must  apparently  be  of  such  a  nature  that  only  a  trained 
ear  can  distinguish  them.  There  can  be  no  question  concerning  their  existence. 
In  what  do  they  consist?  The  solution  must  be  of  a  simple  and  natural  character. 

The  line  quoted  as  KO.T  tvowXiov  has  the  divisions  of  the  Heroic  verse.  Can  it 
also  be,  as  Marius  requires,  in  part  spondaic?  The  first  section  cannot  be  spon- 
daic. Can  the  second  ?  As  the  line  is  usually  read,  a  strong  caesura  occurs  in 
the  third  foot.  According  to  all  the  authorities,  this  caesura  must  be  an  integral 
part  of  the  bar.  Do  we  make  it  so?  In  the  Elegiac  pentameter  a  caesura  is 
recognized  as  a  means  of  completing,  or  of  helping  to  complete,  a  bar.  Cf. 
Goodell,  I.e.  pp.  30  ff.;  and  see  Keil,  I.e.  p.  638,  Fragmenta  Sangallensia  : 
Pentameter  verstts  isdem  pedibus  et  syllaba  catalectica.  ponuntur  enim  duo  pedes 
out  spondii  aut  dactyli  el  una  syllaba  longa,  quae  complet  parlem  orationis,  deinde 
duo  dactyli  et  syllaba  in  fine,  quae  dicitur  semipes.  quae  est  autem  in  media  et 
quae  {est')  in  fine,  faciunt  unum  pedem,  et  erunt  quinque,  et  est  hie  versus  qui 
elegiacus  dicitur.  See  also  ibid.  p.  639  :  Hie  {pentameter)  sine  ulla  dubitatione 
heroi  hexametri  suboles  est.  .  .  .  ab  hoc  scilicet  (Archilochus)  coepit  detrahens  unum 
pedem,  ut  illi  subiceret  hunc,  qui  nascitur  ex  heroo  hexametro,  clausulam  haben- 
tem  semipedem.  ...  in  hac  parlicula  heroi  hexametri  dactyli  duo  sunt  et  semipes, 
qui  repetiti  pentametrum  faciunt.  Cf.  Marius  (Keil,  I.e.  p.  107)  :  Minor  itaque 
hexametro  vel  tribus  vel  duabus  syllabis  est,  tribus,  quotiens  tertius  in  hexametro 
dactylus  invenitur,  duabus  vero,  quotiens  spondeus,  optimus  autem  est,  quotiens 
duos  novissimos  anapaestos  habet,  qui  fiunt  ita,  si  duo  ante  ultimum  hexametri 
•versus  pedem  dactyli  sunt,  ut  est  ille,  —  Mars  pater,  haec  poteris,  quae  nos  quoque 
posse  negamus,  item,  —  barbarico  pastes  auro  spoliisque  superbi.  pentameter,  — 
barbarico  pastes  aur  spoliisque  super. 

But  if  the  Elegiac  pentameter  was  derived  from  the  Heroic  hexameter  in  the 
way  here  described,  is  it  possible  to  avoid  the  conclusion  (note  the  end  of  the 
next  to  the  last  citation)  that  the  caesura  in  each  case  was  the  same?  And  if 
the  caesura  was  the  same  and  took  the  place  of  a  half-foot  in  each  case,  as  is 
clearly  implied,  is  it  possible  to  avoid  the  conclusion  that  the  movement  of  the 
hephthemimeral  division  of  the  line  was  reversed  in  reading,  so  that  it  consisted, 
not  of  dactyls  and  spondees,  but  of  spondees  and  anapaests,  —  so  that  it  was  in 
fact  spondaic?  Marius  definitely  states  in  connection  with  his  description  of  the 
Heroic  line  (Keil,  l.c.  p.  70),  that  the  anapaest  is  made  from  a  spondee  by  reso- 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  liii 

lution.  See  below.  The  word  spondiacum  in  this  connection  must  therefore 
include  anapaests  as  well  as  spondees.  Cf.  the  scholion  to  Hephaestion,  which 
is  cited  by  Goodell  (/^.  p.  198)  as  dividing  the  last  part  of  the  line  rottri  8' 
dwtf-rd/ifKoj  ftfrt<)n)  v68as  ti/tih  'Ax'XXti'J  (//•  I.  58)  so  as  to  produce  the  feet 

\_, |v>vy |ww | t  instead  of  those  ordinarily  used.  It  is  possibly  this 

difference  in  the  arrangement  of  the  bars  to  which  Marius  refers  by  the  word 
divisionibus  (see  above,  first  Latin  citation,  end),  and,  if  so,  there  is  no  contra- 
diction involved  in  that  statement  and  the  one  last  cited  from  him.  The  feet 
in  question  must  be  dactylas&Jlong  as  the  Heroic  lines  are  regarded  simply  as 
hexameters;  and  the  related  reet  of  the  corresponding  pentameters,  taken  in  the 
same  way,  as  the  eye  sees  them,  must  be  anapaests.  The  words  paries,  pedibus, 
and  divisionibus  (first  Latin  citation)  are  to  be  carefully  distinguished. 

The  Elegiac  pentameter,  then,  is  to  be  read  as  w  w  1 v^w| ~R  \ 

v^  vy  | \j  \j\ A;  and  the  corresponding  Heroic  line  as  w  w  ! 

w^] A~  | ]  \j  \j |  \j  \j | ~R ,  with  six  and  seven  bars  respec- 
tively. This  arrangement  plainly  meets  all  the  requirements  of  the  grammarians. 
A  true  Dactylic  hexameter,  having  the  same  feet,  would  take  some  such  form 

as  w  w  | t  \^j  | 1 v_/vy| v-»  w  | »  with  six  bars.  The  pause 

at  the  caesura  is  sufficiently  short  in  this  case  to  be  balanced  by  Correption. 
The  Heroic  line  must  have  other  variations,  however.  For  example,  tfd/a/Sijffep 
<5'  'AxiXffa,  ncrb.  5*  frpdirer',  avrtKa  5'  Zyvu  (//.  I.  199),  when  read,  contains 
a  second  marked  pause,  due  to  the  sense,  as  well  as  a  difference  in  the  arrange- 
ment of  the  feet.  The  connection  with  the  following  line  is  very  close,  and  a 

pause  at  the  end  is  out  of  place.  The  scheme  is | ww| X  |  w  w | 

^  w'/\  | v^  v^  | ,with  the  usual  seven  bars.  A  pyr.hic  appears  to  serve 

as  a  bar;  and  the  following  one,  the  sixth  (fifth  foot),  is  necessarily  a  dactyl. 
Cf.  Marius  (Keil,  I.e.  p.  70)  :  quintus  enim  frequenter,  hero um  decet,  dactylus 
debet,  eadem  cognatione  etiam  anapaestus,  qui  [<?]  spondei  prima  in  duas  breves 
divisa  efficitur,  heroo  posset  adnecti  metro,  nisi  incipience  dactylo  et  subiuncto 
anapaesto  mediae  breves  numero  qualluor  heroum  versum  deformarent. 

But  the  line  first  cited  is  KOLT'  iv&irXtov  rather  than  Heroic.  As  I  read  it  aloud, 
intent  upon  its  meaning,  it  suddenly  assumed  a  '  martial '  character.  The  time 
was  still  2/4  ;  but  the  effect  was  different.  The  line  had  claimed  its  natural  di- 
visions: '  Thus  he  spake  —  as  he^wept, —  and  she  heard  him — his  stately  mother? 

The  scheme  had  become  v^w|X |ww I  A"  I  wv-/|A~ | 

^,  ^j | ~R,  with  four  pauses  in  all,  each  less  than  a  second  in  length,  and 

with  eight  bars.  As  the  ear  fails  to  note  pauses  in  dealing  with  feet,  the  shifting 
anapaests  and  dactyls  escaped  notice,  until  the  time  beats  made  them  appear. 
The  reason  for  the  'martial'  sound  then  became  apparent;  for  the  anapaest  is 
the  marching  foot.  Can  a  more  simple  or  natural  explanation  for  the  KO.T'  ivbr\iov 
line  be  found?  Variations  must  occur.  For  example,  a  line  like  f*.TJ»iv  &eiSt,  fled 
IlijXijidSew  'Ax'X^os  is  still  '  martial,'  although  its  scheme  becomes  in  reading 
_^W|_V^A|A^  —  |A_l_ww|'^A"|ww_|  _7\,  with  a  pause 
divided  between  two  bars.  These  two  schemes  seem  sufficiently  complicated  for 
Plato's  tyvdfTov.  The  first,  taken  by  sections,  can  be  described  as  a  dactyl,  a 
trochee  and  an  iambus,  a  spondee  and  a  pyrrhic,  and  a  dactyl  and  a  spondee. 
The  second  would  be  even  more  'complex.'  The  metrical  character  of  each, 
however,  must  be  determined  by  the  time  beats,  and  the  bars  must  be  equal. 


liv  American  Philological  Association. 

The  pauses  are  merely  what  the  sense  demands;  and  Plato  distinctly  says,  in 
connection  with  the  remark  cited  above,  that  words  set  to  music  do  not  differ 
from  those  not  set  to  music,  and  (this  statement  is  repeated)  that  the  metre  must 
conform  to  the  language,  not  the  language  to  the  metre  {Rep.  398  d-e)  :  OVKOVV 
Sffov  7e  airrov  \6yos  effrlv,  ovdev  d^irov  5ia<j>£pei  TOV  fj.r)  adofj^vov  \6yov.  .  .  .  Kai 
firjv  TTJV  ye  apfiovlav  Kal  pvdfd>v  a.Ko\ovOeii>  Set  ry  \6ytjt.  .  .  .  (400  a-d)  rbv  tr&8a 
rtf  roiotirov  \6yif)  avayKafciv  i-irfffffai  Kal  rb  ^Xos,  a\\a  fj.r]  \6yov  iroSl  re  Kai 
jitAet.  . .  .  etirep  pv0fj.6s  ye  Kai  apfwvia  X67V,  .  .  .  a\\a  /J.TJ  \byos  TOI/TOIS.  'AXXd 
HJv,  .  .  .  ravrd  ye  Xdyy  a,Ko\ov6t}Teov.  With  the  iambic  and  trochaic  bars  of  the 
last  scheme,  cf.  the  end  of  Plato's  statement  cited  at  the  beginning  of  this  paper. 
On  the  basis  here  suggested,  the  Elegiac  pentameter,  when  read  or  recited,  had  a 
true  dactylic  movement;  the  Heroic  line  became  spondaic  (wholly  or  in  part) 
after  the  main  caesura;  and  the  /car"  fv6ir\iov  line  became  alternately  dactylic 
and  spondaic  by  sections.  The  word  "  spondaic  "  includes  the  anapaest. 

Experimenting  still  further  with  the  /car'  evt>ir\iov  verse,  I  shortened  the  pauses 
by  using  Protraction.  The  line  no  longer  conformed  to  the  two-time  beats; 
but  it  did  conform  to  the  four-time  ones,  two  down  and  two  up,  the  ancient 
method.  Cf.  Goodell,  I.e.  pp.  134  and  140.  The  bars  had  doubled  in  length; 

for  the  scheme  had  become  wwAi I  wwi A I  w  w  A  i | 

^  w  i A>  a  Prosodiac  tetrameter  in  4/4  time.  This  might  seem  to  be  going 

too  far;  but  there  are  other  things  to  be  considered.  Protraction  is  a  rhythmical 
element;  and,  on  the  authority  of  the  ancients  themselves,  the  more  intricate 
metres  (the  Prosodiac  tetrameter  is  of  this  sort)  contained  rhythmical  elements. 
Cf.  ibid.  pp.  7-10  and  42-54.  Furthermore,  while  this  rendering  does  not  seem 
to  be  the  one  best  adapted  to  this  particular  line,  or  indeed  a  proper  one  for  it, 
in  the  connection  in  which  it  occurs,  it  might  be  the  proper  rendering  and  the 
best,  for  a  series  of  apparently  similar  lines  in  a  different  connection.  Again,  the 
passage  from  Plato  first  cited  is  confessedly  a  partial  report  of  a  conversation 
imperfectly  understood;  and  there  may  be  a  difference  between  KO.T  ev(nr\iov  and 
true  e'v6ir\tov  forms.  The  ancients  testify  (cf.  ibid.  pp.  184-186)  that  the  feet  of 
Prosodiac  or  evtnrXiov  measures  are  choriambi  and  ionics;  and  the  feet  of  the 
scheme  are  choriambi  and  ionics.  By  lengthening  the  third  an-1  fifth  syllables  of 
half  the  scheme  (4/4  bars  lend  themselves  easily  to  such  a  process),  the  form 

^,1 |  ^  i may  be  produced ;  and  the  ancients  postulate  this  and 

other  similar  changes  for  deriving  one  metrical  form  from  another.  Cf.  ibid. 

pp.  187-188.  Another  form  is  i l\\j  \j\  wwi A;  and  i ^ | 

i \j may  be  made  from  it.  The  pauses  used  in  all  the  above  schemes  are 

plainly  justified  by  the  ancients  themselves.  See"  ibid.  pp.  10  and  49.  There  is 
no  fixed  place  for  a  rest  in  a  4/4  bar  in  music;  and  there  need  be  none  for  a 
pause  in  a  4/4  bar  in  poetry.  Finally,  as  already  implied,  the  metrici,  in 

practice,  made  no  distinction  between  syllables  having  the  values  i and  ,  and 

they  also  disregarded  pauses  in  dealing  with  feet  (not  to  be  confused  with  bars). 

Did  the  Greeks  drift,  in  some  such  way  as  this,  from  the  Dactylic  hexameter 
into  the  Heroic,  from  the  Heroic  into  the  KO.T  tvdirXiov,  and  from  the  KO.T' 
ev6ir\tov  into  the  Prosodiac  tetrameter,  with  its  strange  and  complex  feet  ? 
What  are  the  facts  ?  A  simple  and  natural  means  seems  to  be  provided  by  the 
above  suggestion,  for  the  natural  development,  or  evolution,  not  merely  of  the 
tetrameter  but  of  the  dimeter  and  trimeter  as  well.  Even  the  requirements  of 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  Iv 

modern  schemes  seem  to  be  fairly  well  provided   for,  since  the  combination 

w  | >  may  be  nothing  more  than   \j  i misunderstood.     There  are 

other  suggestive  parallels;   but  they  must  be  omitted  for  lack  of  space. 

37.  Afterthoughts,  by  Professor  John  C.  Rolfe,  of  the  University 
of  Pennsylvania  (read  by  title). 

a.  Ad  BEFORE  PROPER  NAMES  BEGINNING  WITH  A  CONSONANT. 

It  is  well  known  that  after  the  rule  of  using  ab  before  vowels,  and  a  before  all 
consonants  became  well  established,  the  use  of  ab  before  consonants  persisted  in 
certain  stereotyped  formulas.  With  one  exception  these  formulas  have  been 
explained  as  due  to  conservatism  in  certain  styles,  religious,  legal,  etc. ;  and 
making  due  allowance  for  analogy  and  for  the  influence  of  sources,  the  latter 
especially  in  the  case  of  the  historical  writers,  most  of  the  delations  from  the 
rule  can  be  accounted  for. 

The  exception  referred  to  is  the  use  of  ab  with  personal  and  geographical 
names  beginning  with  a  consonant.  That  this  use  is  a  c  mmon  one  is  shown 
in  A;L.L.  x.  p.  468,  and  more  fully  in  H.S.C.P.  xii.  pp.  253  and  254. 

In  H.S.C.P.  xii.  p.  253,  I  said  that  this  usage  is  less  easy  to  explain  than  that 
in  religious  and  legal  formulas,  but  I  have  since  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
explanation  is  the  same,  i.e.  that  it  is  an  archaism  due  to  conservatism. 

Examples  of  a  similar  tendency  in  the  case  of  proper  names  are  abundant : 
e.g.  the  retention  of  o  in  Volcanus,  etc.,  after  vo-  had  elsewhere  changed  to  vu-\ 
Hecuba,  with  «  before  a  labial  after  a  clear  vowel;  see  Sommer,  Handb.  der  lat. 
Laut-  und  Formenlehre,  p.  119,  ah  Archaismus  bleibt  «  nach  hellem  Vukal,  z.  B. 
in  Eigennamen  ;  the  retention  of  r  in  th-j  genitive  singular  of  ?0-stems  after 
the  form  -ii  had  otherwise  become  general;  see  Sturtevant,  Contraction  in  the 
Case  Forms  of  Latin  to-  and  nt-stews,  diss.  Chicago,  1902;  the  impulse  to 
preserve  the  group  net  in  Quinctnts,  etc.,  namely,  "the  conservative  spelling 
of  proper  names";  see  Fay,  A.J.P.  xxiv.  p.  73;  and  Bujk,  Oscan-Umbrian 
Grammar,  §  72  a  (in  press)  :  "  if  Vuv£is  is  '  Lucius,'  as  seems  probable,  it  is 
an  example  of  the  archaisti:  spelling  often  found  in  proper  names." 

Since  the  preposition  with  its  noun  formed  a  single  word-group,  this  seems  a 
reasonable  explanation  of  an  otherwise  difficult  usage. 

b.   De  tenero  ungui,  HOR.  Carm.  iii.  6.  24. 

In  P.A.P.A.  xxxiii.  Ixii,  I  discusse-1  the  meaning  of  de  tenero  ungui,  and 
showed  that  the  meaning  of '  to  her  fing  r-tips,'  or  '  with  all  her  soul,'  is  impos- 
sible. Another  interesting  passage  in  this  connection  is  found  in  Prop.  i.  20.  39, 
quae  modo  decerpens  tenero  pueriliter  ungui,  proposito  florem  praetulit  officio. 
Here  tenero  clearly  means  '  youthful '  and  Postgate,  in  his  Selections  from  Proper- 
tius,  comments  on  the  juxtaposition  t>f  pueriliter  and  tenero.  We  seem  to  have 
here  a  variation  of  the  more  common  expression  tenui  ungui :  See  Catull.  62.  43; 
Odd,  Htroid.  4.  30.  Riese's  comment  on  the  former  passage,  'ungui  =  digito, 
nicht  haufig,'  seems  to  be  incorrect,  since  u-igui  is  evidently  to  be  taken  literally  : 
cf.  Ovid,  Fasti,  iv.  438,  ilia  papavereas  subsecat  ungue  comas.  That  is,  the  stems 
were  cut  with  the  nail,  not  broken  off  with  the  fingers;  this  method  is  commo'i 


Ivi  American  Philological  Association. 

nowadays  with  tough  stems,  when  one  is  not  provided  with  a  knife  or  another 
cutting  instrument. 

Furthermore  unguis  and  digitus  are  frequently  used  in  parallel  passages :  cf. 
Juv.  x.  53,  cum  medium  ostenderet  unguem,  with  Mart.  ii.  28.  I,  rideto  multum 
.  .  .  et  digitum  porrigito  medium;  and  Cic.  ad  Att.  xiii.  20.  4,  a  recta  conscientia 
transversum  unguem  non  oportet  discedere,  with  Qc.  Acad.  ii.  18.  58  non  licet 
transversum,  ut  aiunt,  digitum  discedere;  etc.,  etc. 

I  began  the  investigation  of  the  meaning  of  de  tenero  ungtii  in  the  belief  that 
the  phrase  meant  '  from  early  youth,'  but  abandoned  it  because  iant  nunc  is  not 
found,  and  cannot  logically  stand,  with  temporal  expressions  of  that  kind,  and 
because  de  with  the  ablative  does  not  occur  in  the  sense  of  from  a  given  period 
of  time  (Germ,  von  ...  an).  I  still  believe  that  these  reasons  make  it  impos- 
sible to  take  de  tenero  ungui  in  the  sense  of  'from  early  youth,'  as  most  editors 
do  who  do  not  adopt  the  interpretation  of  '  from  (to)  the  finger-tips.' 

It  is  possible,  however,  that  the  phrase  may  mean  '  in  early  youth,'  in  which 
case  it  may  be  joined  with  iam  mine  without  difficulty. 

De  with  the  ablative  in  temporal  expressions  means  in  most  cases  '  at '  or 
'in.'  More  rarely  it  means  'after.'  It  never,  I  believe,  means  'from  .  .  .  on.' 
The  earlier  meaning,  contrary  to  Drager,  Hist.  Syntax,  i.2  p.  629,  who  says 
'in  temporalem  Sinne  heisst  de:  unmittelbar  nach,'  must  have  been  'in'  or  'at,' 
more  exactly  'from.'  It  is  used  of  comparatively  extensive  periods  of  time, 
which  are  regarded  as  not  yet  completed :  see  Hand,  Tursellinus,  ii.  p.  204 
and  his  quotation  from  Gesner,  '  de  cum  nominibus  temporis  significat  illud 
tempusnondum  plane  effluxisse  ' ;  cf.  Kuhner,  Ausf.  lat.  Gram  ii.  p.  363:  Schanz 
in  his  treatment  of  the  preposition  in  Hist.  Synt?  p.  271  strangely  ignores  the 
temporal  use  of  de. 

The  meaning  'after'  arises  from  the  original  local  meaning  of  de  in  certain 
situations,  and  is  never  common.  We  may  trace  the  development  of  this  signifi- 
cation in  the  following  examples:  Virg.  Aen.  ii.  662  iamque  aderit  multo  Priami 
de  sanguine  Pyrrhus,  when  the  temporal  force  is  slight;  Cic.  dd  Att.  xii.  3. 1,  velim 
scire,  hodiene  statim  de  auctione  et  quo  die  venias,  where  statim  gives  a 
stronger  temporal  force,  but  venias  points  to  the  original  meaning  of  de;  Plaut. 
Most.  697  non  bonust  somnus  de  prandio,  when  the  meaning  is  eis  qui  de  prandio 
veniunt,  or  something  similar,  whence  by  ellipsis  'after  dinner.' 

The  same  development  is  seen  in  the  temporal  meaning  of  ab,  which  originally 
meant  from  a  given  time.  Then  in  such  cases  as  Hor.  Serin,  i.  6.  93  si  natura 
iuberet,  a  certis  annis  aevum  remeare  peractum,  and  the  like,  the  meaning  '  after ' ; 
arose  from  the  situation.  In  the  case  of  ab  this  meaning  became  common  (see 
A.L.L.  x.  503),  while  with  de  it  does  not  seem  to  have  done  so.  On  the  other 
hand,  ab  seems  never  to  have  the  meaning  '  at '  or  '  in,'  except  perhaps  rarely  by 
confusion  with  de :  see  Pronto,  p.  69  N.  ab  hora  sexta  domum  redimus.  We 
thus  have  three  temporal  relations  expressed  by  these  two  prepositions :  'from  '  a 
given  time,  ab ;  'at'  a  given  time,  more  exactly  'from  within,'  de ;  'after'1  a 
given  time,  ab  and  rarely  de. 

De  with  the  ablative  in  temporal  expressions  is  confined  for  the  most  part 
to  die  and  nocte  and  their  divisions  and  to  synonyms  of  these  words.  We 
occasionally  have  mense  with  the  name  of  a  month:  Cic.  a<i  Quint.  Fr.  ii.  i.  3 
fac,  si  me  ainas,  ut  considerate  dihgenterque  naviges  de  mense  Decembri.  In 


Proceedings  for  July ',   1903.  Ivii 

Colum.  ii.  4.  9  deinde  de  Aprili  medio  usque  in  solstit ium  iterandi,  the  ms.  authority 
is  in  favor  of  ab  Aprili.  In  Bell.  Afr.  33.  4  we  have  de  tempore  cenare  =  tempore. 
Ab  with  such  expressions  is  comparatively  rare,  and  when  the  meaning  is'  after '  we 
may  suspect  confusion  with  de :  see  the  passage  from  Fronto  quoted  above. 

The  difference  between  ab  and  de  in  similar  expressions  may  be  seen  by  com- 
paring Juv.  vii.  222  dummodo  nun  pereat  mediae  quod  noctis  ab  hora  sedisti, 'you 
have  been  at  your  desk  from  midnight  on,'  and  Juv.  xiv.  190  post  finem  autumni 
media  de  nocte  supinum  clamosus  iuvenem  pater  excitat,  'rouses  the  youth  at 
midnight.'  See  Mayor's  note  on  the  latter  passage,  and  his  quotation  from 
Censorinus  24.  2  tempus  quod  huic  (mediae  nocti)  proximum  est  vocatur  de 
media  nocte.  I  agree  with  Hand,  I.e.  in  thinking  that  media  nox  does  not 
designate  a  point  of  time,  as  with  us,  but  a  period  of  some  little  duration,  from 
midnight  to  galliciniuin,  for  example. 

In  a  few  cases  de  with  the  abl.  might  seem  to  have  made  some  progress  in  the 
direction  of  the  meaning  '  from  .  .  .  on ' :  eg.  Suet.  Calig.  26  inquietatus  fre- 
mitu  gratuita  in  circo  loca  de  media  nocte  occupantium.  The  meaning  '  at  mid- 
night '  is,  however,  preferable  in  my  opinion.  There  seem  to  be  no  cases  in  which 
the  meaning  '  from  ...  on '  is  necessary.  Even  if  we  admit  the  possibility  of 
such  a  signification,  it  is  excluded  in  the  Horatian  passage  by  iatn  nunc. 

In  favor  of  the  meaning  '  in  early  youth,'  for  de  tenero  ungui,  it  may  be  men- 
tioned that  Horace  is  fond  of  temporal  expressions  with  de:  see  Serm.  ii.  3.  238 
unde  uxor  media  currit  de  nocte  vocata;  Epist.  i.  2.  32  ut  iugulent  hominem, 
surgunt  de  nocte  latrones;  Epist.  i.  7.  88  offensus  damnis  media  de  nocte  cabal- 
lum  arripit.  In  all  these  examples  the  meaning  is  clearly 'at.'  The  following 
are  parallel  with  the  passage  from  Suet.  Calig.  cited  above :  Serm.  ii.  8.  3  nam 
mihi  quaerenti  convivam  dictus  here  illic  de  medio  potare  die;  Epist.  i.  14.  34 
quem  bibulum  liquidi  media  de  luce  Falerni. 

If  taken  in  a  temporal  sense,  the  passage  must  mean :  '  and  even  now  in  early 
youth  she  riieditates  unlawful  loves.' 

De  tenero  ungui  is,  however,  unique  as  a  temporal  expression.  As  has  been 
said  above,  de  with  the  abl.  is  confined  to  a  limited  range  of  expressions.  In  the 
case  of  a  teneris  unguiculis,  '  from  early  youth,'  Cic.  ad  Fam.  i.  6,  we  have  an 
abundance  of  parallels :  a  pueritia,  ab  ineunte  aetate,  teneris  ab  annis,  and  many 
others  (see  A.  L.  L.  x.  p.  502),  but  we  never  apparently  find  de  pueritia,  de  adu- 
lescentia,  and  the  like.  In  the  case  of  so  conservative  a  stylist  as  Horace,  this 
seems  to  me  a  strong  argument  against  taking  the  phrase  in  a  purely  temporal  sense. 

A  teneris  unguiculis  is  taken  in  the  sense  of  'from  early  youth  '  even  by  some 
editors  who  regard  de  tenero  ungui  as  meaning  '  to  the  finger-tips.'  That  inter- 
pretation, while  unobjectionable,  as  has  been  shown,  from  the  syntactical  point  of 
view,  and  at  first  sight  less  difficult  than  de  tenero  ungui,  really  presents  a  diffi- 
culty which  is  not  found  in  the  Horatian  passage.  Kiessling  evidently  has  this  in 
mind  when  he  says  in  his  note  on  Hor.  Carm.  iii.  6.  24  'so  Cicero  von  dem  nur 
6  Jahre  jungeren  P.  Lentulus  Spinther.' 

But  Spinther's  age  at  the  time  of  writing  is  absolutely  immaterial.  The  sen- 
tence means :  '  Show  yourself  the  sort  of  man  I  have  known  you  to  be  from  your 
early  youth.'  Tener  does  not  imply  infancy,  but  may  be  used  of  a  well-grown 
boy.  See  Suet.  Claud.  43  cum  impubi  teneroque  adhuc  (Britannico),  quando 
statura  permitteret,  togam  dare  destinasset 


Iviii  American  Philological  Association. 

I  have  not  been  able  to  find  out  when  Cicero's  acquaintance  with  Lentulus 
began,  but  their  correspondence  implies  an  intimacy  of  lo;  g  standing.  Note  ad 
Fam.  \.  7.  9  (to  Lentulus)  te  vero  emoneo,  cum  beneficiis  tuis,  turn  amore  inci- 
'tatus  meo,  ut  omnem  gloriam,  ad  quam  a  pneritia  inflammatus  fuisti,  omni  cura 
atque  industria  consequare.  Also  ad  Fam.  \.  7.  8  quod  eo  liberius  ad  te  scribo, 
quia  non  solum  temporibus  his,  quae  per  te  sum  adeptus,  sed  iani  olim  nascenli 
prope  nostrae  laudi  dignitatique  favisti. 

These  passages  imply  a  long  acquaintance,  and  whether  Cicero's  words  are 
taken  literally  or  regarded  as  friendly  exaggeration,  a  pueritia  and  a  teneris  un- 
guiculis are  parallel  expressions  and  are  used  in  the  same  way;  i.e.  Cicero  assumes 
knowledge  of  Spinther's  character  from  childhood. 

I  therefore  have  no  hesitation  in  agreeing  with  those  who  take  a  teneris  un* 
guiculis  as  meaning  '  from  early  youth.' 

De  tenero  ungui  is  in  either  sense  a  very  unusual  expression,  and  it  is  remark- 
able that  it  is  apparently  omitted  in  the  articles  on  de  of  Hand,  Drager,  Runner; 
and  Schmalz,  and  that  the  editors  of  Horace  compare  it  with  a  teneris  unguiculis 
and  similar  expressions,  without  commenting  on  its  novelty. 

Before  going  farther,  it  seems  worth  while. to  examine  some  of  the  special  uses 
of  unguis  and  unguiculus.  It  may  be  noted  in  advance  that  such  expressions  are 
more  numerous  in  Latin  than  in  Greek,  and  that  the  diminutive,  which  does  not 
occur  in  Greek,  is  relatively  rare  in  Latin.  We  have  itnguis  used  : 

1)  Of  measurements,  with  the  general  meaning  of  'from  head  to  foot.'     Here 
we  commonly  have  corresponding  phrases  with  ab  and  ad :  e.g.  Cic.  Rose.  Com. 
7.  20  non  ab  imis  unguibus  usque  ad  verticem  summum  .  .  .  mendaciis  totus 
constare  videtur?     Apul.  Met.  iii.  21  ab  imis  unguibus  sese  totam  adusque  sum- 
mos  capillos  perlinit ;  Petr.  102  mutemus  colores  a  capillis  usque  ad  ungues. 

The  diminutive  occurs  in  Plaut.  Epid.  623  usque  ab  unguiculo  ad  capillum 
summumst  festivissima.  It  may  well  be  the  diminutive  of  affection,  'from  her 
dear  little  finger-tip.'  Anth.  Pal.  ix.  709  £K  KopvfiTJs  et's  fijcpovs  6vvxas. 

2)  Of  measurements,  with  the  general  meaning  of '  a  nail's  breadth,'  Eng. '  a  hair's 
breadth.'    Here  digitus  and  unguis  are  both  used :  see  above,  p.  Iv.    The  two  are 
combined  in  Plaut.  Aid.  56  si  hercle  tu  ex  istoc  loco  digitum  transvorsum  aut 
unguem  latum  excesseris.     The  diminutive  is  apparently  not  found,  though  we 
might  have  expected  the  smallness  of  the  distance  to  be  emphasized  in  that  way. 
Cf.  Plaut.  Poen.    566  vix  quidem   hercle  —  ita   pauxillast  —  digitulis  primoribus 
(teneo  rem).     This  is  apparently  not  found  in  Greek. 

3)  As  a  sign  of  contempt :  see  above,  p.  Iv.     The  diminutive  is  apparently  not 
found,  nor  does  the  expression  seem  to  occur  in  Greek. 

4)  Of  time:  Claud,  de  vi  cons.  Hon.  79  tenero  conceptus  ab  ungui  amor; 
Cic.  ad  Fam.  i.  6  a  teneris  unguiculis.     Gk.  ^£  airaXwv  6vv\<av. 

5)  Of  smoothness  and  evenness  of  surface  or  alinement:   Hor.  Serm.  \.  5.  32 
ad  unguem  factus  homo  ;  A.  P.  294;   Virg.  Georg.  ii.  277  nee  setius  omnis  in 
unguera  arboribus  positis  secto  via  limite  quadret.      The  diminutive  is  appar- 
ently not  found.     Common  in  Greek  and  Latin.      Plut.  A/or.  vi.  636  c  tv  6w\i  6 
irijX6s,  ytvyrai  Philo,  Bel.  66  e  ^TT'  5wxa  ffvnfte^\rnj.^vai  ywvlat. 

6)  In  comparisons  of  value  :  Petr.  57  cuius  pluris  erat  unguis  quam  tu  totus  es. 
Here,  as  in  2,  we  might  expect  the  diminutive,  but  it  is  apparently  not  found,  nor 
does  the  usage  seem  to  be  found  in  Greek. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  lix 

7)  Biting  the  nails,  as  a  sign  of  perplexity,  anger,  etc.     Hor.  Serm.  i.  10.  71 
vivos  et  roderet  unguis;   Pers.  i.  106  nee  demorsos  sapit  unguis;   Prop.  ii.  4.  13; 
etc.     The  diminutive  does  not  seem  to  occur.     Not  found  in  Greek. 

8)  '  From  the  finger-tips,'  '  thoroughly,'  '  with  all  one's  soul,'  used  of  the  emo- 
tions or  feelings:  Plaut,  Stick.  761  ubi  perpuriscamus  usque  ex  unguiculis;  Apul. 
Met.  x.  22  quamquam  ex  unguiculis  perpuriscens.     Here  the  diminutive  only  seems 
to  be  found.      In  Greek  we  have  Eur.  Cycl.  159  els  Anpovs  TOI)S  6rvxa*  d<plKfro 
(6  offos)  ;   Anth.  Pal.  5.  14  ipLaaaa  TO  ffTOfia,  ryv  ^vx^"   ^  6vj>\wv  dvdyei. 

9)  Miscellaneous:  of  plucking  flowers,  see  above,  p.  Iv,  apparently  not  cited 
in  the  lexicons.     Fronto,  p.  253.  6  N.  me  Caesaris  oratio  uncis  unguibus  attinet, 
to  which  I  have  found  no  parallels  with  the  diminutive.     Luc.  Dial.  Mort.  n.  4 
6Sovffi  Kal  6vv£i  Kal  vdffri  /J.TJXOLVJJ  :  somewhat  parallel  is  Quint,  xii.  9.  18  omni,  ut 
agricolae  dicunt,  pede  standum  est,  and  the  opposite  stans  pede  in  uno,  Hor. 
Serm.  i.  4.  10.     A  still  closer  parallel  occurs  in  Cic.   Tusc.  Disp.  ii.  24.  56  toto 
corpore  atque  omnibus  ungulis,  ut  dicitur,  contentioni  vocis  adserviunt.     In  this 
passage  ungulis  means  '  hoofs,'  used  metaphorically  with  reference  to  horses, 
and  the  same  is  doubtless  true  of  6w^.  in  the  passage  from  Lucian.     Ungula  is 
of  course  not  the  diminutive  of  unguis.     Sophron,  Com.  Grace.  Frag.  Kaibel,  1 10 
tic  TOV  6vvxos  TOV  \fovra  (jpa\f/ev,  whence  £!•  6v\>x<av  \tovra,  Paroemiogr.     I  have 
not  betn  able  to  find  ex  uttgi  leonem,  which  is  cited  in  L.  &  S.,  in  Latin,  nor  the 
parallel  ex  pede  Herculem. 

The  expressions  in  Latin  which  undoubtedly  mean  '  to  the  finger-tips,'  used  of 
emotion  or  feeling,  reduce  themselves  to  two,  which  are  so  strikingly  alike  in 
phraseology  as  to  suggest  that  Apuleius  followed  Plautus.  Both  have  ex.  'To 
the  finger-tips'  of  measurements  is  expressed  by  al>,  and  unguis  (unguiculus)  is 
used  alune  or  is  modified  l>y  an  adjective  like  imus,  primus,  or  the  like;  to  the 
examples  already  cited  may  be  added  :  Plaut.  Poen.  566  digitulis  primoribus;  Val. 
Flacc.  vii.  621  levantis  primas  ec  matre  manus;  Eurip.  Iph.  in  Taur.  283  wXlpas 
rptpuv  djcpas,  'quivering  to  his  finger-tips'  (Flagg).  The  expressions  with  tener 
can  be  explained  as  temporal  in  accordance  with  good  syntactical  usage,  and  without 
any  difficulty  so  far  as  the  sense  of  the  passages  in  which  they  occur  is  concerned. 

After  a  careful  consideration  of  all  these  points,  I  am  convinced  that  my  inter- 
pretation of  de  tenero  ungui  as  'with  all  her  youthful  soul'  is  the  most  reasonable 
one;  i.e.  that  it  is  a  combination  of  ex  unguiculis  and  a  tenero  ungui  (unguiculis). 
De  was  evidently  deliberately  chosen  by  Horace,  since  a  (ab)  or  e  (ex)  offers  no 
metrical  difficulty,  and  we  have  no  variant  reading  except  delero  in  Rj,  which 
points  to  de.  This  is  to  my  mind  an  additional  point  in  favor  of  my  rendering. 
Ab,  de,  and  ex  form  a  group  of  prepositions  of  very  similar  meanings,  de  and  ex 
especially  being  often  interchanged;  in  combining  the  phrases  ex  unguiculis  and 
a  tener  is  unguiculis  (a  tenero  ungiti),  Horace  chose  a  new  preposition,  namely 
de.  I  really  see  no  more  reasonable  way  of  accounting  for  Horace's  use  of  the 
very  unusual  phrase,  de  tenero  ungui.  De  ungui  =  ex  unguiculis  would  certainly 
be  a  less  startling  novelty  than  de  tenero  ungui  =  de  fueritia,  while  tenero  must 
add  the  idea  of  youthfulness,  as  has  been  shown  before. 

c.  ADDITIONAL  NOTES  ON  canicula. 

Some  additional  passages  showing  that  canicula  is  not  used  of  Procyon  but  of 
Sirius,  and  testifying  to  the  redness  of  the  latter  in  ancient  times.  Of  these  the 


lx  American  Philological  Association, 

most  interesting  are  in  Schol.  Bern,  in  Germ.  Arat.  337  (p.  237,  6  Breysig)  canicula, 
quae  oritur  post  Orionem,  habet  stellam  splendidum  in  lingua  I,  quam  Sirium  et 
canem  vocant,  rutilantem  multum  et  per  colores  inmutantem ;  and  p.  167.  14 
Sirium  autem  illam  vocatam  putant  propter  flammae  candorem.  Latini  autem 
illam  caniculam  vocant.  Attention  was  called  to  an  article  on  the  redness  of 
Sirius  in  ancient  times  by  T.  J.  J.  See  in  Astronomy  and  Astro- Physics,  published 
by  the  Goodsell  Observatory,  Northfield,  Minn.,  vol.  xi.  (1902),  which  was  brought 
to  the  writer's  notice  by  Professor  Doolittle  of  the  University  of  Pennsylvania; 
and  to  the  remark  of  Mr.  Garrett  P.  Serviss  quoted  in  Harper's  Weekly  for 
May  9,  1903. 

The  gender  of  canicula  has  no  bearing  on  the  question  of  its  meaning. 
Canicula  is  applied  to  a  man  by  Gell.  iv.  20.  3  and  by  Tert.  adv.  Marc.  i.  I, 
and  to  a  woman  by  Plaut.  Cure.  598.  It  is  evidently  of  common  gender  like 
its  primitive. 

38.  Diaeresis  after  the  Second  Foot  of  the  Hexameter  in  Lucre- 
tius, by  Dr.  H.  J.  Edmiston,  of  Bryn  Mawr  College  (read  by  title). 

This  investigation  began  with  a  reading  of  Munro's  Introduction  to  the  second 
volume  of  his  Lucretius.  On  page  13  he  observes  that  Lucretius,  neglecting  a 
rule  carefully  observed  by  Catullus  and  Virgil,  very  often  separates  the  first  two 
(eet  of  the  hexameter  from  the  others  by  diaeresis,  the  cadence  sometimes  being 

CTO  | ^>  w  | ,  less  often oo  | |  •  Munro  says  that  in  the  latter  case  a 

monosyllable  must  follow,  and  that  to  this  rule  there  is  only  one  exception,  III. 
527,  et  mem\bratim  \  vitalem  deperdere  sensum.  This  is  a  most  astonishing  mis- 
statement.  In  the  first  book  alone,  besides  numerous  cases  like  173,  quod  cer\tis 
in  |  rebus  inest  secreta  facultas,  which  might  be  denied  as  an  exception  because  the 
in  is  proclitic  to  rebus,  there  are  thirteen  violations  of  Munro's  rule;  namely,  79, 
218,  243,  365,404,  414,  516,  546,  649,  766,  787,  1022,  and  1070;  and  counting 
all  cases  like  173,  there  are  thirty-four.  Moreover,  of  the  forty-eight  instances  in 
the  first  book  in  which  the  rule  appears  to  be  observed,  forty-seven  are  lines  in 
which  either  the  monosyllable  following  the  diaeresis  is  proclitic  as  in  353,  per 
truncos  ac  \  per  ramos  diffunditur  omnis,  or  enclitic  as  in  430,  praeterea  nil  \  est 
quod  possis  dicere  ab  omni  ;  or  the  word  immediately  preceding  the  diaeresis  is 
proclitic  as  in  662,  corpiis  nil  ab  \  se  quod possit  milter e  raptini.  The  one  excep- 
tion is  line  833,  sed  tamen  ipsam  \  rem  facile  est  exponere  verbis.  My  investiga- 
tion of  the  second  book  yields  similar  results. 

For  convenience  let  us  call  these  types  353,-43O,  and  662  respectively.  Now 
of  course  the  reason  why  Virgil,  and  the  more  careful  Roman  poets  generally, 
avoided  diaeresis  after  the  second  foot  was  that,  to  secure  in  such  cases  the  pre- 
vailing masculine  caesura  of  the  third  foot,  they  would  have  had  to  make  it  follow 
a  monosyllable,  and  caesurae  after  monosyllables  were  considered  imperfect.  On 
this  point  see  Plessis,  Traite  de  Metrique  Grecque  et  Latine,  §§  30  and  93.  So 
verses  like  Aeneid  IV.  385,  et  cum  frigida  \  mors  ||  anima  seduxerit  arlus,  are  rare 
in  Virgil  and  the  later  poets  ;  and  it  is  easy  to  see  why  a  cadence  in  which  a 
diaeresis  is  followed  by  the  main  caesura,  or  indeed  a  secondary  caesura,  with  but 
a  single  syllable  intervening,  should  have  offended  a  refined  ear.  But  Munro's 
canon  that  in  Lucretius  the  initial  cadence  in  which  diaeresis  comes  after  a 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  Ixi 

spondee  in  the  second  foot  is  with  but  one  exception  followed  by  a  monosyllable, 
most  erroneously  implies  that  his  author  was  indifferent  to  this  juxtaposition  of 
diaeresis  and  caesura.  Our  statistics  show  that  in  forty-seven  out  of  forty-eight 
cases  in  the  first  book,  this  monosyllable  is  a  monosyllable  only  in  name.  In 
other  words,  it  is  a  graphic  rather  than  a  phonetic  monosyllable.  In  case  353 
the  per  belongs  phonetically  to  the  following  word  ;  in  case  430  the  est  belongs 
phonetically  to  the  preceding  word  ;  while  in  case  662  the  ab  belongs  to  the 
following  word  ;  and  it  is  important  to  observe  that  in  all  of  the  forty-eight  lines 
above  mentioned,  not  a  single  instance  of  a  possible  fourth  type  occurs  in  which 
the  word  immediately  preceding  the  diaeresis  would  be  enclitic.  In  the  three 
types  I  have  cited  either  the  diaeresis  or  the  caesura  is  mitigated  by  proclisis  or 
enclisis  ;  in  353  it  is  the  caesura,  in  430  and  662  the  diaeresis.  Whereas,  in  the 
hypothetical  case,  of  which  there  is  not  one  example,  both  diaeresis  and  caesura 
would  be  unmitigated. 

It  may  be  objected  to  the  above  statistics  that,  inasmuch  as  the  commonly 
employed  monosyllables  are  usually  proclitic  or  enclitic,  if  a  monosyllable  is  used 
at  all  after  the  diaeresis  in  question,  it  is  likely  to  be  enclitic  or  proclitic  without 
design  on  the  part  of  the  author.  It  is  a  sufficient  reply  that  twenty-nine  of  the 
aforesaid  forty-seven  instances  are  of  the  type  662  (the  expressions  inter  \  se  and 
per  |  se  being  several  times  repeated),  in  which  neither  proclitic  or  enclitic  can 
follow,  though  it  would  make  little  difference  if  they  did. 

I  have  not  space  to  state  my  results  in  regard  to  the  initial  cadence, 

<&z>  I w  v;  II,  the  symbol  ||  marking  diaeresis.  Suffice  it  to  say  that  they  do 

not  differ  materially  from  the  conclusions  I  have  given  in  regard  to  the  begin- 
ning  GO  I II-  And  contrary  to  the  implication  of  Munro's  rule,  mono- 
syllables seem  to  follow  the  diaeresis  quite  as  frequently  in  the  former  type  as  in 
the  latter;  which  might  indeed  be  expected  from  the  overwhelming  predominance 
of  penthemimeral  caesura  in  the  Latin  hexameter. 

To  sum  up,  diaeresis  or  caesura  preceded  by  proclisis  or  followed  by  enclisis  is 
only  partially  done  away  with.  Such  caesurae  and  diaereses  were  imperfect. 
There  was  doubtless  a  difference  in  Latin  between  the  pronunciations  of  perlata 
and  per  lata,  for  example,  just  as  there  is  a  difference  between  the  French  enfer 
and  en  fer  (Plessis,  op.  cit.  §  29).  Therefore,  while  Virgil,  and  the  poets  gener- 
ally of  what  may  be  called  the  classical  school,  rarely  allow  diaeresis  after  the 
second  foot  of  the  hexameter,  Lucretius  admits  it,  and  more  often  than  not 
follows  it  with  a  monosyllable,  thus  making  a  penthemimeral  caesura  ;  but  in 
this  case  he  softens  the  diaeresis  or  caesura  by  proclisis  before  the  caesura  and  by 
proclisis  before  or  enclisis  after  the  diaeresis. 

39.  The  Ablative  Absolute  in  the  Epistles  of  Cicero,  Seneca,  Pliny, 
and  Pronto,  by  Dr.  R.  B.  Steele,  of  Vanderbilt  University  (read  by 
title). 

In  this  study  we  have  followed  the  same  lines  as  in  the  discussion  of  the 
Ablative  Absolute  in  Livy.  The  latter  differs  widely  from  the  writers  here  con- 
sidered in  the  rhetorical  elaboration  of  his  sentences,  and  for  this  reason  there 
are  marked  differences  in  the  use  of  ablative  absolute.  Many  of  the  letters  in 
these  collections  were  written  with  a  view  to  publication,  but  in  those  written 


Ixii  American  Philological  Association. 

on  the  spur  of  the  moment  the  writer  did  not  take  time  for  introductory  elabora- 
tion, and  had  little  need  for  the  ablative  absolute. 

Compared  with  Livy  these  writers  do  not  use  the  construction  freely,  the 
number  being  approximately  85  for  Fronto,  200  for  Seneca,  275  for  Pliny,  and 
750  for  Cicero.  As  all  the  writers  were  considering,  to  a  great  extent,  facts 
falling  immediately  under  their  notice,  a  large  proportion  of  present  participles  in 
the  ablative  absolute  is  not  surprising,  Seneca  showing  the  largest  per  cent, 
though  there  is  but  one  noticeable  feature  in  any  of  the  writers  —  the  occurrence 
of  dis  volentibus  in  letters  written  to  Fronto. 

In  its  general  aspects  the  ablative  absolute  in  these  writers  may  be  charac- 
terized as  isolated,  unextended,  and  undivided.  There  are  some  exceptions  to 
this  characterization,  but  most  of  the  examples  occur  singly,  are  composed  of  one 
noun  and  one  participle  or  equivalent,  and  do  not  ha\e  the  parts  separated. 
There  are  differences  in  the  individual  writers,  Seneca  repeating  noun  or  pronoun 
more  freely  than  does  Cicero,  and  in  Pliny  adjectives  and  present  participles 
are  the  elements  which  are  usually  doubled.  There  is  little  of  interest  in  the 
separation  of  the  parts  of  the  ablative  absolute  by  intervening  words. 

The  ablative  absolute  follows  the  main  statement  relatively  much  more  fre- 
quently than  it  does  in  Livy,  but  it  is  not  a  prominent  factor  in  correlative  and 
contrasted  statements.  A  number  of  particles  as  nisi,  quamquam,  quasi,  and 
•velut  occur  in  connection  with  the  ablative,  but  in  this  respect  Livy  is  very 
different,  especially  in  the  use  of  velut.  Owing  to  the  prominence  of  the  personal 
element  the  ablative  is  not  uncommonly  represented  in  the  main  statement  by 
a  pronoun. 

The  article  will  be  published  in  full  elsewhere. 

40.  The  Optative  Mood  in  Diodorus  Siculus,  by  Professor  Edwin 
L.  Green,  of  South  Carolina  College  (read  by  title). 

The  optative  mood  had  almost  disappeared  from  the  Koivri  SidXeicros  of  the 
time  of  Diodorus  Siculus  (Hatzidakis,  Einleitung  i.  d.  neugr.  Grammatik,  p. 
218).  Diodorus  is  himself  in  keeping  with  his  times  in  the  matter  of  the  optative. 
But  the  few  optatives  which  appear  in  the  fifteen  books  of  his  Bt/JXtotf^Ki;  are  of 
interest  for  the  history  of  the  mood;  and  they  show  also  that  however  sorry  an 
excerptor  he  may  have  been,  he  made  the  excerpts  his  own,  at  least  to  the  extent 
of  putting  them  into  the  language  of  his  day. 

The  following  forms  of  the  optative  are  noteworthy.  —  e:e  is,  for  the  most  part, 
the  ending  of  the  1st  aorist  3d  sing,  act.;  the  corresponding  person  of  the  plural 
ends  only  in  -eiav.  The  few  perfects  that  occur  are  periphrastic :  7r«retKo>s  fit] 
xiii.  41,  4:  cf.  xiv.  21,  3;  47,  2;  xix.  24,  4.  One  future,  /j.fTaireiro'iTo,  xvi.  92,  2, 
is  doubtful.  The  only  contract  verbs  showing  optative  forms  are  those  in  -ew : 
diriffTotiTo,  iii.  II,  2;  irpoaipoiro,  xiv.  26,  3;  HHTOITO,  xiv.  66,  3;  irapevox^-oiro, 
xix.  24,  6;  evdoKLfjioiev,  xx.  I,  2. 

A  pet  expression  with  Diodorus  is  Oav/j.dcrai  TIS  &v,  i.  i,  4;  37,  8,  9;  65,  3,  5; 
77,  10,  et passim  ;  and  likewise  its  negatives  owe  Av  TIS  0au/xci<reie,  i.  2,  5;  39,  13; 
51,  7;  ii.  14,  4;  v.  38,  2.  He  has  also  a  liking  for  the  potential  optative  with  &v 
in  questions  introduced  by  T(S:  rls  &v  ijy^ffaiTo,\.  39,  II;  xi.  13,  3;  xvi.  9,  2 :  by 


\ 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  Ixiii 

T/J  oi>:  ri-s  OVK  &t>  ftyrijffat,  i.  51,  6;  xi.  n,  I;  xv.  i,  3:  by  rwi:  irCn  &v  ytvoiro, 
i.  95,  2;  iv.  6l,  i ;  xi.  38,  3;  xvi.  94,  I :  and  for  efij  4i»  and  a  predicate  adjective: 
naKp&v  &v  fly,  i.  44,  5;  89,  4;  ii.  2,  4;  36,  3;  KaOyicov  Av  efi?,  ii.  38,  3;  cf.  ii.  51, 
2;  lii.  49,  I;  58,  I ;  63,  5.  The  potential  optative  with  &v  furnishes  the  larger 
part  of  the  optatives  found  in  Diodorus;  hut  apart  from  these  favored  expressions 
it  is  found  in  barely  more  than  a  score  of  passages. 

Optatives  in  oratio  obliqua  have  almost  gone  out  of  use.  They  occur  in  the 
following  passages  after  \£yw  (elirov),  iii.  73,  I ;  xiii.  91, 4;  xvi.  56,  7;  xx.  58,  5  : 
dwo<paii>ofj.a.i,  iv.  33,  8:  O.KOUW,  xiii.  41,  4;  88,  2:  ypd.<j>u,  xiv.  47,  2:  virovoiu, 
xvii.  48,  8:  dira-yyAXw,  xix.  24,  4:  SOK£U,  v.  72,  I:  nv0o\oytw,  xx.  41,  5:  and 
after  0iJ/xij,  xiii.  6l,  2:  <f>wva.l,  xix.  41,  3:  dirdicpiffiv,  xvii.  54,  5:  yvwuifv,  xiii. 

19.4- 

There  are  few  optatives  in  conditions,  and  those  that  are  so  found  occur  mainly 
in  oratio  obliqua:  i.  75,  2;  ii.  33,  5;  iii.  53,  3;  iv.  32,  3;  xii.  17,  4;  xx.  6,  I. 
Optatives  in  both  protasis  and  apodosis  are  rare :  i.  3,  6;  ii.  5,  5;  xv.  88,  3. 

Indirect  Questions  yield  half  a  dozen  optatives,  most  of  them  representing  sub- 
junctives of  the  oratio  recta  :  ii.  25,  4;  xiii.  16,  4;  xiv.  116,  3;  xvi.  45,  2;  xviii. 
64,  3:  xix.  64,  i. 

In  Final  Sentences  the  optative  appears  once  with  tva,  xx.  50,  I ;  once  with 
ws,  xiv.  48,  2;  four  times  with  5irws,  xiii.  75,  4;  xiv.  II,  2;  xix.  24,  6;  i.  58,  4 
(complementary  final). 

Optatives  are  found  in  Relative  and  Temporal  Sentences  in  the  following  pas- 
sages with  8s,  ii.  6,  6;  xix.  6,  I ;  n,  6;  15,  5;  xx.  41,  5;  57,  4:  Arcs,  xiv.  26,  5; 
44,  2:  faoi,  xvi.  59,  3:  5re,  i.  43,  3;  v.  55,  3;  xiii.  16,  7;  xiv.  43,  i;  xx.  41,  5  : 
birttre,  i.  58,  2;  72,  2;  ii.  4,  4;  xiii.  40,  I;  46,  I;  xviii.  67,  2:  ^e£,  i.  75,  4: 
^retSi),  i.  75,  5 :  ?ws,  xix.  17,  7:  ^XP'»  xix-  86»  5  :  irp^epo"  •  •  •  ff,  xx.  IO2,  I. 

Though  Diodorus  makes  scant  use  of  the  optative  mood,  he  has  not  so  far  lost 
his  feeling  for  it  as  to  fall  into  the  error  of  the  Atticist  who  wrote  it  with  the 
wrong  sequence  (A.J.  P.  iv.  428). 

41.  Attraction  in  English  (fourth  paper),  by  Dr.  C.  P.  G.  Scott,  of 
Radnor,  Pa.  (read  by  title). 

This  paper  will  be  published  later,  as  also  a  paper,  presented 
by  the  same  author,  entitled  West  Indian  Words  in  East  Indian 
Languages. 

Professor  March  reported  on  behalf  of  the  Committee  on  Spelling 
Reform. 

The  report  is  presented  in  full  in  the  TRANSACTIONS. 

The  Committee  to  Audit  the  Treasurer's  Report  reported  that  the 
report  was  correct. 

Adjourned  at  4.23  P.M. 

The  next  meeting  of  the  Association  will  be  held  at  Cornell  Uni- 
versity, July  5-7,  1904. 


Ixiv  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 


PHILOLOGICAL  ASSOCIATION  OF  THE  PACIFIC  COAST. 


The  Fourth  Annual  Meeting  was  held  at  the  Mark  Hopkins  Insti- 
tute of  Art  in  San  Francisco  on  December  29,  30,  and  31,  1902. 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  December  29,  1902. 

The  Association  was  called  to  order  at  10  A.M.  by  the  President, 
Professor  C.  M.  Gayley,  of  the  University  of  California. 

The  Secretary  of  the  Association,  Professor  John  E.  Matzke,  of 
Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  presented  the  following  report : 

i.  The  Executive  Committee  has  elected  the  following  new  members 
of  the  Association : 

Prof.  R.  M.  Alden,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

Miss  M.  G.  Allen,  240  I3th  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 

Dr.  E.  P.  Anderson,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Palo  Alto,  Cal. 

Prof.  M.  B.  Anderson,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Mento  Park,  Cal. 

Prof.  William  D.  Armes,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Dr.  J.  W.  Basore,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Mr.  G.  C.  Cook,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

Prof.  W.  A.  Cooper,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

Prof.  J.  Flagg,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Mr.  Pliny  E.  Goddard,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Prof.  A.  S.  Haggett,  University  of  Washington,  Seattle,  Wash. 

Mr.  V.  B.  Henderson,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Prof.  E.  W.  Hillgard,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Mr.  Chas.  R.  Keyes,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Dr.  A.  L.  Kroeber,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Prof.  R.  L.  Lloyd,  Pacific  Theological  Seminary,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Prof.  A.  G.  Newcomer,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

Dr.  George  R.  Noyes,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Prof.  F.  M.  Padelford,  University  of  Washington,  Seattle,  Wash. 

Mr.  E.  K.  Putnam,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

Prof.  C.  C.  Rice,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

Prof.  H.  W.  Rolfe,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

Prof.  H.  K.  Schilling,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Prof.  C.  Searles,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

Mr.  S.  S.  Seward,  Jr.,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

Dr.  Stanley  Simonds,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal. 

Prof.  David  Thomson,  University  of  Washington,  Seattle,  Wash. 

Rabbi  Jacob  Voorsanger,  1249  Franklin  Street,  San  Francisco,  Cal. 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  Ixv 

Through  transfer  from  the  American  Philological  Association  there  has 
been  added : 

Prof.  Mark  Bailey,  Jr.,  Whitworth  College,  Tacoma,  Wash. 

Professor  Matzke  then  presented  his  report  as  Treasurer  of  the 
Association  for  the  year  1901-1902  : 

RECEIPTS. 

Balance  on  hand,  Dec.  24,  1901 $6.67 

51  Annual  dues $153.00 

18  Initiation  fees 90.00 


Total  receipts  for  the  year t 243.00 

$249.67 

EXPENDITURES. 

Sent  to  Prof.  H.  W.  Smyth,  June  14,  1902 $179.22 

Postage  and  Printing '4-55 

Incidentals 4.00 


Total , $197.77 

Balance  on  hand,  Dec.  29,  1902 51*90 

$249.67 

The  President  appointed  the  following  committees : 
On  Nomination  of  Officers  for  1902-1903 :  Professors  Richard- 
son, Johnston,  and  Elmore. 

To  Audit  the  Treasurer's  Report:  Dr.  J.  T.  Allen  and  Professor 
Rolfe. 

On  Time  and  Place  of  Meeting  in  looj :  Professors  Murray, 
Church,  and  Randall. 

The  reading  and  discussion  of  papers  was  then  begun. 

i.  The  Apocope  of  s  in  Lucretius,  by  Professor  Samuel  B.  Randall, 
of  California  College. 

The  Latin  language  presents  an  interesting  field  for  study  in  the  varying  force 
of  final  s.  Cicero  (De  Oratore  48,  161)  comments  on  the  frequent  dropping  of 
final  s  by  the  older  writers,  the  change  which  had  since  occurred,  and  the  fact  that 
the  novi  poetae  of  his  own  day  insisted  on  giving  s  its  full  sound  value. 

The  scope  of  this  paper  is  limited  to  the  usage  of  Lucretius  concerning  the 
apocope  of  s. 

I.  Frequency  of  the  occurrence  of  apocope.  De  Rerum  A'atura  contains 
7415  lines.  In  these  Bouterweck  notes  seventy-two  instances  of  the  apocope  of 
s,  Jessen  seventy-seven,  Maurenbrecher  eighty.  A  large  proportion  of  these  re- 
sult from  emendation,  making  it  needful  first  of  all  to  go  back  to  the  MS.  read- 
ings. The  critical  apparatus  of  Lachmann  in  his  commentary  and  textual  notes 
is  for  the  most  part  used,  and  codex  Leidensis  30  (the  Oblongus)  is  taken  as  the 
standard. 


Ixvi  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

Book  I.  contains  six  instances  of  apocope  in  the  MS.  readings;  Book  II. 
seven;  Book  III.  five;  Book  IV.  twelve;  Book  V.  eight;  Book  VI.  seven;  giv- 
ing a  total  of  forty-five.  In  I.  412  fontibus  magnis,  and  in  I.  591  immutabilis 
materiae  are  accepted  as  the  true  readings.  In  II.  918  animalibus  mortalibus, 
and  in  III.  257  retinemus  valemus  of  the  MS.  appear  to  contain  easily  accounted 
for  errors  of  the  copyist,  and  are  omitted  from  the  following  classification.  This 
would  leave  forty-three  accepted  cases  of  apocope. 

II.  Classification  of  the  MS.  instances.     First,  as  to  terminations:  The  ending 
-ibus  is  found  twenty-seven  times;   of  these  twenty-three  are  in  nouns,  adjectives 
and  participles  of  the  third  declension,  four  in  those  of  the  fourth  declension. 
The  ending  -bus  occurs  three  times,  in  the  fifth  declension  noun  rebus.     The  ter- 
mination -is  is  found  four  times  in  genitives  of  the  third  declension,  twice  in  the 
nominative  of  adjectives  (pmnis  and  communis) .    The  ending  -us  occurs  four  times 
in  nouns,  adjectives  and  passive  participles  of  the  second  declension;  twice  in 
comparative  adverbs  (tninus  and  prius) ;  if  opus  be  considered  the  true  reading 
in  IV.  1268,  as  it  seems  it  must  be,  this  would  give  one  instance  of  the  nomina- 
tive of  a  third  declension  noun  in  -us. 

Second,  as  to  the  position  of  the  shortened  syllable  in  the  verse  and  in  the 
foot :  In  thirty-one  cases  the  apocope  is  in  the  fifth  foot,  three  times  in  the  fourth 
foot,  three  times  in  the  third,  four  times  in  the  second,  twice  in  the  first.  The 
apocope  occurs  thirty-four  times  in  the  last  syllable  of  a  dactyl,  nine  times  in  the 
second  syllable. 

Naming  the  letters  before  which  s  is  apocopated  in  order  of  frequency,  before  s 
this  occurs  thirteen  times;  before/  and  r  five  times  each;  before  /;/,  q,  and  v  three 
times  ;  before  d,  f,  I,  and  »  twice;  before  c,  g,  and  t  once. 

III.  The  basis  is  now  laid  for  a  consideration  of  the  cases  of  apocope  which 
result  from  emendation.     In  Lachmann's  text  there  are  thirty-five  passages  in 
which  apocope  does  not  occur  in  the  MS.  reading  but  is  the  result  of  emendation. 
In  four  of  these  (II.  623,  V.  53,  949,  1410)  the  MS.  reading  seems  to  contain 
simple  errors  of  the  copyist ;  the  proposed  emendations  are  in  harmony  with  the 
classification  given  above,  and  are  almost,  universally  adopted.     In  five  or  six 
others  the  emendation  seems  probable  ;  but  most  of  the  alterations  which  introduce 
the  apocope  seem  wholly  unjustifiable.     In    some    cases  a  standard  of  correct 
Latinity  or  of  proper  versification  or  rhythm  is  set  up  and  passages  are  altered  to 
conform  to  this.     The  introduction  of   emendations   amounting  to  more  than 
seventy-seven  per  cent,  of  the  MS.  readings  gives  a  very  high  ratio.     The  emen- 
dations proposed  for  VI.  550  by  Lachmann  and  Bockemiiller  introduce  apocope 
in  the  nominative  singular  of  a  third  declension  noun  ending  in  -is,  a  precedent 
for  which  has  not  been  found  in  any  of  the  accepted  passages.    Construction  and 
sense  also  render  these  emendations  doubtful, 

While  Lucretius  wrote  in  a  period  of  transition  and  had  the  choice  of  the 
older  or  the  newer  prosody,  while  sometimes  he  employs  archaic  forms  such  as 
the  genitive  in  ai,  his  tendency  is  to  side  with  the  newer  poets.  So  infrequently 
has  he  employed  apocope  that  emendations  which  introduce  this  device  need  to 
be  accepted  with  great  caution. 

Remarks  were  made  on  this  paper  by  Professors  Richardson  and 
Matzke. 


Proceedings  for  December,  1902.  Ixvii 

2.  The  Modes  of  Conditional  Thought,  by  Dr.  H.  C.  Nutting  of 
the  University  of  California. 

A  conditional  thought-period,  in  the  lowest  terms,  consists  of  two  concept- 
groups —  one  conditioning,  the  other  conditioned  —  and  the  act  of  intellection 
that  binds  them  together.  The  variation  in  this  act  of  intellection  produces  the 
different  modes  of  conditional  thought. 

This  paper  tries  to  show  that  the  act  of  intellection  that  binds  together  the 
groups  of  conditional  thought-periods  is  not  peculiar  to  conditional  thinking,  but 
common  in  other  classes  of  thought;  that  the  real  peculiarity  of  the  conditional 
thought-period  lies  in  the  quality  of  the  concept  groups  themselves,  *>.,  in  the 
fact  that  they  are  colored  by  the  speaker's  doubt  about  realization  in  fact  ;  and 
that  these  facts  explain  the  often  noted  interchange  in  speech  of  the  conditional 
and  other  subordinating  particles. 

At  least  three  modes  of  conditional  thought  maybe  distinguished,  according  as 
the  act  of  intellection  that  binds  the  groups  together  is  the  apprehension  of  (a)  a 
cause  and  effect  relation,  (6)  a  relation  of  ground  and  inference,  or  (*•)  a  relation 
of  equivalence. 

The  paper  appears  in  fall  in  the  American  Journal  of  Philology  for 
1903. 
It  was  discussed  by  Professors  Johnston  and  Goebel. 

3.  Livy's  Account  of  the  Dramatic  Satura,  by  Professor  J.  Elmore, 
of  the  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 

Livy's  statements  (vii.  2)  concerning  the  dramatic  satura,  which  he  repre- 
sents as  being  the  stage  immediately  preceding  the  artistic  comedy  of  Livius 
Andronicus,  must  be  regarded  as  unhistorical.  Whatever  may  have  been  Livy's 
source,  there  can  have  been  no  trustworthy  records  for  the  history  of  comedy 
before  240  B.C.  Moreover,  Diomedes  (i.  487  K)  in  his  discussion  of  the  etymol- 
ogy of  the  word  satira  as  a  designation  of  the  literary  satire,  though  he  gives 
several  examples  of  things  that  were  called  salura,  makes  no  mention  of  a  kind 
of  play  that  was  so  named.  As  it  is  recognized  that  these  etymologies  were 
taken  ultimately  from  Varro  it  is  reasonable  to  infer  that  Varro  himself  knew 
nothing  of  the  dramatic  satura.  Otherwise  he  would  not  have  omitted  so  per- 
tinent an  illustration. 

If  Livy's  statements  lack  historical  foundation,  it  remains  to  show  how  his 
somewhat  circumstantial  account  arose.  According  to  Leo  {Hermes,  XXIV,  67) 
and  Hendrickson  (Amer.  Jour.  Phil,  XV,  I  and  XIX,  283)  it  was  originally  the 
invention  of  some  grammarian  outlining  the  history  of  the  drama  for  the  period 
before  the  production  of  the  first  play  at  Rome  by  Livius  Andronicus.  Being 
ignorant  of  the  facts  he  based  his  sketch  on  what  Aristotle  in  the  Poetics  says 
of  the  satyr  drama  and  of  Greek  comedy.  Thus  Livy's  dramatic  satura  is  the 
stage  in  the  development  of  Roman  comedy  invented  by  the  grammarian  to  corre- 
spond to  the  Old  Comedy  at  Athens.  But  this  theory,  interesting  and  sugges- 
tive as  it  is,  presents  several  difficulties.  It  involves  a  subtle  interpretation  of 
Aristotle's  relation  to  the  Old  Comedy,  and  of  this  in  turn  to  the  literary  satire 


Ixviii  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

at  Rome,  which  a  grammarian  of  the  second  century  B.C.  would  hardly  have 
been  able  to  make,  especially  when  the  actual  works  of  Aristotle  were  not  acces- 
sible. Then,  too,  Livy's  description  of  the  satttrae  should,  in  a  general  way  at 
least,  fit  the  Old  Comedy,  but  except  in  a  single  instance  there  is  hardly  a  trace 
of  such  a  correspondence.  The  theory  of  parallelism  also  requires  that  the  state- 
ment of  Aristotle  in  the  Poetics  (1449  l>),  TUIV  8£  ' AO-f/vrjiriv  Kpdrrjs  irpuros  TIP&V 
a<f>£i*evoi  rrjs  iafj.piKrjs  iStas  Ka66\ov  iroitlv  \6yovs  KCLI  utiffovs,  should  refer  to  the 
transition  from  the  OKI  Comedy  to  the  New,  but  it  is  very  probable  that  such  is 
not  the  case. 

The  solution  of  the  problem  is  to  be  found  not  in  the  principle  of  parallelism, 
but  in  that  of  duplication,  the  dramatic  satura  of  Livy  being  a  mere  reproduc- 
tion with  slight  changes  of  the  artistic  comedy.  It  was  through  the  working  of 
this  principle,  as  Pais  has  recently  shown  in  his  Storia  di  Roma,  that  much 
of  early  Roman  history  grew  up,  historical  events  being  duplicated  with  more  or 
less  important  changes  and  assigned  to  earlier  periods.  It  is  natural  that  this 
same  method  should  appear  in  literary  history.  In  this  particular  case  the  char- 
acteristics which  are  assigned  to  the  saturae  belong  also  to  the  artistic  comedy. 
The  metres  are  different  from  the  old  Saturnian;  there  are  cantica,  accompani- 
ment on  the  flute,  and  carefully  prepared  spoken  parts,  while  the  whole  perform- 
ance is  in  the  hands  of  professional  actors.  A  comprehensive  plot  is  lacking,  but 
otherwise  Livy's  description  of  the  saturae  would  fit  precisely  the  regular  drama. 
It  is  to  be  supposed  that  some  grammarian  having  the  fabula  palliata  before  him, 
but  not  knowing  what  had  gone  before,  invented  the  preceding  stage  by  a  virtual 
duplication  of  the  fabula  palliata  itself,  and  this  account  Livy  has  uncritically 
incorporated  into  his  history. 

It  is  possible  also  that  the  stage  preceding  the  satura  —  the  rude  improvised 
farce  performed  by  the  Roman  youths — may  be  accounted  for  in  the  same  way 
as  being  a  reflection  of  the  fabulae  Atellanae.  In  the  passage  as  a  whole  there 
are  certain  supplementary  statements  which  are  aetiological. 

This  paper  was  discussed  by  Professors  Murray,  Matzke,  and 
Goebel. 

4.  The  So-called  Mutation  in  Indo-European  Compounds,  by 
President  Benj.  Ide  Wheeler,  of  the  University  of  California. 

The  aim  of  this  inquiry  is  to  determine  the  purport  of  the  original  differentiation 
in  signification  between  the  two  types  of  Indo-European  compounds  named  by 
Justi,  niedere  and  hohere,  by  Miklosich,  primar  and  secundar,  by  Leopold  Schroeder 
(  Uber  die  formelle  Unterscheidung  der  Redetheile  (1874),  p.  203),  immutata  and 
mutata.  Schroeder's  classification  followed  a  superficial  external  test  in  noting 
whether  the  compound  remained  of  the  same  part  of  speech  as  the  second  com- 
ponent appeared  to  be;  thus,  fiporoXotyfa,  which,  under  the  system  of  the  Hindoo 
grammarians  would  be  a  Tatpurusha  (immutatuni),  is  classed  by  him  as  mutatum 
(p.  396),  because,  forsooth,  of  the  existence  of  \oiybs  as  a  noun.  He  seems,  there- 
fore, to  have  chosen  the  term  mutata  to  describe  and  characterize  those  com- 
pounds which  are  in  general  grouped  under  the  Hindoo  term,  Bahuvrihi,  rather 
than  to  explain  them.  Brugmann,  however,  takes  the  term  more  seriously :  "  Es 
handelt  sich  hier  in  der  Hauptsache  immer  um  die  Verwandlung  eines  Substantivs 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  Ixix 

in  ein  Adjectiv;  von  der  Bedeutung  eines  Substanz  wurde  abgesehen,  so  dass 
nur  die  der  Substanz  anhaftenden  Qualitaten  als  Begriffsinhalt  ubrig  bleiben  " 
(GrunJriss,  II,  87).  This,  however,  after  all  only  explains  the  term.  The 
Bahuvrihi  type  is,  as  Schroeder  saw  (p.  198),  quite  as  old  as  its  counterpart,  and 
differentiation  or  parallelism  is  demanded  by  the  facts  as  the  method  of  explana- 
tion rather  than  a  mutation  arbitrary  and  unmotived.  The  real  inquiry  must  be: 
how  did  it  come  about  that  there  should  exist  side  by  side  the  two  types  of  signi- 
fication represented  by  /top&ratj,  *  only  child,'  vs.  noibirovs,  'having  one  foot'; 
Skr.  yajnakamd-,  '  desire  of  sacrifice,'  vs.  yajt'uikcima-,  '  having  desire  of  sacri- 
fice'? Whitney,  in  defining  the  Bahuvrihis  puts  it  frankly:  "  which  take  on  an 
adjective  meaning  of  a  kind  which  is  most  conveniently  and  accurately  denned 
by  adding  '  having '  or  '  possessing '  to  the  meaning  of  the  determinative." 
Whence  comes  the  idea  of  'having'?  What  in  the  mechanics  of  the  form 
acquired  the  power  to  express  this  idea,  and  how  did  it  acquire  it? 

I  find  the  problem  approached  in  this  sense  nowhere  except  in  Jacobi's  Com- 
positum  und  Nebcnsatz  (1897).  After  having  competently  explained  the 
Tatpurushas  of  the  type  Xo7ojroi6s,  artifex,  as  relative  participles  filling  essen- 
tially the  place  occupied  in  the  modern  sentence  by  the  relative  clause,  he 
attempts  in  Chapter  VIII  to  subject  the  Bahuvrihis  to  analogous  treatment,  but 
•with  unsatisfactory  result;  po5o5d*cruXos  yields  only  a  relative  clause  in  which  the 
verb  is  suppressed  and  in  which  the  relative  would  be  supplied  by  an  oblique 
case  instead  of  by  the  nominative  as  in  the  Tatpurushas,  i.e.  '  [to  whom  are] 
rose-like  fingers.' 

Jacobi  was,  however,  upon  the  right  track  and  would  have  reached  his  goal 
if,  taking  the  Greek  rather  than  the  Hindoo  Bahuvrihis  as  his  guide,  he  had 
(i)  recognized  the  existence  of  the  verb  in  the  verbals  of  the  second  component 
and  (2)  attended  to  what  even  the  dull  Greek  grammarians  report  concerning 
the  passive  value  of  these  verbals  in  what  we  now  call  the  Bahuvrihis. 

(i)  Following  the  customary  method  of  expJaining and  translating  the  Hindoo 
Bahuvrihis  we  have  explained  Otbyovos  and  irpwrbyovos  by  aid  of  ybvot  as  '  having 
god-birth,'  '  having  first  birth,'  but  in  so  doing  have  with  violence  separated  them 
from  reKvoybvos,  dvdpoybvos,  Trvpiybvos,  tcapiroybvos  in  which  the  second  component 
is  plainly  a  verbal,  i.e.  a  participle,  cf.  statements  such  as  Anec.  Gr.  Ox.  1, 286, 14: 
Kdi  rb  olKov6fU>s  5e  owe  effrtv  82  avb  rov  v6/xcs,  d\Xd  irapa.  rb  ve,uw,  rb  StoiKU  •  ut 
ical  Trapa  rb  \tyu,  <uVx/>oX67os,  KT\.  But  worse  than  that,  we  have  separated 
them  from  tyyovos,  6\f/iyovos,  KT\.,  which  all  class  as  mutata,  and  which  surely 
contain  verbals  rather  than  nouns;  €6  jroXtfTpon-oj  leans  on  rpfirta,  not  TpAros, 
and  is  to  be  felt  as  'much  turned'  rather  than  'having  many  turns,'  cf.  vaXlvrpo- 
a-os;  so  <Jp06/JoXos  and  TaXfyc/3oXos;  KOU^TO/COJ  (from  rlicru  not  riicos)  and 
cCroKos;  6pf<rlTpo<t>os  and  Stforpo^of,  etc. 

No  place  has  hitherto  been  found  nor  explanation  of  the  internal  syntax  given 
for  these  compounds  in  which  adverb  or  particle  appears  to  modify  a  noun : 
d«r/0eo7,  AwSos,  dir6ir«pa,  8ly\u<rffos,  eCrtKifot,  ftfavos,  djetws,  ffvvStffiios;  inter- 
rex,  exanimis,  biformis.  They  represent  an  Indo-European  type  formed  in  a 
period  before  verb  and  noun,  verbal  and  noun  had  been  clearly  differentiated, 
and  tGrtKvos  bears  down  with  it  into  a  later  stage  of  the  language  the  sense  for 
*TCKVOS  as  a  verbal ;  '  blest  with  children '  is  its  value,  rather  than  '  having  good 
children ';  eCfwws  is  'well  girt,'  rather  than  'having  a  good  girdle.' 


Ixx  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

In  the  Hindoo  Bahuvrlhis  the  noun  has  prevailed  in  the  second  component 
and  determined  the  type,  and  hence  we  have,  through  the  prevailing  interpreta- 
tion of  these  compounds  in  terms  of  the  noun,  the  prevailing  formula  of  transla- 
tion by  help  of  '  having.' 

(2)  The  Greek  verbals  or  quasi-participles  represented  in  the  second  com- 
ponent of  compounds  appear  sometimes  in  a  passive,  sometimes  in  an  active 
signification.  The  Greek  grammarians  who  recognized  their  value  as  verbals 
could  not  fail  also  to  note  this  variation  of  voice.  In  reporting  it  they  were 
evidently  reporting  a  plain  fact  of  the  speech  consciousness;  thus,  Etym.  Magn. 
775-  47  :  &a"lreP  y&P  rb  i>dpo<f>6pos,  irapoi-vrbvus  fi.ti>  <rr)/j.aii>ei  tvtpyeiav  •  irpoirapoi-u- 
T&VUS  5£  irdOos.  Thus,  dicp6/3o\os  'pelted  from  afar'  {Aesch.},  when  explained 
from  /36Xos  would  be  rendered  '  having,  i^.  receiving  a  throw  from  afar,'  but  com- 
parison with  ^AC7j/36Xos,  '  far  pelting,'  ^7re<r/36Xos,  'word  pelting,'  shows  that  a  varia- 
tion of  voice  in  the  verbal  is  what  is  really  involved.  Cf.  /Sotfvo/tos,  '  grazed  by 
cattle,'  vs.  {SovvbfjLos  in  dyt\ai  f3ovv6/jjoi  (Soph.)  'grazing.' 

To  impose  upon  the  primitive  verb  of  the  period  of  which  these  composition 
types  are  fragmentary  survivals  the  distinctions  of  passive  vs.  active  borrowed 
from  the  formal  differentiations  of  a  later  period  is  an  inaccuracy  excused  by  the 
lack  of  other  terms.  The  real  distinction  is  one  merely  of  the  attitude  of  the 
verbal  action, — is  it  turned  toward  the  noun  commonly  appearing  as  subject 
(active),  or  toward  the  noun  commonly  appearing  as  object  (passive)  ?  It  is  this 
uncertainty  of  attitude  that  conditions,  e.g.  the  indifference  of  0ctu/xa  Ideiv,  TO.VTO. 
fxfdid  fan  fj.a.6eiv,  fi£tos  davfj-dffai;  cf.  Gildersleeve,  AJP.  XXIII,  125.  Traces 
of  an  early  differentiation  in  the  meaning  of  verbals  attending  a  differentiation 
of  accent  were  noted  in  Der  griechische  Nominalaccent,  pp.  70  ff.  e.g.  rpox&s, 
'the  wheel,'  rp6xos,  'the  course';  bhard-,  ' carrying,'  bhdra-,  <p6pos,  'the  thing 
carried';  cf.  also  the  quasi-passive  Skt.  paroxytones  contained  in  such  com- 
pounds as :  ajdra-, '  unconsumed,'  adrija-, '  not  to  be  restrained,'  suydma-, '  easily 
led,'  in  contrast  with  suydmd-,  'easily  leading.'  (Cf.  Griech.  Nominal-accent, 
pp.  81,  87  f.) 

Herein  lies,  I  am  convinced,  the  basis  of  differentiation  between  the  Bahuvrihi 
compounds  and  their  counterparts;  6e6yovos  (dvijp),  'god-born,'  represents  the 
action  as  set  forth  in  what  is  commonly  known  as  the  object  (dKiJp),  instead  of 
in  the  subject  (0e6s);  reKvoybvos  (yvirf},  '  childbearing,'  on  the  other  hand, 
represents  the  action  as  set  forth  in  the  subject  (yvv-f)),  rather  than  the  object 
(T^KVOV). 

Use  of  the  verb-noun  of  the  second  component  in  a  passive  sense  is  the  origi- 
nal characteristic  of  the  Bahuvrlhis.  The  idea  of  *  having'  (so  far  as  really 
existent  in  the  speech-consciousness)  is  historical  successor  to  this  passivity, 
representing  and  interpreting  it  wherever  in  the  later  developed  type  the  fully 
differentiated  noun  takes  the  place  of  verb-noun;  ve6ro/«)j  means  'new  cut,' 
aKp6/3oXo?,  'far  pelted,'  (5p«<r£rpo0os,  'mountain-nurtured,'  iraXlirpoiros,  'turned 
back,'  and  likewise,  etffwwj,  '  well  belted,'  eKariyLtiri/Xos,  '  hundred-gated,'  podo- 
SdKTvXos,  'rose-fingered.' 

The  paper  was  discussed  by  Professors  Noyes,  Margolis,  and 
Goebel. 

Adjourned  at  12.30  P.M. 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  Ixxi 


SECOND  SESSION. 

The  second  session  was  called  to  order  by  the  President  at  2.20  P.M. 
The  reading  and  discussion  of  papers  was  continued. 

5.  Some  Notes  on  Athenian  Constitutional  History,  by  Dr.  W.  S. 
Ferguson,  of  the  University  of  California. 

The  paper  will  appear  in  full  under  the  title  "  The  Oligarchic  Revo- 
lution of  103-102  B.C.  at  Athens,"  in  Lehraann's  Beitrage  zur  alten 
Geschichte,  Vol.  iv,  p.  i  f. 

6.  The  Siamese  Vowels  and  Diphthongs,  by  Professor  C.  B.  Brad- 
ley, of  the  University  of  California. 

The  Siamese  is  the  central  member  of  the  group  of  languages  in  Farther  India 
known  as  the  T*ai  languages.  Its  monosyllabism,  its  differentiation  of  words 
by  intonation  and  by  aspiration  of  consonants,  the  utter  absence  of  inflection,  and 
the  consequent  imperfect  emergence  of  parts  of  speech,  ally  it  to  the  Chinese,  of 
which  it  was  doubtless  once  an  outlying  dialect.  Unlike  the  Chinese,  however, 
it  has  a  nearly  perfect  system  of  phonetic  spelling,  using  to  this  end  an  alphabet 
adapted  from  the  Pali. 

The  Siamese  vowels  are  eighteen  in  number,  forming  a  surprisingly  full  and 
symmetrical  group.  In  Professor  Sweet's  notation  they  may  be  represented 
thus: 

FRONT.  BACK.  BACK-ROUND. 

$  low-wide  a  low-wide  i;  low-wide 

ZB  low-narrow  v  low-narrow  o  low-narrow 

MIXED. 

e   mid-wide  &h  low-wide  o  mid-wide 

6   mid-narrow  sen  low-narrow  6  mid-narrow 

I    high-wide  ih    high-wide  tt  high-wide 

I    high-narrow  ih    high-narrow  u  high-narrow 

Each  of  these  vowels  has  its  separate  symbol  in  writing  ;  their  enunciation  is 
much  more  strict  than  in  English  usage,  without  obscure  breakings  or  glides; 
and  when  initial  they  are  regularly  preceded  by  the  glottal  catch,  which  is  repre- 
sented by  its  symbol  in  writing.  They  stand,  as  will  be  noticed,  in  pairs,  —  long 
and  short  in  quantity,  and  at  the  same  time  close  and  open  in  quality,  —  so  that 
the  two  distinctions  reenforce  each  other. 

The  diphthongs  are  twenty-three,  all  stressed  on  the  initial  element.  They 
are  of  two  groups,  closed  and  open;  and  in  case  of  the  closed,  the  consonantal 
vanish  appears  in  writing. 


Ixxii  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

CLOSED.  CLOSED.                         CLOSED.  OPEN. 

1—  Q*  Uw  —  Ij                            Ih   —  y  5   —  3 

j_uw  M»  —  y                    ih  —  y  jj  —3 

g_uw  5  —  y                    sieh  —  1'  ih  —  6 

e  —  flw  5    —  ij  ih  —  3 

je  —  uw  5    —  y  uw  —  5 

«w  —  3 


This  paper  was  discussed  by  Professor  Fryer. 

7.  Herder  and  Goethe,   by  Professor  J.  Goebel,  of  the  Leland 
Stanford  Jr.  University. 

With  the  approach  of  the  centenary  of  Herder's  death,  we  recall  before  our 
mind  with  gratitude  the  man  to  whose  powerful  influence  is  due  the  phenomenal 
growth  of  the  historical  sciences  during  the  last  century.  The  magnitude  of 
Herder's  world  of  ideas,  the  stimulating  and  regeneratory  force  emanating  from 
Herder's  mind,  can  be  studied  best  in  his  relation  to  Goethe. 

Far  more  important  than  the  new  conception  of  poetry  which  Goethe  claims 
to  have  received  from  Herder  is,  in  my  opinion,  the  change  which  Goethe's  very 
nature  underwent  through  the  contact  with  Herder.  It  is  a  change  which 
reaches  into  the  very  roots  of  his  mental  activity. 

Having  long  and  ardent  inner  struggles,  into  which  his  Reisejournal  gives  us 
an  insight,  Herder  had  won  for  himself  a  new  Weltanschauung  which  he  was  to 
convey  to  Goethe.  No  man  before  him,  not  even  Lessing,  had  felt  as  keenly  as 
he  did  the  shallowness  and  emptiness  of  abstract  thinking  and  of  mere  word 
knowledge,  the  result  of  the  overrating  of  the  intellect  which  dated  back  to 
the  seventeenth  century.  Filled  with  an  unquenchable  thirst  for  reality  and 
penetrated  by  a  Lebensgefuhl  of  the  highest  degree,  Herder  advocates  in  place 
of  abstract  knowledge  a  knowledge  which  embraces  the  external  objects.  This 
process  of  identifying  the  Ego  with  the  external  world  is  essentially  an  act  of  the 
feeling,  hence  he  lays  the  greatest  stress  upon  the  latter.  And  because  he  is  not 
satisfied  with  abstract  knowledge,  the  shadow  of  reality,  but  strives  to  embrace 
the  totality  of  the  external  world,  he  is  the  declared  enemy  of  the  analyzing  pro- 
cesses of  the  intellect.  Thus  he  becomes  the  antagonist  of  Kant,  the  great  repre- 
sentative of  the  latter  mode  of  acquiring  knowledge. 

We  can  still  see,  from  Goethe's  earliest  letters  to  Herder,  how  the  latter's 
thoughts  came  to  him  as  a  revelation,  changing  his  entire  mental  attitude. 

The  present  paper  will  be  published  in  full  in  the  Goethe-Jahrbuch 
for  1904. 

This  paper  was  discussed  by  Professor  Gayley. 

8.  Herder's  Attitude  toward  the  French  Stage,  by  Professor  C. 
Searles,  of  the  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 

Herder,  as  well  as  Lessing,  was  very  bitter  in  his  criticism  of  the  French  stage. 
In  the  introductory  paragraphs  to  the  Essay  on  Shakespeare,  he  declares  :  "  Das 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  Ixxiii 

Ganze  ihrer  (dramatischen)  Kunst  ist  ohne  Natur,  ist  abenteuerlich,  ist  eckel" 
(Suphen's  Edition,  Vol.  V,  p.  214).  There  is  no  life  in  the  dramas  of  the  French 
dramatists  —  nothing  but  declamation,  show,  and  conventionality.  Herder  was 
probably  influenced  in  the  formation  and  expression  of  this  extreme  opinion  by 
his  desire  to  see  established  a  national  theatre  and  a  national  art.  He  was  bitter 
in  his  denunciation  of  those  who  preferred  French  literary  ideals  to  those  of  the 
fatherland,  and  who  imitated  slavishly  the  works  of  foreign  nations.  His  attitude 
is  to  be  characterized  in  general  as  that  of  a  reformer  rather  than  that  of  a  critic. 

This  paper  was  discussed  by  Professors  Goebel,  Matzke,  Murray, 
Chambers,  and  Faucheux. 

As  a  result  of  the  interesting  discussion  on  this  paper,  it  was  moved 
by  Professor  Goebel  and  seconded  by  Mr.  Keyes  that  one  session  of 
the  annual  meeting  in  1903  be  given  up  to  a  Herder  memorial  pro- 
gramme, in  commemoration  of  the  hundredth  anniversary  of  this 
author's  death.  The  motion  was  carried. 

9.  Sepultura  =  Sepulcrum,  by  Professor  J.  E.  Church,  Jr.,  of  the 
University  of  Nevada. 

The  belief  expressed  by  Forcellini  {Lexicon  totius  latinitatis  v.  sepultura  —  3) 
that  sepultura  was  employed  by  the  Romans  in  the  sense  of  sepulcruin  is  sub- 
stantiated by  the  following  Christian  inscriptions :  Corpus  inscriptionum  latina- 
runi  V,  2305  .  .  .  Rogo  et  peto  omnem  clerum  et  cuncta  fraternitatem  ut  nullus 
de  genere  vel  aliquis  in  hoc  sepullura  ponatur  ;  V,  8738,  and  8748,  which  are 
similar  to  the  preceding ;  and  VI,  8401,  which  belongs  to  the  end  of  the  sixth 
century  A.D. 

The  extension  in  meaning  of  sepultura  to  include  'tomb'  is  an  extreme  stage 
of  development,  attained  probably  by  its  use  in  the  phrase  locus  sepulturae,  which 
was  often  employed  as  a  synonym  for  sepulcruin  and  locus  sepulcri,  all  of  which 
phrases  are  found  in  numerous  inscriptions  and  are  well  attested.  An  intermedi- 
ate stage  of  the  development  of  sepultura,  viz.  '  lying  in  the  tomb,'  is  found  in 
Isaiah  57.  2  (Itala)  :  erit  in  pace  sepultura  eius.  A  somewhat  analogous  develop- 
ment is  that  of  quies  and  requies,  '  rest,'  whose  meaning  was  extended  not  only 
to  include  'death'  (Prop.  2.  21.  27;  Biicheler,  Carmina  latina  epigraphica  128?, 
v.  i ),  but  also  '  burial '  (Biich.  553,  v.  4),  and  probably  '  resting  place '  or  '  ton.b ' 
(CIL.  X,  8247). 

How  early  sepultura  began  to  be  employed  in  its  secondary  or  concrete  sense 
is  uncertain.  None  of  the  pagan  examples  cited  by  Forcellini  are  acceptable,  for 
in  every  case  sepultura  can  be  interpreted  as  meaning  '  burial,'  and  not  '  burial 
place '  or  '  tomb.'  The  evidence  in  favor  of  a  pagan  origin  rests,  therefore,  upon 
two  inscriptions,  which  may  with  considerable  probability  be  assigned  to  the 
period  preceding  the  establishment  of  Christianity  as  the  Roman  state  religion. 
These  are  CIL.  VIII,  9798  (Africa)  and  VI,  13061  (Rome).  The  first  of  these 
inscriptions,  which  contains  several  ligatures,  may  be  assigned  to  the  third  cen- 
tury A.D.,  when  ligatures  abounded  in  African  inscriptions,  and  the  second,  con- 
taining two  examples  of  tall  |  to  denote  the  long  vowel,  to  a  period  not  later  than 
the  end  of  the  second  century  A.D.,  when  this  I  appears  to  have  passed  out  of  use; 


Ixxiv  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

while  the  presence  of  the  formulae  D(is)  M(anibus)  and  heredem  non  sequetur 
furnish  strong  evidence  of  the  pagan  character  of  both.  Furthermore,  examples 
of  abstract  nouns  employed  by  way  of  metonymy  in  place  of  cognate  concrete 
forms  are  found  both  in  prose  and  in  poetry  early  in  the  classical  period,  as  hospi- 
tium,  'Guest  friends'  (Cornif.  ad  Her.  I.  5.  8),  'Guest  land'  (Verg.  Aen.  3.  61), 
and  coniugium,  'husband'  (Aen.  2.  579),  'wife'  (Aen.  3.  296,  7.  433,  II.  270). 

This  usage  of  sepultura  =  sepulcrum  continued  into  the  Christian  period  of 
Rome,  and  probably  gained  a  foothold  in  the  Romanic  tongues,  but  appears 
to  have  been  restricted,  being  found  but  once  in  the  Vulgate,  viz.  Tobit.  4.  18 
(quoted  by  Forcellini),  and  also  being  subordinated  in  the  late  inscription  CIL. 
VI,  8401  (577,  78  A.D.)  to  the  older  and  much  employed  sepulcrnm,  for  which  it 
serves  as  a  synonym.  This  same  subordination  appears  also  in  F.  sepulture, '  vault,' 
and  until  perhaps  a  century  ago  in  E.  sepulture, '  burial  place,'  when  this  meaning 
became  obsolete. 

This  paper  appears  in  full  in  Archivfiir  Lateinische  Lexicographic, 
vol.  xiii,  Heft  3. 

Adjourned  at  5.45  P.M. 

THIRD  SESSION. 

At  8  P.M.  the  members  of  the  Association  assembled  to  listen  to  the 
address  of  the  President,  Professor  C.  M.  Gayley,  of  the  University  of 
California,  on  the  subject,  "  What  is  Comparative  Literature?  "  The 
following  is  an  abstract  of  the  address,  which  has  appeared  in  full  in 
the  Atlantic  Monthly  for  July,  1903. 

Some  ten  years  ago,  I  made  bold  to  publish  a  plea  for  the  formation  of  a  So- 
ciety of  Comparative  Literature  ;  and  to  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  work 
which  such  a  society  might  perform  had  not  been  undertaken  by  any  English  or 
American  organization,  or  by  any  periodical  or  series  of  publications  in  the  Eng- 
lish language.  I  was  then  of  the  opinion,  which  I  still  hold,  that  the  principles 
of  literature  and  of  criticism  are  not  to  be  discovered  in  aesthetic  theory  alone, 
but  in  a  theory  which  both  impels  and  is  corrected  by  scientific  inquiry.  No 
individual  can  gather  from  our  many  literatures  the  materials  necessary  for  an 
induction  to  the  characteristic  of  even  one  literary  type;  but  an  association,  each 
member  of  which  should  devote  himself  to  the  study  of  a  given  type,  species, 
movement,  or  theme,  with  which  he  was  specially  and  at  first  hand  familiar, 
might  with  some  degree  of  adequacy  prosecute  a  comparative  investigation  into 
the  nature  of  literature,  part  by  part.  Thus,  gradually,  wherever  the  type  or 
movement  had  existed,  its  quality  and  history  might  be  observed.  And  in  time, 
by  systematization  of  results,  scholarship  might  attain  to  the  common,  and  prob- 
ably some  of  the  essential,  characteristics  of  classified  phenomena,  to  some  of  the 
laws  actually  governing  the  origin,  growth,  and  differentiation  of  one  and  another 
of  the  component  literary  factors  and  kinds.  A  basis  would  correspondingly  be 
laid  for  criticism  not  in  the  practice  of  one  nationality  or  school,  nor  in  aesthetics 
of  sporadic  theory,  otherwise  interesting  and  profitable  enough,  but  in  the  common 
qualities  of  literature,  scientifically  determined. 


Proceedings  for  December,  1902.  Ixxv 

That  dream  seems  now  in  a  fair  way  to  be  realized.  The  society  is  yet  to  he 
founded  ;  but  the  periodical  is  on  its  feet.  And  it  was  in  prospect  of  its  first 
appearance  that  I  asked  myself  some  months  ago,  what  this  term  "  Comparative 
Literature  "  might  now  mean  to  me.  Of  the  name  itself,  I  must  say  that  I  know 
of  no  occurrence  in  English  earlier  than  1886,  when  we  find  it  used  for  the  com- 
parative study  of  literature,  in  the  title  of  an  interesting  and  suggestive  volume 
by  Professor  H.  M.  Posnett.  The  designation  had  apparently  been  coined  in 
emulation  of  such  nomenclature  as  the  vergleichende  Grammatik  of  Bopp,  or 
Comparative  Anatomy,  Comparative  Physiology,  Comparative  Politics.  If  it  had 
been  so  constructed  as  to  convey  the  idea  of  a  discipline  or  method,  there 
would  have  been  no  fault  to  find.  Before  Posnett's  book  appeared,  Carriere  and 
others  in  Germany  had  spoken  properly  enough  of  vergleichende  Litteraturge- 
schichte ;  and  the  French  and  Italians,  not  only  of  the  comparative  method  or 
discipline,  Vkistoire  comparative,  but  also  of  the  materials  compared,  r/tisloire 
comparee  des  literatures,  la  storia  comparata,  or,  from  the  literary  avenue  of 
approach,  la  literature  comparee,  letteralura  comparata.  At  Turin  and  Genoa, 
the  study  had  been  listed  under  such  captions  long  before  the  English  misnomer 
was  coined.  Misnomer  it,  of  course,  is;  for  to  speak  of  a  comparative  object  is 
absurd.  But  since  the  name  has  some  show  of  asserting  itself,  we  may  as  well 
postpone  consideration  of  a  better,  till  we  have  more  fully  determined  what  the 
study  involved,  no  matter  how  called,  is  ordinarily  understood  to  be. 

It  is,  in  the  first  place,  understood  of  a  field  of  investigation,  —  the  literary 
relations  existing  between  distinct  nationalities :  the  study  of  international  bor- 
rowings, imitations,  adaptations.  And  to  recognize  such  relations  as  incidental 
to  national  growth  is  of  the  utmost  importance  —  social  as  well  as  literary. 
[Gaston  Paris,  Texte,  Arnold,  Goethe.]  This  attention  to  literary  relations  is,  of 
course,  the  consequent  of  the  study  of  literatures  as  national :  first  the  history 
of  each  literature;  then  the  historic  relations  between  literatures.  That  in  turn 
is  naturally  followed  by  the  synthesis  in  literature  as  a  unit.  "  The  nineteenth 
century,"  says  M.  Texte,  "  has  seen  the  national  history  of  literatures  develop  and 
establish  itself:  the  task  of  the  twentieth  century  will  undoubtedly  be  to  write 
the  comparative  history  of  those  literatures."  "  The  scientific  view  of  literature," 
says  Brandes,  "  provides  us  with  a  telescope  of  which  the  one  end  magnifies, 
and  the  other  diminishes;  it  must  be  so  focussed  as  to  remedy  the  illusions  of 
unassisted  eyesight.  The  different  nations  have  hitherto  held  themselves  so  dis- 
tinct, as  far  as  literature  is  concerned,  that  each  has  only  to  a  very  limited  extent 
been  able  to  benefit  by  the  productions  of  the  rest."  Here,  again,  the  way  had 
been  marked  out  by  Arnold,  when  he  advocated  the  comparison  of  literary  classics 
in  one  language,  or  in  many,  with  a  view  to  determining  their  relative  excellence, 
that  is,  to  displacing  personal  or  judicial  criticism  by  a  method  more  scientific. 
I  am  aware  that  this  conception  of  the  study  concerns  its  method  and  purpose 
rather  than  its  field.  But  I  mention  it  here  because  it  implies  a  more  compre- 
hensive and  deeper  conception  underlying  all  these  statements  of  the  material 
of  comparative  study:  the  solidarity  of  literature.  And  that  is  the  working 
premise  of  the  student  of  Comparative  Literature  to-day :  literature  as  a  distinct 
and  integral  medium  of  thought,  a  common  institutional  expression  of  humanity; 
differentiated,  to  be  sure,  by  the  social  conditions  of  the  individual,  by  racial, 
historical,  cultural,  and  linguistic  influences,  opportunities,  and  restrictions,  but 


Ixxvi  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast, 

(irrespective  of  age  or  guise),  prompted  by  the  common  needs  and  aspirations  of 
man,  sprung  from  common  faculties,  psychological  and  physiological,  and  obeying 
common  laws  of  material  and  mode,  of  the  individual,  and  of  social  humanity. 

From  this  conception  of  the  material  as  a  unit,  scholars  naturally  advance  to 
the  consideration  of  its  development,  the  construction  of  a  theory.  If  a  unity, 
and  an  existence  approximately  contemporaneous  with  that  of  society,  why  not 
a  life,  a  growth  ?  "  We  no  longer  have  to  examine  solely  the  relations  of  one 
nation  with  another,"  says  one,  "  but  to  unfold  the  simultaneous  development 
of  all  literatures,  or,  at  least,  of  an  important  group  of  literatures."  It  is  the  task 
of  Comparative  Literature,  according  to  another,  to  find  whether  the  same  laws  of 
literary  development  prevail  among  all  peoples  or  not.  The  internal  and  external 
aspects  of  literary  growth,  Mr.  Posnett  announces  to  be  the  objects  of  comparative 
inquiry;  and,  accepting  as  the  principle  of  literary  growth  the  progressive  deepen- 
ing and  widening  of  personality,  —  in  other  words,  the  contraction  and  expansion 
of  Arnold  andTexte,  —  with  the  development  of  the  social  unit  in  which  the  indi- 
vidual is  placed,  this  author  finds  a  corresponding  differentiation  of  the  literary 
medium  from  the  primitive  homogeneity  of  communal  art,  a  gradual  individilaliz- 
ing  of  the  literary  occasion  and  an  evolution  of  literary  forms.  Mr.  Posnett's  method 
is  perhaps  impaired  by  the  fact  that  he  regards  the  relation  of  literary  history  to 
the  political  rather  than  to  the  broader  social  development  of  a  people,  but  he 
certainly  elaborates  a  theory;  and  it  is  the  more  instructive  because  he  does  not 
treat  literature  as  organic,  developing  by  reason  of  a  life  within  itself  to  a  deter- 
mined end,  but  as  secondary  and  still  developing  with  the  evolution  of  the  organ- 
ism from  which  it  springs.  In  this  theory  of  institutional  growth  result  also  the 
methods  of  Buckle  and  Ernst  Grosse,  which  may  be  termed  physiological  and 
physiographical ;  and  the  physio-psychological  of  Schiller,  Spencer,  and  Karl 
Groos  ;  and  the  method  of  Irjo  Hirn,  which  combines  the  social  and  psychologi- 
cal in  the  inquiry  into  the  art  impulse  and  its  history;  and  that  of  Schlegel  and 
Carriere,  who,  emphasizing  one  side  of  Hegel's  theory,  rest  literary  development 
largely  upon  the  development  of  religious  thought.  In  M.  Brunetiere,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  have  one  who  boldly  announces  his  intention  to  trace  the  evolu- 
tion of  literary  species,  —  not  as  dependent  upon  the  life  of  an  organism  such  as 
society,  but  in  themselves.  He  frankly  proposes  to  discover  the  laws  of  literary 
development  by  applying  the  theory  of  evolution  to  the  study  of  literature.  When 
he  details  the  signs  of  youth,  maturity,  and  decay  which  the  type  may  exhibit,  and 
the  transformation  of  one  type  into  another  —  as,  for  instance,  the  French  pulpit 
oration  into  the  ode  —  according  to  principles  analogous  in  their  operation  to  the 
Darwinian  struggle  for  existence,  survival  of  the  fittest,  and  natural  selection,  we 
become  apprehensive  lest  the  parallel  be  overworked.  If  Brunetiere  would  only 
complete  the  national  portion  of  his  history,  or,  at  least,  try  to  substantiate  his 
theory,  we  should  be  grateful.  He  has,  however,  enunciated  one  of  the  problems 
with  which  Comparative  Literature  must  grapple,  and  is  grappling.  Does  the 
biological  principle  apply  to  literature  ?  If  not,  in  how  far  may  the  parallel  be 
scientifically  drawn? 

That  leads  us  to  still  a  third  conception  of  the  term  under  consideration. 
Comparative  Literature,  say  some,  is  not  a  subject-matter  nor  a  theory,  but  a 
method  of  study.  With  the  ancients  it  was  the  habit  of  roughly  matching 
authors.  The  method  has  existed  ever  since  there  were  two  pieces  of  literature 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  Ixxvii 

known  to  the  same  man,  it  has  persisted  through  the  Middle  Ages  and  the  Renais- 
sance, and  it  is  alive  to-day.  Its  merits  and  defects  are  those  of  the  man  who 
uses  it.  To  others  the  comparative  method  means  the  attempt  to  obtain  by 
induction  from  a  sufficient  variety  of  specimens  the  characteristics,  distinguishing 
marks,  principles,  even  laws  of  the  form,  movement,  type,  or  literature  under  dis- 
cussion. [Carriere,  Freytag,  Aristotle.]  In  the  discipline  under  consideration 
historical  sequence  is  just  as  important  as  comparison  by  cross  sections.  The 
science  is  called  "comparative  literary  history"  rather  than  "literature  com- 
pared "  by  French,  German,  and  Italian  scholars,  not  for  nothing.  The  historian 
who  searches  for  origins  or  stages  of  development  in  a  single  literature  may  employ 
the  comparative  method  as  much  as  he  who  zigzags  from  literature  to  literature ; 
and  so  the  student  whose  aim  is  to  establish  relations  between  literary  move- 
ment and  literary  movement,  between  author  and  author,  period  and  period, 
type  and  type,  movement  and  movement,  theme  and  theme,  contemporaneous  or 
successive  in  any  language,  nationality,  clime,  or  time.  The  comparison  is  not 
alone  between  diverse  national  literatures,  but  between  any  elements  involved  in 
the  history  of  literature,  or  any  stages  in  the  history  of  any  element.  There  have 
been,  within  my  own  knowledge,  those  who  would  confine  the  word  literature 
to  the  written  productions  of  civilized  peoples,  and  consequently  would  exclude 
from  consideration  aboriginal  attempts  at  verbal  art.  But  students  nowadays 
increasingly  recognize  that  the  cradle  of  literary  science  is  anthropology.  The 
comparative  method  therefore  sets  civilized  literatures  side  by  side  with  the 
popular,  traces  folklore  to  folklore,  and  these  so  far  as  possible  to  the  matrix  in 
the  undifferentiated  art  of  human  expression.  Such  is  "  Comparative  Literature  " 
when  used  of  the  work  of  the  Grimms,  Steinthal,  Comparetti,  Donovan,  Talvj,  or 
Ernst  Grosse.  The  term  is  also  properly  used  of  the  method  of  Taine,  which  in 
turn  derives  from  that  recommended  by  Hegel  in  the  first  volume  of  his  yEsthetik 
(the  appraisement  of  the  literary  work  in  relation  to  Zeit,  Volk,  und  Umgebung), 
and  of  the  method  of  Brunetiere  so  far  as  he  has  applied  it,  for  it  is  in  theory  the 
same,  save  that  it  purports  to  emphasize  the  consideration  of  the  element  of 
individuality.  But  that  the  method  is  susceptible  of  widely  varying  interpreta- 
tions is  illustrated  by  the  practice  of  still  another  advocate  thereof,  Professor 
Wetz,  who,  in  his  Shakespeare  front  the  Point  of  View  of  Comparative  Literary 
History,  of  1890,  and  in  his  essay  on  the  history  of  literature,  insists  that  Com- 
parative Literature  is  neither  the  literary  history  of  one  people,  nor  investigations 
in  international  literary  history;  neither  the  study  of  literary  beginnings,  nor 
even  the  attempt  to  obtain  by  induction  the  characteristics  of  Weltlitteratur,  its 
movements  and  types.  While  he  accepts  the  analytical  critical  method  of  Taine 
in  combination  with  the  historical  and  psychological  of  Herder,  Goethe,  and 
Schiller,  he  insists  that  the  function  of  Comparative  Literature  is  to  determine 
the  peculiarities  of  an  author  by  comparison  with  those  of  some  other  author 
sufficiently  analogous. 

A  survey  of  courses  offered  in  European  and  American  universities  and  of  the 
practice  of  our  American  philological  journals  and  associations  shows  that  the  aca- 
demic conception  is  as  I  have  stated  it :  Comparative  Literature  works  in  the  history 
of  national  as  well  as  of  international  conditions,  it  employs,  more  or  less  promi- 
nently, the  comparative  method,  logical  and  historical,  it  presupposes,  and  results 
in,  a  conception  of  literature  as  a  solidarity,  and  it  seeks  to  formulate  and  sub- 


Ixxviii  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

stantiate  a  theory  of  literary  development  whether  by  evolution  or  permutation,  in 
movements,  types,  and  themes.  With  these  main  considerations  it  is  but  natural 
that  scholars  should  associate  the  attempt  to  verify  and  systematize  the  charac- 
teristics common  to  literature  in  its  various  manifestations  wherever  found ;  to 
come  by  induction,  for  instance,  at  the  eidographic  or  generic  qualities  of  poetry, 
—  the  characteristics  of  the  drama,  epic,  or  lyric  ;  at  the  dynamic  qualities,  those 
which  characterize  and  differentiate  the  main  literary  movements,  such  as  the 
classical  and  romantic  ;  and  at  the  thematic,  the  causes  of  persistence  and  modi- 
fication in  the  history  of  vital  subjects,  situations,  and  plots.  As  to  the  growth, 
or  development,  of  literature  our  survey  shows  that  two  distinct  doctrines  contend 
for  acceptance :  one,  by  evolution,  which  is  an  attempt  to  interpret  literary  pro- 
cesses in  accordance  with  biological  laws ;  the  other,  by  what  I  prefer  to  call 
permutation.  Since  literature,  like  its  material,  language,  is  not  an  organism,  but 
a  resultant  medium,  both  product  and  expression  of  the  society  whence  it  springs, 
the  former  theory  must  be  still  in  doubt.  It  can  certainly  not  be  available  other- 
wise than  metaphorically  unless  it  be  substantiated  by  just  such  methods — com- 
parative and  scientific  —  as  those  of  which  we  have  spoken. 

How  much  of  this  is  new,  of  the  nineteenth  century,  for  instance  ?  Very  little 
in  theory;  much,  and  that  important,  in  discipline  and  fact.  The  solidarity  of 
literature  was  long  ago  announced  by  Bacon.  And  he  was  not  the  only  fore- 
runner of  the  present  movement.  In  one  way  or  another  the  solidarity  of  litera- 
ture, the  theories  of  permutation  or  of  evolution,  sometimes  crudely,  sometimes 
with  keen  scientific  insight,  were  anticipated  by  Englishmen,  Germans,  French- 
men, Italians  of  note  all  the  way  from  Dante,  Scaliger,  and  Sidney  down.  [A 
list  of  such  writers  and  their  main  contributions  to  the  science.]  This  cloud  of 
witnesses  is  not  produced,  however,  to  discredit,  but  to  confirm  the  scope  and 
hope  of  the  so-called  Comparative  Literature  of  to-day.  They  testify  to  the  need 
of  a  science  in  the  nature  of  things.  They  perform  their  service  by  anticipations 
in  detail  of  a  discipline  that  could  not  be  designated  a  science  until  the  sciences 
propaedeutic  thereto  had  been  developed.  Advances  in  historical  method,  in 
psychological,  sociological,  linguistic,  and  ethnological  research  have,  now,  fur- 
nished the  discipline  with  an  instrument  unknown  to  its  forbears  in  critical  pro- 
cedure; and  with  fresh  and  rich  materials  for  illumination  from  without.  The 
conception  of  literature  as  a  unit  is  no  longer  hypothetical;  the  comparison  of 
national  histories  has  proved  it.  The  idea  of  a  process  by  evolution  may  be 
unproved;  but  that  some  process,  as  by  permutation,  must  obtain  is  recognized. 
\Ve  no  longer  look  upon  the  poet  as  inspired.  Literature  develops  with  the 
entity  which  produces  it,  —  the  common  social  need  and  faculty  of  expression; 
and  it  varies  according  to  differentia  of  racial,  physiographic,  and  social  condi- 
tions, and  of  the  inherited  or  acquired  characteristics  of  which  the  individual 
author  is  constituted.  The  science  of  its  production  must  analyze  its  component 
factors  and  determine  the  laws  by  which  they  operate.  By  a  constant  factor  are 
fixed  the  only  possible  moulds  or  channels  of  expression,  and,  therefore,  the 
integral  and  primary  types,  as,  for  instance,  within  the  realm  of  poetry,  the  lyric, 
narrative,  and  dramatic.  By  the  presence  of  other  factors,  both  inconstant,  these 
types  are  themselves  liable  to  modification.  I  refer,  of  course,  to  environment, 
that  is  to  say,  to  the  antecedent  and  contemporary  condition  of  thought,  social 
tendency,  and  artistic  fashion  ;  and  to  the  associational  congeries  called  the 


Proceedings  for  December,  1902.  Ixxix 

author.  So  far  as  physiological  and  psychological  modes  of  expression  may  be 
submitted  to  objective  and  historical  analysis,  so  far  as  the  surrounding  conditions 
which  directly  or  indirectly  affect  the  art  in  which  the  author  works,  and  the  work 
of  the  author  in  that  art,  may  be  inductively  studied,  and  their  nature  interpreted 
and  registered  in  relation  to  other  products  of  society,  such  as  language,  religion, 
and  government,  so  far  is  the  discipline  of  which  we  speak  legitimately  scientific. 
And  as  rapidly  as  experimental  psychology,  anthropology,  ethnology,  or  the  history 
of  art  in  general,  prove  their  right  to  scientific  recognition,  they  become  instru- 
ments for  the  comparative  investigation  of  the  social  phenomenon  called  litera- 
ture. It  is  thus  that  the  literary  science,  just  now  called  Comparative  Literature, 
improves  upon  the  efforts  of  the  former  stylistic  or  poetics,  largely  traditional  or 
speculative,  and  displaces  the  capricious  matching  of  authors,  the  static  or  pro- 
vincial view  of  history,  and  the  appraisement  lacking  atmosphere. 

While  this  science  must  exclude  from  the  object  under  consideration  the  purely 
subjective  element,  and  the  speculative  or  so-called  "judicial"  (tne  judice) 
method  from  criticism  and  history,  it  need  not  ignore  or  disregard  the  unex- 
plained, quantity,  —  the  imaginative.  Its  aim  will  be  to  explore  the  hitherto 
unexplained  in  the  light  of  historical  sequence  and  scientific  cause  and  effect, 
physical,  biological,  psychological,  or  anthropological,  to  reduce  the  apparently 
unreasonable  or  magical  element,  and  so  to  leave  continually  less  to  be  treated 
in  the  old-fashioned  inspirational  and  ecstatic  manner.  We  shall  simply  cease 
to  confound  the  science  with  the  art.  The  more  immediate  advantages  of  the 
prosecution  of  literary  research  in  such  a  way  as  this  are  an  ever-increasing 
knowledge  of  the  factors  that  enter  into  world-literature  and  determine  its 
growth,  —  its  reasons,  conditions,  movements,  and  tendencies,  in  short,  its  laws ; 
and  a  poetics  capable  not  only  of  detecting  the  historical,  but  of  appreciating 
the  social  accent  in  what  is  foreign  and  too  often  despised,  or  contemporary  and 
too  often  overpraised  if  not  ignored.  The  new  science  of  literature  will  in  turn 
/throw  light  upon  that  which  gave  it  birth ;  it  will  prove  an  index  to  the  evo- 
lution of  soul  in  the  individual  and  in  society;  it  will  interpret  that  sphinx, 
national  consciousness  or  the  spirit  of  the  race,  or,  mayhap,  destroy  it.  It  will 
in  one  case  and  in  all  assist  a  science  of  comparative  ethics. 

What  shall  this  science  of  literature  be  called,  since  the  name  which  it  has  is 
malformed  and  misleading  ?  If  it  were  not  for  traditional  prejudice,  the  term 
stylistic  should  be  recognized  as  of  scientific  quality,  and  it  should  cover  the  his- 
tory as  well  as  the  theory  of  all  kinds  of  writing.  .  .  .  The  old  stylistic  is  limited 
by  tradition,  by  its  speculative  quality,  and  by  that  well-worn  and  slippery  dictum 
of  Buffon,  —  style  is  of  the  individual.  What  is  called  Comparative  Literature 
has,  on  the  other  hand,  brought  to  the  study  of  all  kinds  of  writing  a  scientific 
objectivity  and  the  historical  method.  It  has  taken  up  into  itself  what  is  objec- 
tive and  historical  of  the  older  stylistic :  it  aims  to  reject  or  confirm  former  theo- 
ries, but  on  purely  scientific  grounds.  It  is  the  transition  from  stylistic  to  a 
science  of  literature  which  shall  still  find  room  for  aesthetics,  but  for  aesthetics 
properly  so  called,  developed,  checked,  and  corrected  by  scientific  procedure 
and  by  history. 

Without  our  modern  psychology,  anthropology,  linguistics,  and  the  compara- 
tive sciences  of  society,  religion,  and  art,  literature  could  be  studied  neither  in 
relation  to  its  antecedents  nor  to  its  components.  Otherwise  our  study  would 


Ixxx  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

long  ago  have  been  known  as  comparative  philology,  a  name  improperly  usurped 
by  a  younger  branch  of  the  philological  discipline.  Such  indeed  is  the  name 
by  which  Professor  Whitney  would  have  called  the  comparative  study  of  the 
literatures  of  different  countries  had  the  discipline  been  prosecuted  as  a  science 
when  he  wrote.  Comparative  Literature  is  a  reamrmation  of  that  aspect  of 
philology  —  the  literary  —  which,  both  because  it  was  eclipsed  by,  and  dependent 
upon,  the  development  of  linguistics,  has  long  ceased  to  be  regarded  as  philology 
at  all ;  save  in  Germany,  where  philological  seminars  have  dealt  not  only  with 
the  phonology  and  history  of  language  as  they  asserted  themselves,  but  also  as 
of  old  with  whatever  concerns  the  literary  side  of  language  as  an  expression  of 
the  national,  or  more  broadly  human  spirit.  Since  all  study  of  origins  and 
growth,  whether  of  one  phenomenon  or  more  than  one,  must  be  comparative 
if  scientifically  conducted,  it  is  not  necessary  to  characterize  the  literary  science, 
of  which  we  speak,  by  that  particular  adjective.  More  methods  than  the  com- 
parative enter  into  it,  and  it  is  more  than  a  method ;  it  is  a  theory  of  relativity 
and  of  growth;  and  its  material  is  vertically  as  well  as  horizontally  disposed. 
The  Comparative  Literature  of  to-day,  based  upon  the  sciences  of  which  I  have 
spoken  and  conducted  in  the  scientific  method,  is  literary  philology  —  nothing 
more  nor  less ;  it  stands  over  against  linguistic  philology  or  glottology,  and  it 
deals  genetically,  historically,  and  comparatively  with  literature  as  a  solidarity 
and  as  a  product  of  the  social  individual,  whether  the  point  of  view  be  national 
or  universal.  The  new  discipline  is  already  the  property  and  method  of  all 
scientific  research  in  all  literatures,  ancient  or  modern,  not  only  in  their  com- 
mon but  in  their  individual  relations  to  the  social  spirit  in  which  they  live  and 
move  and  have  their  being.  The  more  we  develop  what  now  is  called  Compara- 
tive Literature,  the  more  rapidly  will  each  literature  in  turn  seek  its  explanation 
in  Literary  Philology. 

FOURTH  SESSION 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  Dec.  20,  1902. 

The  Fourth  Session  was  called  to  order  at  9.45  A.M.  and  the 
reading  of  papers  was  continued. 

10.  The  Poetica  of  Ram6n  de  Campoamor;  Is  the  Dolora  a  new 
Literary  Type  ?  By  Mr.  Samuel  A.  Chambers,  of  the  University  of 
California. 

Campoamor  (1817-1901)  followed  politics  as  a  career,  for  literature  is  not  such 
in  Spain  at  the  present  time.  He  called  himself  a  Conservative  and  as  such  held 
all  the  important  government  offices  except  that  of  Prime  Minister. 

He  called  himself  also  catolico  invariable,  though  the  tendency  of  his  whole 
work  is  to  undermine  the  foundations  of  religious  faith.     He  really  had  no  pro- 
found political  or  religious  belief.     One  could  scarcely  expect  it  in  the  man.  to 
whom  the  world  was  suefio  and  ilusidn  and  who  could  write :  — 
"Y  es  que  en  el  mundo  traidor 
Nada  hay  Verdad  ni  Mentira. 
Todo  es  segun  el  color 
Del  cristal  con  que  se  mira." 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  Ixxxi 

He  was  fundamentally  a  lyric  poet,  and  the  tendency  to  look  below  the  surface 
of  things  is  the  distinguishing  feature  of  his  mind.  This  Conservative  and  Cath- 
olic was  a  Revolutionary  in  literature. 

His  works  consist  of  some  twelve  volumes  of  political  speeches,  metaphysics, 
and  poetry.  Those  which  concern  us  here  are  his  Poetica,  in  which  he  defends 
his  theory  of  poetry,  and  the  Doloras,  Pequenos  Poemas,  and  Humoradas,  in  which 
he  exemplifies  it. 

According  to  the  Poetica  the  originality  of  a  poet  consists  only  in  the  moral  or 
intellectual  purpose  which  his  poem  suggests.  It  is  not  the  business  of  the  poet 
to  produce  new  ideas.  Leave  that  to  the  scholars.  He  must  simply  produce  a 
conjunto  artistico,  no  matter  whence  come  the  pensamientos  aislados ;  they  are  his 
property,  and  he  takes  them  wherever  he  finds  them,  as  did  Moliere. 

A  poem,  then,  must 

1.  Be  founded  on  some  ruling  or  generating  idea,  idea  de  relleno,  which  must 
attempt  to  solve  some  problem  of  the  day. 

2.  Be  in  dramatic  or,  at  least,  colloquial  form. 

3.  Be  written  in  language  as  nearly  like  the  prose  of  conversation  as  is  con- 
sistent with  rhyme  and  rhythm. 

4.  Suggest  some  general  transcendental  truth. 

Poetry  is  not  an  arte  docente  like  Metaphysics  and  Didactics,  which  are  syste- 
matic; it  is  an  arte- transcendents  which  is  merely  suggestive.  This  suggestiveness 
is  the  essence  of  true  poetry. 

The  difficulty  of  Campoamor's  art  consists  in  making  evident  an  order  of  ab- 
stract ideas  under  tangible  and  animate  forms.  This  he  attempted  first  in  the 
Fabulas,  which  date  from  1842.  This  type  he  soon  abandoned  for  the  Dolora  as 
being  less  artificial. 

A  Dolora,  according  to  Revilla,  is  "  Una  composicion  poetica  de  forma  epica  6 
dramatica,  y  de  fondo  h'rico,  que,  en  tono  a  la  vez  ligero  y  melancolico,  exprese 
un  pensamiento  transcendental."  The  term  is  subjective  and  is  taken  from  the 
dolor  that  one  must  feel  if  he  examine  profoundly  any  human  thing.  The  Humo- 
radas  are  generally  couplets  or  quatrains  and  lack  the  colloquial  character 
necessary  to  the  Doloras.  The  Pequenos  Poemas  are  more  ample  and  consist  often 
of  four  or  five  cantos.  Campoamor's  claim  is  that  he  renewed  Spanish  poetry  both 
in  content  and  in  form;  the  content  in  the  Dolora  by  giving  a  meaning  to  a  poem; 
the  form  in  the  Pequeno  Poema  by  substituting  for  the  stilted  culto  style,  the  easy, 
natural  language  of  everyday  life. 

Campoamor's  classification  is  not  exhaustive.  He  himself  admits  that  there  is 
a  school  of  poetry  which  deals  with  the  mds  acd  de  las  cosas,  whose  adherents 
have  written  many  fine  descriptive  and  narrative  poems,  but  which  are  merely  de- 
scriptive and  narrative.  His  claim  is  that  the  Dolora  in  its  three  forms  is  suffi- 
cient for  the  true  poet  to  express  himself  fully  regarding  the  mds  alld  de  las  cosas. 

But,  after  all,  Campoamor  has  not  faun-led  a  new  literary  type.  Numberless 
poets  have  written  Humoradas  under  the  names  of  epitaphs,  epigrams,  couplets, 
and  quatrains.  Many  others  have  written  Pequenos  Poemas  —  poems  with  an 
underlying  idea.  De  Vigny's  La  Bouteille  a  la  mer  is  not  different  from  La  Lira 
Rota  even  to  the  drawing  of  the  conclusion  at  the  end.  If  the  expression  of 
dolor  is  the  test,  De  Vigny's  and  Heine's  and  Leopardi's  work  is  full  of  it.  If  sug- 
gestion is  the  test,  the  Symbolists  have  written  volumes  of  these  poems,  and  these 


Ixxxii  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

same  symbolists  show  all  the  freedom  of  the  style  of  the  Pequeiios  Poemas.  What 
is  original  in  Campoamor  is  his  manner.  The  Pequefios  Poemas  are  in  a  sense 
unique,  and  it  is  just  for  this  reason  that  they  are  not  types.  His  genius  takes  the 
form  of  this  philosophic  poetry  just  as  did  De  Vigny's.  This  statement  is  borne 
out  by  the  fact  that  his  Coldn,  a  so-called  epic,  is  as  much  a  Dolora  as  anything 
he  wrote,  and  his  so-called  dramas  are  really  Doloras  as  well. 

The  Doloras  are  not  a  new  type  any  more  than  were  Lamartine's  Meditations, 
Hugo's  Contemplations,  or  De  Vigny's  Destinees.  It  is  a  new  and  subjective 
nomenclature  which  has  supplanted  the  old  objective  names  such  as  ballad,  ode, 
sonnet,  satire  —  one  which  betrays  the  lyric  character  of  the  work.  This  lyric 
character  indicates  a  reaction  against  the  schools  of  "  art  for  art's  sake,"  Parnas- 
sianism  in  France,  Culteranism  in  Spain.  Campoamor  has  much  in  common 
with  his  fellow-reactionists  the  Symbolists  in  France,  though  he  preceded  them, 
and  certainly  was  not  influenced  by  them  in  any^  way  even  in  his  later  years. 

This  paper  was  discussed  by  Professors  Goebel  and  Gayley. 


ii.  The  Citizenship  of  Aristophanes,  by  Professor  A.  T.  Murray, 
of  the  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 

The  sources  at  our  command  for  treating  of  the  life  of  Aristophanes  are 
neither  many  nor  satisfactory.  There  are  two  anonymous  Greek  lives  of  some 
length  but  of  little  critical  value,  being,  in  fact,  but  a  longer  and  a  shorter  ver- 
sion of  the  same;  a  third  brief  life  is  found  in  the  Bodleian  scholia  on  Plato 
(Apology,  19  c);  a  fourth  in  one  of  the  anonymous  writers,  irepl  Kta/jupdlas  (III. 
I,  47  ff.,  Diibner);  another  comes  from  Thomas  Magister;  and  there  is  a  brief 
notice  in  Suidas.  To  these  we  must  add  scattered  notices  in  the  Aristophanic 
scholia  and  the  hypotheses  prefixed  to  the  various  plays,  the  possible  allusions 
to  the  poet  or  to  his  works  in  the  fragments  of  the  other  comedians,  and,  as  our 
ultimate  authority,  the  plays  themselves. 

Among  the  most  interesting  questions  which  are  involved  in  such  a  study  are 
those  concerning  the  poet's  citizenship  and  the  charge  of  £cvla  said  to  have  been 
brought  against  him  by  Kleon. 

The  statements  in  the  sources  are  as  follows:  the  vita  (both  versions),  the 
Anonymus,  and  Thomas  Magister  state  explicitly  that  the  poet  was  an  Athenian, 
adding  the  name  of  his  father,  the  tribe,  and  the  deme  (the  last  two  are  omitted 
by  the  Anonymus,  and  the  shorter  vita  omits  the  tribe.  This  is,  however,  of  no 
importance,  as  the  deme  is  given).  Suidas  gives  Rhodes  (Lindos  or  Kameiros) 
or  Egypt  as  the  poet's  birthplace,  and  the  latter  statement  is  echoed  by  the 
scholiast  on  Nub.  272  and  by  Athenaios,  VI.  229  e,  quoting  Heliodoros.  The 
statement  that  Kleon  lodged  against  the  poet  a  ypa<f>i)  j-evlas  is  made  in  both 
versions  of  the  vita,  and,  in  connection  with  it,  we  are  told  that  some  held  him 
to  be  a  Rhodian.  In  the  longer  version  the  tradition  that  either  Aristophanes 
or  his  father  was  an  Aiginetan  is  mentioned  in  the  same  connection.  The  ypa<j>i] 
feWai  is  mentioned  also  in  the  scholiast  on  Acharn.  378. 

No  weight  is,  of  course,  to  be  attached  to  the  wild  guesses  given  above,  but 
that  they  were  ever  made  raises  a  question  which  may  not  be  disregarded.  The 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  Ixxxiii 

most  natural  explanation  is  afforded  by  the  tradition  regarding  the  charge  of 
£eWa  brought  against  the  poet  by  Kleon.  If  the  charge  was  really  preferred, 
whatever  we  assume  its  outcome  to  have  been,  it  was  but  natural  that  all  sorts 
of  statements  and  guesses  regarding  the  poet's  birthplace  should  be  made. 
Most  of  the  places  mentioned  are  known  as  centres  of  phallic  worship;  it  is 
hard  to  see  any  other  connection  between  Aristophanes  and  any  of  them,  with 
the  exception  of  Aigina. 

Of  the  documents  bearing  upon  the  life  of  Aristophanes  the  vita,  unsatisfactory 
as  it  is,  is  unquestionably  the  most  important;  and,  of  the  two  versions,  the 
longer  seems  to  be  the  more  deserving  of  credence.  Now  the  vita  contains  these 
explicit  statements:  Aristophanes  was  an  Athenian  citizen;  he  was  charged  by 
Kleon  with  being  an  alien;  and  this  charge,  in  the  opinion  of  some,  at  least,  was 
based  upon  a  real,  or  imagined,  connection  on  the  part  of  the  poet,  or  his  father, 
with  Aigina.  These  statements  are  entirely  compatible  with  one  another,  nor  does 
there  seem  to  be  valid  ground  for  discrediting  any  one  of  them.  True,  Kleon's 
ypa.<t>rj  i-evlas  is  regarded  as  a  myth  by  Miiller-Striibing  and  Briel,  and  we  may 
grant  that  the  charge  was  a  very  common  one,  flung  by  the  comedians  at  one 
another,  at  cotemporary  tragic  or  dithyrambic  poets,  or  at  men  in  public  life 
(Theramenes,  Kleophon,  Kleon  himself),  and  it  may,  often  enough,  have  had 
no  basis  in  fact.  But,  in  the  case  of  Aristophanes,  we  are  not  dealing  with  an 
isolated  passage  in  comedy  or  with  what  may  be  a  guess  on  the  part  of  the 
scholiast.  We  have  the  explicit  statement  in  the  vita,  —  a  statement  in  entire 
harmony  with  what  we  know  from  other  sources  of  the  relations  subsisting 
between  the  poet  and  Kleon,  and  one  that  is  repeated  in  the  scholium  on 
Acharn.  378  ;  we  have  apparent  allusions  to  this  suit  in  the  comic  fragments ; 
and  we  have  the  Aigina  passage  in  the  parabasis  of  the  Acharnenses.  Moreover, 
it  is  far  more  reasonable  to  assume  that  the  tradition  of  the  charge  of  i-evta  gave 
rise  to  the  vague  guesses  as  to  the  poet's  birthplace,  than  that  it  was  itself  an 
outgrowth  from  them. 

The  passages  in  the  comic  fragments  which  have  been  assumed,  with  more  or 
less  plausibility,  to  refer  to  this  question,  must  now  be  examined,  (i)  Eupolis 
fr.  357  K.  This,  despite  M  tiller- Striibing  and  Zielinski,  seems  clearly  to  be  aimed 
at  Aristophanes.  It  does  not  prove  the  poet  an  alien,  but  it  makes  it  probable 
that  there  was  something  in  his  antecedents  which  made  it  easy  for  a  bitter,  per- 
sonal foe  to  harp  upon  the  theme  —  that  is,  it  strongly  corroborates  the  tradition 
regarding  the  ypa.</>^  %evlas.  (2)  Plato  fr.  100  K;  Aristonymos  fr.  4  K;  Arheipsias 
fr.  28  K;  Sannyrio  fr.  5  K.  All  of  these  (see  the  sources,  Diibner,  XI.  13;  XII. 
II;  XIII.  9)  applied  to  Aristophanes  the  proverb,  rer/wlSi  yeyovds,  as  to  one 
born  on  the  natal  day  of  Herakles,  and  so  forced,  like  him,  to  labor,  while 
others  enjoyed  the  fruits  of  his  labor.  This,  of  course,  has  reference  to  the  poet's 
practice  of  bringing  out  his  plays  under  the  names  of  others,  and  need  have  no 
reference  to  the  question  of  his  citizenship.  (3)  Plato  fr.  99  K.  This,  while  of 
doubtful  interpretation,  leads  to  the  same  conclusions  as  the  passages  just  men- 
tioned. (4)  Kratinos  fr.  324  c  K.  Here  it  seems  not  unlikely  that  Aristophanes 
is  alluded  to  under  the  name  3<^ioj.  (5)  Telekleides  fr.  43  K.  Here  there  is  no 
ground  for  the  assumption  (van  Leeuwen)  that  Aristophanes  is  alluded  to. 

According  to  the  vita,  Aristophanes  was  triumphantly  acquitted,  but  the  lan- 
guage seems  plainly  exaggerated.  To  me  it  is  clear  that  he  won  the  suit  (there 


Ixxxiv  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

is  no  hint  of  the  contrary,  and  certainly  the  passages  cited  above  do  not  prove 
it),  but  it  may  well  have  been  by  a  small  margin,  since  his  rivals  were  so  unwill- 
ing to  let  the  matter  drop. 

It  is  in  the  highest  degree  important  to  date,  if  possible,  the  preferment  of  the 
charge.  Following  the  statements  of  the  longer  vita  and  of.  the  scholiast  on 
Acharn.  378,  we  should,  without  hesitation,  place  it  between  the  production  of 
the  Babylonii  and  that  of  the  Acharnenses.  It  is,  in  both,  brought  into  connec- 
tion with  the  suit  which  resulted  from  the  production  of  the  former  play.  The 
shorter  vita,  however,  seems  to  put  the  charge  after  the  production  of  the 
Equites ;  and  this  is  the  opinion  of  many  scholars.  This  view  sees  in  the  ypa<f>i) 
£evias  a  counter  attack  by  the  angry  demagogue,  and  is  not  in  itself  unlikely; 
it  must,  however,  be  given  up  if  the  suit  is  alluded  to  in  the  Acharnenses.  That 
this  is  the  case  I  hold  most  strongly,  and  the  evidence  for  it  must  new  be  exam- 
ined. This  involves  a  study  of  the  passages  in  the  Acharnenses  in  which  the 
preceding  play  and  the  troubles  growing  out  of  its  presentation  are  alluded  to, 
and  also  of  the  relations  subsisting  between  Aristophanes  and  the  men  in  whose 
names  most  of  his  plays  were  brought  out.  The  results  alone  can  be  given  in 
this  abstract,  and  these  with  the  greatest  brevity. 

That  Kallistratos,  as  the  official  SiSdtricaXos  of  the  Babylonii,  could  alone  be 
haled  into  court  appears  certain.  None  the  less  I  hold  it  equally  certain  that 
Aristophanes  was  known  to  be  the  author,  and  hence  that  allusions  to  his  own 
work,  or  to  his  own  experiences,  may  not  only  be  accepted,  but  are  actually  to 
be  looked  for.  Briel's  conclusions,  while  perhaps  logical,  are  impossible ;  and 
those  who  maintain  that  Aristophanes  alone  was  attacked  disregard  entirely 
Kallistratos's  official  position  and  the  important  scholium  on  Vesp.  1284.  That 
suit  was  brought  against  any  one  was  due,  not  to  a  law  restricting  the  license  of 
comedy,  but  to  the  special  circumstances  in  this  case.  Aristophanes  had  dared, 
in  426  B.C.,  the  year  after  the  reduction  and  punishment  of  Mytilene,  to  produce 
(5i&  KaXXwrpdTou)  at  the  City  Dionysia,  and  so  vap6vrwv  T&V  j-tvwv,  a  play 
representing  the  allies  as  ground  down  by  Athens.  This  savored  of  high  treason; 
it  could  not  be  allowed  to  pass  unnoticed;  and  the  assumption  is  an  easy  one 
that,  failing  to  convict  on  the  elvayyeXia,  or  perhaps  failing  to  reach  the  poet, 
Kleon  had  recourse,  also,  to  the  ypa<pi)  £evlas.  Objections  to  the  view  that  Kleon 
would  prefer  a  second  charge  seem  to  me  to  lack  cogency. 

An  examination  of  the  passages  in  which  Aristophanes  refers  to  his  own  early 
activity  as  a  poet  (Eq.  512  ff.,  541  ff.;  Nub.  530  ff.;  Vesp.  1015  ff.;  Pac.  748  ff.) 
leads  to  the  view  that,  beginning  while  very  young,  the  poet  felt  himself,  at  the 
outset,  unequal  to  the  task  of  training  his  chorus,  and  therefore  sought  the  help 
of  an  older  and  more  practised  hand.  Whether  or  not  the  name  of  the  poet  was 
known  from  the  start  cannot  be  proved.  Three  years  later,  full  of  hatred  against 
Kleon,  smarting,  in  my  opinion,  from  the  -ypa^T)  £evfas  and  the  taunts  which  this 
may  have  called  forth  from  his  rivals,  elated,  too,  by  the  success  of  the  Acharnen- 
ses, he  brought  out  the  Equites  in  his  own  name,  and,  after  that,  it  is  inconceiv- 
able that  any  one  doubted  the  authorship  of  the  succeeding  plays.  This,  however, 
does  not  help  us  in  regard  to  the  Acharnenses.  Yet  the  wdXat  of  Eq.  513  is  apt 
only  if  the  poet  was  known  to  have  produced  plays  before;  and  it  is  not  easy  to 
see  how  the  trouble  growing  out  of  the  production  of  the  Babylonii  could  have 
failed  to  make  clear  the  relationship  between  the  two  men.  There  remains  the 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  Ixxxv 

a  priori  difficulty,  not  to  say  impossibility,  of  assuming  that  Aristophanes  would 
write  such  a  play,  referring  throughout  to  another  than  himself. 

Of  especial  interest  are  the  following  passages:  Acharn.  377  ff.;  496  ff.; 
300  f.;  H5off.;  628-664.  (0  377  ^  Knowing  that  the  el<rayyf\ta  was,  in 
all  probability,  directed  against  Kallistratos,  we  should  naturally  refer  this  pas- 
sage to  him  in  its  entirety.  That  the  poet  speaks  thus  in  trimeters  is,  of  course, 
unusual;  yet  cf.  Kratinos  fr.  307  K,  Pkto  fr.  107  K.  The  difficulty  is  lessened  if 
we  assume  that  Kallistratos  was  not  only  5i5da/caXos,  but  also  protagonist  (von 
Ranke,  Schrader).  Then  we  should  have  a  case  where  the  actor  tears  off  the 
mask  and  speaks  in  propria  persona.  The  opposite  view,  that  Aristophanes,  not 
Kallistratos,  was  the  speaker,  has  also  found  defenders;  but.  when  we  come  to 
the  parabasis,  we  shall  see  good  reasons  for  the  assumption  that  Aristophanes 
was  coryphaeus,  not  protagonist.  (2)  496  ff.  This  plainly  refers  only  to  the 
clffayytXla.  It  therefore  concerns  Kallistratos,  whether  or  not  we  assume  that 
he  was  the  actual  speaker,  rpvyydlav  iroiuv  is  not  to  be  pushed.  It  means  little 
more  than  tv  Kupudiq.,  and  there  is  no  insuperable  difficulty  in  assuming  that  it 
was  said  by  one  who  was  not  the  poet.  (3)  300  f.  Here  is  plainly  an  announce- 
ment of  the  poet's  intention  of  attacking  Kleon  in  a  forthcoming  play,  and  that 
in  reliance  on  the  aristocratic  iiririjs.  The  reference  to  Aristophanes  himself  is 
undeniable  (Schrader's  objections  have  little  force)  and  must  have  been  clear  to 
a  large  portion  Of  the  audience.  As  the  chorus  is  the  poet's  proper  mouth- 
piece, we  need  not  from  this  passage  conclude  that  Aristophanes  was  coryphaeus, 
although  that  is  not  unlikely.  (4)  1150  ft  This  passage  would  be  an  important 
one  if  the  old  interpretation  were  tenable;  see,  however,  Cobet,  O6s.  Crit.  p.  34  f. 
(5)  628-664.  Here  we  have,  at  the  outset,  language  which  can  refer  only  to 
Kallistratos.  Aristophanes  had  produced  but  two  (possibly  three)  plays,  and 
those  under  the  name  of  another  (others?),  and  moreover  was  not,  and  could 
not  be  called  o  St5d(r»caXos  T)fj.u>v.  The  irdXeu  of  Eq.  513  is  a  partial  answer  to 
the  first  objection  ;  to  the  second  there  is  no  answer.  rpvytfSlav  troiuv  might  be 
said  of  actor  who  was  not -poet,  but  Si3d<r/caXos  is  a  terminus  technicus.  In  what 
follows  the  reference  seems  equally  clear:  it  is  to  the  elffayyeXia  in  which  Kallis- 
tratos was  defendant,  not  Aristophanes.  Yet  note  the  answer :  <f>i)fflv  d'  eivau 
TroXXiDj'  dya.6Qv  dfios  vfuv  6  ironjrijs.  Then  follows  a  rehearsal  of  the  benefits 
conferred  upon  the  state  by  the  poet,  as  seen  in  the  attitude  of  the  allies,  the 
great  king,  and  the  Lakedaimonians.  The  last  are  even  offering  peace  and 
demanding  Aigina,  not  that  they  care  for  the  island,  but  with  a  view  to  depriving 
Athens  of  the  poet.  "  But  do  not  you  give  him  up,"  says  the  chorus;  and  then 
follows  the  pnigos :  irpot  ravra  KXtwv  KT\. 

The  whole  passage  is  beset  with  difficulties.  It  begins  with  St8d<r»caXos, 
changes  to  iroojTifc,  and  culminates  in  the  first  person.  Does  this  refer  only 
to  Kallistratos?  only  to  Aristophanes?  or  is  it  to  be  divided  between  the  two? 
The  language  of  other  parabases  does  not  help  us.  Most  nearly  parallel  is  that 
of  the  Pax,  where  we  begin  with  the  third  person  (6  SiSda/coXos  i)/j.uv)  and  after- 
wards have  the  first.  Aristophanes  alone  is,  however,  referred  to,  and  he  was  the 
3t5d<r/caXos  (despite  van  Leeuwen).  Light  is,  however,  thrown  upon  the  problem 
by  the  Aigina  passage  (652  ff.).  This,  with  its  astonishing  statement  that  the 
Lakedaimonians  are  making  overtures  of  peace  (in  425  B.C.!),  deserves  special 
consideration.  To  see  in  this  merely  a  reference  to  the  actual  demands  for  the 


Ixxxvi  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

surrender  of  Aigina,  made  by  the  Lakedaimonians  before  the  outbreak  of  hostili- 
ties and  again  in  430  B.C.  (Ribbeck,  A.  Mu'ller,  Miiller-Striibing),  is  far  from  sat- 
isfactory. Moreover,  we  must  ask  ourselves  what  the  connection  between  the 
person  referred  to  and  Aigina  was.  Certainly  it  was  more  than  a  simple  K\i)pov- 
X^a,  as  Miiller-Striibing  has  shown.  The  scholiasts,  with  a  single  noteworthy 
exception,  think  only  of  Aristophanes,  and  Schrader  (Kleon  und  Aristophanes' 
Babylonier)  has  argued  with  much  force,  though  perhaps  over-subtly,  that  this 
view  is  alone  tenable,  and  that  the  poet  is  actually  referring  to  the  charge  that 
he  was  an  Aiginetan,  i.e.  to  Kleon's  7pa07)  £ei>/as. 

Thus  interpreted  the  parabasis  becomes  an  ordered  whole.  It  begins  with  a 
reference  to  the  official  3i5d<7/caXos  and  to  the  charge  brought  against  him  —  a 
charge  of  ddiicla.  et's  TOI>S  TroXfraj.  Now,  this  consisted  in  his  having  served  as 
5t5d<TKdXos  at  the  City  Dionysia  for  a  play  such  as  the  Babylonii.  Therefore,  in 
his  defence  he  must  needs  justify,  not  his  own  part  only  in  the  production  of  the 
play,  but  also  the  character  of  the  play  itself — that  is,  he  must  defend  the  poet 
for  having  written  it;  and  so  we  have  a  natural  transition  to  the  iroiijriys  and  to 
the  benefits  he  has  conferred  upon  the  state.  But  more  than  this :  the  poet,  too, 
has  been  involved  in  a  serious  charge,  growing  out  of  the  production  of  the  same 
play,  and  is  still  in  danger.  Hence  the  fiction  regarding  the  overtures  of  peace 
and  the  demand  for  Aigina.  "The  Lakedaimonians,"  says  the  poet,  in  effect, 
"  are  willing  to  forego  their  advantage  in  the  war;  they  offer  you  peace,  for  they 
want  Aigina,  —  they  want  me,  whom  Kleon  calls  an  Aiginetan.  Do  not  give  me 
up;  stand  by  me  ;  I  am  worth  much  to  you.  In  view  of  this  let  Kleon  do  what 
he  will,"  etc.  The  pnigos,  we  may  add,  with  its  use  of  the  first  person  and  its 
implication  of  persistent  persecution,  gains  immensely  in  force,  if  Aristophanes 
was  himself  the  speaker,  i.e.  was  coryphaeus. 

We  may  consider,  then,  that  the  preferment  of  the  charge  of  £evla  by  Kleon 
antedated  the  production  of  the  Acharnenses,  and  if  this  is  so,  van  Leeuwen's 
theory  that  Aristophanes  was,  in  fact,  an  alien  falls  to  the  ground.  His  view  is 
based  primarily  on  the  assumption  that  the  poet,  conscious  that  he  had  not  the 
right  to  produce  in  his  own  name,  had  recourse  to  the  help  of  Kallistratos  and 
Philonides.  Elated  by  the  success  of  the  Acharnenses,  he  had,  however,  flung 
prudence  to  the  winds  and  dared  to  produce  the  Equites  Katf  eavrbv.  Kleon 
then  promptly  brought  suit,  the  poet  was  proved  an  alien,  and  dared  thereafter 
produce  no  play  in  his  own  name  (with  the  possible  exception  of  the  second 
Ploutos}. 

Even  if  the  charge  of  £evla  is  accepted  as  following  upon  the  production  of  the 
Equites,  this  theory  will  not  hold.  Against  it  stands  the  tradition  (which  van 
Leeuwen,  of  course,  discards)  that  the  Pax  was  produced  in  the  poet's  own 
name.  So,  too,  what  we  know  of  the  revised  Nubes.  Van  Leeuwen  dismisses 
this  with  the  remark  that  it  was  never  produced.  This  is  true;  but  the  fact 
remains  that  the  poet  purposed  bringing  it  out  himself.  On  van  Leeuwen's  own 
view  he  sought  a  chorus,  which  was  naturally  refused  him;  and  the  "  alien  "  then 
speaks  as  if  a  great  injustice  had  been  done  him  ! 

One  might  go  further.  It  is  in  the  highest  degree  unlikely  that  any  alien 
could  have  written  as  Aristophanes  wrote  (the  case  of  Lysias  is  not  a  parallel 
one),  and,  if  one  weighs  carefully  the  attitude  of  the  poet  toward  those  whose 
citizenship  was  dubious  (and  the  list  is  a  long  one),  the  conviction  is  irresistible 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  Ixxxvii 

that,  though  brought  to  the  test,  he  had  proved  his  right  to  be  unsparing  in  his 
denunciations. 

1 2.  Rhythm  as  concerned  in  Poetry,  by  Professor  Leon  J.  Richard- 
son, of  the  University  of  California. 

What  are  the  principal  means  by  which  poetic  rhythm  is  produced  ?  The 
devices  are  as  a  rule  the  following.  Not  all  are  present  in  every  language,  nor 
is  it  the  poet's  way  to  employ  many  at  once.  They  appear  in  constantly  varying 
combinations. 

1.  The  length,  number,  and  order  of  tlie  syllables. — The  successive  time  divi- 
sions of  the  rhythm  are  made  sensible  to  the  ear  through  a  succession  of  syllables 
so  arranged  by  the  poet,  as  regards  length,  number,  and  order,  that  one  naturally 
perceives  them,  or  at  least  may  perceive  them,  in  groups,  occupying  more  or  less 
exactly  each  a  certain  amount  of  time.     Rhythm  is  here  and  there  reenforced  by 
certain  other  sound  effects;   that  is  to  say,  certain  conspicuous  turns  of  sound  &tt 
introduced  in  such  a  manner  and  at  such  points  as  to  emphasize  the  limits  of  the 
rhythmical  divisions.     These  auxiliary  effects  are  introduced,  sometimes  singly, 
sometimes  in  combination,  at  the  will  of  the  poet.     They  make  up  the  remainder 
of  this  list  (the  headings  in  some  cases  being  those  of  Saran). 

2.  Stress  and  pitch.  —  It  is  convenient  to  put  the  two  together,  because  both 
enter  in  some  degree  into  every  syllable.     If  either  or  both  of  these  qualities  be 
emphasized  regularly  with  reference  to  the  divisions  of  a  rhythmical  series,  an 
auxiliary  force  is  thereby  added  to  the  rhythm. 

3.  Pauses.  —  The  pauses  observed  in  the  delivery  of  a  poem  are  mainly  of  two 
kinds,  rhythmical  and  rhetorical.     Rhythmical  pauses  may  be  subdivided  into 
two   classes:    (l)    Indefinite,  that  is,   moments  of  silence  indefinite   in   length 
occurring  between  certain  rhythmical  intervals.     The  length  of  these  pauses  de- 
pends in  a  measure  on  the  interpretation  of  the  reader  or  singer.     Pauses  of  this 
character  if  observed  with  a  certain  degree  of  regularity  between  cola,  verses,  or 
stanzas,  play  a  part  in  the  rhythm.     (2)  Definite,  that  is,  brief  pauses  or  '  rests ' 
of  determined  length  occurring  within  certain  rhythmical  intervals.     The  poet 
now  and  then  arranges  to  have  a  pause  of  this  character  fill  out  the  time  of  a 
rhythmical  division,  in  order  that  it  may  be  uniform  in  length  with  its  companion 
divisions. 

Rhetorical  pauses  help  to  give  expression  to  the  content  of  the  language.  In 
poetry  of  the  highest  order  they  fall  now  coincidentally,  now  non-coincidentally, 
with  the  rhythmical  pauses.  This  is  a  good  example  of  the  way  a  nice  balance  is 
maintained  in  poetry  between  form  and  content. 

4.  Sound  parallelism.  —  Unrler  this  hea'l  are  included  rime,  alliteration,  and 
assonance.     These  effects  are  so  arranged  by  the  poet  that,  among  other  things, 
they  may  help  define  for  the  hearer  the  rhythmical  intervals.     A  sonnet,  for 
example,  with  its  '  run-over '  lines  could  hardly  give  a  fair  impression  of  its  rhythm 
without  the  aid  of  rime.    The  hearer  would  not  be  sure  where  the  lines  end; 
the  musical  effect  would  be  obscured.     Devices  of  this  sort  are  most  frequently 
employed  in  those  languages  where  the  rhythmical  accent  tends  to  fall  coinciden- 
tally with  the  word-accent. 

5.  Tempo. — The  term  denotes  the  relative  rapidity  of  the  rhythm,  which 


Ixxxviii  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

varies  of  course  with  individuals  and  circumstances.  This  variation,  however, 
cannot  transgress  certain  limits,  determined  on  the  one  hand  by  the  powers  of  a 
reader  or  singer,  and  on  the  other  hand  by  what  is  agreeable  to  a  hearer. 
Tempo,  then,  is  a  rhythmical  factor  in  this  sense  that  only  rhythms  of  certain 
tempo  are  admitted  into  the  domain  of  art. 

6.  Permissible  variations  in  speech  sounds.  —  Sounds  subject  to  some  variation 
in  ordinary  speech,  when  introduced  into  a  poem,  are  theoretically  uttered  in  the 
particular  form  that  is  suited  to  the  place  in  the  verse  where  they  occur.     All 
these  variations  are  generally  introduced  by  the  poet  only  when  something  of  the 
kind  becomes  absolutely  necessary  to  make  the  sounds  suggest  adequately  the 
rhythmical  divisions.     He  is  not  justified  in  any  variations  that  are  so  violent  as 
to  obscure  the  identity  of  the  words,  nor  in  any  without  basis  and  warrant  in  the 
actual  usages  of  speech. 

7.  Sound  articulation.  —  As  syllables  are  sounded  in  ordinary  speech,  some 
are  crowded  closely  together,  others  are  sharply  distinct.     The  former  mode  of 
utterance  may  be  called   legato ;  the  other,  staccato.     As  a  matter  of  fact  our 
speech  represents  many  gradations  between  these  two  extremes.     These  effects 
contribute  to  the  rhythm,  though  in  ways  that  are  extremely  subtle  and  seldom 
consciously  apprehended  apart  from  the  larger  results  to  which  they  contribute. 
They  play  through  the  succession  of  sounds  in  such  a  manner  that  the  rhythmical 
divisions,  as  the  need  arises,  are  thereby  emphasized  and  thrown  into  relief. 
The  poet  indicates  them  to  some  extent  in  his  text,  but  a  great  deal  has  to  be  left 
to  the  feeling  and  interpretation  of  the  individual  reader  or  singer.     For  an  ex- 
ample, take  Tennyson's  lines :  — 

"  Thou  read  the  book,  my  pretty  Vivien ! 
O  ay,  it  is  but  twenty  pages  long." 

A  sort  of  balance  or  parallelism  is  here  brought  about,  staccato  effects  (indicated 
by  dots)  prevailing  within  the  first,  legato  effects  within  the  second  colon.  Such 
a  device  serves  to  mark  and  reenforce  the  rhythm  of  the  verses. 

8.  Word-order.  —  Words  or  parts  of  words  may  be  so  coordinated  in  sense  by 
the  poet  that  rhythmical  intervals  are  thereby  thrown  into  relief. 

9.  Man's  innate  rhythmical  sense.  —  When  one  reads  a  poem  from  the  printed 
page,  the  rhythm  is  produced  by  the  aid  of  mechanical  devices,  such  as  have  been 
described,  but  all  these  would  avail  nothing  without  the  reader's  instinct  to 
rhythmize.     The    rhythm   is   something   more    than   the   rhythmizomenon.     So 
deeply  is  a  feeling  for  rhythm  grounded  in  human  nature,  that  when  the  reader 
catches  the  suggestion  of  the  poem's  rhythm,  he  is  somehow  impelled  in  no  small 
measure  from  within  to  carry  it  forward  in  its  ideal  form,  himself  making  good 
shortcomings  and  irregularities  that  may  be  inherent  in  the  language  of  the  poem. 

This  paper  was  discussed  by  Professors  Goebel,  Merrill,  Murray, 
Goddard,  Chambers,  and  Gayley. 

13.  The  Relationship  of  the  Indian  Languages  of  California,  by 
Dr.  A.  L.  Kroeber,  of  the  University  of  California. 

This  paper  has  appeared  in  full  as  a  joint  article  by  R.  B.  Dixon 
and  A.  L.  Kroeber,  in  the  American  Anthropologist,  Vol.  V,  pp.  1-26. 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  Ixxxix 

It  was  discussed  by  Professors  Matzke,  Kelley,  Murray,  Seward, 
and  Goddard. 

14.  The  Use  of  clla,  lei,  and  la  as  Polite  Forms  of  Address  in  Ital- 
ian, by  Professor  O.  M.  Johnston,  of  the  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 

The  sixteenth  century  is  usually  given  as  the  date  when  ella  began  to  be  used  as 
a  form  of  address  in  Italian.  An  example  of  le  (dative  of  ella),  used  in  address- 
ing the  pope,  occurs  in  Giovanni  Fiorentino's  //  Pecorone  (X.  i),  written  in  1378. 
Le  here  refers  to  santita  and  means  '  to  you.'  The  use  of  ella  for  voi  began  in 
constructions  like  this,  where  the  noun  to  which  it  referred  stood  immediately  be- 
fore it.  In  the  sixteenth  century  the  object  forms  lei  and  la  began  to  be  used  as 
nominatives  in  polite  address. 

From  the  time  that  ella,  lei,  and  la  were  first  used  in  address  until  the  eigh- 
teenth century  adjectives  and  past  participles  modifying  them  were  always  femi- 
nine. In  the  eighteenth  century  the  participle  still  retains  its  feminine  form  in 
such  constructions,  while  the  adjective  is  masculine  or  feminine  according  to  the 
gender  of  the  person  addressed..  Goldoni,  writing  about  the  middle  of  the  cen- 
tury, uses  the  feminine  participle  and  the  masculine  adjective  when  the  person 
addressed  is  masculine.  In  /  Promessi  Sposi,  which  was  completed  in  1822, 
Manzoni  uses  a  masculine  and  a  feminine  participle  in  the  same  sentence,  modify- 
ing lei  and  la  used  in  address.  On  the  other  hand,  he  always  writes  the  mascu- 
line form  of  adjectives  when  the  person  addressed  is  masculine.  Since  Manzoni  I 
have  found  only  the  masculine  form  of  both  adjectives  and  past  participle  modi- 
fying ella,  etc.,  used  in  address  to  men.  The  reason  for  this  change  of  gender  in 
the  adjective  and  participle  is  clear.  When  Sua  Eccellenza,  etc.,  ceased  to  be 
expressed,  the  pronouns  ella,  lei,  and  la  were  looked  upon  as  referring  directly  to 
persons  and  not  to  the  abstract  substantive,  and,  hence,  the  modifiers  began  to 
agree  logically,  taking  the  gender  of  the  person  addressed  as  in  the  case  of  tu 
and  voi. 

A  similar  tendency  is  seen  in  the  use  of  words  like  persona  und  bestia.  In  old 
Italian,  adjectives  and  past  participles  modifying  bestia  and  persona  were  some- 
times masculine  when  these  forms  were  used  in  the  sense  of  uomo  (cf.  Boccaccio, 
//  Decamerone,  7.  4). 

Adjourned  at  12.15  P-M< 

FIFTH  SESSION. 

The  Fifth  Session  was  called  to  order  at  2.30  P.M.  by  the  second 
Vice-president,  Professor  W.  A.  Merrill  of  the  University  of  Cali- 
fornia. 

The  Committee  on  Time  and  Place  of  the  next  meeting  reported 
through  the  Chairman,  Professor  Murray,  a  recommendation  that  the 
fifth  annual  meeting  be  held  at  the  Mark  Hopkins  Institute  of  Art  in 
San  Francisco  on  December  28,  29,  and  30,  1903.  The  report  was 
adopted. 


xc  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

15.  Dryden's  Quarrel  with  Settle,  by  Professor  George  R.  Noyes, 
of  the  University  of  California. 

The  story  of  Dryden's  quarrel  with  Elkanah  Settle  has  been  well  told  by  Scott.1 
Beljame  further  points  out  the  influence  of  the  controversy  on  Dryden's  dramatic 
works.2  But  the  bearing  of  the  quarrel  upon  Dryden's  critical  writings  has  ap- 
parently not  yet  been  noticed. 

The  success  of  The  Conquest  of  Granada  in  1670  established  Dryden's 
reputation  as  the  leading  English  dramatist.  But  in  1673  Dryden  was  deserted 
by  his  patron  Rochester,  who,  to  spite  him,  secured  the  revival  at  court  of  The 
Empress  of  Morocco,  a  play  by  the  young  dramatist  Elkanah  Settle,  published 
originally  in  1671.  Dryden  thereupon  joined  with  Shadwell  and  Crowne  in  the 
composition  of  an  anonymous  pamphlet,  Notes  and  Observations  on  The  Em- 
press of  Morocco,  published  in  i674-8  Here  he  assails  Settle  with  coarse  abuse 
and  ridicules  his  play,  which  he  terms  "  a  confused  heap  of  false  grammar,  im- 
proper English,  strained  hyperboles,  and  downright  bulls."  Settle  detected  the 
authorship  of  the  attack  upon  him  and  replied  in  the  same  year  with  a  pamphlet 
"  contumaciously  entitled  "  :  *  Notes  and  Observations  on  the  Empress  of  Morocco 
revised,  with  some  few  erratas  ;  to  be  printed  instead  of  the  Postscript  with  the 
next  Edition  of  The  Conquest  of  Granada.  Here  he  has  no  trouble  in  ridicul- 
ing Dryden's  play  quite  as  effectively  as  Dryden  had  satirized  The  Emprus  of 
Morocco.  So  Settle  remained  an  apparent  victor  in  the  contest  of  abuse.  Dry- 
den certainly  made  no  further  direct  reference  to  Settle  until  1682,  when,  in  the 
Second  Part  of  Absalom  and  Achitopkel  he  conferred  on  him  an  unpleasant 
immortality  under  the  name  of  Doeg. 

But  at  the  close  of  1674  Dryden  published  his  opera  The  State  of  fnnocence, 
based  upon  Milton's  Paradise  Lost.  To  this  he  prefixed  a  critical  preface, 
The  Author's  Apology  for  Heroic  Poetry  and  Poetic  License.  In  this  he  makes 
a  dignified,  high-minded  lament  that  "  we  are  fallen  into  an  age  of  illiterate,  cen- 
sorious, and  detracting  people,  who,  thus  qualified,  set  up  for  critics."5  These 
"  mistake  the  nature  of  criticism,"  which,  "  as  it  was  first  instituted  by  Aristotle, 
was  meant  a  standard  of  judging  well."  Dryden  then  makes  a  plea  in  favor  of 
"sublime  genius  that  sometimes  errs,"  against  "the  middling  or  indifferent  one, 
which  makes  few  faults,  but  seldom  or  never  rises  to  any  excellence." 6  He  de- 
fends the  use  of  "  the  boldest  strokes  of  poetry,"  "  the  hardest  metaphors,"  "  the 
strongest  hyperboles."  7  Dryden  continually  fortifies  his  statements  by  references 
to  Boileau's  translation  of  Longinus  On  the  Sublime  and  Rapin's  Reflexions 
sur  la  Poetique  d' 'Aristote,  up-to-date  critical  works  published  in  France  in  that 
same  year,  1674.  With  these  authorities  few  Englishmen  would  dare  disagree. 
Finally,  in  this  essay  Dryden  says  little  of  his  own  writings;  he  prefers  to  speak 
in  general  terms,  defending  the  reputation  of  great  poets  against  small  critics. 

1  See  Life  in  Dryden's  Works,  Scott-Saintsbury  ed  ,  vol.  I.  pp.  152-161. 

1  Le  Public  et  Us  ffommes  de  Lettrei  en  Angleterre  au  Dix-kuitiime  Slide,  Paris,  1883: 
pp.  92-113. 

*  See  Malone,  Prose  Works  of  John  Dryden,  vol.  II.  p.  271-274. 
4  Scott's  Life,  p.  161. 

*  Dryden's  Works,  Scott-Saintsbury  ed  ,  vol.  V.  p.  ixa. 
8  The  idea,  as  Dryden  says,  is  from  Longinus. 

i  Ibid.  p.  116. 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  xci 

To  such  an  essay,  reply  was  impossible.  Defeated  in  a  would-be  anonymous 
contest  of  abuse,  Dryden  assumes  the  tone  of  a  dignified  gentleman.  Though  he 
did  not  mention  the  names  of  his  antagonists,  he  knew  that  Settle  and  his  patron 
Rochester  would  be  distinguished  as  chief  among  the  "  illiterate,  censorious,  and 
detracting  people  "  alluded  to.  Thus,  if  the  theory  of  its  origin  here  suggested 
be  correct  —  and  there  seems  to  be  no  argument  against  it  —  Dryden's  Apology 
for  Heroic  1'oetry  and  Poetic  License  must  be  regarded  not  as  a  perfunctory 
preface,  but  as  a  masterpiece  of  controversial  criticism,  worthy  to  take  a  place 
beside  his  satires  in  verse. 

1 6.  The  Scalacronica  version  of  Havelok,  by  Mr.  Edward  K.  Put- 
nam, of  the  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 

An  examination  of  the  unique  Ms.  of  Thomas  Gray's  fourteenth  century  French 
prose  chronicle,  the  Scalacronica  (Parker  Collection,  133,  Corpus  Christi  College, 
Cambridge),  reveals  a  Havelok  episode  of  about  thirteen  hundred  words,  hitherto 
known  only  by  the  "translation"  of  John  Leland,  the  sixteenth  century  antiqua- 
rian, reprinted  by  Sir  Frederick  Madden  in  the  introduction  to  his  edition  of 
Havelok.  Leland's  careless  and  confused  reading  notes  are  unjust  to  Gray,  the 
soldier  chronicler,  whose  Havelok  story  is  the  most  complete  found  in  the  chron- 
icles. An  analysis  follows :  — 

Two  petty  kings  under  Constantine,  Athelbright,  king  of  Northfolk  and  South- 
folk,  and  Edelsy,  king  of  Nichol  and  Lindesey,  make  peace,  Athelbright  marrying 
Orewen,  Edelsy's  sister,  by  whom  he  has  a  daughter  called  Argentile  in  British 
and  Goldesburgh  in  Saxon.  After  Athelbright's  death,  Edelsy  marries  her  to 
Cuaran,  a  kitchen  boy  who  has  performed  feats  of  strength  and  who  says  he  is  a 
son  of  Gryme,  a  poor  fisher  no  longer  able  to  support  him.  Edelsy  thinks  he 
will  thus  keep  his  oath  to  Athelbright  to  marry  her  to  the  strongest  man  he  can 
find,  but  his  real  purpose  is  to  secure  the  land.  He  is  deceived,  for  in  truth  the 
boy  is  Havelok,  son  of  Birkebayn,  king  of  Denmark.  After  the  king's  death, 
Gryme,  who  had  been  given  the  boy  to  drown,  escaped  to  England  and  founded 
Grimsby.  When  Havelok  and  his  bride  return  to  Grimsby,  they  find  that  he  is 
heir  to  the  Danish  throne  and  repair  to  Denmark.  The  first  night,  they  are 
attacked  by  young  men  who  are  beaten  off  by  Havelok.  The  captain  of  the 
castle  of  the  city  investigates  and  takes  them  home  with  him.  That  night  he 
sees  a  flame  issuing  out  of  Havelok's  mouth.  The  most  powerful  men  of  the  city 
decide  that  Havelok  is  heir  to  the  throne  and  help  him  reconquer  Denmark. 
He  returns  to  England,  recovers  his  wife's  heritage,  and  kills  Edelsy.  During 
the  battle  he  fixes  the  dead  men  to  stakes,  making  his  army  seem  larger,  and 
causing  the  enemy  to  flee.  Havelok  returns  to  Denmark.  Up  to  this  time 
tribute  had  been  demanded  of  Denmark  from  the  time  of  Belyn  Bren  (Brennius 
and  Belinus,  Geoffrey  of  Monmouth,  III.  i-iv).  Some  say  that  Havelok  was  the 
cause  of  the  first  coming  of  Swain,  the  father  of  Knut.  As  Havelok  did  not 
remain  after  his  conquest,  the  Saxon  chroniclers  do  not  mention  him.  Yet  the 
great  history  of  Havelok  says  that  the  father  of  his  wife  was  king  of  England, 
and  that  Havelok  conquered  it,  but  this  is  apocryphal. 

From  this  analysis  it  becomes  evident  that  Gray  has  not  copied  the  Brute,  as 
Madden  asserts,  but  has  used  as  sources  both  the  French  and  English  versions 


xcii  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

of  the  romance.  This  is  shown  by  the  names,  the  incidents,  and  the  direct  refer- 
ence. Of  the  French  versions  there  is  no  evidence  that  he  knew  the  Lay.  There 
are  many  points  in  common  with  Gaimar,  and  others  which  seem  to  show  that  he 
was  familiar  with  the  Lost  French  Version,  which  was  used  by  Gaimar  as  a  source. 
Gray's  attempt  was  to  reconcile  the  French  form  of  the  story,  as  found  in  Gaimar 
or  the  Lost  Version,  with  the  English,  and  with  history.  The  allusion  to  Swain 
and  Knut  shows  that  Gray  appreciated  the  close  relationship  between  Havelok 
and  the  epic  material  of  the  Scandinavian  invaders. 

1 7.  On  the  Relation  of  Old  Fortunatus  to  the  Volksbuch,  by  Pro- 
fessor A.  F.  Lange  of  the  University  of  California. 

This  paper  is  printed  in  full  in  Modern  Language  Notes,  Vol. 
XVIII,  No.  5. 

1.  The  Pleasant  Comedie  of  Old  Fortunatus  is  based  on  both  versions  of  the 
Volksbuch.     This  fact  confirms  Herford's  conclusion  (a)  that  Dekker  recast  and 
enlarged  an  older  play,  and  (U)  that  the  older  play  ended  with  the  death  of 
Fortunatus. 

2.  Dekker's  predecessor  followed  the  Frankfort  text;   Dekker  himself  made 
liberal  use  of  the  Augsburg  version. 

3.  It  is  probable  that  an  early  edition  of  one  of  the  extant  translations  of 
F  —  namely  E  =  "  1650?"  —  constituted  the  direct  source  of  the  original  play. 

4.  Dekker's  share  in   Old  Fortunatus  rests  neither  on  the  Dutch  translation, 
nor  on  an  earlier  edition  of  the  English  translation  by  T.  C.,  1676,  both  of  which 
follow  F.     J.  P.  Collier's  conjecture  that  T.  C.  stands  for  Thomas  Churchyard  is, 
perhaps,  not  an  impossible  one,  but  his  additional  surmise  that  T.  C.'s  translation 
supplied  the  foundation  of  the  play  receives  no  support  from  a  comparison  of  the 
two.     Whether  Dekker  had  the  German  original  before  him  or  a  translation  in 
Dutch  or  English  cannot  be  determined  in  the  present  state  of  our  knowledge 
concerning  Dekker  and  the  translations  of  the  Volksbuch. 

1 8.  The   Literary   Relations   of  Edgar  Allan   Poe  and   Thomas 
Holley  Chivers,  by  Professor  A.  G.  Newcomer,  of  the  Leland  Stan- 
ford Jr.  University. 

The  purpose  of  this  paper  is  to  determine,  chiefly  from  internal  evidence,  the 
nature  of  the  literary  relations  and  the  probable  mutual  influence  of  Edgar  Allan 
Poe  and  the  somewhat  obscure  Georgia  poet,  Dr.  Thomas  Holley  Chivers.  A 
charge  of  plagiarism  originated  with  Chivers's  claim,  publicly  made  several  years 
after  Poe's  death,  that  Poe,  in  constructing  The  Raven,  had  stolen  from  his  poem 
To  Allegra  in  Heaven,  and  that  Poe  was  otherwise  indebted  to  him.  This 
charge,  or  intimation,  has  been  more  than  once  revived,  and  supported  by  the 
citation  of  certain  poems  of  Chivers,  such  as  Lily  Adair — the  "beautiful,  dutiful 
Lily  Adair"  —  undeniably  written  in  the  Poe  manner  (see  Forum,  May,  1897). 
Critics  have  generally  been  disposed  to  ignore  the  controversy.  My  examination 
covers  six  of  Chivers's  volumes:  Nacoochee,  or  the  Beautiful  Star,  N.Y.  1837  ; 
The  Lost  Pleiad,  N.Y.  1845  ;  Eonchs  of  Ruby,  N.Y.  1851  ;  Memoralia,  or 
Phials  of  Amber,  Phils..,  1853  (entered  1850);  Virginalia,  Phila.,  1853;  Atlanta, 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  xciii 

Macon,  Ga.,  1853.  The  last  two  are  in  the  British  Museum,  and,  contrary  to  the 
general  opinion,  they  are  the  only  volumes  of  Chivers  there;  the  last  is  unques- 
tionably a  "  Paul  Epic,"  whatever  that  may  mean,  and  not,  as  Professor  Harrison 
has  conjectured,  a  "  Prose  Epic,"  for  it  is  in  blank  verse,  and  the  Museum  copy 
contains  corrections  in  the  author's  hand.  Several  earlier  volumes  with  Byronic 
titles,  later,  however,  than  Poe's  early  volumes,  have  not  been  examined. 

The  Southern  Literary  Messenger  for  March,  1835,  advised  one  1'-  H-  C.,  M.D., 
to  cease  submitting  his  prolific  verse  and  stick  to  his  lancet  and  pill-box.  In 
1836  Poe  was  on  the  staff  of  the  Messenger,  republishing  Israfel,  etc.,  from  his 
1831  volume.  In  1837  appeared  Chivers's  Nacoochee,  or  the  Beautiful  Star.- 
The  title  suggests  Al  Aaraaf,  but  the  story  is  an  Indian  tale.  The  volume 
further  contains  a  curious  jumble  of  religious  hymns,  Byronic  blank  verse,  and 
Shelleyan  lyrics.  7 he  Lost  Pleiad  (July,  1845 — six  months  later  than  the  publi- 
cation of  Poe's  Raven)  more  distinctly  suggests  Al  Aaraaf.  This  volume  was 
reviewed  favorably  by  Poe  (who  had  already  been  in  correspondence  with 
Chivers)  in  The  Broadway  Journal.  In  the  leading  poem  appears  the  angel 
Israfel,  to  become  thereafter  one  of  Chivers's  regular  poetic  properties.  There 
are  other  interesting  evidences  of  indebtedness  to  Poe.  On  the  other  hand,  one 
poem,  dated  1839,  contains  the  refrain,  "No,  nevermore."  And  with  the  date  of 
December  12,  1842,  there  is  the  poem  To  Allegro  in  Heaven. 

"  Holy  angels  now  are  bending  to  receive  thy  soul  ascending 
Up  to  heaven  to  joys  unending,  and  to  bliss  which  is  divine." 

True,  Poe  had  used  this  movement  in  his  Bridal  Ballad,  in  the  Messenger  for 
January,  1837.  But  again,  Chivers  in  1836  had  published  his  Ellen  .4Lyrc  with 
such  lines  as, 

"  Whitest,  brightest  of  all  cities,  saintly  angel,  Ellen  /Eyre." 

Eonchs  of  Ruby  (1851),  published  after  Poe's  death,  contains  Lily  Adair  and 
many  other  poems  in  the  manner  of  Poe.  Memoralia  (1853)  was  made  by  tak- 
ing Eonchs  of  Ruly,  withdrawing  the  first  poem  (  The  Vigil  in  Aidenn,  a  long 
poem,  combining  in  a  kind  of  pendant  to  7'/ie  Raven  a  tribute  to  the  genius  of 
Poe,  and  an  elegy  upon  his  death),  substituting  six  weak  poems,  and  renaming 
the  volume.  Virginalia  (1853)  contains  many  poems  dated  from  1832  onward. 
Those  resembling  Poe  are  dated  either  later  than  1841  or  not  at  all. 

These  conclusions  may  be  drawn.  After  Poe's  fame  was  established,  Chivers, 
a  versifier  with  a  remarkable  gift  of  melody,  and  already  an  admirer  and  occa- 
sional imitator  of  Poe,  came  strongly  under  the  spell  of  Poe's  poetry,  producing 
then,  and  after  Poe's  death  collecting  for  final  publication,  nearly  all  of  his  poems 
that  so  manifestly  resemble  Poe's.  This  was  done  out  of  genuine  admiration, 
and,  moreover,  some  of  the  poems  are  such  self-confessed  parodies  as  to  make  a 
charge  of  plagiarism  against  Chivers  futile.  But  before  Poe's  death  some  cool- 
ness arose  between  the  two  poets  which  finally  led  to  Chivers's  uncharitable 
charges.  On  the  other  hand,  these  charges  rest  upon  undeniable  resemblances, 
and  however  much  Chivers  both  initially  and  finally  owed  to  Poe,  the  conclusion 
is  scarcely  avoidable  that  Poe  also  owed  something  initially  to  Chivers,  and  the 
latter's  Ellen  &yre  and  To  Allegro  in  Heaven  must  be  taken  along  with  Pike's 
Isadore,  Tennyson's  May  Queen  and  Locksley  Hall,  Mrs.  Browning's  Lady 


xciv  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

Geraldine's  Courtship,  and  what  not  besides,  as  having  played  their  little  part  in 
the  genesis  of  The  Raven. 

[Since  this  paper  was  prepared,  the  Virginia  edition  of  Poe  has  appeared; 
and  since  it  was  read,  the  Poe-Chivers  papers,  edited  by  Professor  Woodberry, 
have  appeared  in  the  Century  Magazine.  Professor  Harrison  refuses  to  find  any- 
thing supportable  in  the  claim  of  Chivers.  Professor  Woodberry 's  conclusion 
virtually  coincides  with  my  own.  As  he  expresses  it,  Chivers  "  was  in  parallelism 
with  Poe,  so  to  speak,  and  was  attracted  to  him  till  he  coalesced."] 

This  paper  was  discussed  by  Mr.  Sevvard  and  Professor  Noyes. 

The  Committee  to  audit  the  Treasurer's  account  now  reported 
through  the  Chairman,  Dr.  Allen,  that  the  books  had  been  examined 
and  found  correct.  The  Report  was  adopted. 

The  Secretary  brought  up  the  question  whether  this  Association 
should  join  with  the  Modern  Language  Association  of  America  in 
an  appeal  to  the  Trustees  of  the  Carnegie  Institution  to  aid  advanced 
research  in  Language  and  Literature.  On  motion  of  Professor  L.  J. 
Richardson,  the  matter  was  referred  to  the  Executive  Committee 
with  power  to  act. 

19.  Inscription    2719  (Orelli)    treated   paleographically,   by   Dr. 
Clifton  Price,  of  the  University  of  California. 

Adjourned  at  5.20  P.M. 

SIXTH  SESSION. 

SAN  FRANCISCO,  December  31,  1902. 

The  Sixth  Session  was  called  to  order  by  the  President  at  9.30  A.M. 
The  reading  of  papers  was  continued. 

20.  A   Middle   English   Anecdoton,  by  Professor   E.   Fliigel,  of 
the  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 

Professor  Ewald  Fliigel  gave  part  of  his  introduction  to  an  edition  of  the  M.E. 
translation  of  Claudian's  poem,  De  consulatu  Stilichonis,  to  be  published  by  the 
Early  English  Text  Society.  This  M.E.  translation  is  contained  in  Additional 
Ms.  11814,  which  was  acquired  by  the  Brit.  Mus.  in  1841,  but  has  hitherto  escaped 
the  notice  of  historians  and  philologists  (although  a  page  of  it  was  photographed 
for  the  old  Paleographical  Society). 

In  Claudian's  poem,  published  according  to  Birt  in  February,  400  A.D.,  Stilicho 
is  requested  to  come  to  Rome  and  accept  the  dignity  of  the  consulate,  and  an 
anonymous  English  translator  has  used  the  Latin  poem  to  draw  a  parallel  between 
Stilicho  and  Richard,  Duke  of  York,  whose  aspirations  to  the  crown  are  plainly 
(and  treacherously)  encouraged  in  the  Prologue,  the  Epilogue,  and  in  a  marginal 
note  to  the  text  itself.  The  Ms.,  which,  by  the  way,  contains  also  a  Latin  text 
(of  most  inferior  quality)  not  noticed  in  Birt's  monumental  edition,  is  dated  as 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  xcv 

"  translat  and  wrete  at  Clare  [in  Suffolk]  1445."  It  consists  first  of  a  prologue  of 
three  seven-line  stanzas  (a  b  ab  bcc),  secondly  of  the  translation  proper  (458 
verses  corresponding  to  413  of  the  original),  and  finally  of  an  epilogue  of  seven 
stanzas,  each  containing  seven  rimed  septenarii  (ab  ab  bcc}.  What  makes  this 
translation  extremely  interesting  is  its  metre  :  a  long  line  of  seven  stresses,  with- 
out alliteration  and  without  rime;  a  rimeless  septenarius,  of  which  M.E.  literature 
has  no  other  example  to  offer  than  the  Orrmulumm  ;  a  verse  which  seems  to 
have  been  intended  as  a  parallel,  an  imitation  of  the  rimeless  hexameter  of  the 
original  lines.  The  verses  are  anything  but  smooth,  and  the  Latin  scholarship  of 
the  translator  is  not  beyond  suspicion.  The  dialect  of  the  translation  is  that  of 
Suffolk,  its  vocabulary,  which  furnishes  early  and  earliest  examples  for  a  number 
of  words,  is,  on  the  whole,  the  same  as  that  of  Osbern  Bokenam.  As  a  specimen 
of  the  metre,  the  style,  and  the  scholastic  shortcomings  of  the  translator,  the 
following  passage  is  added  [v.  269  et  seq.  corresponding  to  v.  247  et  seq.  of  the 
original] :  — 

Engelonde  preiseth  stilico. 

Aftir  her  Engelonde  araied  in  clooth  '.  wroujte  oute  of  shepis  wulle 
Which  be  clepid  in  Calcedonye  '.  mowstrys  of  grete  mervaile 
Whose  chekis  be  coveryd  with  Jron  harde  '.  whos  fete  )>e  watur  hideth 
Her  clothyng  feyneth  the  occian  wawys  '.  and  seith  ofte  me  hath  defendyd 
Nobil  stilico.     frow  myn  nere  enemyes  !  which  by  my  marchis  duelle 
Whan  scottis  had  moevid  ayens  my  pees  i  al  wilde  Jrisshe  londe. 
And  the  watir  brode  bigan  to  foome  '  viith  the  core  of  aduersaryes 
Thurgh  his  helpe  soone  it  was  doone  '.  ]  shulde  not  fere  bataile 
Of  scotlonde  ne  of  picardy  '.  ne  fro  my  see  banke 
J  sholde  nevir  see  me  for  to  noye  '.  the  saxon  saile  with  wyndes. 

v.  270  translates:  calcidonio  velata  Britannia  monstro;  v.  277:  ne  Pictum 
timeam  (merely  to  mention  two  of  the  grossest  mistakes,  for  which  the  poor 
Latin  text  of  the  translator  cannot  be  made  responsible). 

21.  The  Omission  of  the  Auxiliary  Verb  in  German,  by  Mr. 
Charles  R.  Keyes,  of  the  University  of  California. 

The  Old  High  German  and  the  Middle  High  German  writers  seem  never  to 
omit  the  auxiliary  verb.  It  may  be  expressed  only  once  with  two  or  more  perfect 
or  pluperfect  tenses  in  the  same  construction  and  understood  with  the  other  or 
others,  but  even  such  examples  are  none  too  common,  and  they  belong,  moreover, 
to  Germanic  syntax  in  general.  German  does  not  begin  to  separate  itself  from 
the  other  Germanic  languages  in  the  more  or  less  frequent  entire  suppression  of 
the  auxiliary  until  about  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century.  It  is  not  easy  to  tell  just 
when  the  practice  of  omission  begins.  The  irregular  use  of  ge  as  the  sign  of  the 
past  participle,  its  common  occurrence  as  a  prefix  in  the  present  and  preterit 
tenses,  and  the  frequent  omission  of  e  in  the  preterit  singular  of  the  weak  verb, 
complicate  matters  somewhat  and  make  identification  of  examples  doubtful  in 
many  cases.  Still  any  considerable  practice  of  omission  could  of  course  be 
readily  observed.  Several  examples  apparently  beyond  suspicion  occur  in  Die- 
bold  Schilling's  Btsckreibung  der  Burgundischen  fCriege,  Bern,  about  1480.  No 


xcvi  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

undoubted  ones  have  thus  far  been  noticed  in  the  writings  of  Brant  or  Murner. 
The  construction  is  foreign  to  the  spirit  of  the  Volksbuch  Till  Eulenspiegel, 
1515.  Two  examples  occur,  but  in  the  one  case  the  auxiliary  is  carefully  replaced 
in  the  next  edition  of  1519,  and  the  other  looks  like  a  similar  oversight  or  error. 
Luther  is  the  first  writer,  apparently,  who  offers  examples  in  considerable  num- 
bers. These  are  rare  or  uncommon  in  his  earlier  works,  and  may  be  said  in 
general  to  be  numerous  in  his  later  ones. 

The  construction,  having  once  come  into  use,  soon  became  very  common,  so 
that  the  German  grammarians  of  the  eighth  decade  of  the  sixteenth  century 
regarded  the  omission  of  the  auxiliary  verb  as  a  common  feature  of  the  lan- 
guage. Das  Volksbuch  voin  Doktor  Faust  teems  with  examples,  and  in  the  popu- 
lar book  Der  Schildburger  abenteuerliche  Geschichten  finiteless  predication  of  this 
kind  is  already  the  rule.  Coming  to  the  seventeenth  century,  we  find  the  liberty 
to  omit  the  finite  verb  in  the  perfect  tenses  of  the  dependent  clause  so  constantly 
made  use  of  as  to  clearly  affect  style.  It  might  almost  be  said  that  the  auxiliary 
is  omitted  to  excess.  This  condition  continues  until  approximately  1775,  though 
Lessing  has  already  begun  to  use  much  discretion.  With  Herder,  Goethe,  and 
Schiller  the  tide  of  finiteless  predication  begins  to  recede  noticeably  and,  although 
examples  are  still  common,  yet  the  rule  is  to  find  the  auxiliary  in  place.  Since 
Goethe's  time  the  tide  has  apparently  continued  to  recede  gradually.  Heine, 
Grillparzer,  Gutzkow,  Hauff,  Riehl,  and  others  still  omit  the  auxiliary  often,  but 
more  recently  examples  of  such  omission  are  more  difficult  to  find,  particularly 
with  the  most  careful  writers.  Instances  are  not  common  in  Wilhelm  Scherer's 
Geschichte  der  deutschen  Litteratur,  and  the  examples  noted  in  several  of  the 
works  of  Sudermann  and  Hauptmann  could  be  counted  on  one's  ten  fingers. 

No  attempt  is  made  as  yet  to  account  for  the  origin  of  the  omitted  auxiliary 
construction,  the  theories  that  most  readily  suggest  themselves  having  proven  on 
further  investigation  untenable. 

This  paper  was  discussed  by  Professors  Gayley,  Matzke,  and 
others. 


22.  The  Sources  of  the  Paris  Promptuarium  Exemplorum,  by 
Professor  P.  J.  Frein,  of  the  University  of  Washington. 

In  the  introduction  to  his  edition  of  the  fables  of  Marie  de  France,  Mr.  Warnke 
mentions  three  collections  of  fables  which  he  believes  to  have  been  derived  from 
the  fables  of  Marie.  The  second  collection  (see  p.  LX)  is  entitled  "  Das  Pariser 
Promptuarium  Exemplorum  "  It  is  found  in  Ms.  1718  {Nouv.  acq.  lot.)  of  the 
French  National  Library,  and  is  dated  1322.  The  collection  consists  of  thirty- 
three  Latin  fables,  of  which  twenty-six  were  found  by  Mr.  Warnke  to  have  been 
derived  from  the  fables  of  Marie  de  France.  Those  not  so  derived  are  the  first, 
second,  third,  fourth,  sixth,  seventh,  and  thirty-third. 

The  object  of  this  study  was  to  try  to  find  the  sources  of  the  fables  not  bor- 
rowed from  Marie  de  France. 

Exemplum  i  was  not  discussed. 

Exemplum  2  tells  of  a  lion  meeting  several  different  animals  whose  bodies 
had  been  injured  by  a  man.  The  lion  sets  out  in  search  of  the  guilty  man  and 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  xcvii 

finds  him  splitting  wood.  The  lion  is  inveigled  into  placing  his  paws  in  the  cleft 
of  the  log,  from  which  the  man  immediately  withdraws  the  wedge  ;  the  lion  is  so 
securely  held  that  he  escapes  only  by  leaving  his  skin  and  claws  in  the  wood. 

In  the  appendix  to  the  Romulus  of  Munich  (cf.  Hervieux,  Les  Fabulistes 
Latins,  II.  297)  there  is  an  extremely  long  fable  entitled  De  Homuntione,  Leone 
et  Ejus  Filio,  the  motifs  of  which  are  similar  to  those  of  Exemplum  2.  It  is  also 
found  as  fable  Number  16  of  the  Fabulae  Extravagantes,  published  by  Heinrich 
Steinhowel  in  his  Aesop,  which  appeared  at  Ulm  in  the  early  days  of  printing, 
and  from  which  Mr.  Hervieux  copied  it.  This  fable  could  not  have  been  com- 
posed by  Steinhowel,  because  the  version  of  the  same  fable  in  the  Promptuarium 
Exemplorum  antedates  by  many  years  the  work  of  Steinhowel.  It  is  probable 
that  Exemplum  2  was  based  upon  the  manuscript  (or  a  similar  version  of  it)  from 
which  Steinhowel  took  fable  1 6  of  the  Fabulae  Extravagantes  of  his  Ulm  edition. 
Steinhowel  used  for  his  sources  some  version  of  the  Ordinary  Romulus  ;  but  as 
not  one  of  the  six  known  manuscripts  of  the  Ordinary  Romulus  contains  this 
fable,  it  is  probable  that  the  author  of  the  Promptuarium  had  access  to  a  manu- 
script not  now  known  of  the  Ordinary  Romulus. 

The  supposition  that  the  Promptuarium  itself  was  the  source  of  the  fable  in 
Steinhowel's  edition  is  hardly  tenable,  because  of  the  insignificance  of  this  small 
collection  of  only  thirty-three  fables  and  the  consequent  improbability  of  its  hav- 
ing been  made  a  model  by  Steinhowel,  and  because  this  fable  is  the  only  one  of 
the  Ulm  collection  that  could,  as  the  contents  show,  have  been  taken  from  the 
Promptuarium  Exemplorum. 

It  is  this  fable  16  of  the  Fabulae  Extravagantes  that  Robert  {Fables  Inedites 
des  XII.  XIII.  et  XIV.  Siecles,  I,  ci)  translated  into  French,  and  that  Caxton 
translated  into  English  from  Macho's  French  translation  of  Steinhowel. 

Exemplum  3  is  the  fable  of  the  Lion,  Wolf,  Fox,  and  Ass,  or,  as  given  by 
Hervieux,  the  '  Lion  Confessor.'  The  lion  has  the  other  beasts  confess  their 
sins.  Those  of  the  wolf  and  of  the  fox,  though  grievous,  are  readily  forgiven, 
while  those  of  the  ass,  which  are  insignificant,  are  severely  punished. 

The  same  fable  is  found  in  the  Mixed  Romulus  of  Berne  (cf.  Hervieux,  II. 
313),  in  Eudes  de  Cheriton  (cf.  Hervieux,  IV.  255),  and  in  Nicole  Bozon  (cf. 
Hervieux,  IV.  256-257).  The  writer  argued  that  Exemplum  j  could  not  have 
descended  from  the  Bozon  collection  because  the  dates  oppose  such  a  theory, 
nor  exclusively  from  the  Berne  nor  Eudes  de  Cheriton  collections,  because 
the  contents  do  not  favor  the  supposition ;  but  there  are  enough  points  of 
resemblance  in  these  four  collections  to  warrant  us  in  maintaining  either  that 
all  four  had  a  common  source,  and  therefore  that  Exemplum  3  had  for  its  source 
a  version  not  now  known  of  the  Ordinary  Romulus,  or  that  Exemplum  j  was 
derived  principally  from  the  Mixed  Romulus  of  Berne  with  the  Eudes  collection 
as  a  minor  source.  The  latter  view  is  the  one  upheld  by  the  writer.  Mr.  Her- 
vieux has  shown  (I  469)  that  the  Berne  Romulus  betrays  some  influence  of  the 
fables  of  Eudes,  though  the  main  source  of  the  Berne  collection  is  the  Ordinary 
Romulus,  and  its  important  minor  sources  are  the  complete  Anglo-Latin  Romu- 
lus and  the  Romulus  of  Munich.  Favoring  the  writer's  view  is  the  fact  that 
forty-seven  of  the  ninety-five  fables  of  the  extant  manuscript  of  Berne  are  the 
fables  of  Eudes  de  Cheriton. 

Exemplum  4  was  shown  to  be  derived  directly  from  fable  XL.  of  the  Mixed 


xcviii  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

Berne  Romulus,  where  it  follows  immediately  after  the  fable  which  was  shown 
to  be  the  probable  source  of  Exemplum  j. 

Exemplum  6,  the  fable  of  the  Bald  Man  and  the  Ram,  was  shown  to  have 
been  derived  from  fable  XXXI.  of  the  Mixed  Berne  Romulus,  which  is  the 
only  known  mediaeval  Latin  collection  of  fables  offering  a  parallel  to  this  fable. 

Exemplum  33  %vas  shown  to  have  had  for  its  source  fable  XXXII.  of  the 
Mixed  Berne  Romulus,  where  it  follows  immediately  after  the  fable  which  was 
shown  to  be  the  source  of  Exemplum  6. 

Exemplum  7  is  not  a  fable  and  was  not  discussed. 

This  paper  was  discussed  by  Professors  Richardson,  Cooper, 
Searles,  and  Goddard. 


23.  Structure  of  the  Verb  in  Hupa  (a  Californian  language),  by 
Mr.  Pliny  E.  Goddard,  of  the  University  of  California. 

The  Hupa  is  a  member  of  the  widely  distributed  Athapascan  stock  of  Ameri- 
can languages.  The  verbs  studied  were  taken  from  a  collection  of  texts  of 
myths  and  medicine  formulas  recorded  by  the  author.  When  the  meanings  of 
these  verbs  had  been  determined  by  means  of  the  context  and  the  aid  of  the  best 
available  interpreters,  they  were  arranged  in  alphabetical  order.  It  became  evi- 
dent at  once  that  the  majority  of  the  verbs  have  adverbial  elements  for  the  first 
syllable,  for  example:  xa-is-yai,1  'he  went  up';  xa-is-lai,  'he  brought  them  up"; 
xa-is-xan,  'he  brought  up  water';  xa-is-ten,  'he  brought  up  a  salmon.'  Here 
it  appears  that  xa  in  verbs  of  motion  means  '  up.'  A  number  of  similar  adverbial 
prefixes  indicating  direction  and  position  were  readily  obtained. 

The  same  verbs  were  afterward  classified  according  to  their  final  syllables. 
These  syllables  were  found  to  express  the  kind  of  motion.  They  may  be  con- 
sidered the  root  syllables.  In  many  cases  these  roots  differ  according  to  the 
class  of  objects  affected,  e.g.  -ten  is  used  to  express  the  transferring  from  place  to 
place  of  a  person,  animal,  or  animal  product;  -an  is  similarly  used  of  stones  or 
other  round  objects;  -xan  refers  to  the  movement  of  water  or  any  liquid;  -tan  is 
employed  when  long  objects  are  spoken  of,  and  -lai  serves  for  a  number  of  objects 
of  any  one  of  these  classes  or  of  several  of  them.  All  intransitive  verbs  with  an 
inanimate  subject  have  a  different  root  when  the  subject  is  plural.  All  verbs 
denoting  a  movement  of  the  body  as  a  whole,  such  as  to  walk,  to  run,  to  sit 
down,  etc.,  have  a  distinct  root  for  the  plural  and  dual. 

When  the  conjugation  of  each  verb  was  written  out  the  change  which  indi- 
cated person  and  number  was  found  to  be  generally  confined  to  the  middle 
syllable :  na-is-tsu, '  he  was  rolling  about.' 

SINGULAR.  PLURAL. 

1st  per.  na-se-tsu  nas-dit-tsu 

2d  per.   na-sin-tsu  na-so-tsu 

3d  per.   na-is-tsu  na-ya-is-tsu 

Neuter    nas-tsu  na-yas-tsu 

1  L  stands  for  a  breath  /  like  that  found  in  Welsh.  »  is  the  palatial  nasal  ng  in  English,  x  is 
like  Spanish  jota.  Vowels  have  their  Continental  sounds. 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  xcix 

The  occurrence  of  special  forms  for  the  neuter  is  noteworthy.  More  than  twenty 
paradigms  like  the  above  are  necessary  to  accommodate  the  Hupa  verbs  and 
then  many  remain  unassigned.  This  great  irregularity  in  most  cases  is  evidently 
due  to  contractions  and  other  phonetic  changes. 

The  consonant  in  the  middle  syllable  which  remains  unchanged  (in  this  case 
j)  seems  to  have  some  modal  power.  The  variations  of  the  middle  syllable  which 
indicate  the  person  and  number,  with  one  exception,  seem  to  have  no  relation  to 
the  independent  pronouns  of  the  language.  The  object  of  the  action,  however, 
is  indicated  by  a  form  of  the  pronoun  either  prefixed  to  or  infixed  in  the  verb : 
tciL-tsan,  'he  found  it';  tcu-hwiL-tsan, '  he  found  me  ';  nit-tciL-tsan,  '  he  found 
thee';  tco-xoL-tsan,  'he  found  him';  no-tciL-tsan,  'he  found  us';  (n5'n)  no- 
tciL-tsan,  'he  found  you';  ya-xoL-tsan,  'he  found  them.'  With  these  incorpo- 
rated syllables  compare  hwe,  '  I '  or  '  me  ';  nin,  '  thou  '  or  '  thee ';  xon, '  he  '  or 
'him';  ne-he, '  we '  or  '  us ' ;  n5'n, 'you';  and  ya-xwen, 'they '  or 'them.' 

When  the  different  tense  forms  of  the  verbs  are  brought  together,  the  difference 
between  past  and  present  definite  action  is  seen  to  be  indicated  by  a  modification 
of  the  root:  xa-wil-la,  'he  is  bringing  up';  xa-wil-lai,  'he  brought  up';  is-da, 
' it  is  melting';  is-dau,  'it  melted';  na-is-tse,  'he  is  crawling  about ';  na-is-tsu, 
'  he  crawled  about ';  n5-nin-un,  '  he  is  putting  down  ';  no-nin-an, '  he  put  down '; 
tcin-nes-tin,  'he  is  in  the  act  of  lying  down';  tcin-nes-ten,  'he  lay  down';  ta- 
des-la,  'he  is  floating  ashore';  ta-des-lat,  'he  floated  ashore';  tcit-teL-qoL,  'he 
is  crawling  along';  tcit-teL-qol, '  he  crawled  along.'  These  changes  seem  to  be 
due  to  accent  and  may  prove  to  be  not  unlike  '  ablaut.' 

The  forms  which  indicate  repeated  past  action,  and  repeated  or  uncompleted 
present  action  and  dependent  forms,  are  differently  inflected  and  show  a  peculiar 
form  of  the  root  which  may  be  due  to  contraction  with  a  suffix.  The  future, 
future  condition,  past  condition,  etc.,  are  all  indicated  by  suffixes :  tsis-da,  '  he  is 
staying  there';  tsis-da-te,  'he  will  stay  there';  tsis-da-teL,  'he  will  stay  there 
(nearer  future)  ';  tsis-da-de,  'if  he  shall  stay  there';  tsis-da-te-ta,  'if  he  stayed 
there';  tsis-da-ne-en,  'he  used  to  stay  there  but  now  does  not';  tsis-da-hwun, 
'he  must  stay  there';  tsis-da-win-te,  'he  always  stayed  there';  tsis-da-x,  'he 
stayed  for  a  stated  time.' 

This  paper  was  discussed  by  Professors  Gayley,  Johnston,  and 
Flein. 

24.  Saint  George  as  an  Active  Figure  in  Mediaeval  Tradition,  by 
Professor  John  E.  Matzke,  of  the  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 

The  paper  is  printed  in  full  in  Publications  of  the  Modern  Lan- 
guage Association,  Vol.  XVIII.  pp.  147-158.  It  was  discussed  by 
Professors  Rice,  Johnston,  Searles,  Gayley,  and  Mr.  Keyes. 

Adjourned  at  12.15  P«M- 


Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 


SEVENTH  SESSION. 

The  Seventh  Session  was  called  to  order  by  the  President  at 
2.30  P.M. 

25.  The  Chinese  Normal  Essay,  by  Professor  John  Fryer,  of  the 
University  of  California. 

The  Chinese  Normal  Essay,  or  Wen-chang,  represents  the  highest  ideal  of 
literary  excellence  that  our  friends  on  the  other  side  of  the  Pacific  have  attained 
to.  I  call  it  the  Normal  essay  to  distinguish  it  from  the  Lun,  or  Free  essay, 
which  is  now  gradually  taking  its  place. 

(l)  Its  Importance  in  China.  —  No  one  is  considered  eligible  for  official  posi- 
tion in  China  who  has  not  memorized  and  studied  the  Sacred  Classics  till  he  has 
thoroughly  grasped  the  views  of  the  ancient  Rulers  and  Sages  respecting  the  dif- 
ferent branches  of  political  science.  He  must  further  have  learned  to  express  his 
thoughts  on  these  subjects  in  elegant  and  forceful  writing ;  so  as  to  be  able  to 
conduct  the  diplomatic  correspondence  and  the  other  literary  work  of  an  official. 
The  test  of  his  knowledge  has  consisted  in  writing  essays  on  themes  selected 
entirely  from  the  classics,  which  have  had  to  be  written  in  conformity  with 
certain  fixed  rules.  To  write  a  good  essay  necessarily  requires  a  thoroughly 
well-informed,  well-balanced,  and  orderly  mind.  It  is  only  such  a  mind  that  is 
supposed  able  to  deal  with  the  questions  arising  in  the  administration  of  the 
different  government  functions.  It  is  the  writing  of  such  essays,  under  the 
closest  possible  surveillance,  that  has  constituted  the  chief  feature  of  the  Chinese 
system  of  competitive  government  examinations  —  a  well-devised  scheme  that 
was  in  use  in  China  many  centuries  before  it  was  even  dreamed  of  in  the 
Western  world. 

The  object  of  all  education  in  China  being  official  position,  the  art  of  essay- 
writing  becomes  the  one  central  feature  —  the  flower  and  fruit  —  of  the  whole 
of  the  laborious  educational  system  of  the  Chinese.  The  schoolboy  begins  to 
write  his  easy  form  of  essay,  or  part  of  an  essay,  as  soon  as  he  is  able  to  under- 
stand the  classics ;  while  the  gray-haired  competitor  for  the  Doctor's  degree  is 
still  found  working  away  at  the  same  dreary  task  that  has  occupied  his  whole 
life.  When  we  see  candidates  patiently  keeping  in  touch  with  these  studies 
year  after  year,  from  youth  to  old  age,  each  failure  in  essay-writing  only  stimulat- 
ing to  renewed  exertions,  the  vast  importance  of  the  essay,  from  the  Chinese 
point  of  view,  is  self-evident.  Three  to  eight  essays  have  to  be  produced  during 
one  examination.  The  bookshops  of  all  Chinese  cities  are  flooded  with  collec- 
tions of  essays  by  famous  authors  of  all  ages,  which  have  to  be  carefully  studied 
by  intending  competitors  in  the  hope  of  borrowing  therefrom  something  of  their 
vigor  of  style  and  refinement  of  diction.  By  writing  one  or  more  essays  every 
day  of  his  life,  to  be  severely  criticised  by  his  teachers  or  friends,  the  student 
becomes  so  proficient  that  elegant  and  well-turned  phrases,  on  any  subject  within 
his  range,  flow  easily  and  almost  mechanically  from  his  pen.  Unless  luck  is 
against  him,  he  feels  confident  that  success  will  crown  his  efforts.  Yet  only 
from  one  to  five  per  cent  succeed  at  ordinary  examinations. 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  ci 

(2)  Its  History.  —  The  farther  we  go  back  in  the  history  of  the  Chinese 
essays  the  more  the  similarity  to  those  of  our  Western  nations  is  manifest.     Plu- 
tarch and  Seneca,  as  well  as  Plato  and  Cicero,  wrote  their  essays  with  perfect 
freedom  from  the  constraint  of  fixed  rules  or  methods.     In  the  same  way  the  art 
of  writing  essays,  which  has  existed  in  China  from  time  immemorial,  was  not  at 
first  placed  under  restriction  as  to  method.     It  was  not  till  the  Sung  dynasty,  or 
about  a  thousand  years  ago,  that  the  present  elaborate  system,  which  we  call  the 
Normal  essay,  arranged  under  eight  divisions,' was  fully  and  permanently  fixed, 
by  the  great  reformer,  Wang-an-shih,  in  the  year  1060.     Chinese  literature  was 
then  at  its  zenith.     The  prose  and  poetical  writings  of  that  era  are  even  now 
regarded   as   the  consummation  of  excellence,  while  its  caligraphy  is  so  much 
prized  that  some  of  the  best  scholars  of  the  present  day  use  it  as  their  model. 
The  conservative  Chinese  carefully  retain  every  feature  of  that  highly  developed 
system  for  writing  essays  which  obtained  in  those  palmy  days.     Their  love  of 
order,  symmetry,  settled  formulae,  fixed  laws  and  rules,  leads  them  to  abhor  the 
very  idea  of  change  in  literary  as  well  as  in  other  things. 

(3)  Method  of  Construction.  —  Ever   since   the    Sung  dynasty   the    Normal 
essayist  must  introduce  his  subject  in  so  many  well-balanced  sentences,  develop- 
ing it  in  so  many  more,  summing  up  his  arguments,  and,  finally,  reaching  the 
conclusion  —  all  exactly  according  to  those  old-fashioned  principles  and  methods 
of  composition.     To  express  his  own  thoughts  in  his  own  way  would  be  fatal  to 
his  purpose.     It  is  here  that  the  exercise  of  the  most  wonderful  ingenuity  comes 
in,  for  of  all  the  kinds  of  prose-writing  that  have  ever  been  invented  the  Wen- 
chang  is  undoubtedly  the  most  difficult,  exacting,  and  artificial.      History  and 
geography  must  be  studied,  but  only  those  of  China  —  and  not  at  all  for  their 
lessons  of  wisdom,  but  for  the  sake  of  the  allusions  with  which  they  enable  the 
writer  to  embellish  his  composition.     The  great  facts  and  the  great  thoughts  that 
vibrate  through  the  rest  of  the  civilized  world  he  has  no  use  for. 

The  length  of  the  Normal  essay  is  limited  to  between  three  hundred  to  six 
or  eight  hundred  words.  In  our  own  literature  it  answers  thus,  in  some  respects, 
to  the  short  papers  found  in  the  Spectator  and  Rambler,  which  were  so  much  in 
vogue  during  the  eighteenth  century.  Bacon's  essays  resemble,  in  some  respects, 
the  best  class  of  Chinese  essays  ;  but  our  modern  British  essayists  are  so  far 
removed  from  the  Chinese  Normal  essay,  in  the  freedom  and  elasticity  of  their 
style  and  mode  of  treatment,  that  comparison  is  out  of  the  question. 

The  great  aim  of  the  Chinese  essayist  being  the  exposition  of  the  theme, 
nothing  further  must  be  attempted  ;  on  the  principle  that  the  germs  of  all  wisdom 
are  contained  in  the  classics  and  people  of  modern  times  can  do  nothing  beyond 
unfolding  the  vast  inner  meaning  of  these  germs.  Originality  is  not  to  be  thought 
of.  The  essay  which  obtains  the  highest  favor  is  composed  of  a  great  number  of 
parts,  skilfully  and  deftly  arranged  and  joined  together  like  the  mosaic  pictures 
of  the  West,  or  like  the  inlaid  wares  of  China  and  Japan.  It  is  thus  of  no  prac- 
tical utility  except  as  a  feat  of  intellectual  gymnastics  or  a  cleverly  solved  literary 
puzzle. 

A  translation  can  never  begin  to  do  justice  to  the  subtle  qualities  that  are  to 
be  found  in  a  first-class  Normal  essay.  The  delicate  play  of  words,  the  covert 
allusions,  the  connecting  words  that  carry  the  sense  over  from  one  sentence  to 
the  next,  or  from  one  division  to  another,  together  with  the  links  which  blend 


cii  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

the  various  elements  into  one  symmetrical  and  harmonious  whole  —  these  are 
features  that  it  is  impossible  to  translate,  for  they  almost  entirely  disappear, 
directly  the  essay  is  cast  into  a  foreign  mould. 

The  Chinese  Normal  essay  has  been  compared  to  those  dwarfed  trees  which 
the  Chinese  and  Japanese  gardeners  are  at  such  pains  to  produce  by  artificial 
treatment.  Yet  it  cannot  be  denied  that  each  essay  is  complete  in  itself.  The 
Chinese  proverb  says  that  "  the  fly  though  a  small  insect  has  all  its  viscera  per- 
fect." In  like  manner  the  Chinese  essay,  although  limited  to  a  few  hundred 
words,  is  a  finished  production.  The  human  body  is  the  model  on  which  it  is 
constructed.  The  human  body  is  supposed  to  have  eight  principal  parts,  or 
divisions,  and  in  the  same  way  the  Normal  essay  must  have  its  head,  neck, 
shoulders,  arms,  viscera,  sides,  legs,  and  feet.  In  fact,  its  argument  must  be 
literally  an  " argumentum  ad  homineni"  These  parts  in  the  essay  must  be 
symmetrical  and  well  proportioned.  If  the  legs  are  too  long,  it  is  said  to 
resemble  a  stork  ;  if  the  middle  portions  are  too  bulky,  it  is  said  to  be  like  a 
turtle ;  if  the  head  and  feet  are  too  large  in  proportion  to  the  middle,  it  is  said 
to  resemble  a  wasp  ;  and  so  on.  In  any  such  case  the  essay  would  be  rejected. 
The  limits  of  this  abstract  of  the  paper  will  not  admit  of  the  translation  of  a 
short  essay  by  \vay  of  illustration. 

(4)  Beneficial  and  Injurious  Results.  —  A  thousand  years  of  Normal  essay- 
writing  has  not  been  without  its  benefits  to  the  Chinese  people,  as  well  as  to 
their  rulers.     The  brainy  people,  who  might  otherwise  have  caused  trouble,  have 
been  busily  and  harmlessly  engaged,  while  at  the  same  time  they  have  been  kept 
in  close  touch  with,  and  under  the  complete  control  of,  the  government.     The 
classics  are  the  embodiment  of  elegant  and  correct  style ;   and  thus  the  writing 
of  Wen-chang,  which  depends  upon  them,  has  been  a  great  means  for  cultivating 
and  keeping  up  a  high  degree  of  scholarly  excellence,  causing  the  Chinese  to 
deserve  well  the  name  of  a  literary  nation.     The  classics,  furthermore,  contain 
the  principles  of  government ;   and  hence  their  careful  study,  which  the  Wen- 
chang  involves,  has  tended  to  produce  a  body  of  men  well  versed  in  the  princi- 
ples of  law  and  justice.     Again,  the  writing  of  Wen-chang  is  a  great  training  in 
the  art  of  diplomacy.     It  teaches  ths  best  way  of  presenting  a  subject  to  another 
person :  approaching  him  gradually,  hinting  at  what  is  meant,  —  at  first  vaguely, — 
and  noting  the  result ;  then,  if  it  seems  advisable,  more  light  is  let  in.     If  the 
result  still  seems  satisfactory,  the  full  idea  may  be  broached  without  fear  of 
offence  or  refusal.     In  all  this  sort  of  diplomacy  the  Chinese  excel,  and  doubtless 
this  is  owing,  in  a  considerable  degree,  to  the  long  training  of  the  best  minds  in 
the  writing  of  Wen-chang. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  injurious  effects  on  the  nation  are  almost  self-evident. 
The  writing  of  the  Normal  essay  checks  all  progress.  It  only  reproduces  the 
past,  while  it  visits  novelty  and  originality  with  heavy  penalties.  Again,  it  tends 
to  pervert  the  moral  sense  by  making  what  amounts  to  nothing  appear  to  be 
something  of  paramount  importance.  The  highest  triumph  of  the  art  is  to 
extract  from  a  text  what  is  really  not  in  it.  Hence,  the  Wen-chang  has  been 
well  described  as  an  "  artistic  lie."  After  so  many  generations  of  this  kind  of 
training  it  would  not  be  surprising  to  find  the  literary  classes  notorious  for  deceit 
and  duplicity. 

(5)  The  Future  of  the  Normal  Essay.  —  It  is  satisfying  to  know  that  after  suf- 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  ciii 

fering  from  this  incubus  for  a  millennium  of  years,  China  has  recently  abolished 
its  absolute  necessity  for  purposes  of  examinations  for  literary  degrees,  by  an 
imperial  edict.  For  the  future  the  Lun,  or  free  essay,  may  be  written,  and  will 
be  accepted  instead.  The  change  will  not  be  difficult  to  make,  for  it  only  involves 
the  giving  up  of  the  stereotyped  form  of  the  arrangement  and  expression  of  the 
ideas.  The  essayist  may  now  express  his  sentiments  in  his  own  way,  with  perfect 
freedom  from  all  constraint,  while  he  still  maintains  all  the  elegance  and  style  of 
the  Wen-thang.  Instead  of  being  restricted  to  the  books  and  authors  before  the 
Han  dynasty,  the  whole  realm  of  history,  as  well  as  of  science  and  art,  are  now 
open  to  him.  It  is  all  the  difference  between  a  man  obliged  to  do  his  work  in 
heavy  shackles  and  in  being  allowed  the  absolute  freedom  of  his  whole  body.  A 
few  years  will  show  the  advantage  of  the  change,  and  will  cause  the  literary  part 
of  the  nation  to  look  back  with  wonder  at  the  chains  which  their  predecessors 
were  contented  to  be  bound  with  for  so  many  ages.  For  this  change  they  are 
indebted  to  the  compulsory  intercourse  of  foreign  nations ;  for  if  the  Chinese 
had  been  left  alone  in  their  seclusion,  things  would  have  gone  on  in  the  old 
rut,  practically  forever. 

26.  The  Scholia  on  Gesture  in  the  Commentary  of  Donatus,  by  Dr. 
J.  W.  Basore,  of  the  University  of  California. 

The  scenic  import  of  the  scholia  on  gesture,  in  the  commentary  of  Donatus 
(flor.  4th  cy.  A.D.)  on  the  plays  of  Terence,  received  appreciative  comment  from 
Lessing  in  the  Hamburg  Dramaturgic,  and  by  more  formal  exposition  of  their 
value,  notably  at  the  hands  of  Schopen,  Hoflfer,  and  Leo,  these  have  since  ranked 
as  a  source  of  information  concerning  the  manners  of  the  Roman  stage.  The  com- 
mentary is  an  uncritical  compilation  from  at  least  two  other  commentaries  which 
were  themselves  dependent  upon  older  works  of  a  similar  nature,  and  this  depen- 
dence has  seemed  especially  obvious  in  the  case  of  those  scholia  which  have  been 
interpreted  as  stage-directions,  since  in  the  fourth  century  the  plays  of  Plaulus 
and  Terence  had  ceased  to  subsist  upon  the  stage  and  the  incorporation  of  such 
in  the  mass  of  otherwise  exegetical,  grammatical,  and  rhetorical  comment,  could 
have  been  with  no  purpose  of  serving  the  practices  of  the  period.  The  ultimate 
sources  of  such  scenic  matter  may  well  have  been  the  actors'  copies  of  the  plays 
and  the  records  of  magistrates  regarding  their  production,  made  accessible  through 
the  works  of  the  earlier  Roman  scholars.  Sittl,  however,  in  the  only  formal 
treatise  on  ancient  gesture  {Die  Gebarden  der  Griechen  u.  Romer,  Lpz.  1890), 
rejecting  the  estimate  which  places  upon  these  scholia  a  value  for  the  older 
period  of  stage  representation,  refers  the  group  to  the  category  of  mere  directions 
for  the  mimic  declaimer  of  the  later  period  {I.e.  p.  203),  and  thus  eliminates  from 
consideration  what  has  seemed  especially  copious  and  direct  testimony  to  the 
nature  of  comic  action.  In  opposition  to  the  view  of  Sittl,  by  a  review  of  the 
commentary,  emphasis  was  laid  upon  the  many  elements,  —  dependent,  presum- 
ably, upon  older  accessible  sources  of  information,  which,  apart  from  the  supposed 
directions  for  scenic  action,  have  an  unmistakable  scenic  import.  It  was  thus 
shown  that  the  compiler  aimed  distinctly  to  incorporate  lore  concerning  the 
objective  representation  of  plays  though  they  had  passed  from  the  stage,  and  that 
the  scholia  on  gesture  might  with  equal  reason  be  referred  to  the  same  or  similar 


civ  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

sources.  Note,  for  example,  the  references  to  the  "  scaena  "  and  "  proscaenium  " 
in  the  adjustment  of  parts  {Ad.  2.  2.  2;  Eun.  3.  I.  I,  et  saepe)  to  the  presence  of 
the  spectator  (e.g.  And.  2.  6.  25;  3.  2.  15);  the  allusions  to  the  entrance  or 
departure  of  actors  (e.g.  And.  5.  4.  I;  Eun.  3\  I.  4;  on  Eun.  5.  4.  45  cf.  Wein- 
berger, Wien.  Stud.  14,  p.  123).  The  introductory  treatise  of  the  commentary, 
De  Comoedia  supplies  varied  information  upon  the  presentation  of  plays  in 
point  of  costume,  the  wearing  of  masks,  and  other  technical  matters  of  stage 
equipment  (cf.  ed.  of  Wessner,  p.  28  ff.).  Further,  in  the  narrower  limits  of  the 
group  of  scholia  under  consideration,  certain  directions  appear  which  not  only 
may  be  shown  from  other  sources  to  be  in  accord  with  the  customs  of  the  stage, 
but  cannot  with  any  degree  of  probability  be  referred  to  the  uses  of  the  declaimer, 
since,  though  the  "actio  "  of  the  stage  was  regarded  in  a  measure  as  the  model  of 
oratorical  delivery,  those  extravagances  of  bearing  which  verged  on  the  side  of 
"imitatio"  were  strongly  condemned  for  the  purposes  of  the  more  dignified 
speaker  (Auct.  ad  Her.  III.  26;  Quint.  XI.  3.  124).  Thus  the  "gestus  exeuntis 
vel  abituri"  (Ad.  I.  2.  47;  Eun.  3.  5.  i),  "gestus  offerentis"  (Ph.  I.  2.  2), 
"gestus  cogitantis  "  (And.  i.  i.  83;  cf.  Plaut.  Mil.  Glor.  201-207), "  gestus  com- 
minantis"  (Ad.  3.  4.  8;  4.  4.  14),  etc.,  the  violent  movements  of  tossing  or 
shaking  the  head  (Eun.  4.  7.  I ;  And.  I.  2.  12),  comic  capers  of  joy  (Ad.  2.  4.  I, 
et  al.),  the  drunken  reel  (e.g.  Eun.  4.  5.  i),  all  satisfy  purely  dramatic  situations. 
A  scenic  value  is  to  be  recognized  in  the  characterizations  of  the  role  of  the 
"  servus  currens "  in  conformity  with  the  stock  type  of  comedy  (Quint.  XI.  3. 
112;  Donat.  De  Com.  p.  29,  Wessner).  Of  obvious  significance  for  scenic  action 
are  the  comments  specif;,  ing  attitudes,  as  types  of  which  may  be  cited  Ph.  5.  6. 
20  (conversus),  Hec.  4.  I.  8  (aversus),  the  direction  of  the  eyes  (Eun.  5.  5.  17 
et  saepe),  and  contact  by  touch  (e.g.  Eun.  I.  2.  43).  The  foundation  of  the 
"gestus  servilis"  (And.  I.  2.  12;  I.  2.  13;  Ad.  4.  2.  28),  is  found  in  Quint.  XI. 
3.  83  to  be  a  shrugging  or  contraction  of  the  shoulders,  and  the  censure  attached 
to  it  there  (raro  decens)  points  to  its  distinctively  comic,  character.  The  attitude 
further  is  clearly  depicted  in  the  miniatures  of  the  illustrated  Mss.  of  Terence, 
where  it  is  shown  to  be  characteristic  of  a  slave  upon  entering  the  stage.  So 
the  assigned  gesture  of  threatening  with  the  staff  (baculum),  Ad.  4.  2.  32;  5.  2.  7, 
points  to  an  attested  custom  of  stage  equipment  for  old  men  and  rustics  (cf.  Suet- 
Nero,  24;  Daremb-Sagl.  Diet.  Antiq.  sub  baculum).  Finally  evidence  was 
gained  for  the  scenic  value  of  the  scholia  by  citing  specified  cases  of  coincidence 
of  testimony  with  the  representations  of  the  illustrated  Mss.  of  Terence,  and  from 
this  fact  of  mutual  support  was  drawn  an  argument  for  the  reliability  of  the 
tradition  there  portrayed. 

This  paper  was  discussed  by  Professors  Richardson  and  Gayley. 

27.  Magister  Curiae  in  the  Aulularia  of  Plautus,  by  Dr.  H.  W. 
Prescott,  of  the  University  of  California. 

This  paper  appears  in  full  in  the  TRANSACTIONS. 

The  Committee  on  Nomination  of  Officers  then  reported  the  fol- 
lowing nominations  for  the  year  1902-03  through  the  Chairman, 
Professor  L.  J.  Richardson. 


Proceedings  for  December,   1902.  cv 

President,  A.  T.  Murray,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 
Vice- Presidents,  W.  A.  Merrill,  University  of  California. 

J.  Goebel,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 

Secretary-Treasurer,  J.  E.  Matzke,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 
Executive  Committee,  The  above-named  officers  and 

E.  B.  Clapp,  University  of  California. 

H.  R.  Fairclough,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University. 

A.  F.  Lange,  University  of  California. 

J.  E.  Church,  Jr.,  University  of  Nevada. 

The  report  was  accepted,  and  on  motion  of  Professor  Richardson 
the  Secretary  was  instructed  to  cast  the  ballot  of  the  Association  for 
the  gentlemen  as  nominated. 

On  motion  of  Professor  Merrill  the  Secretary  was  instructed  to 
convey  to  the  Regents  of  the  University  of  California  the  thanks  of 
the  Association  for  the  use  of  the  rooms  in  which  the  meetings  were 
held. 

28.  Lucretius'  Attitude  towards  Children,  by  Dr.  Andrew  Oliver, 
of  San  Mateo,  California  (read  by  title). 

29.  The  Source  of  Sheridan's  Rivals,  by  Professor  W.  D.  Armes, 
of  the  University  of  California. 

Though  Sheridan  stated  in  the  preface  to  The  Rivals  that  it  was  his  first  wish 
to  avoid  all  appearance  of  plagiarism,  he  has  not  escaped  the  charge.  Especially 
has  his  indebtedness  to  Humphry  Clinker  for  characters  and  incidents  been 
asserted,  Mr.  Thomas  Arnold  even  referring  to  the  novel  as  "  the  mine  out  of 
which  Sheridan  dug  The  Rivals." 

Professor  Brander  Matthews  enumerates  the  charges  only  to  deny  them.  He 
quotes  Mr.  Arnold's  statement,  and  says,  "The  accusation  that  The  Rivals  is 
indebted  to  Humphry  ( 'linker  is  absurd.  ...  In  all  Smollett's  novel  .  .  .  there 
is  nothing  which  recalls  Sheridan's  play,  save  possibly  Mistress  Tabitha  Bramble." 

These  two  statements  are  irreconcilable.  Which  is  correct?  A  detailed  com- 
parison of  the  two  works  will  show. 

First,  as  to  plot.  The  principal  of  the  two  stories  in  Humphry  Clinker  is  as 
follows :  Mr.  Wilson  and  Miss  Lydia  Melford,  who  have  previously  met  in  Glouces- 
tershire and  fallen  in  love,  carry  on  a  clandestine  correspondence  in  Bath  through 
a  servant.  She  betrays  Lydia,  who  is  commanded  to  give  up  a  lover  so  far 
beneath  her.  But  the  discovery  that  Wilson  is  the  assumed  name  of  the  son 
of  an  old  friend  of  Lydia's  uncle  removes  all  obstacles  to  the  marriage.  Substitute 
Beverly  for  Wilson,  Languish  for  Melford,  and  aunt  for  uncle,  and  this  is  the  plot 
of  The  Rivals. 

Next,  as  to  characters.  Miss  Bramble,  Lydia's  aunt,  is  "  a  maiden  of  forty- 
five,  exceedingly  starched,  vain,  and  ridiculous,"  on  the  lookout  for  a  husband. 
Though  a  gentlewoman,  she  blunders  in  her  diction,  confusing  words  that  sound 
alike.  Change  maiden  to  widow,  and  this  describes  Mrs.  Malaprop. 


cvi  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast. 

Matthew  Bramble,  in  his  college  days  a  gay  blade,  is  in  the  novel  an  irascible 
and  opinionated  old  man,  "  always  on  the  fret,  and  .  .  .  unpleasant  in  his  manner," 
who  beneath  his  rough  exterior  conceals  a  warm,  tender  heart.  Broadly  tolerant 
and  full  of  charity,  he  thinks  himself  a  crusty  cynic  and  confirmed  misanthrope. 
Mutatis  mutandis,  this  is  a  description  of  Sir  Anthony  Absolute,  "in  his  youth  a 
bold  intriguer  and  gay  companion,"  but  shown  in  the  play  as  an  irascible,  head- 
strong old  man.  Though  hot-headed  and  intolerant,  he  considers  himself  a 
marvel  of  coolness  and  moderation. 

In  both  works  are  a  sentimental  miss  of  seventeen  and  her  confidante,  and  two 
young  gentlemen  of  fortune  and  position  who  are  their  lovers.  Miss  Lydia  Melford 
"  has  got  a  languishing  eye  and  reads  romances."  Miss  Lydia  Languish  is  intro- 
duced looking  over  a  number  of  novels,  among  them  Humphry  Clinker.  Dennison, 
urged  by  his  parents  to  make  a  distasteful  marriage,  quits  college,  and  under  the 
name  of  Wilson  becomes  a  strolling  player.  As  such  he  wins  the  love  of  Miss 
Melford,  who,  unknown  to  him,  is  the  niece  of  his  father's  college  chum.  Captain 
Absolute  refuses  to  give  his  hand  to  the  lady  that  his  father  has  selected  for  him, 
but  whom  he  himself  has  never  seen.  Charmed  by  the  appearance  of  Miss 
Languish,  and  knowing  that  with  the  sentimental  girl  he  would  succeed  better  as 
a  penniless  ensign  than  as  a  captain,  heir  to  a  fortune  and  a  baronetcy,  he  assumes 
the  name  Beverly,  and  unwittingly  becomes  his  own  rival,  Lydia  being  the  niece 
of  an  old  friend  of  his  father,  and  the  very  lady  that  Sir  Anthony  had  selected  for 
him. 

In  the  novel  there  is  barely  a  suggestion  that  in  Miss  Willis,  his  sister's  con- 
fidante, Jery  Melford  "  meets  his  fate."  Sheridan  developed  this  secondary  pair 
of  lovers  in  the  style  of  the  sentimental  comedy,  and  the  scenes  between  them 
were  highly  applauded  by  his  contemporaries. 

Sir  Lucius  O'Trigger  has  a  shadowy  prototype  in  Sir  Ulic  Mackilligut,  with 
perhaps  a  few  traits  from  Lismahago. 

Third,  as  to  the  incidents  that  do  not  form  a  part  of  the  plot.  Miss  Bramble 
carries  on  a  flirtatious  correspondence  with  Sir  Ulic,  whom  she  met  in  Bath 
when  he  was  about  to  open  a  ball  with  Lady  Macmanus.  Mrs.  Malaprop  has  a 
similar  correspondence  with  Sir  Lucius,  whom  she  met  in  Bath  at  the  rout  at  Lady 
Macshuffle's.  As  does  Miss  Bramble  so  does  Mrs.  Malaprop  mistake  a  proposal 
for  her  niece's  hand  for  one  for  her  own. 

The  similarity  of  these  incidents  has  been  noted  before,  but  that  the  duel  inci- 
dents in  the  play  have  originals  in  the  novel,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  not.  Mr. 
Bramble  runs  after  his  nephew  to  keep  him  from  fighting  Wilson.  Failing  to 
catch  him,  he  calls  out  the  mayor  and  the  constables  and  reaches  the  field  with 
them  in  time  to  prevent  the  duel.  So  David  runs  after  Captain  Absolute  to  pre- 
vent his  meeting  Sir  Lucius,  and  failing  to  catch  him,  vows  to  call  out  the  mayor 
and  the  constables  to  stop  the  duel.  The  arrival  of  Sir  Anthony  and  the  ladies 
on  the  field,  however,  brings  the  play  to  a  close  before  their  appearance. 

Seeing  Wilson  in  an  unnamed  town,  Jery  Melford,  desirous  of  continuing  the 
interrupted  duel,  left  a  challenge  at  the  hotel  at  which  he  learned  a  Mr.  Wilson 
was  staying.  Without  question,  an  utter  stranger  appeared  at  the  rendezvous, 
explaining  that  "  having  had  the  honour  to  serve  his  Majesty,  he  thought  he 
could  not  decently  decline  any  invitation  of  this  kind  from  what  quarter  soever 
it  might  come."  So  Captain  Absolute  accepts  Sir  Lucius'  challenge  without 


Proceedings  for  December,  1902.  cvii 

question,  and  gives  his  father  the  same  explanation :  "  'Twas  he  called  me  out, 
and  you  know,  sir,  I  serve  his  Majesty.  .  .  .  That  gentleman  called  me  out  with- 
out explaining  his  reasons." 

In  Humphry  Clinker,  a  squire,  who  has  broken  his  promise  to  a  clergyman, 
makes  him  the  butt  of  his  ridicule.  Eastgate  replies  in  kind,  and  Frankly  forth- 
with challenges  him.  To  his  amazement  the  challenge  is  accepted.  As  his 
bluster  has  no  effect,  Frankly  takes  position,  but  his  hand  trembles  so  that  he 
cannot  prime  his  pistol.  Alleging  that  he  has  not  arranged  his  affairs,  he  begs 
a  postponement,  to  which  Eastgate  consents.  After  presenting  the  clergyman 
the  living  that  had  caused  their  quarrel,  the  squire  asserts  his  readiness  to  pro- 
ceed, but  Eastgate  declines  to  lift  his  hand  against  his  benefactor.  So  Bob  Acres, 
spite  of  his  bluster,  is  in  a  "  blue  funk  "  when  in  position,  and  is  immensely  re- 
lieved to  find  that  "  Beverly  "  is  his  friend  Absolute,  with  whom,  according  to  his 
code,  it  is  impossible  for  him  to  fight. 

The  plot,  then,  most  of  the  important  characters,  and  the  principal  incidents 
in  The  Rivals,  were  developed  by  Sheridan  from  suggestions  in  Humphry 
Clinker.  Mr.  Arnold's  metaphor  may  be  expanded :  in  Humphry  Clinker  is  a 
mass  of  valuable  ore  mixed  with  dross  and  impurities;  in  The  Rivals  we  have 
the  refined  metal  stamped  with  the  hall-mark  of  Sheridan's  brilliant  wit. 

Adjourned  at  5  P.M. 


INDEX. 


Arabic  numerals  indicate  the  pages  of  the  Transactions ;  Roman  numerals  indicate  the  pages 

of  the  Proceedings. 


ab  before  proper  names  beginning  with 

a  consonant  :  Iv. 
Ablative    absolute    in    the    epistles    of 

Cicero,  Seneca,  Pliny,  and    Fronto  : 

Ixi. 
Accent,  early  Latin,  recessive:    71-76, 

93-96,  101. 
Alcibiades's  return  to  Athens,  date  of: 

40. 


s,    meaning    of,   in    Hephaestion, 
p.  21  W:    49  f. 
Anaclasis,  in  galliambics  :  29  f. 
Anacrustic  scansion  of  iambic  trimeter  : 

5°  f-  53»  59- 
Analogy,  effect  of,  upon  Latin  accent: 

74  f. 
Anapaest  in  the  Aristophanic  trimeter  : 

49-59  ;    table  of  frequency  of:    53  ; 

preponderance   of  in  even  feet  :   52 

ff.;    not    a    resolution    of    irrational 

spondee  :   54  ;    in   Middle  and  New 

Comedy  :  54. 

Andocides  against  Alcibiades  :  xli. 
Apocope  of  s  in  Lucretius  :  Ixv. 
Aristophanes,  the  citizenship  of:  Ixxxii. 
Aristophanic  trimeter,  anapaest  in  :  49- 

59- 
Art,  Greek,  appreciation  of,  in  Cicero  : 

xxxv. 
Beloch's   theory   of   the   succession   of 

Spartan  nauarchs:  33  ff. 
Campoamor,  Poetica  :  Ixxx. 
canicula  :  lix. 

Catullus,  galliambics  in  :  27  ff. 
Chinese  normal  essay  :  c. 
Chivers,  literary  relations  of,  to  Poe  : 

xcii. 

Cicero,  appreciation  of  Greek  art  :  xxxv. 
Cicero,   Brut.  75   (bellum  Poenicum}  : 

xliii. 


Cicero,  ellipsis  in:  8-9,  n. 

Cicero's  epistles,  ablative  absolute  in : 

Ixi. 
Claudian's    De    consulate     Stilichonis, 

M.E.  translation  of:  xciv. 
Cocaigne,   land   of,   in   Attic   comedy: 

xxxii. 
Comedy,  Middle  and  New,  frequency  of 

anapaest  in  trimeter  of:  54, 
Comic  poets,  Greek,  as  literary  critics : 

xxxiv. 

Comparative  literature,  what  is?  Ixxiv. 
Compounds,   Indo-European,   so-called 

mutation   in:    Ixviii ;    Latin:    84  f., 

97-101. 

Conditional  thought,  modes  of:  Ixvii. 
conlegia  :  44  f. 

Copula,  omission  of,  in  Greek :  viii. 
Cratesippidas,  Spartan  nauarch :  33-35, 

37,  40. 

curiae  :  43  f. 
Dactyl  in  anacrustic  scansion  of  iambic 

trimeter,  table  of  frequency  of:  53. 
Dactylic  form  of  hexameter :  li. 
Dactylic  words,  accentuation  of,  in  Latin 

verse :  67  f. 

Danielsson  on  diektasis  in  Homer :  xx. 
Dekker's  share  in  Old Fortunatus  :  xcii. 
de  tenero  ungui :  Iv. 
Diaeresis  after  the  second  foot  of  the 

hexameter  in  Lucretius :  Ix. 
Diektasis  in  Homer :  xx. 
Diodorus  Siculus,  optative  in :  Ixii. 
Dolora  in  Campoamor :  Ixxx. 
Donatus,  scholia  on  gesture  in  the  com- 
mentary of:  ciii. 

Dryden's  quarrel  with  Settle  :  xc. 
egosum :  88. 

Elegists,  Roman,  metrical  art  of:  xxviii. 
Elision  in  Greek,  theory  of:  xxiv. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1 903 . 


cix 


ella  as  a  polite  form  of  address  in  Italian : 
Loads. 

Ellipsis,  in  Tacitus's  descriptions :  5-26. 

Enclitics  in  Latin :  73,  87-90. 

Epistoleus,  successsion  of,  to  the  Spar- 
tan nauarchia :  36,  40. 

?ro(/io?,  omission  of  copula  with :  viii. 

etquidem  :  86. 

ettamen :  86. 

Euripides,  Hippol.  246 :  xli. 

Fronto's  epistles,  ablative  absolute  in : 
IxL 

Galliambics,  anaclasis  in :  29  f. ;  in 
Catullus:  27  ff. 

German  auxiliary  verb,  omission  of,  xcv. 

Gerund  in  Livy :  xxxviii. 

Gerundive  in  Livy :  xxxviii.  • 

Gesture,  scholia  on,  in  the  commentary 
of  Donatus :  ciii. 

Gleditsch's  view  of  the  anapaest  in  iam- 
bic trimeter :  57. 

Goethe  and  Herder :  bcxii. 

Grammarians,  citations  from,  upon  Latin 
accent :  64,  97 ;  upon  Latin  word- 
division:  98. 

Greek  art ;  three  terra-cotta  heads : 
xxxvii ;  head  of  an  ephebos  from 
Corinth :  xxxvii ;  Cicero's  apprecia- 
tion of:  xxxv. 

Havelok,  the  Scalacronica  version  of: 
xci. 

Hephaestion  and  the  anapaest  in  the 
Aristophanic  trimeter :  49-59  ;  his 
erroneous  notion  that  anapaest  is  reso- 
lution of  irrational  spondee  :  54,  57  ff. 

Herder  and  Goethe :  Ixxii. 

Herder's  attitude  toward  the  French 
stage :  Ixxii. 

Hermann's  view  of  the  anapaest  in 
iambic  trimeter :  54  f. 

Heroic  form  of  hexameter :  li. 

Hexameter,  Greek  forms  of:  li. 

Hexameter,  Latin,  coincidence  of  word- 
accent  and  verse-ictus  in  the  last  two 
feet  of:  xxvi. 

Hexameter,  Latin,  diaeresis  after  the 
second  foot  of,  in  Lucretius :  be. 

Historians,  ancient,  incongruities  in  the 
speeches  of:  xliii. 

Homer,  diektasis  in :  xx. 

Horace,  C.  1.3.  1-8 :  xxii  ;  3.  6.  24 :  Iv ; 
3-  12:  27. 


Hupa,  a  Californian  language,  structure 

of  the  verb  in :  xcviii. 
Iambic  trimeter,  anapaest  in  :  49-59. 
Iambic   words,   in  galliambic    rhythm: 

28  ff. 

idagit :  8l,  98  ;   idego  :  98. 
Idiot  as  a  possessive  in  Polybius :  iv. 
Infinitive,   historical,  in  Tacitus:    6-7, 

13,  22,  26. 

Initial  intensity,  theory  of:  95  f. 
Ionic  verse,  in  I  lorace :  27. 
Italian,  ella,  lei,  la,  as  polite  forms  of 

address:  Ixxxix. 
Juvenal,  cod.  Canonicianus  Lat.  XLI : 

xix. 

KOT'  tvtnr\iov  form  of  dactylic  hexame- 
ter: li. 
Klotz's  view  of  the  anapaest  in  iambic 

trimeter :  56  f. 
la  as  a  polite  form  of  address  in  Italian : 

Ixxxix. 

Latin,  order  of  words  in :  xxxi. 
lei  as  a  polite  form  of  address  in  Italian : 

Ixxxix. 
Literary  criticism  in  Greek  comic  poets : 

xxxiv. 
Livy's  account  of  the  dramatic  satura : 

Ixvii. 

Livy,  ellipsis  in :  9. 

Livy,  gerund  and  gerundive  in :  xxxviii. 
Lucretius,  apocope  of  s  in :  Ixv. 
Lucretius,    diaeresis    after   the    second 

foot  of  the  hexameter  in :  Ix. 
Magister  curiae  in    Plaut.  Aul. :    107, 

41-48. 
Metrical   art   of  the   Roman   elegists: 

xxviii. 

Mindarus,  Spartan  nauarch  :  33-36,  40. 
Monosyllables,  Latin,  their  relation  to 

accent  and  quantity :  60-103  ;   com- 
monly  proclitic:    71   ff. ;    commonly 

atonic:  63  f.;  sometimes  tonic:  71  ff. 
Mutation  in  Indo-European  compounds : 

Ixviii. 
Nauarchs,    Spartan,    succession   of,    in 

Hellenica  1 :  33  ff. 
Nymphs,  cult  of,  as  water-deities  among 

the  Romans :  vi. 
Old   Fortunatus,    relation    of,   to    the 

Volksbufh  :  xcii. 
6/j.fj.a    T tr pa.tr T a.i,    Eurip.   Hippol.   246 : 

xli. 


ex 


American  Philological  Association. 


Optative  in  Diodorus  Siculus :  Ixii. 
Order  of  words  in  Latin :  xxxi. 
Pasippidas,  Spartan  nauarch :  33  ff. 
Pentameter,  elegiac :  li. 
Pericles,  fiscal  joke  of:  xx. 
Perschinka's  table  of  frequency  of  ana- 
paest in  iambic  trimeter :  54. 
Plato,  Rep.  423  B :  xxiii. 
Plautus,  Aul.  107 :  41-48;  Stick.  193  ff.  : 

v. 

Pliny's  epistles,  ablative  absolute  in :  Ixi. 
Poe,   literary  relations  of,  to  Chivers: 

xcii. 

Poenicum  =  Punicum  :  xliii. 
Poetica  of  Campoamar :  Ixxx. 
Polybius,  fSios  as  a  possessive  in :  iv. 
Proceleusmaticus,  accentuation  of:  76- 

78. 

Proclitics  in  Latin :  71  ff. 
Promptuarium    Exemplorum,    sources 

of  the  Paris :  xcvi. 
Prosodiac  tetrameter:  li. 
quidego:  84  f.;  quidenim  :  97;  quidita: 

97  ;   quidni :  84. 
Quintilian's  criticism  of  the  metres  of 

Terence :  xlviii. 

Ramayana,  some  verb-forms  in :  xl. 
Rhythm  as  concerned  in  poetry :  Ixxxvii. 
Rhythm,    marked    by    word-accent   in 

Latin :  27,  32. 
Rossbach  and  WestphaFs  view  of  the 

anapaest  in  iambic  trimeter :  55  f. 
Rousselot's  phonetic  synthesis,  xxiii. 
RumpePs  statistics  of  anapaest  in  iambic 

trimeter:  51  ff.,  58. 
s  apocopated  in  Lucretius :  Ixv. 
Sallust,  ellipsis  in :  8-9. 
Satura,   dramatic,    Livy's    account   of: 

Ixvii. 
Scalacronica  version  of  Havelok  :  xci. 


Seasickness,  references  to,  in  ancient 
writers:  v. 

sedego  :  85  ;  sedenim  :  97. 

Seneca's  epistles,  ablative  absolute  in: 
Ixi. 

Sepultura  =  stpulcrum  :  Ixxiii. 

Settle,  Dryden's  quarrel  with :  xc. 

Sheridan's  Rivals,  source  of:  cv. 

Siamese  vowels  and  diphthongs :  Ixxi. 

Spartan  lethargy :  36. 

Speeches  of  ancient  historians,  incon- 
gruities in :  xliii. 

Syllable-shortening  in  early  Latin,  due 
to  word-accent :  61 ;  due  to  analogy : 

75- 

Tacitus,  ellipsis  in :  5-26. 
Tacitus,   impressionism   in:    7,   12,  19, 

21-25. 

Tacitus,  subjectivity  of:  7,  24. 
Terence,  accent  and  quantity  of  mono- 
syllables in :  60  ff. 
Terence's  metres,  Quintilian's  criticism 

of:  xlviii. 

Thasos,  revolutions  in :  35,  37,  38. 
Thucydides,  character-drawing  in :  x. 
Tribrach    words,    accentuation    of,    in 

Latin  verse:    64-67. 
ungui,  de  tenero  :  Iv. 
Verb,  auxiliary,  omission  of,  in  German : 

xcv. 
Verb,  structure  of,  in  Hupa,  a  Califor- 

nian  language :  xcviii. 
Vergil,  Aeneid,  proaemium  to :  xxxii. 
Vergil,  ellipsis  in:    10-11. 
Verse-ictus  in  Latin  hexameter :  xxvi. 
Word-accent  in  Latin  hexameter :  xxvi. 
Word-division  in  Latin :  97-100. 
Word-order  in  Latin:  71,  73  f.,  90. 
Xenophon,  Hellenica  /.,  chronology  of: 

33  ff.;  topical  method  in :  35,37. 


Proceedings  for  July,    1903. 


cxi 


BIBLIOGRAPHICAL   RECORD. 
JULY  i,  1902,  TO  JULY  i,  1903. 

The  Bibliographical  Record  is  designed  to  contain  not  only  publications  dis- 
tinctly philological  in  character,  but  also  such  as  deal  with  the  educational  aspects 
of  the  study  of  language  and  literature.  It  has  been  compiled  from  information 
furnished,  at  the  request  of  the  Executive  Committee,  by  the  members  themselves. 
The  Record  is  intended  to  include  only  such  publications  as  have  appeared  within 
the  above-mentioned  year. 

ABBREVIATIONS:  A HR  =  American  Historical  Review;  A JA  =  American  Journal  of 
Archaeology;  A  JP  =  American  Journal  of  Philology;  A  JSL  =  American  Journal  of  Semitic 
Languages;  AJT=  American  Journal  of  Theology;  Arckiv  =  Archivfur  latein.  Lexicographic; 
Bookm.  =The  Bookman;  CR  =  Classical  Review;  CSCP=  Cornell  Studies  in  Classical  Phi- 
lology; ER  =  Educational  Review;  HSCP=  Harvard  Studies  in  Classical  Philology;  HSPL=> 
Harvard  Studies  and  Notes  in  Philology  and  Literature;  IF=  Indogermanische  Forschungen; 
JA  OS  =  Journal  of  the  American  Oriental  Society;  JBL  =  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature; 
yGP  =  Journal  of  Germanic  Philology;  JHUC  =  Johns  Hopkins  University  Circulars;  MLA  = 
Publications  of  the  Modern  Language  Association;  MLN=  Modern  Language  Notes;  Jv*/K=The 
New  World;  PAPA  =  Proceedings  of  the  American  Philological  Association ;  Nat.  =  The  Nation; 
SK  =  School  Review ;  TA  PA  =  Transactions  of  the  American  Philological  Association ;  UPB  = 
University  of  Pennsylvania  Bulletin;  WRUB  =  Western  Reserve  University  Bulletin. 


FRANK  FROST  ABBOTT. 

Rev.  of  Ball's  Apocolocyntosis  of 
Seneca;  CR.,  xvii.  (1903),  218- 
220. 

JAMES  TURNEY  ALLEN. 

On  the  so-called  iterative  optative  in 
Greek;  TAPA.,  xxxiii.,  101-126. 

Louis  F.  ANDERSON. 

A  Day  in  Athens;  in  the  Whitman 
College  Pioneer,  Walla  Walla, 
Wash.,  April,  1902. 

Address  —  Ancient  and  Modern  Del- 
phi; brief  report  in  the  Pioneer, 
April  2,  1902. 

Address  —  What  the  church  owes  to 
Greek  and  its  present  duty;  de- 
livered before  the  Pacific  Coast 
Congregational  Congress,  May  8— 
17,  1903,  and  partially  printed  in 
Seattle  Times,  May  9,  1903. 

ALFRED  WILLIAMS  ANTHONY. 

Rev.  of  Pearson's  The  carpenter 
prophet;  AJT.,  vi.  (July,  1902), 

573-574- 

Rev.  of  Heinrici's  Das  Urchristen- 
tum,  and  Dobschutz's  Die  urchrist- 


lichen    Gemeinden;     AJT.,    vii. 
(January,  1903),  149-15°- 
FRANCIS  KINGSLEY  BALL  (and  A. 
F.  BLAISDELL). 

Hero  stories  from  American  history, 
pp.  xii  +  259;  Boston:  Ginn  & 
Co.,  1903. 

WILLIAM  N.  BATES. 

Etruscan  horseshoes  from  Corneto; 
AJA..  vi.,  398-403. 

PAUL  BAUR. 

Eileithyia  ;  University  of  Missouri 
Studies,  i.,  No.  4  (Nov.,  1902), 
pp.  vi.,  90  (208-297). 

EDWARD  A.  BECHTEL. 

Sanctae  Silviae  Peregrinatio,  text  and 
a  study  of  the  Latinity,  pp.  160; 
The  University  of  Chicago  Press, 
Chicago,  1902. 

ALLEN  ROGERS  BENNER. 

Selections  from  Homer's  Iliad,  with 
an  introduction,  notes,  a  short 
Homeric  grammar,  and  a  vocabu- 
lary, pp.  xxx vi  +522;  New  York: 
D.  Appleton  &Co.,  1903.  (Twen- 
tieth century  text-books.) 


CX11 


American  Philological  Association. 


CHARLES  E.  BENNETT. 

The  characters  of  Theophrastus, 
translated  with  introduction  by 
Charles  E.  Bennett  and  William 
A.  Hammond;  Longmans,  Green 
&  Co.,  1902. 

The  foundations  of  Latin,  revised 
edition;  Boston:  Allyn  &  Bacon, 
1903. 

Caesar's  Gallic  war,  books  i-iv,  edited 
with  introduction  and  notes;  Bos- 
ton: Allyn  &  Bacon,  1903. 

(As  general  editor)  Pike's  Suetonius, 
selections;  Boston:  Allyn  &  Bacon, 
1903. 

GEORGE  RICKER  BERRY. 

Some   textual    notes    on    Proverbs; 

AJSL.,  xix.  (1902),  53-54- 
The  ethical  teaching  of  the  Old 

Testament;   Biblical   World,   xxi. 

(1903),  108-114,  i97-2°5- 
Waw  consecutive  with  the  perfect  in 

Hebrew;  JBL.,  xx.,  60-69. 

Louis  BEVIER,  JR. 

The  vowel  Ie  (as  in  ///) ;  Physical 
Review,  vol.  xv.,  No.  i,  July,  1902, 

PP-  44-5°- 

The  vowel  I  (as  in  pique) ;  Physical 
Review,  vol.  xv.,  No.  5,  November, 
1902,  pp.  271-275. 

Brief  Greek  syntax,  pp.  108;  Ameri- 
can Book  Co ,  1903. 

In  Greek  series  for  colleges  and 
schools,  edited  under  the  super- 
vision of  Herbert  Weir  Smyth, 
Ph.D. 

CHARLES  EDWARD  BISHOP. 

Critique  of  Babbitt's  Grammar  of 
Attic  and  Ionic  Greek  (American 
Book  Co.) ;  Baltimore  Sun. 

MAURICE  BLOOMFIELD. 

On  the  initial  sound  of  the  Sanskrit 
words  for  '  door ' ;  Melanges  Kern, 
pp.  193-194- 

Alfred  William  Stratton  (Necrology); 
AJP.,  xxiii.,  351-353. 

The  god  Indra  and  the  Sama-Veda; 
Wiener  Zeitschrift  zur  Kunde  des 
Aforgenlandes,  xvii.,  156-164. 


GEORGE  MELVILLE  BOLLING. 

KAITOI  with  the  participle;   AJP., 

xxiii.,  319-321. 
Beginning  of  the  Greek  day;  AfP., 

xxiii.,  428-435. 
The  relation  of  the  Vedic  forms  of 

the  dual;  JAOS.,  xxiii.,  318-324. 
Review  of  Happel,  Die  religiosen  und 

philosophischen        grundanschau- 

ungen  der  Inder;  AJT.,  vii.,  118- 

120. 

JAMES  W.  BRIGHT. 

Notes  on  the  Caedmonian  Exodus; 

MLN.,  xvii.,  212-213. 
Notelets  on  the  Canterbury  Tales; 

MLN.,  xvii.,  239. 
Jottings  on  the  Caedmonian  Christ 

and  Satan ;  MLN.,  xviii.,  1 29- 131. 

ISAAC  B.  BURGESS. 

Some  essentials  of  student  self-gov- 
ernment ;  The  Academy  News, 
Morgan  Park,  111.,  May  27,  1903. 

CURTIS  C.  BUSHNELL. 

A    parallel     between     Lucan     and 

Wordsworth;  JGP.,  iv.,  I  (Nov., 

1902). 
A  note  upon   Seneca,  Medea  378- 

382;    PAPA.,  xxxiii.   (1902),  vii, 

viii. 
The  first  four  feet  of  the  hexameter 

of  Horace's  Satires;   Ib.,  Ivi-lviii. 
Brief  mention  of  books;  Journal  of 

Pedagogy,  xv.,   3   (March,   1903), 

and  4  (June,  1903). 
Verse-translation  of  the  Puer  natus, 

etc.;   Syracuse:  R.  N.  Perry,  1902. 
Id.  of  the  Tandem  audite  me,  etc.; 

Syracuse   Univ.    Herald,   xxxi.,  6 

(March,  1903). 

MITCHELL  CARROLL. 

Rev.  of  George  Horton's  In  Argolis, 

in  Baltimore  Sun,  Nov.  27,  1902. 
Rev.  of  Fowler's  History  of  ancient 

Greek  literature ;  Ib.,  Jan.  15, 1903. 
Rev.  of  Butler's  Story  of  Athens;  Ib., 

April  2,  1903. 
Rev.  of  Gulick's  Life  of  the  ancient 

Greeks;  Ib.,  May  7,  1903. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1 903 . 


cxin 


JESSE  BENEDICT  CARTER. 

Epitheta  deorum  quae  apud  poetas 
Latinos  leguntur;  pp.  153;  I.eip- 
sic :  Teubner,  1902.  (Supplement- 
Band  to  Roscher's  Lexikon  der 
griech.  und  rom.  mythulogie.) 

The  portrait  of  Virgil;  Princeton 
University  Bulletin,  xiv ,  No.  2, 
March,  1903,  pp.  48-56. 

Rev.  of  Wissowa's  Religion  und  Kul- 
tus  der  Romer;  Deutsche  Littera- 
turzeitung,  1902,  No.  26,  pp.  1645- 
1648. 

HERMANN  COLLITZ. 

Waldeckisches  WSrterbuch  nebst 
Dialektproben,  gesammelt  von 
Karl  Bauer,  herausgegeben  von 
H.  C.  (=  Worterbiicher,  hrsg.  vom 
Verein  fur  niederdeutsche  Sprach- 
forshung,  Bd.  IV),  pp.  xxvi  +  106 
+  320;  Norden  &  Leipzig:  D. 
Soltau,  1902. 

ARTHUR  STODDARD  COOLEY. 

Progress  in  Greece;  Boston  Evening 
Transcript,  Wed.,  Jan.  28,  1903. 

Holy  week  in  a  Greek  village;  The 
Congregationalist,  April  4,  1903. 

Nature  aspects  of  Zeus ;  PAPA., 
xxxiii.,  Ixv-lxvii. 

WALTER  DENNISON. 

An  unpublished  bust  of  the   Scipio 

type;   abstract  in   SR.,  xi.  (May, 

1903),  407. 
Rev.  of  Mau-Kelsey's  Pompeii:    its 

life    and  art ;   Bibliotheca   Sacra, 

Ix.  (April,  1903),  395. 
Rev.  of  Lowrie's  Monuments  of  the 

early  church ;   Ib.,  396. 

BENJAMIN  L.  D'OoGE. 

The  teaching  of  first  year  Latin ;  SR. 
(Sept.,  1902),  pp.  532-549. 

MORTIMER  LAMSON  EARLE. 

Ad  Horatii  Serm.  I.,  I,  15  sqq.;  Mne- 
mosyne, xxx.,  347. 

On  the  first  ode  of  Horace  ;  CR., 
xvi.,  398-401. 


Ad  Vergilii  Aen.  I.,  39  sqq.  ;  Mne- 
mosyne, xxxi.,  46. 
Studies  in  Sophocles's  Trachinians; 

TAPA.,  xxxiii.,  5-29. 
Notes  on  Cicero,  De  natura  deorum  ; 

PAPA.,  xxxiii.,  Ixx-lxxi. 
Notes  on  Sophocles's  Antigone  ;  CR., 

xvii.,  5-6. 
Of  the  prologue  of  the  Agamemnon; 

CR.,  xvii.,  102-105. 
Ad  Caesaris  Comm.  de  Bello  Gallico 

initium  ;     Revue    de     philologie, 

xxvii.,  52. 
On  Sophocles's  Electra  ;    CR.,  xvii., 

209. 
Sophocle,    Oedipe-Roi,    v.,     IO-II; 

Revue  de  philologie,  xxvii.,  151-153. 

HOMER  EDMISTON. 

Rev.   of  Gummere's   Beginnings  of 
poetry;  Nat.,  Ixxvi.,  116-117. 

JAMES  C.  EGBERT,  JR. 

Rev.  of  Dean  Spence's  Christianity 
and    Paganism  ;    Nat.    (Feb.   12, 

I903).  P-  '35- 
Rev.  of  Van  Santvoord's  The  house 

of  Caesar;   Bookm.  (Aug.,  1902), 

p.  564. 
Rev.  of  Villari's  Invasions  of  Italy; 

Ib.  (June,  1903),  p.  402. 
Recent  excavations   in   the   Roman 

Forum;    The  Forum  (July,  1903), 

p.  101. 

ARTHUR  FAIRBANKS. 

The  mourning  Athena  relief;  AJA., 

vi.,  410-416. 
Aristophanes  as  a  student  of  society; 

American  Journal  of   Sociology, 

viii.,  655-666. 

Recent  excavations  in  Aegina;    The 
World  To-day,  iv.,  178-179. 

EDWIN  W.  FAY. 

T.  Macci  Plauti  Mostellaria;  pp.  xlvii 

+  157;    Boston:    Allyn  &  Bacon, 

1902. 
Rev.  of  Lexicon  Plautinum,  conscrip- 

sit  G.  Lodge,  I,  i,  a-alius  ;  A  jr., 

xxiii.,  211-215. 
Latin  etymologies;   Ib.,  xxiv.,  62-74. 


CX1V 


American  Philological  Association. 


EDWARD  FITCH. 

The  proprieties  of  epic  speech  in  the 
Argonautica  of  Apollonius  Rho- 
dius;  PAPA.,  xxxiii.  (1902),  lix-lxi. 

Rev.  of  Sidgwick's  Eumenides  of 
Aeschylus,  third  edition ;  AJP., 
xxiv.,  200-203. 

EWALD  FLUGEL. 

Chaucer's  Kleinere  Gedichte  II,  An- 

merkungen ;    Anglia,  xxiii.,  195- 

224. 

Zu  Chaucer's  Prolog;  Ib.,  225-241. 
Gower's    Mirour    de    I'Omme    und 

Chaucer's  Prolog;   Ib.,  xxiv.,  437- 

508. 
Oration    at    the    unveiling    of    the 

Goethe-Schiller    monument,    San 

Francisco  ;    Californische   Staats- 

Zeitung,  Aug.  II,  1901. 
Liedersammlungen  des  XVI.  Jahr- 

hunderts  III.   (Balliol  Ms.  354); 

Anglia,  xxvi.,  94-285. 
Roger  Bacon's  Stellung  in  der  Ge- 

schichte  der  Philologie;   Wundt's 

Philosophische  Studien,  xix.,  164- 

191. 
References  to  the  English  language 

in  the  German   literature   of  the 

first  half  of  the  sixteenth  century; 

Modern  Philology,  i.,  5-16. 

HAROLD  NORTH  FOWLER. 

A  history  of  Roman  literature;  pp. 

vii-f3il;  D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  1903. 

(Twentieth  century  series.) 
Editorial  work  in  AJA. 

WILMER  CAVE  FRANCE. 

Forty-five  reviews  of  classical  and 
other  publications;  Nat.,  1902-3. 

CHARLES  MILLS  GAYLEY. 

Representative  English  comedies 
from  the  beginnings  to  Shake- 
speare;  first  edition,  680  pp.; 
New  York:  The  Macmillan  Co., 
1903. 

What  is  comparative  literature  ? 
(President's  address  before  the 
American  Philological  Association 
of  the  Pacific  Coast,  Dec.,  1902); 
Atlantic  Monthly,  xcii.,  1903. 


BASIL  L.  GILDERSLEEVE. 

Contributions  to  the  AJP. 

Reprint  of  problems  of  Greek  syntax ; 
The  Johns  Hopkins  Press,  Balti- 
more. 

THOMAS  D.  GOODELL. 

A  school  grammar  of  Attic  Greek, 
pp.  xvi  +  344  ;  New  York  :  D. 
Appleton  &  Co.,  July,  1902. 

EDWIN  L.  GREEN. 

Verbs  compounded  with  prepositions 
in  Aeschylus ;  PAPA.,  xxxiii., 
xxxviii-xl. 

Self-support  in  Southern  colleges ; 
ATat.,  March  19,  1903. 

ALFRED  GUDEMAN. 

Sallust's  Catiline,  with  revised  text, 
introduction,  notes,  and  vocabulary, 
pp.  220;  New  York:  D.  Appleton 
&  Co.,  1903.  (Twentieth  century 
series.) 

CHARLES  BURTON  GULICK. 

The  life  of  the  ancient  Greeks,  text- 
book; D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  Dec. 
31,  1902. 

WILLIAM  ALEXANDER  HAMMOND. 

The  characters  of  Theophrastus, 
translated  into  English  with  an 
introduction  (in  collaboration  with 
C.  E.  Bennett),  pp.  xliii,  85;  Long- 
mans, Green  &  Co.,  1902. 

Aristotle's  Psychology ;  The  De 
Anima  and  Parva  Naluralia, 
translated  into  English  with  an 
introduction,  pp.  Ixxxvi,  339;  The 
Macmillan  Co.,  1902. 

Rev.  of  Dunning's  History  of  ancient 
and  mediaeval  politics ;  Philo- 
sophical Review,  xii.,  2  (March, 
1902),  199-207. 

KARL  P.    HARRINGTON. 

Cicero's  Puteolanum;  PAPA.,xxxiii. 
(1902),  lii-liii. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1 903 . 


cxv 


J.  E.  HARRY. 

The  use  of  K^Xij/iai,  and  the  mean- 
ing of  Euripides'  Hippolylus  1-2; 
PAPA.,  xxxiii.  (1903),  xl-xliii. 

The  same  in  full ;  University  of  Cin- 
cinatti  Bulletin,  No.  15,  second 
series,  vol.  ii. 

The  upward  way ;  Educational 
Science  (March,  1903),  pp.  21-38. 

W.  A.  HEIDEL. 

Epicurea;    AJP.,  xxiii.,   2,  No.  90, 

185-194. 
Plato's  Euthyphro,  with  introduction 

and  notes;    American  Book  Co., 

1902. 

OTTO  HELLER. 

Schiller,  Uhland  u.  Hauff  in  ihren 
beziehungen  zur  gegenwart  {Pada- 
gogische  Monatshefte,  Jahrg.  iv., 
Heft  5),  pp.  130-138. 

The  German  woman  writer  in  the 
nineteenth  century  ;  Bulletin  of 
the  Washington  University  Asso- 
ciation, i.,  46-87. 

Die  drei  Freier,  by  Levin  Schiicking. 
Edited  with  introduction  and 
notes;  Boston:  Ginn  &  Co.,  1903. 

GERTRUDE  HIRST. 

The  cults  of  Olbia;  Journal  of  Hel- 
lenic Studies,  pt.  i.  in  vol.  xxii., 
pt.  ii.  (Nov.,  1902);  pt.  ii.  in  vol. 
xxiii.,  pt.  i.  (June,  1903). 

Rev.  of  Papers  of  the  British  School 
at  Rome,  vol.  i.;  Speaker  (Lon- 
don), Nov.  8,  1902. 

ARCHIBALD  L.  HODGES. 

Four  notes  on  Livius  Andronicus; 
The  New  York  Latin  Leaflet,  vol. 
iii.,  No.  57. 

ARTHUR  WINFRED  HODGMAN. 

Noun  declension  in  Plautus;  CR., 
xvi.,  294-305  (July,  1902). 

Adjectival  forms  in  Plautus  ;  CR., 
xvi.,  446-452  (Dec.,  1902). 


DAVID  H.  HOLMES,  PH.D. 

The  philosophy  of  the  composition 
of  verbs  with  prepositions  in  Greek, 
as  illustrated  by  the  Greek  of 
Thucydides ;  Reprint  No.  I  from 
The  New  York  Latin  Leaflet,  1903. 

Greek  at  Johns  Hopkins ;  Ib.,  vol. 
iii.,  No.  54,  p.  i,  1903. 

EDWARD  WASH  BURN  HOPKINS. 

Remarks  on  the  form  of  numbers, 
the  method  of  using  them,  and  the 
numerical  categories  found  in  the 
Mahabharata ;  JAOS.,  xxiii.,  I, 
Aug.,  1902. 

Phrases  of  time  and  age  in  the  Sans- 
krit epic;  JAOS.,  xxiii.,  2,  Feb.- 
1903. 

Two  notes  on  the  Mahabharata  ; 
Melanges  h'ern,  April,  1903. 

Limitation  of  time  by  means  of  cases 
in  epic  Sanskrit ;  AJP.,  xxiv.,  I 
(No.  93). 

Several  book  reviews  and  reports  of 
American  Oriental  Society  meet- 
ing; Nat.,  Jan.  29,  1903;  May  i, 
etc. 

Twenty-two  articles  in  The  New  In- 
ternational Encyclopaedia. 

A.  V.  WILLIAMS  JACKSON. 

The  thirteenth  international  congress 
of  Orientalists  at  Hamburg;  East 
and  West  (Bombay),).,  1375-1378. 

Rev.  of  L.  H.  Mills's  Gathas  of  Zara- 
thushtra  (Zoroaster)  in  meter  and 
rhythm;  AJT.,  vi.,  768-769. 

Articles  on  Indo-Iranian  subjects  in 
The  New  International  Encyclo- 
paedia ;  New  York :  Dodd,  Mead 
&  Co.,  1902-1903. 

GEORGE  D  WIGHT  *  KELLOGG. 

Reports  of  Philologus  1.  (1900)  and 
Ix.  (1901),  in  AJP.,  xxiv.,  I,  90- 
96;  xxiv.,  2,  216-221. 

WILLIAM  HAMILTON  KIRK. 

Notes  on  Velleius,  2.  42.  2;  PAPA., 
xxxiii.  (1902),  x. 


CXV1 


American  Philological  Association. 


JOHN  C.  KIRTLAND,  JR. 

Marcus  Tullius  Cicero,  ten  orations, 
with  the  letters  to  his  wife,  edited 
by  R.  A.  Minckwitz,  in  Macmillan's 
Latin  Series,  edited  by  J.  C.  Kirt- 
land,  Jr.;  New  York  :  The  Mac- 
millan  Co.,  1903. 

Ritchie's  Fabulae  Faciles,  authorized 
American  edition,  edited  with  notes 
and  a  vocabulary ;  New  York : 
Longmans,  Green,  and  Co.,  1903. 

CHARLES  KNAPP. 

The  Aeneid  of  Vergil,  in  the  Inter- 
collegiate Classical  Series,  pp.  588 
+  175;  Chicago  :  Scott,  Fores- 
man  &  Co.,  1902. 

Notes  on  the  Medea  of  Seneca ; 
PAPA.,  xxxiii.,  viii-x. 

Notes  on  Tacitus,  Agricola  31,  5  ; 
PAPA.,  xxiii.,  xlix-li. 

Notes  on  Seneca's  Medea  (different 
from  paper  above);  CR.,  xvii., 

44-47- 

On  Horace,  Odes,  III.,  30,  10-14; 
CR.,  xvii.,  156-158. 

C.  R.  LANMAN. 

Midwinter  loafing  in  Jamaica;  Nat., 
March  5  and  12,  1903. 

Atharva-Veda  :  critical  notes  ;  with 
some  account  of  Whitney's  com- 
mentary ;  in  Opstellen  geschreven 
ter  eere  van  Dr.  H.  Kern  .  .  .  op 
zijn  zeventigstein  verjaardag,  pp. 
301-307;  Leiden,  1903,  4°. 

WILLIAM  CRANSTON  LAWTON. 

The  Greek  view  of  athletics,  and 
Pindar ;  Sewanee  Review,  Jan., 
1903,  pp.  15. 

Hoti  redivivus;  Latin  Leaflet,  Feb., 
1903. 

An  old  harp;  Ib.,  May  n,  1903. 

Introduction  to  classical  Greek  litera- 
ture, pp.  360;  Charles  Scribner's 
Sons,  June  27,  1903. 

D.  O.  S.  LOWELL. 

A  new  method  of  admission  to  col- 
lege; ER.,  Nov.,  1902,  pp.  338-345. 


The  setting  of  a  college  admission 
paper  in  English,  with  practical 
illustrations;  SR.,  Dec.,  1902,  pp. 
755-764.  Also  in  the  Addresses 
and  Proceedings  of  the  seventeenth. 
annual  meeting  of  the  New  Eng- 
land Association  of  Colleges  and 
Preparatory  Schools  (1902),  pp. 
52-62. 

The  sports  of  the  amphitheater; 
A/unsey's  Magazine,  Jan.,  1903, 
pp.  522-530. 

HERBERT  WILLIAM  MAGOUN. 

Some  problems  in  prosody ;  Bibl. 
Sacra,  lx.,  Jan.,  1903,  pp.  33-60. 

WILLIAM  GWATHMEY  MANLY. 

Leucas  or  Ithaca:  A  discussion  of 
the  relative  claims  of  Ithaca  and 
Leucas  to  be  the  Ithaca  of  Homer; 
University  of  Missouri  Studies, 
vol.  xi.,  No.  i. 

JOHN  E.  MATZKE. 

Contributions  to  the  history  of  the 
legend  of  Saint  George  ;  MLA., 
xvii.  (i902),464-535;  xviii.  (1903), 
99-171. 

Corneille's  Cinna,  edited  with  intro- 
duction and  notes,  pp.  xvi  +128; 
Boston  :  D.  C.  Heath  &  Co.,  1903. 

Rev.  of  A.  Thomas,  Melanges  d'ety- 
mologie  Franchise ;  in  MLN., 
xvii.,  373-379- 

Rev.  of  Meyer-Liibke,  Einfiihrung 
in  das  studium  der  romanischen 
sprachwissenschaft  ;  in  MLN., 
xvii.,  518-523. 

NELSON  G.  McCREA. 

Rev.  of  West's  Latin  grammar ;  ER., 
xxiv.  (Dec.,  1902),  526-531. 

Articles  on  epic  poetry;  New  Inter- 
national Encyclopaedia,  vi.,  792- 

795- 
Erasmus    (as   Humanist)  ;    Ib.t  vi., 

826-827. 
Horace;  Ib.,  ix.,  551-554. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1 903 . 


CXVH 


C.  W.  E.  MILLER. 

The  vocative  in  Apollonios  Rhodios; 

AJP.,  xxiv.  (1903),  198  f. 
Note  on  the  rhythmical  structure  of 

the  first  of  the  Tebtunis  fragments; 

Ib.,  xxiv.  (1903),  236-238. 

CLIFFORD  HERSCHEL  MOORE. 

Horace,  the  Odes,  Epodes,  and  Car- 
men Saeculare,  with  introduction 
and  commentary,  pp.  484;  Ameri- 
can Book  Co.,  1902. 

Miscellaneous  articles  on  Greek  his- 
tory, language,  and  literature  in 
The  New  International  Encyclo- 
paedia, Dodd,  Mead  &  Co.,  1902. 

FRANK  G.  MOORE. 

Notes  on  the  Cato  Maior  ;  AJP.t 
xxiii.  (1902),  436-442. 

GEORGE  F.  MOORE. 

Articles :  Queen  of  Heaven,  Sacrifice, 
Teraphim,  Tithes,  Urim  and  Thum- 
mim,  Vows  and  Votive  Offerings, 
in  Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  vol.  iv. 

M.  H.  MORGAN. 

Remarks  on  the  water  supply  of 
ancient  Rome ;  TAPA.,  xxxiii., 

30-37. 

Miscelliones;  New  York  Latin  Leaf- 
let, Nos.  61,  62,  64,  65,  and  re- 
printed separately. 

H.  C.  NUTTING. 

On  the  early  history  of  conditional 
speaking;  PAPA.,  xxxiii.  (1902), 
cv-cvi. 

The  order  of  conditional  thought; 
first  paper,  AfP.,  xxiv.  (1903),  25- 
39;  second  paper,  Ib,,  149-162. 

GEORGE  N.  OLCOTT. 

Numismatic  notes  :  I.  A  hoard  of 
Roman  coins  from  Tarquinii; 
A/A.,  vi.  (1902),  404-409. 

FREDERICK  MORGAN  PADELFORD. 

Essays  on  the  study  and  use  of  poetry 
by  Plutarch  and  Basil  the  Great, 


translated  from  the  Greek  with 
introduction  and  notes;  Yale  Stud- 
ies in  English,  xv. 

JAMES  MORTON  PATON. 

Article  on  Archaeology ;  Interna- 
tional Year- Book  for  1902  ;  New 
York  :  Dodd,  Mead  &  Co.,  1903. 

Articles  in  the  fields  of  Greek  and 
Roman  Archaeology,  Antiquities, 
and  Mythology ;  New  Interna- 
tional Encyclopaedia  ;  New  York : 
Dodd,  Mead  &  Co.,  1902,  1903. 

Acting  editor  of  news,  discussions, 
and  bibliography  in  AJA. 

TRACY  PECK. 

The  personal  address  in  Roman  epi- 
taphs; AJA.,  vil  (1903),  88-89. 

As  editor-in-chief  of  College  Series  of 
Latin  Authors;  see  under  ROCK- 
WOOD. 

CHARLES  W.  PEPPLER. 

Comic  terminations  in  Aristophanes 
and  the  comic  fragments;  pt.  i. : 
Diminutives,  character  names, 
patronymics  (J.  H.  U.  Diss.) ;  Bal- 
timore: John  Murphy  Co.  (1902), 
PP-53- 

WILLIAM  K.  PRENTICE. 

Fragments  of  an  early  Christian  lit- 
urgy in  Syrian  inscriptions; 
TAPA.,  xxxiii ,  81-100. 

The  so-called  '  tomb  of  Diogenes '  in 
Hiss;  Princeton  University  Bulle- 
tin, xiv.,  74-78. 

HENRY  W.  PRESCOTT. 

Two  German  parallels  to  the  Daphins- 
myth;  PAPA.,  xxxiii.  (1902),  cv. 

Notes  on  the  scholia  and  the  text 
of  Theocritus  ;  CR.,  xvii.  (1903), 
107-112. 

ROBERT  S.  RADFORD. 

The  Latin  monosyllables  in  their  rela- 
tion to  the  accent  and  to  Plautine 
prosody;  abstract  in  JHUC.,  xxii. 
(1903),  163. 


CXV111 


American  Philological  Association. 


LEON  JOSIAH  RICHARDSON. 

On  certain  sound  properties  of  the 
Sapphic  strophe  as  employed  by 
Horace;  7'APA.,  xxxiii.  (1902), 

38-44- 
The  University  of  California  and  the 

accrediting  of  secondary  schools; 
SJf.,  vol.  x.,  No.  8,  pp.  615-619. 

F.    E.   ROCKWOOD. 

M.  Tulli  Ciceronis  Tusculanarum 
Disputationum  Liber  primus  et 
Somnium  Scipionis,  edited  with 
introduction  and  notes,  pp.  xliv  + 
109,  xiii  -f  22.  Text  edition,  pp.  67. 
(In  College  Series  of  Latin  Au- 
thors.) Ginn  &  Co.,  1903. 

JOHN  C.  ROLFE. 

Varia :  de  tenero  ungui,  Hor.  Carm. 
iii.  6.  24;  on  the  meaning  of  cani- 
cula ;  onVarro,  L.L.,\.^  ;  PAPA. 
xxxiii.  (1902),  Ixii-lxiv. 

Rev.  of  L.  Apulei  Fabula  de  Psyche 
et  Cupidine,  by  J.  W.  Beck;  CK., 
xvi.  (1902),  423. 

As  editor :  — 

Plautus,  Mostellaria,  by  E.  W.  Fay; 
Boston :  Allyn  &  Bacon,  1 902. 

Suetonius,  Tiberius,  Caligula,  Clau- 
dius, and  Nero,  by  J.  B.  Pike; 
Boston :  Allyn  £  Bacon,  1903. 

HENRY  A.  SANDERS. 

The  grave  of  Tarpeia  and  the  origin 
of  the  name  of  the  Tarpeian  rock; 
PAPA.,  xxxiii.  (1902),  Iviii-lix. 

JOHN  J.  SCHLICHER. 

Word-accent  in  early  Latin  verse, 
second  paper ;  AJP.y  xxiii.,  142- 
150. 

First  year  Latin  —  a  working  knowl- 
edge of  forms  and  vocabulary; 
SK.,  xi.,  396-405- 

E.  S.  SHELDON. 

The  fable  referred  to  in  Aliscans  ; 
MLA.,  xviii.  (1903),  335-340. 


F.  W.  SHIPLEY. 

Numeral  corruptions  in  a  ninth  cen- 
tury Ms.  of  Livy;  TAPA.,  1902. 

Certain  sources  of  corruption  in  Latin 
manuscripts;  AJA.,  second  series, 
voL  vii.,  No.  I. 

GRANT  SHOWERMAN. 

Rev.  of  Wissowa's  Religion  und  Kul- 
tus  der  Romer;  AJP.,  xxiv.  (1903), 
75-85- 

E.    G.    SlHLER. 

GETIKftTEPOX,  Cicero  adQuintum 

Fratrem   III.,  3,  4;    AJP.,  xxiii., 

283-294. 
Klassische  Studien  und  klassischer 

Unterricht     in     den    Vereinigten 

Staaten;   Neue  Jahrbiicher  (B.  G. 

Teubner,    Leipzig,    1902),   §    II., 

458,  503,  548. 
The  Roman  spirit;  Latin  Leaflet,  iii., 

Nos.  73-74. 
Ancient  history  in  secondary  schools; 

lb.,  iii.,  Nos.  55-56. 
Studies  in  Hesiod;    PAPA.,  xxxiii., 

xxvi-xxxii. 

JOSIAH  RENICK  SMITH. 

Xenophon's  Memorabilia,  edited  by 
J.  R.  S.  on  the  basis  of  the  Breiten- 
bach-Miicke  edition,  pp.  xix  +  270. 
Text  edition,  pp.  140;  Ginn  &  Co., 
1903. 

HERBERT  WEIR  SMYTH. 

As  general  editor :  — 
Plato's  Euthyphro,  by  W.  A.  Heidel ; 
-  American  Book  Co.,  pp.  115. 
Brief  Greek  syntax,  by  Louis  Bevier, 
Jr. ;  American  Book  Co.,  pp.  108. 

R.  B.  STEELE. 

The  ablative  absolute  in  Livy; 
AJP.,  xxiii.,  295-312,  413-427. 

Some  forms  of  complemental  state- 
ments in  Livy  ;  TAPA.,  xxxiii., 
55-8o. 

The  pestilences  mentioned  by  Livy; 
PAPA.,  xxxiii.,  Ixiv. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1 903 . 


cxix 


CHARLES  WILLIAM  SUPER. 

Wisdom  and  will  in  education,  pp. 
285 ;  Harrisburg,  Pa. :  Robert  L. 
Myers  &  Co.,  1902.  Contains 
papers  on  Greek  education,  on 
Greek  ethics  and  civilization,  on 
Greek  literature,  etc. 

HERBERT  GUSHING  TOLMAN. 

Urbs  Beata,  a  vision  of  the  perfect 
life  (thirty  brief  addresses  to  col- 
lege students),  pp.  87;  Milwaukee: 
The  Young  Churchman  Co.,  1902. 

Weissenborn's  Homeric  life,  trans- 
lated and  adapted  to  the  needs  of 
American  students  by  G.  C.  Scog- 
gin  and  C.  G.  Burkitt,  edited  in 
the  Vanderbilt  Oriental  Series  (vol. 
iv.)  by  Herbert  Gushing  Tolman 
and  James  Henry  Stevenson,  pp. 
150;  New  York :  American  Book 
Co.,  1903. 

The  Persian  /3o(7iXi)iot  ffeoi  of  He- 
rodotus III.  65,  v.  106  ;  PAPA., 
xxxiii.,  Ixvii. 

An  incident  in  the  Greek  revolution 
(translated  from  the  modern  Greek 
novel  of  D.  Vikelas) ;  The  Olym- 
pian, Jan.,  Feb.,  March,  April, 
1903. 


MINTON  WARREN. 

Rev.  of  Robert  Ogilvie's  Horae 
Latinae,  studies  in  synonyms  and 
syntax,  London,  1901;  Nat.,  Ixxv., 
37  f- 

RAYMOND  WEEKS. 

Aimer  le  Chetif  ;  MLA^  new  series, 
x.,  411-434. 

MARY  GILMORE  WILLIAMS. 

The  empress  Julia  Domna ;  AJA., 
vi.  (1902),  259-305.  ' 

HARRY  LANGFORD  WILSON. 

Rev.  of  D.  lunii  luvenalis  Saturae 
con  note  di  Enrico  Cesareo,  I.  and 
II.,  Messina,  1900,  in  AJP.,  xxiii. 
(1902),  331. 

D.  luni  luvenalis  Saturarum  LibriV., 
edited  with  introduction,  commen- 
tary on  thirteen  satires,  and  index, 
I2mo,  cloth,  pp.  370;  New  York: 
University  Publishing  Co. 

JOHN  D.  WOLCOTT. 

Early  parallelisms  in  Roman  histori- 
ography; AJP.,  xxiii.,  313-316. 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  ASSOCIATION. 
1903-1904. 


PRESIDENT. 

GEORGE   HEMPL. 

VICE-PRESIDENTS. 

MORTIMER   LAMSON   EARLE. 
ELMER  TRUESDELL  MERRILL. 

SECRETARY  AND  TREASURER. 

HERBERT  WEIR  SMYTH. 

EXECUTIVE   COMMITTEE. 

The  above-named  Officers,  and  — 

CHARLES  E.   BENNETT. 
FRANCIS  A.  MARCH. 
MORRIS  H.   MORGAN. 
BERNADOTTE   PERRIN. 
CHARLES  P.   G.  SCOTT. 


MEMBERS   OF   THE 
AMERICAN   PHILOLOGICAL   ASSOCIATION.1 

1903-1904. 

William  F.  Abbot,  High  School,  Worcester,  Mass.  (38  William  St.).     1893. 

Prof.  F.  F.  Abbott,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1886. 

Prof.  Charles  D.  Adams,  Dartmouth  College,  Hanover,  N.  H.     1892. 

Dr.  Cyrus  Adler,  Smithsonian  Institution,  Washington,  D.  C.  (1706  S  St.).     1883. 

Prof.  Hamilton  Ford  Allen,  Washington  and  Jefferson  College,  Washington,  Pa. 

1903. 

Miss  Katharine  Allen,  228  I^angdon  SL,  Madison,  Wis.     1899. 
Prof.  Francis  G.  Allinson,  Brown  University,  Providence,  R.  I.  (434  Brook  St.). 

1893. 

Principal  Harlan  P.  Amen,  Phillips  Exeter  Academy,  Exeter,  N.  H.  (Life  mem- 
ber).    1897. 

Prof.  Alfred  Williams  Anthony,  Cobb  Divinity  School,  Lewiston,  Me.     1890. 
Prof.  W.  Muss-Arnolt,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1890. 
Dr.  R.  Arrow-smith,  American  Book  Company,  Washington  Square,  New  York, 

N.  Y.     1898. 

Prof.  Sidney  G.  Ashmore,  Union  University,  Schenectady,  N.  Y.     1885. 
Prof.  Francis  M.  Austin,  Illinois  Wesleyan  University,  Bloomington,  III     1902. 
Prof.  C.  C.  Ayer,  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Colo.     1902. 
Prof.  Frank  Cole  Babbitt,  Trinity  College,  Hartford,  Conn.  (65  Vernon  St.).    1897. 
Herbert  L.  Baker,  47  Moffat  Building,  Detroit,  Mich.     1889. 
Dr.  William  W.  Baker,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (1657  Cambridge 

St.).     1902. 
Dr.  Francis  K.  Ball,  Phillips  Exeter  Academy,  Exeter,  N.  H.  (Life  member). 

1894. 

Dr.  Floyd  G.  Ballentine,  Bucknell  University,  Lewisburg,  Pa.     1903. 
Cecil  K.  Bancroft,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (213  Durfee).    1898. 
Prof.  Grove  E.  Barber,  University  of  Nebraska,  Lincoln,  Neb.  (1230  L  St.). 

1902. 

Miss  Amy  L.  Barbour,  Smith  College,  Northampton,  Mass.     1902. 
Phillips  Barry,  33  Ball  Street,  Roxbury  Crossing,  Boston,  Mass.     1901. 
J.  Edmund  Barss,  Hotchkiss  School,  Lakeville,  Conn.     1897. 

1  This  list  has  been  corrected  up  to  December  i,  1903;  permanent  addresses  are  given,  as  far 
as  may  be.  Where  the  residence  is  left  blank,  the  members  in  question  are  in  Europe.  The 
Secretary  and  the  Publishers  beg  to  be  kept  informed  of  all  changes  of  address. 

cxxi 


cxxii  American  Philological  Association. 

George  K.  Bartholomew,  Evanswood,  Clifton,  Cincinnati,  O.     1893. 

Dr.  Samuel  E.  Bassett,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.     1903. 

Dr.  F.  O.  Bates,  77  Reed  Place,  Detroit,  Mich.     1900. 

Prof.  William  N.  Bates,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Penn.  (220  St. 

Mark's  Square).     1894. 

Prof.  William  J.  Battle,  University  of  Texas,  Austin,  Tex.     1893. 
Dr.  Paul  V.  C.  Baur,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn,  (i  173  Chapel  St.).    1902. 
John  W.  Beach,  Mount  Morris,  111.     1902. 

Dr.  Edward  A.  Bechtel,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1900. 
Prof.  Isbon  T.  Beckwith,  General  Theological  Seminary,  Chelsea  Square,  New 

York,  N.Y.     1884. 

Charles  H.  Beeson,  6020  Ingleside  Avenue,  Chicago,  111.     1897. 
Prof.  A.  J.  Bell,  Victoria  University,  Toronto,  Can.  (17  Avenue  Road).     1887. 
Prof.  Allen  R.  Benner,  Phillips  Academy,  Andover,  Mass.     1901. 
Prof.  Charles  E.  Bennett,  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.Y.  (7  South  Ave.).   1882. 
Prof.  John  I.  Bennett,  Union  University,  Schenectady,  N.  Y.     1897. 
Prof.  George  R.  Berry,  Colgate  University,  Hamilton,  N.  Y.     1902. 
Prof.  Louis  Bevier,  Jr.,  Rutgers  College,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.     1884. 
William  F.  Biddle,  4305  Spruce  St.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.     1894. 
Dr.  C.  P.  Bill,  Adelbert  College  of  Western  Reserve  University,  Cleveland,  O. 

(853  Logan  Ave.).     1894. 
Rev.  Dr.  Daniel  Moschel    Birmingham,  Walden   University,   Nashville,   Tenn. 

(addr. :  Park  Row  Building,  New  York,  N.  Y.).     1898. 
Prof.  Charles  Edward  Bishop,  College  of  William  and  Mary,  Williamsburg,  Va. 

1890. 
Prof.  Robert  W7.  Blake,  Lehigh  University,  So.  Bethlehem,  Pa.  (440  Seneca  St.). 

1894. 

Prof.  M.  Bloomfield,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.     1882. 
Prof.  Willis  H.  Bocock,  University  of  Georgia,  Athens,  Ga.     1890. 
Prof.  C.  W.  E.  Body,  General  Theological  Seminary,  New  York,  N.  Y.  (4  Chel- 
sea Sq.).     1887. 

Dr.  George  M.  Boiling,  Catholic  University  of  America,  Brookland,  D.  C.    1897. 
Prof.  D.  Bonbright,  Northwestern  University,  Evanston,  111.     1892. 
Prof.  A.  L.  Bondurant,  University  of  Mississippi,  University,  Miss.     1892. 
Prof.  Campbell  Bonner,  University  of  Nashville,  Nashville,  Tenn.  (1500  Hawkins 

St.).     1899. 

Dr.  George  Willis  Botsford,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1894. 
Prof.  Benjamin  Parsons  Bourland,  Adelbert  College  of  Western  Reserve  University, 

Cleveland,  O.     1900. 

Prof.  B.  L.  Bowen,  Ohio  State  University,  Columbus,  O.     1895. 
Prof.  Charles  F.  Bradley,  Garrett  Biblical  Institute,  Evanston,  111.     1886. 
Prof.  J.  Everett  Brady,  Smith  College,  Northampton,  Mass.     1891. 
Prof.  H.  C.  G.  Brandt,  Hamilton  College,  Clinton,  N.  Y.     1876. 
Prof.  Walter  R.  Bridgman,  Lake  Forest  University,  Lake  Forest,  111.     1890. 
Prof.  James  W.  Bright,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.     1887. 
Prof.  John  A.  van  Broekhoven,  Fairview  Avenue,  Hyde  Park,  Cincinnati,  O.     1902. 
Miss  Caroline  G.  Brombacher,  Erasmus  Hall  High  School,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  (399 

Clennont  Ave.).     1897. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxxiii 

Dr.  Carroll  N.  Brown,  Asheville  School,  Asheville,  N.  C.     1899. 

Prof.  Demarchus  C.  Brown,  Butler  College,  Irvington,  Ind.  (120  Downey  Avenue, 

Indianapolis,  Ind.).     1893. 

Prof.  F.  W.  Brown,  Franklin  College,  Franklin,  Ind.     1893. 
Prof.  Carleton  L.  Brovvnson,  College  of  the  City  of  New  York,  N.  Y.  (17  Lexington 

Ave.)-     1892. 

Principal  C.  F.  Brusie,  Mount  Pleasant  Academy,  Ossining,  N.  Y.     1894. 
Prof.  Carl  D.  Buck,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1890. 
Miss  Mary  II.  Buckingham,  Wellesley  Hills,  Mass.     1897. 
Walter  II.  Buell,  Hotchkiss  School,  Lakevillc,  Conn.     1887. 
H.  J.  Burchell,  Jr.,  669  Lexington  Ave.,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1895. 
Isaac  B.  Burgess,  Morgan  Park  Academy,  Morgan  Park,  111.     1892. 
Dr.  Theodore  C.  Burgess,  Bradley  Polytechnic  Institute,  Peoria,  111.     1900. 
Prof.  John  M.  Burnam,  University  of  Cincinnati,  Cincinnati,  O.     1899. 
Prof.  Sylvester  Burnham,  Colgate  University,  Hamilton,  N.  Y.     1885. 
Dr.  William  S.  Burrage,  Middlebury,  Vt.     1898. 
Prof.  Harry  E.  Burton,  Dartmouth  College,  Hanover,  N.  H.     1899. 
Prof.  Henry  F.  Burton,  University  of  Rochester,  Rochester,  N.  Y.     1878. 
Prof.  Curtis  C.  Bushnell,  Syracuse  University,  Syracuse,  N.  Y.  (201  Dell  St.).    1900. 
Pres.  Henry  A.  Buttz,  Drew  Theological  Seminary,  Madison,  N.  J.     1869. 
Miss  Miriam  A.  Bytel,  Oilman  School,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (10  Avon  St.).     1901. 
Prof.  Edward  Capps,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1889. 
Prof.  Mitchell  Carroll,  Columbian  University,  Washington,  D.  C.     1894. 
Dr.  Franklin  Carter,  324  Prospect  St.,  New  Haven,  Conn.     1871. 
Prof.  Jesse  Benedict  Carter,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.     1898. 
Prof.  Mary  Emily  Case,  Wells  College,  Aurora,  N.  Y.     1895. 
Prof.  Clarence  F.  Castle,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1888. 
Dr.  William  Van  Allen  Catron,  West  Side  High  School,  Milwaukee,  Wis.     1896. 
Prof.  Julia  H.  Caverno,  Smith  College,  Northampton,  Mass.     1902. 
Miss  Eva  Channing,  Exeter  Chambers,  Boston,  Mass.     1883. 
Prof.  A.  C.  Chapin,  Wellesley  College,  Wellesley,  Mass.     1888. 
Prof.  Henry  Ltland  Chapman,  Bowdoin  College,  Brunswick,  Me.     1892. 
Prof.  George  Davis  Chase,  Wesleyan  University,  Middletown,  Conn.     1900. 
Dr.  George  H.  Chase,  Harvard  -University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (24  Grays  Hall). 

1899. 

Prof.  S.  R.  Cheek,  Centre  College  of  Kentucky,  Danville,  Ky.     1890. 
Prof.  Clarence  G.  Child,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  (2312  De 

Lancey  Place).     1897. 

Miss  Emma  Kirkland  Clark,  545  A  Quincy  St.,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.     1896. 
Dr.  Frank  Lowry  Clark,  Washburn  College,  Topeka,  Kan.  (1511  West  St.).    1902. 
Dr.  Willard  K.  Clement,  Evanston,  111.     1892. 
Prof.  Charles  Nelson  Cole,  Oberlin  College,  Oberlin,  O.     1902. 
Prof.  George  Stuart  Collins,  Polytechnic  Institute,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.     1897. 
Prof.  Hermann  Collitz,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Bryn  Mawr,  Pa.     1887. 
William  T.  Colville,  Carbondale,  Pa.     1884. 
D.  Y.  Comstock,  St.  Johnsbury,  Vt.     1 888. 
Prof.  Elisha  Conover,  Delaware  College,  Newark,  Del.     1897. 
Dr.  Arthur  Stoddard  Cooley,  387  Central  St.,  Auburndale,  Mass.     1896. 


cxxiv  American  Philological  Association. 

J.  Randolph  Coolidge,  Jr.,  Chestnut  Hill,  Mass.      1884. 

Prof.  William  L.  Cowles,  Amherst  College,  Amherst,  Mass.     1888. 

Principal  Edward  G.  Coy,  Hotchkiss  School,  Lakeville,  Conn.     1888. 

Prof.  W.  H.  Crogman,  Clark  University,  South  Atlanta,  Ga.     1898. 

W.  L.  Gushing,  Westminster  School,  Simsbury,  Conn.     1888. 

Prof.  William  K.  Denison,  Tufts  College,  College  Hill,  Mass.     1899. 

Prof.  Walter  Dennison,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.     1899. 

Prof.  Samuel  C.  Derby,  Ohio  State  University,  Columbus,  O.     1895. 

Sherwood  Owen  Dickerman,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (267  Lawrance 
Hall).  1902. 

Prof.  Howard  Freeman  Doane,  252  West  lO4th  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1897. 

Prof.  B.  L.  D'Ooge,  State  Normal  College,  Ypsilanti,  Mich.     1895. 

Prof.  Martin  L.  D'Ooge,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.     1873. 

Prof.  Louis  H.  Dow,  Dartmouth  College,  Hanover,  N.  H.     1895. 

Prof.  Joseph  H.  Drake,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.     1897. 

Prof.  Frederic  Stanley  Dunn,  University  of  Oregon,  Eugene,  Ore.     1899. 

Miss  Emily  Helen  Dutton,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.     1898. 

Prof.  Mortimer  Lamson  Earle,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1890. 

Prof.  William  Wells  Eaton,  Middlebury  College,  Middlebury,  Vt.     1882. 

Dr.  Herman  L.  Ebeling,  Hamilton  College,  Clinton,  N.  Y.     1892. 

Prof.  William  S.  Ebersole,  Cornell  College,  Mt.  Vernon,  la.     1893. 

Prof.  W.  A.  Eckels,  Miami  University,  Oxford,  O.     1894. 

Thomas  H.  Eckfeldt,  Concord  School,  Concord,  Mass.     1883. 

Dr.  Homer  J.  Edmiston,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Bryn  Mawr,  Pa.     1894. 

Prof.  George  V.  Edwards,  State  Normal  College,  Ypsilanti,  Mich.  (121  Normal 
St.).  1901. 

Prof.  Katharine  M.  Edwards,  Wellesley  College,  Wellesley,  Mass.     1893. 

Prof.  James  C.  Egbert,  Jr.,  American  School  of  Classical  Studies,  Rome,  Italy 
(5  Via  Vicenza).  1889. 

Prof.  Wallace  Stedman  Elden,  Ohio  State  University,  Columbus,  O.  (1462  Neil 
Ave.).  1900. 

Prof.  A.  Marshall  Elliott,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.     1884. 

Prof.  W.  A.  Elliott,  Allegheny  College,  Meadville,  Pa.     1897. 

Prof.  Herbert  C.  Elmer,  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.     1887. 

Prof.  L.  H.  Elwell,  Amherst  College,  Amherst,  Mass.     1883. 

Miss  E.  Antoinette  Ely,  The  Clifton  School,  Cincinnati,  O.     1893. 

Prof.  O.  F.  Emerson,  Adelbert  College  of  Western  Reserve  University,  Cleve- 
land, O.  1903. 

Prof.  Annie  Crosby  Emery,  Brown  University,  Providence,  R.  I.     1896. 

Prof.  George  Taylor  Ettinger,  Muhlenberg  College,  Allentown,  Pa.      1896. 

Rev.  Orishatukeh  Faduma,  Troy,  N.  C.     1900. 

Prof.  Arthur  Fairbanks,  State  University  of  Iowa,  Iowa  City,  la.     1886. 

Prof.  Charles  E.  Fay,  Tufts  College,  Mass.     1885. 

Prof.  Edwin  W.  Fay,  University  of  Texas,  Austin,  Tex.     1889. 

Pres.  Thomas  Fell,  St.  John's  College,  Annapolis,  Md.     1 888. 

Principal  F.  J.  Fessenden,  Fessenden   School,  West  Newton,  Mass.     1890. 

Dr.  George  Converse  Fiske,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis.  (609  Lake 
St.).  1900. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxxv 

Prof.  Edward  Fitch,  Hamilton  College,  Clinton,  N.  Y.     1890. 
Prof.  Thomas  Fitz-Hugh,  University  of  Virginia,  Charlottesville,  Va.  (Life  mem- 
ber).    1902. 

Miss  Helen  C.  Flint,  Mount  Holyoke  College,  South  Hadley,  Mass.     1897. 
Prof.  Herbert  B.  Foster,  University  of  South  Dakota,  Vermilion,  S.  D.     1900. 
Prof.  Frank  H.  Fowler,  Lombard  College,  Galesburg,  111.     1893. 
Prof.  Harold  N.  Fowler,  American  School  of  Classical  Studies,  Athens,  Greece. 

1885. 

Prof.  D.  E.  Foyle,  Georgetown  College,  Georgetown,  Ky.     1901. 
Dr.  Wilmer  Cave  France,  Radnor,  Pa.     1900. 
Dr.  Susan  B.  Franklin,  Bryn  Mawr,  Pa.     1890. 
Dr.  I.  F.  Frisbee,  187  W.  Canton  St.,  Boston,  Mass.     1898. 
Prof.  Charles  Kelsey  Gaines,  St.  Lawrence  University,  Canton,  N.  Y.     1890. 
Dr.  William  Gallagher,  Thayer  Academy,  South  Braintree,  Mass.     1886. 
Frank  A.  Gallup,   Packer  Collegiate  Institute,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.    (320  Ginton 

Avenue).     1898. 
Prof.  Henry  Gibbons,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  (405  South 

4ist  St.).     1890. 

Prof.  Seth  K.  Gifford,  Haverford  College,  Haverford,  Pa.     1891. 
Prof.  John  W.  Gilbert,  Paine  College,  Augusta,  Ga.  (1620  Magnolia  St.).     1897. 
Prof.  Basil  L.  Giklersleeve,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.     1876. 
E.  W.  Given,  Newark  Academy,  Newark,  N.  J.     1902. 
Clarence  Willard  Gleason,  Roxbury  Latin  School,  Roxbury,  Mass.  (6  Copeland  St.) . 

1901. 
Prof.  Thomas  D.  Goodell,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (35  Edgehill  Road). 

1883. 

Prof.  Charles  J.  Goodwin,  Lehigh  University,  South  Bethlehem,  Pa.     1891. 
Prof.  William  W.  Goodwin,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (5  Follen  St). 

1870. 
Dr.  William  Elford  Gould,  Academy  of  Notre  Dame,  Charles  St.,  Baltimore,  Md. 

1902. 

Prof.  Roscoe  Allan  Grant,  Fisk  University,  Nashville,  Tenn.     1902. 
Prof.  E.  L.  Green,  South  Carolina  College,  Columbia,  S.  C.     1898. 
Prof.  Herbert  Eveleth  Greene,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.     1890. 
Prof.  John  Greene,  Colgate  University,  Hamilton,  N.  Y.     1902. 
Prof.  Wilber  J.  Greer,  Miami  University,  Oxford,  O.     1892. 
Prof.  Alfred  Gudeman,  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.     1889. 
Dr.  Roscoe  Guernsey,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1902, 
Prof.  Charles  Burton  Gulick,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (18  Walker 

St.).     1894. 

Miss  Elizabeth  Hazelton  Haight,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.     1902. 
Prof.  William  Gardner  Hale,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1882. 
Prof.  Arthur  P.  Hall,  Drury  College,  Springfield,  Mo.     1886. 
Prof.  F.  A.  Hall,  Washington  University,  St.  Louis,  Mo.  (531  Spring  Ave.).    1896. 
Frank  T.  Hallett,  Brown  University,  Providence,  R.  I.  (283  George  St.).     1902. 
Prof.  T.  F.  Hamblin,  Bucknell  University,  Lewisburg,  Pa.     1895. 
Prof.  Adelbert  Hamilton,  Elmira  College,  Elmira,  N.  Y.     1895. 
Miss  Clemence  Hamilton,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.     1901. 


cxxvi  American  Philological  Association. 

Prof.  William  A.  Hammond,  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.  (29  East  Ave.). 

1897. 
Principal  John  Calvin  Hanna,  High  School,  Oak  Park,  111.  (209  South  East  Ave.). 

1896. 

Prof.  Albert  Harkness,  Brown  University,  Providence,  R.  I.     1869. 
Prof.  Albert  Granger  Harkness,  Brown  University,  Providence,  R.  I.     1896. 
Pres.  William  R.  Harper,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1887. 
Prof.  Karl  P.  Harrington,  University  of  Maine,  Orono,  Me.      1892. 
Miss  Mary  B.  Harris,  2252  Calumet  Ave.,  Chicago,  111.     1902. 
Prof.  W.  A.  Harris,  Richmond  College,  Richmond,  Va.   (403  Lombardy  St.). 

1895. 
Prof.  William  Fenwick  Harris,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (8  Mercer 

Circle).     1901. 

Prof.  J.  E.  Harry,  University  of  Cincinnati,  Cincinnati,  O.      1896. 
Dr.  Carl  A.  Harstrom,  The  Folly,  Norwalk,  Conn.     1900. 
Prof.  Samuel  Hart,  Berkeley  Divinity  School,  Middletown,  Conn.     1871. 
Eugene  W.  Harter,  Erasmus  Hall  High  School,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  (121  Marlborough 

Road).     1901. 

Prof.  Paul  Haupt,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.     1884. 
Prof.  Adeline  Belle  Hawes,  Wellesley  College,  \Vellesley,  Mass.     1902. 
Dr.  Edward  South  worth  Hawes,  Polytechnic  Institute,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.     1888. 
Rev.  Dr.  Henry  H.  Haynes,  6  Ellery  St.,  Cambridge,  Mass.     1900. 
Prof.  F.  M.  Hazen,  Mount  Holyoke  College,  South  Hadley,  Mass.     1896. 
Dr.  Theodore  Woolsey  Heermance,  American  School  of  Classical  Studies,  Athens, 

Greece.     1897. 

Prof.  W.  A.  Heidel,  Iowa  College,  Grinnell,  la.    1900. 
Prof.  F.  B.  R.  Hellems,  State  University  of  Colorado,  Boulder,  Col.     1900. 
Prof.  Otto  Heller,  \Vashington  University,  St.  Louis,  Mo.     1896. 
N.  Wilbur  Helm,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.     1900. 
Prof.  George  Hempl,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.  (1027  East  Uni- 
versity Ave.).     1895. 

Prof.  G.  L.  Hendrickson,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1892. 
Prof.  John  H.  Hewitt,  Williams  College,  Williamstown,  Mass.     1886. 
Edwin  H.  Higley,  Groton  School,  Groton,  Mass.     1899. 
Prof.  Henry  T.  Hildreth,  Roanoke  College,  Salem,  Va.     1896. 
Prof.  James  M.  Hill,  Central  High  School,  Philadelphia,  Pa.     1900. 
Dr.  Gertrude  Hirst,  Barnard  College,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

1902. 

Harwood  Hoadley,  140  West  I3th  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1903. 
Archibald  L.  Hodges,  Wadleigh  High  School,  I  I4th  St.,  near  7th  Ave.,  New  York 

City.     1899. 
Prof.  Arthur  W.  Hodgman,  Ohio  State  University,  Columbus,  O.  (164  West  Ninth 

Ave.).     1896. 

Charles  Hoeing,  University  of  Rochester,  Rochester,  N.  Y.     1899. 
Prof.  Horace  A.  Hoffman,  University  of  Indiana,  Bloomington,  Ind.     1893. 
Dr.  D.  H.  Holmes,  Eastern  District  High  School,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  (878  Driggs 

Ave.).     1900. 
Prof.  W.  D.  Hooper,  University  of  Georgia,  Athens,  Ga.     1894. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxxvii 

Prof.  E.  Washburn  Hopkins,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (235  Bishop 

St.).     1883. 
Prof.  Herbert  Muller  Hopkins,  Trinity  College,  Hartford,  Conn.  (4  Trinity  St.). 

1898. 

Prof.  Joseph  Clark  Hoppin,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Bryn  Mawr,  Pa.     1900. 
Prof.  William  A.  Houghton,  Bowdoin  College,  Brunswick,  Me.     1892. 
Prof.  Albert  A.  Howard,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (12  Walker  St.). 

1892. 

Prof.  George  E.  Howes,  University  of  Vermont,  Burlington,  Vt.     1896. 
Prof.  Frank  G.  Hubbard,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis.     1896. 
Prof.  J.  H.  Huddilston,  University  of  Maine,  Orono,  Me.     1898. 
Prof.  Laurence  Cameron  Hull,  Michigan  Military  Academy,  Orchard  Lake,  Mich. 

1889. 

Prof.  Milton  W.  Humphreys,  University  of  Virginia,  Charlottesville,  Va.     1871. 
Stephen  A.  Hurlbut,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1903. 
Dr.  George  B.  Hussey,  East  Orange,  N.  J.     1887. 
Frederick  L.  Hutson,  5727  Monroe  Ave.,  Chicago,  111.     1902. 
Dr.  Walter  Woodburn  Hyde,  Northampton,  Mass.     1902. 

Prof.  Henry  Hyvernat,  Catholic  University  of  America,  Brookland,  D.  C.     1897. 
Prof.  J.  W.  D.  Ingersoll,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (311  Crown  St.). 

1897. 

Andrew  Ingraham,  Francis  Ave.,  Cambridge,  Mass.     1 888. 
Prof.  A.  V.  Williams  Jackson,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1884. 
Prof.  George  E.  Jackson,  Washington  University,  St.  Louis,  Mo.  (4400  Morgan 

St.).     1890. 
Prof.   M.   W.   Jacobus,    Hartford   Theological   Seminary,   Hartford,   Conn.    (14 

Marshall  St.).     1893. 
Prof.  Hans  C.  G.  von  Jagemann,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (113 

Walker  St.).     1882. 

Miss  Anna  S.  Jenkins,  Girls'  High  School,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.     1899. 
Dr.  Charles  W.  L.  Johnson,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.  (156  Nassau 

St.).     1897. 

Henry  C.  Johnson,  35  Nassau  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1885. 
Prof.  William  H.  Johnson,  Denison  University,  Granville,  O.     1895. 
Prof.  Eva  Johnston,  University  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  Columbia,  Mo.     1902. 
Dr.  George  W.  Johnston,  University  of  Toronto,  Toronto,  Can.     1895. 
Principal  Augustine  Jones,  Friends'  School,  Providence,  R.  I.     1896. 
Prof.  J.  C.  Jones,  University  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  Columbia,  Mo.     1902. 
Dr.  Robert  P.  Keep,  Farmington,  Conn.     1872. 

Winthrop  Leicester  Keep,  10  Appian  Way,  Cambridge,  Mass.     1900. 
Prof.  George  Dwight  Kellogg,  Williams  College,  Williamstown,  Mass.     1897. 
Prof.  Francis  W.  Kelsey,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.     1890. 
Dr.  Roland  G.  Kent,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  (1411  Van 

Buren  St.,  Wilmington,  Del.).     1903. 

Prof.  Charles  R.  Keyes,  Cornell  College,  Mt.  Vernon,  la.     1901. 
Prof.  John  B.  Kieffer,  Franklin  and  Marshall  College,  Lancaster,  Pa.     1889. 
Prof.  William  Hamilton  Kirk,  Rutgers  College,  New  Brunswick,  N.  J.     1898. 
Chancellor  J.  H.  Kirkland,  Vanderbilt  University,  Nashville,  Tenn.     1887. 


cxxviii  American  Philological  Association. 

Prof.  J.  C.  Kirtland,  Jr.,  Phillips  Exeter  Academy,  Exeter,  N.  H.     1895. 

Prof.  George  Lyman  Kittredge,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (9  Hilliard 

St.).     1884. 
Dr.  William  H.  Klapp,  Academy  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church,  1324  Locust 

St.,  Philadelphia,  Pa.     1894. 
Prof.  Charles  Knapp,  Barnard  College,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.  ( 1 773 

Sedgwick  Ave.).     1892. 

Charles  S.  Knox,  St.  Paul's  School,  Concord,  N.  H.     1889. 
Prof.  Gordon  J.  Laing,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1902. 
Prof.  A.  G.  Laird,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis.     1890. 
Prof.  William  A.  Lamberton,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa.   1 888. 
Prof.  W.  B.  Langsdorf,  Miami  University,  Oxford,  O.     1895. 
Prof.  Charles  R.  Lanman,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (9  Farrar  St.). 

1877. 

Lewis  H.  Lapham,  8  Bridge  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1880. 
Prof.  H.  B.  Lathrop,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis.     1900. 
Prof.  William  Cranston  Lawton,  Adelphi  College,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  (224  Willoughby 

Ave.).     1888. 

Prof.  Abby  Leach,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.     1888. 
Dr.  Arthur  G.  Leacock,  Phillips  Exeter  Academy,  Exeter,  N.  H.     1899. 
Dr.  Emory  B.  Lease,  College  of  the  City  of  New  York,  N.  Y.  (1603  Amsterdam 

Ave.).     1895. 

Dr.  J.  T.  Lees,  University  of  Nebraska,  Lincoln,  Neb.     1888. 
Prof.  Thomas  B.  Lindsay,  Boston  University,  Boston,  Mass.     1 880. 
Prof.  Charles  Edgar  Little,  University  of  Nashville,  Nashville,  Tenn.     1902. 
Miss  Dale  Livingstone,  nor  Harmon  Place,  Minneapolis,  Minn.     1902. 
Prof.  Gonzalez  Lodge,  Teachers  College,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

1888.  .  '  ^  .. 

Prof.  O.  F.  Long,  Northwestern  University,  Evanston,  111.     1900. 
Prof.  George  D.  Lord,  Dartmouth  College,  Hanover,  N.  H.     1887. 
D.  O.  S.  Lowell,  Roxbury  Latin  School,  Boston,  Mass.     1894. 
Prof.  Frederick  Lutz,  Albion  College,  Albion,  Mich.     1883. 
Prof.  A.  St.  Clair  Mackenzie,  State  College  of  Kentucky,  Lexington,  Ky.      1901. 
Pres.  George  E.  MacLean,  State  University  of  Iowa,  Iowa  City,  la.  (603  College 

St.).     1891. 

Prof.  Grace  H.  Macurdy,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.     1894. 
David  Magie,  Jr.,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.  (33  Prospect  Ave.).    1901. 
Prof.  H.  W.  Magoun,  Redfield  College,  Redfield,  S.  D.     1891. 
Prof.  J.  H.  T.  Main,  Iowa  College,  Grinnell,  la.     1891. 

Prof.  J.  Irving  Manatt,  Brown  University,  Providence,  R.  I.  (15  Keene  St.).    1875. 
Prof.  John  M.  Manly,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1896. 
Prof.  W.  G.  Manly,  University  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  Columbia,  Mo.     1902. 
Prof.  F.  A.  March,  Lafayette  College,  Easton,  Pa.     1869. 
Prof.  Allan  Marquand,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.     1891. 
Prof.  Winfred  R.  Martin,  Trinity  College,  Hartford,  Conn.     1879. 
Miss  Ellen  F.  Mason,  I  Walnut  St.,  Boston,  Mass.     1885. 
Dr.  Maurice  W.  Mather,  13  Mt.  Auburn  St.,  Cambridge,  Mass.     1894. 
Prof.  Nelson  G.  McCrea,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1 890. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxxix 

Prof.  Walton  Brooks  McDaniel,  College  Hall,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Phila- 
delphia, Pa.     1901. 

Prof.  J.  H.  McDaniels,  Hobart  College,  Geneva,  N.  Y.     1871. 
Prof.  George  F.  McKibben,  Oenison  University,  Granville,  O.     1885. 
Miss  Harriet  E.  McKinstry,  Lake  Erie  College,  Painesville,  O.     1881. 
Prof.  H.  Z.  McLain,  Wabash  College,  Crawfordsville,  Ind.     1884. 
Prof.  W.  J.  McMurtry,  Yankton  College,  Yankton,  S.  D.     1893. 
Dr.  Clarence  Lincoln  Meader,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.     1902. 
Prof.  John  Moffatt  Mecklin,  Washington  and  Jefferson  College,  Washington,  Pa. 

1900. 
Prof.   Frank   Ivan   Merchant,   University   of   South   Dakota,   Vermilion,   S.  D. 

1898. 

Ernest  Loren  Meritt,  435  Elm  St.,  New  Haven,  Conn.     1903. 
Prof.  Elmer  T.  Merrill,  Wesleyan  University,  Middletown,  Conn.     1883. 
Truman  Michelson,  69  Walker  St.,  Cambridge,  Mass.     1900. 
Dr.  Alfred  W.  Milden,  Emory  and  Henry  College,  Emory,  Va.     1903. 
Prof.  C.  W.  E.  Miller,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.      1892. 
Prof.  Walter  Miller,  Tulane  University,  New  Orleans,  La.     1900. 
Prof.  Clara  Millerd,  Iowa  College,  Grinnell,  la.     1902. 
Dr.  Richard  A.  v.  Minckwitz,  De  Witt  Clinton  High  School,  Manhattan,  New  York, 

N.  Y.  (Amsterdam  Ave.  and  iO2nd  St.).     1895. 
Charles  A.  Mitchell,  Asheville  School,  Asheville,  N.  C.     1893. 
Prof.  Clifford  Herschel  Moore,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (34  Shep- 

ard  St.).     1889. 

Prof.  Frank  G.  Moore,  Dartmouth  College,  Hanover,  N.  H.     1888. 
Prof.  George  F.  Moore,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (Divinity  Ave.). 

1885. 

Prof.  J.  Leverett  Moore,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.     1887. 
Prof.  Lewis  B.  Moore,  Howard  University,  Washington,  D.  C.     1896. 
Paul  E.  More,  265  Springdale  Ave.,  East  Oranre,  N.  J.     1896. 
Prof.  James  H.  Morgan,  Dickinson  College,  Carlisle,  Pa.     1897. 
Prof.  Morris  H.  Morgan,  Harvard  University,.  Cambridge,  Mass.  (45  Garden  St.). 

1887. 
Prof.  Edward  P.  Morris,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (53  Edgehill  Road). 

1886. 

Frederick  S.  Morrison,  Public  High  School,  Hartford,  Conn.     1890. 
Prof.  Lewis  F.  Mott,  College  of  the  City  of  New  York,  N.  Y.  (17  Lexington  Ave.). 

1898. 

Prof.  George  F.  Mull,  Franklin  and  Marshall  College,  Lancaster,  Pa.     1896. 
Prof.  Wilfred  P.  Mustard,  Haverford  College,  Haverford,  Pa.     1892. 
Prof.  Francis  Philip  Nash,  Hobart  College,  Geneva,  N.  Y.     1872. 
Dr.  K.  P.  Neville,  University  of  Illinois,  Champaign,  111.  (904  S.  Busey  Ave., 

Urbana,  111.).     1902. 

Dr.  Charles  B.  Newcomer,  Drury  College,  Springfield,  Mo.     1900. 
Prof.  Barker  Newhall,  Kenyon  College,  Gambier,  O.     1891. 
Prof.  Frank  W.  Nicolson,  Wesleyan  University,  Middletown,  Conn.     1 888. 
Dr.  William  A.  Nitze,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1902. 
Miss  Emily  Norcross,  Smith  College,  Northampton,  Mass.     1902. 


cxxx  American  Philological  Association. 

Prof.  Richard  Norton,  American  School  of  Classical  Studies,  Rome,  Italy  (Via 
Vicenza  5).  1897. 

Dr.  George  N.  Olcott,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.  (438  W.  Il6th  St.). 
1899. 

Prof.  Edward  T.  Owen,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  \Vis.     1896. 

Prof.  W.  B.  Owen,  Lafayette  College,  Easton,  Pa.     1875. 

Prof.  William  A.  Packard,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.     1872. 

Miss  Elisabeth  H.  Palmer,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.     1902. 

Prof.  Charles  P.  Parker,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (1075  Massa- 
chusetts Ave.).  1884. 

Prof.  James  M.  Paton,  Wesleyan  University,  Middletown,  Conn.     1887. 

John  Patterson,  Louisville  High  School,  Louisville,  Ky.  (1117  Fourth  St.).    1900. 

Dr.  Charles  Peabody,  Phillips  Academy,  Andover,  Mass.  (197  Brattle  Street,  Cam- 
bridge, Mass.).  1894. 

Prof.  E.  M.  Pease,  1423  Chapin  Street,  Washington,  D.  C.     1887. 

Prof.  Tracy  Peck,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.     1871. 

Miss  Frances  Pellett,  Kelly  Hall,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1893. 

Dr.  Daniel  A.  Penick,  University  of  Texas,  Austin,  Tex.     1902. 

Prof.  Charles  W.  Peppier,  Emory  College,  Oxford,  Ga.     1899. 

Prof.  Emma  M.  Perkins,  Western  Reserve  University  (College  for  Women),  Cleve- 
land, O.  1892. 

Prof.  Bernadotte  Perrin,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (136  Farnam  Hall). 
1879. 

Prof.  Edward  D.  Perry,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.  (542  West  Il4th 
St.).  1882. 

Prof.  John  Pickard,  University  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  Columbia,  Mo.     1893. 

Dr.  William  Taggard  Piper,  179  Brattle  St.,  Cambridge,  Mass.      1885. 

Prof.  Samuel  Ball  Plainer,  Adelbert  College  of  Western  Reserve  University, 
Cleveland,  O.  (24  Cornell  St.).  1885. 

Prof.  William  Carey  Poland,  Brown  University,  Providence,  R.  I.  (53  Lloyd  St.). 
1872. 

Prof.  William  Porter,  Beloit  College,  Beloit,  Wis.     1888. 

Prof.  Edwin  Post,  De  Pauw  University,  Greencastle,  Ind.     1886. 

Prof.  Franklin  H.  Potter,  University  of  Iowa,  Iowa  City,  la.     1898. 

Henry  Preble,  42  Stuyvesant  Place,  New  Brighton,  Staten  Island,  N.  Y.      1882. 

Prof.  William  K.  Prentice,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.  (12  Nassau  St.). 
1895. 

Prof.  Ferris  W.  Price,  Swarthmore  College,  Swarthmore,  Pa.     1895. 

Prof.  Benjamin  F.  Prince,  Wittenberg  College,  Springfield,  O.      1893. 

Prof.  John  Dyneley  Prince,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1899. 

Prof.  Robert  S.  Radford,  Elmira  College,  Elmira,  N.  Y.  (710  Park  Place).     1900. 

M.  M.  Ramsey,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.     1894. 

Dr.  Edward  Kennard  Rand,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (104  Lake 
View  Ave.).  1902. 

Prof.  John  W.  Redd,  Centre  College,  Danville,  Ky.     1885. 

Prof.  A.  G.  Rembert,  Woford  College,  Spartansburg,  S.  C.     1902. 

Prof.  Horatio  M.  Reynolds,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (213  Durfee  Hall). 
1884. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxxxi 

Dr.  Rufus  B.  Richardson,  The  Independent,  1 30  Fulton  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y.    1882. 
Dr.  Ernst  Riess,  De  Witt  Clinton  High  School,  Manhattan,  N.  Y.     1895. 
Prof.  Edmund  Y.  Robbins,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.      1895. 
Dr.  Arthur  W.  Roberts,  Brookline  High  School,  Brookline,  Mass.     1884. 
Prof.  James  J.  Robinson,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn,  (i  Dayton  St.). 

1902. 

Prof.  W.  A.  Robinson,  Lawrenceville  School,  Lawrenceville,  N.  J.     1888. 
Prof.  Joseph  C.  Rockwell,  Buchtel  College,  Akron,  O.     1896. 
Prof.  F.  E.  Rockwood,  Bucknell  University,  Lewisburg,  Pa.     1885. 
Prof.  Cornelia  H.  C.  Rogers,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.     1903. 
George  B.  Rogers,  Phillips  Exeter  Academy,  Exeter,  N.  H.     1902. 
Prof.  John  C.  Rolfe,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa.  (4408  Locust 

St.).     1890. 

C.  A.  Rosegrant,  Potsdam  State  Normal  School,  Potsdam,  N.  Y.     1902. 
Prof.  Clarence  F.  Ross,  Allegheny  College,  Meadville,  Pa.     1902. 
Prof.  August  Rupp,  College  of  the  City  of  New  York,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1902. 
Dr.  Arthur  W.  Ryder,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (72  Perkins  Hall). 

1902. 

Dr.  Julius  Sachs,  Classical  School,  38  West  Fifty-ninth  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1875. 
Benjamin  H.  Sanborn.  Wellesley,  Mass.      1890. 
Dr.  Henry  A.  Sanders,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.   (213  South 

Thayer  St.).     1899. 

Prof.  Myron  R.  Sanford,  Middlebury  College,  Middlebury,  Vt.     1894. 
Miss  Catharine  Saunders,  Vassar  College,  Poughkeepsie,  N.  Y.     1900. 
Joseph  H.  Sawyer,  Williston  Seminary,  Easthampton,  Mass.     1897. 
Prof.  W.  S.  Scarborough,  Wilberforce  University,  Wilberforce,  O.     1882. 
Prof.  J.  J.  Schlicher,  State  Normal  School,  Terre  Haute,  Ind.     igor. 
Prof.  H.  Schmidt- Wartenberg,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.      1894. 
Edmund  F.  Schreiner,  486  N.  Clark  St.,  Chicago,  111.     1900. 
Dr.  Charles  P.  G.  Scott,  Radnor,  Pa.      1880. 
Prof.  John  Adams  Scott,  Northwestern  University,  Evanston,  111.  (2110  Orrington 

Ave.).     1898. 

Miss  Annie  N.  Scribner,  1823  Orrington  Ave.,  Evanston,  111.    1900. 
Prof.  Henry  S.  Scribner,  Western  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Allegheny  City,  Pa. 

1889. 

Dr.  Helen  M.  Searles,  Mount  Holyoke  College,  South  Hadley,  Mass.     1893. 
Charles  D.  Seely,  State  Normal  School,  Brockport,  N.  Y.       1 888. 
Prof.  William  J.  Seelye,  Wooster  University,  Wooster,  O.      1 888. 
J.  B.  Sewall,  17  Blagden  St.,  Boston,  Mass.     1871. 
Prof.  T.  D.  Seymour,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (34  Hillhouse  Ave.). 

1873- 

Prof.  Charles  H.  Shannon,  University  of  Tennessee,  Knoxville,  Tenn.     1900. 
Prof.  R.  H.  Sharp,  Jr.,  Randolph-Macon  Woman's  College,  Lynchburg,  Va.  (College 

Park  P.O.).     1897. 

Prof.  J.  A.  Shaw,  Highland  Military  Academy,  Worcester,  Mass.      1876. 
Prof.  Edward  S.  Sheldon,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass,  (il  Francis  Ave.). 

1881. 
Prof.  F.  W.  Shipley,  Washington  University,  St.  Louis,  Mo.     1900. 


cxxxii  American  Philological  Association. 

Prof.  Paul  Shorey,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1887. 

Prof.  Grant  Showerman,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis.     1900. 

Dr.  Edgar  S.  Shumway,  University  of  Pennsylvania,  Philadelphia,  Pa.     1885. 

Prof.  E.  G.  Sihler,  New  York  University,  University  Heights,  New  York,  N.  Y.   1876. 

Prof.  Charles  F.  Sitterly,  Drew  Theological  Seminary,  Madison,  N.  J.     1902. 

Prof.  M.  S.  Slaughter,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis.     1887. 

Principal  M.  C.  Smart,  Claremont,  N.  H.     1900. 

Prof.  Charles  Forster  Smith,  University  of  Wisconsin,  Madison,  Wis.     1883. 

Prof.  Charles  S.  Smith,  Columbian  University,  Washington,  D.  C.  (2122  H  St.). 

1895. 
Prof.  Clement  L.  Smith,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (64  Sparks  St.). 

1882. 

Prof.  Harry  de  Forest  Smith,  Amherst  College,  Amherst,  Mass.     1 899. 
Prof.  Josiah  R.  Smith,  Ohio  State  University,  Columbus,  O.  (257  E.  Broad  St.). 

1885. 

Prof.  Kirby  F.  Smith,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.     1897. 
Prof.  Herbert  Weir  Smyth,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (91  Walker  St.). 

1886. 

Dr.  George  C.  S.  South  worth,  Gambier,  O.     1883. 
Prof.  Edward  H.  Spieker,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.  (915  Ed- 

mondson  Ave.).     1884. 
Dr.  Sidney  G.  Stacey,  Erasmus  Hall  High  School,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.  (119  Montague 

St.).     1901. 

Prof.  Jonathan  Y.  Stanton,  Bates  College,  Lewiston,  Me.     1888. 
Miss  Josephine  Stary,  31  West  Sixty-first  St.,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1899. 
Prof.  R.  B.  Steele,  Vanderbilt  University,  Nashville,  Tenn.  (2401  West  End). 

1893. 

Prof.  J.  R.  S.  Sterrett,  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.  (2  South  Ave.).     1885. 
Prof.  F.  H.  Stoddard,  New  York  University,  University  Heights,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

1890. 

Dr.  Duane  Reed  Stuart,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.     1901. 
Dr.  E.  H.  Sturtevant,  University  of  Missouri,  Columbia,  Mo.     1901. 
Dr.  Charles  W.  Super,  Ohio  University,  Athens,  O.     1881. 
Dr.  Marguerite  Sweet,  13  Ten  Bronck  St.,  Albany,  N.  Y.     1892. 
Prof.  Frank  B.  Tarbell,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1882. 
Prof.  Joseph  R.  Taylor,  Boston  University,  Boston,  Mass.      1902. 
Prof.  Julian  D.  Taylor,  Colby  University,  Waterville,  Me.     1890. 
Prof.  Glanville  Terrell,  Georgetown  College,  Georgetown,  Ky.     1 898. 
Prof.  William  E.  Thompson,  Hamline  University,  Hamline,  Minn.     1877. 
Dr.  Charles  H.  Thurber,  29  Beacon  St.,  Boston,  Mass.     1901. 
Prof.  F.  W.  Tilden,  Indiana  University,  Bloomington,  Ind.     1902. 
Prof.  Fitz  Gerald  Tisdall,  College  of  the  City  of  New  York,  N.  Y.  (80  Convent  Ave.). 

1889. 

Prof.  Henry  A.  Todd,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.      1887. 
Prof.  H.  C.  Tolman,  Vanderbilt  University,  Nashville,  Tenn.     1889. 
Prof.  Edward  M.  Tomlinson,  Alfred  University,  Alfred,  N.  Y.     1885. 
Dr.  O.  S.  Tonks,  University  of  Vermont,  Burlington,  Vt.     1903. 
Prof.  J.  A.  Tufts,  Phillips  Exeter  Academy,  Exeter,  N.  H.     1898. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxxxiii 

Prof.  Milton  H.  Turk,  Hobart  College,  Geneva,  N.  Y.     1896. 

Prof.  Esther  Van  Deman,  The  Woman's  College,  Baltimore,  Md.     1899. 

Addison  Van  Name,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (121  High  St.).    1869. 

N.  P.  Vlachos,  Yeadon,  Pa.     1903. 

Dr.  W.  H.  Wait,  University  of  Michigan,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich.     1893. 

Dr.  John  H.  Walden,  13  Mt.  Auburn  St.,  Cambridge,  Mass.     1889. 

Prof.  Arthur  T.  Walker,  University  of  Kansas,  Lawrence,  Kan.     1895. 

Dr.  Alice  Walton,  Wellesley  College,  Wellesley,  Mass.     1894. 

Dr.  Edwin  G.  Warner,  Polytechnic  Institute,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.     1897. 

Andrew  McCorrie  Warren,  care  of  Brown,  Shipley  &  Co.,  Founders'  Court,  London. 

1892. 
Prof.  Minton  Warren,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (105  Irving  St.). 

1874. 
Prof.  William  E.  Waters,  New  York  University,  University  Heights,  N.  Y.  (604 

West  1 1 5th  St.).     1885. 

Dr.  John  C.  Watson,  Cornell  University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.     1902. 
Dr.  Helen  L.  Webster,  Wilkesbarre  Institute,  Wilkesbarre,  Pa.     1890. 
Prof.  Raymond  Weeks,  University  of  the  State  of  Missouri,  Columbia,  Mo.     1902. 
Charles  Heald  Weller,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (392  Orange  St.). 

1903. 

Prof.  Andrew  F.  West,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.     1886. 
Prof.  J.  H.  Westcott,  Princeton  University,  Princeton,  N.  J.     1891. 
Prof.  J.  B.  Weston,  Christian  Biblical  Institute,  Stanfordville,  N.  Y.     1869. 
Prof.  L.  B.  Wharton,  College  of  William  and  Mary,  Williamsburg,  Va.     1888. 
Albert  S.  Wheeler,  Sheffield  Scientific  School,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (P.O.  Box  1298). 

1871. 

Prof.  Arthur  L.  Wheeler,  Bryn  Mawr  College,  Bryn  Mawr,  Pa.     1899. 
Prof.  James  R.  Wheeler,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.      1885. 
Prof.  G.  M.  Whicher,  Normal  College,  New  York,  N.  Y.     1891. 
Dr.  Andrew  C.  White,  Cornell   University,  Ithaca,  N.  Y.  (424  Dryden  Road). 

1886. 
Prof.  John  Williams  White,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (18  Concord 

Ave.).     1874. 
Vice-Chancellor  B.  Lawton  Wiggins,  University  of  the  South,   Sewanee,  Tenn. 

1892. 

Prof.  Alexander  M.  Wilcox,  University  of  Kansas,  Lawrence,  Kan.     1884. 
Prof.  Henry  D.  Wild,  Williams  College,  Williamstown,  Mass.     1898. 
Charles  R.  Williams,  Indianapolis,  Ind.     1887. 
Prof.  George  A.  Williams,  Kalamazoo  College,  Kalamazoo,  Mich.  (136  Thompson 

St.).     1891. 

Prof.  Mary  G.  Williams,  Mt.  Holyoke  College,  South  Hadley,  Mass.     1899. 
Prof.  Harry  Langford  Wilson,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.     1898. 
Miss  Julia  E.  Winslow,  31  Sidney  Place,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.     1903. 
Dr.  J.  D.  Wolcott,  University  of  Chicago,  Chicago,  111.     1898. 
Prof.  E.  L.  Wood,  Manual  Training  High  School,  Providence,  R.  I.  (271  Alabama 

Ave.).     1888. 

Prof.  Henry  Wood,  Johns  Hopkins  University,  Baltimore,  Md.     1884. 
Dr.  Willis  Patten  Woodman,  6  Greenough  Ave.,  Jamaica  Plain,  Mass.     1901. 


cxxxiv  American  Philological  Association. 

Prof.  Frank  E.  Woodruff,  Bowdoin  College,  Brunswick,  Me.     1887. 

Prof.  B.  D.  Woodward,  Barnard  College,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y. 

1891. 

C  C.  Wright,  University  of  Virginia,  Charlottesville,  Va.     1902. 
Prof.  Ellsworth  D.  Wright,  Lawrence  University,  Appleton,  Wis.     1898. 
Dr.  Henry  B.  Wright,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.     1903. 
Prof.  Henry  P.  \Vright,  Yale  University,  New  Haven,  Conn.  (128  York  St.).    1883. 
Prof.  John  Henry  Wright,  Harvard  University,  Cambridge,  Mass.  (38  Quincy  St.) . 

1874. 
Prof.  Clarence  H.  Young,  Columbia  University,  New  York,  N.  Y.  (3 1 2  West  88th  St.) . 

1890. 

Prof.  R.  B.  Youngman,  Lafayette  College,  Easton,  Pa.     1901. 
[Number  of  Members,  501.] 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxxxv 

WESTERN   BRANCH. 

MEMBERS    OF    THE    PHILOLOGICAL   ASSOCIATION    OF 
THE   PACIFIC   COAST. 

(ESTABLISHED  1899.) 

Membership  in  the  American  Philological  Association  prior  to  the  organization 
of  the  Philological  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast  is  indicated  by  a  date  earlier 
than  1900. 

Albert  H.  Allen,  Visalia,  Cal.     1900. 

Prof.  James  T.  Allen,  University  of  California,  Berkeley.  Cal.  (2243  College  Ave.). 

1898. 

Miss  Mary  G.  Allen,  240  Thirteenth  St.,  San  Francisco,  Cal.     1901. 
Prof.  Louis  F.  Anderson,  Whitman  College,  Walla  Walla,  Wash.      1887. 
Prof.  M.  B.  Anderson,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

1901. 

Prof.  H.  T.  Archibald,  Occidental  College,  Los  Angeles,  Cal.     1901. 
Prof.  William  D.  Armes,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1902. 
Prof.  Mark  Bailey,  Jr.,  Whitvvorth  College,  Tacoma,  Wash.     1901. 
Dr.  J.  W.  Basore,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1902. 
Prof.  C.  B.  Bradley,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.  (2639  Durant  Ave.). 

1900. 

Rev.  William  A.  Brewer,  San  Mateo,  Cal.     1900. 
Valentine  Buehner,  High  School,  San  Jose,  Cal.     1900. 
Elvyn  F.  Burrill,  2536  Bancroft  Way,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
Prof.  Luella  Clay  Carson,  University  of  Oregon,  Eugene,  Ore.     1900. 
Samuel  Chambers,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
Prof.  J.  E.  Church,  Jr.,  State  University  of  Nevada,  Reno,  Nev.     1901. 
Prof.  Edward  B.  Clapp,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.  (i  Bushnell  Place). 

1886. 

Miss  Mary  Bird  Clayes,  2420  Dwight  Way,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
A.  Horatio  Cogswell,  2135  Santa  Clara  Ave.,  Alameda,  Cal.     190x3. 
Prof.  W.  A.  Cooper,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal.    1901. 
Mrs.  P'rank  A.  Cressey,  Modesto,  Cal.      1900. 

Prof.  L.  W.  Cushman,  Nevada  State  University,  Reno,  Nev.     1900. 
J.  Allen  De  Cou,  Red  Bluff,  Cal.     1900. 

Prof.  J.  Elmore,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal.     1900. 
Prof.  H.  Rushton  Fairclough,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University, 

Cal.      1887. 

G.  E.  Faucheux,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
Dr.  W.  S.  Ferguson,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1899. 
Prof.  Ewald  Fliigel,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal.    1900. 
Dr.  B.  O.  Foster,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal.     1899. 
Prof.  P.  J.  Frein,  University  of  Washington,  Seattle,  Wash.     1900. 
Prof.  John  Fryer,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
Prof.  Charles  Mills  Gayley,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1895. 


cxxxvi  American  Philological  Association. 

Charles  Bertie  Gleason,  High  School,  San  Jose,  Cal.     1900. 

Mr.  Pliny  E.  Goddard,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1902. 

Prof.  Julius  Goebel,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal.    1900. 

Walter  H.  Graves,  1428  Seventh  Ave.,  Oakland,  Cal.     1900. 

Miss  Rebecca  T.  Greene,  Palo  Alto,  Cal.     1900. 

Prof.  James  O.  Griffin,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

1896. 

Prof.  A.  S.  Haggett,  University  of  Washington,  Seattle,  Wash.     1901. 
V.  H.  Henderson,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1901. 
M.  C.  James,  High  School,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
Prof.  Oliver  M.  Johnston,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

1900. 

Tracy  R.  Kelley,  2214  Jones  St.,  San  Francisco,  Cal.     1900. 
Dr.  A.  L  Kroeber,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1902. 
Prof.  A.  F.  Lange,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
Miss  Alice  Marchebout,  Girls'  High  School,  San  Francisco,  Cal.     1900. 
Prof.  Max  L.  Margolis,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
Prof.  John  E.  Matzke,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

1900. 

Prof.  William  A.  Merrill,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1 886. 
Francis  O.  Mower,  Napa  High  School,  Napa,  Cal.     1900. 
Edward  J.  Murphy,  Cabias,  Nueva  Ecija,  Philippine  Islands.     1 900. 
Prof.  Augustus  T.  Murray,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

1887. 

Prof.  A.  G.  Newcomer,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Palo  Alto,  Cal.     1902. 
Carl  H.  Nielsen,  Vacaville,  Cal.     1900. 

Rabbi  Jacob  Nieto,  1719  Bush  St.,  San  Francisco,  Cal.     1900. 
Prof.  George  R.  Noyes,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1901. 
Dr.  H.  C.  Nutting,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  CaL,(  1425  Walnut  St.).    1900. 
Dr.  Andrew  Oliver,  San  Mateo,  Cal.     1900. 

Prof.  F.  M.  Padelford,  University  of  Washington,  Seattle,  Wash.     1901. 
Prof.  F.  V.  Paget,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
Prof.  Henry  W.  Prescott,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1899. 
Prof.  Clifton  Price,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1899. 
E.  K.  Putnam,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal.     1901. 
Prof.  A.  Putzker,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
Prof.  S.  B.  Randall,  California  College,  Oakland,  Cal.    1900. 
Miss  Cecilia  L.  Raymond,  2407  S.  Atherton  St.,  Berkeley,  Cal.      1900. 
Prof.  Karl  G.  Rendtorff,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

1900. 

Prof.  C.  C.  Rice,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal.     1902. 
Prof.  Leon  J.  Richardson,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1895. 
Prof.   H.  W.  Rolfe,   Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

1901. 

Prof.  H.  K.  Schilling,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1901. 
Prof.  F.  G.  G.  Schmidt,  University  of  Oregon,  Eugene,  Ore.     1900. 
Prof.  Colbert  Searles,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal. 

1901. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxxxvii 

Prof.  Henry  Senger,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1900. 
S.  S.  Seward,  Leland  Stanford  Jr.  University,  Stanford  University,  Cal.     1902. 
Prof.  David  Thomson,  University  of  Washington,  Seattle,  Wash.     1902. 
Rabbi  Jacob  Voorsanger,  1249  Franklin  St.,  San  Francisco,  Cal.     1901. 
President  Benjamin  I.  Wheeler,  University  of  California,  Berkeley,  Cal.     1879. 
Miss  Catherine  E.  Wilson,  3043  California  St.,  San  Francisco,  Cal.     1900. 
[Number  of  Members,  80.    Total,  501  +  80  =  581.] 


cxxxviii          American  Philological  Association. 


THE  FOLLOWING  LIBRARIES  AND  INSTITUTIONS    (ALPHABETIZED   BY  TOWNS) 
SUBSCRIBE  FOR  THE  ANNUAL  PUBLICATIONS  OF  THE  ASSOCIATION. 

Albany,  N.  Y. :  New  York  State  Library. 
Amherst,  Mass. :  Amherst  College  Library. 
Ann  Arbor,  Mich. :  Michigan  University  Library. 
Auburn,  N.  Y.:  Theological  Seminary. 
Austin,  Texas:  University  of  Texas  Library. 
Baltimore,  Md. :  Johns  Hopkins  University  Library. 
Baltimore,  Md. :  Peabody  Institute. 
Berkeley,  Cal. :  University  of  California  Library. 
Boston,  Mass. :  Boston  Public  Library. 
Brooklyn,  N.  Y. :  The  Brooklyn  Library. 
Brunswick,  Me. :  Bowdoin  College  Library. 
Bryn  Mawr,  Pa. :  Bryn  Mawr  College  Library. 
Buffalo,  N.  Y. :  The  Buffalo  Library. 
Burlington,  Vt. :  Library  of  the  University  of  Vermont. 
Cambridge,  Mass. :  Harvard  College  Library. 
Champaign,  111. :  University  of  Illinois  Library. 
Chicago,  111.:  The  Newberry  Library. 
Chicago,  111. :   Public  Library. 
Chicago,  111. :  University  of  Chicago  Library. 
Clermont  Ferrand,  France :  Bibliotheque  Universitaire. 
Cleveland,  O. :  Library  of  Adelbert  College  of  Western  Reserve  University. 
College  Hill,  Mass. :  Tufts  College  Library. 
Columbus,  O. :  Ohio  State  University  Library. 
Crawfordsville,  Ind. :  Wabash  College  Library. 
Detroit,  Mich. :  Public  Library. 
Easton,  Pa. :  Lafayette  College  Library. 
Evanston,  111. :  Northwestern  University  Library. 
Gambier,  O. :  Kenyon  College  Library. 
Greencastle,  Ind. :  Library  of  De  Pauw  University. 
Hanover,  N.  H. :  Dartmouth  College  Library. 
Iowa  City,  la. :  Library  of  State  University. 
Ithaca,  N.  Y. :  Cornell  University  Library. 
Lincoln,  Neb. :  Library  of  State  University  of  Nebraska. 
Madison,  Wis. :  Library  of  the  University  of  Wisconsin. 
Marietta,  O. :  Marietta  College  Library. 
Middletown,  Conn. :  Wesleyan  University  Library. 
Milwaukee,  Wis. :   Public  Library. 
Minneapolis,  Minn. :  Athenaeum  Library. 
Minneapolis,  Minn. :  Library  of  the  University  of  Minnesota. 
Nashville,  Tenn. :  Vanderbilt  University  Library. 
Newton  Centre,  Mass. :  Library  of  Newton  Theological  Institution. 
New  York,  N.  Y. :  Astor  Library. 
New  York,  N.  Y. :  Library  of  Columbia  University. 

New  York,  N.  Y. :  Library  of  the  College  of  the  City  of  New  York  (Lexington 
Ave.  and  Twenty-third  St.). 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxxxix 

New  York,  N.  Y. :  Union  Theological  Seminary  Library  (700  Park  Ave.). 

Olivet,  Eaton  Co.,  Mich. :  Olivet  College  Library. 

Philadelphia,  Pa. :  American  Philosophical  Society. 

Philadelphia,  Pa. :  The  Library  Company  of  Philadelphia. 

Philadelphia,  Pa. :  The  Mercantile  Library. 

Philadelphia,  Pa. :  University  of  Pennsylvania  Library. 

Pittsburg,  Pa. :  Carnegie  Library. 

Poughkeepsie,  N.  V. :   Yassar  College  Library. 

Princeton,  N.  J. :  Library  of  Princeton  University. 

Providence,  R.  I. :  Brown  University  Library. 

Rochester,  N.  Y. :   Rochester  University  Library. 

Springfield,  Mass. :  City  Library. 

Tokio,  Japan :  Library  of  Imperial  University. 

Toronto,  Can. :  University  of  Toronto  Library. 

University  of  Virginia,  Albemarle  Co.,  Va. :  University  Library. 

Vermilion,  South  Dakota:  Library  of  University  of  South  Dakota. 

Washington,  D.  C. :  Library  of  the  Catholic  University  of  America. 

Washington,  D.  C.  :  United  States  Bureau  of  Education. 

Wellesley,  Mass. :  Wellesley  College  Library. 

Worcester,  Mass. :  Free  Public  Library. 

[Number  of  subscribing  institutions,  64.  ] 


To  THE  FOLLOWING  LIBRARIES   AND    INSTITUTIONS   THE  TRANSACTIONS  ARE 

ANNUALLY  SENT,  GRATIS. 

American  School  of  Classical  Studies,  Athens. 

American  School  of  Classical  Studies,  Rome  (Via  Vicenza  5). 

British  Museum,  London. 

Royal  Asiatic  Society,  London. 

Philological  Society,  London. 

Society  of  Biblical  Archaeology,  London. 

Indian  Office  Library,  London. 

Bodleian  Library,  Oxford. 

University  Library,  Cambridge,  England. 

Advocates'  Library,  Edinburgh,  Scotland. 

Trinity  College  Library,  Dublin,  Ireland. 

Asiatic  Society  of  Bengal,  Calcutta. 

Bombay  Branch  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society. 

North-China  Branch  of  the  Royal  Asiatic  Society,  Shanghai. 

Japan  Asiatic  Society,  Yokohama. 

Public  Library  of  Victoria,  Melbourne,  Australia. 

Sir  George  Grey's  Library,  Cape  Town,  Africa. 

Reykjavik  College  Library,  Iceland. 

University  of  Christiania,  Norway. 

University  of  Upsala,  Sweden. 

Stadsbiblioteket,  Goteborg,  Sweden. 


cxl  American  Philological  Association. 

Russian  Imperial  Academy,  St.  Petersburg. 

Austrian  Imperial  Academy,  Vienna. 

Anthropologische  Gesellschaft,  Vienna. 

Biblioteca  Nazionale,  Florence,  Italy. 

Reale  Accademia  delle  Scienze,  Turin. 

Societe  Asiatique,  Paris,  France. 

Athenee  Oriental,  Louvain,  Belgium. 

Curatorium  of  the  University,  Leyden,  Holland. 

Bataviaasch  Genootschap  van  Kunsten  en  Wetenschappen,  Batavia,  Java. 

Royal  Prussian  Academy  of  Sciences,  Berlin,  Germany. 

Royal  Saxon  Academy  of  Sciences,  Leipsic. 

Royal  Bavarian  Academy  of  Sciences,  Munich. 

Deutsche  Morgenlandische  Gesellschaft,  Halle. 

Library  of  the  University  of  Bonn. 

Library  of  the  University  of  Freiburg  in  Baden. 

Library  of  the  University  of  Giessen. 

Library  of  the  University  of  Jena. 

Library  of  the  University  of  Konigsberg. 

Library  of  the  University  of  Leipsic. 

Library  of  the  University  of  Toulouse. 

Library  of  the  University  of  Tubingen. 

Imperial  Ottoman  Museum,  Constantinople. 

Smithsonian  Institution,  Washington,  D.  C. 

[Number  of  foreign  institutions,  43.] 


To  THE  FOLLOWING  FOREIGN  JOURNALS  THE  TRANSACTIONS  ARE  ANNUALLY 

SENT,  GRATIS. 

Athenaeum,  London. 

Classical  Review,  London. 

Revue  Critique,  Paris. 

Revue  de  Philologie  (Adrien  Krebs,  n  Rue  de  Lille,  Paris). 

Societe  de  Linguistique,  &  la  Sorbonne,  Paris. 

Berliner  Philologische  Wochenschrift,  Berlin. 

Deutsche  Litteraturzeitung,  Berlin. 

Indogermanische  Forschungen  (K.  J.  Trubner,  Strassburg). 

Literarisches  Centralblatt,  Leipsic. 

Musee  Beige  (Prof.  Waltzing,  9  Rue  du  Pare,  Liege,  Belgium). 

Neue  Philologische  Rundschau,  Gotha  (F.  A.  Perthes). 

Wochenschrift  fur  klassische  Philologie,  Berlin. 

Rivista  di  Filologia,  Turin  (Ermanno  Loescher). 

Direzione  del  Bolletino  di  Filologia  Classica,  Via  Vittorio  Amadeo  ii,  Turin. 

Zeitschrift  fur  die  osterr.  Gymnasien  (Prof.  J.  Golling,  Maximilians  Gymnasium 

Vienna). 
L'Universite  Catholique  (Prof.  A.  Lepitre,  10  Avenue  de  Noailles,  Lyons). 

[Total  (581  +  64  +  43  +  I  +  1 6)  =  705.] 


CONSTITUTION 

OF   THE 

AMERICAN  PHILOLOGICAL  ASSOCIATION. 


ARTICLE  I. — NAME  AND  OBJECT. 

1.  This   Society   shall  be   known  as  "The  American  Philological  Associa- 
tion." 

2.  Its  object  shall  be  the  advancement  and  diffusion  of  philological  knowl- 
edge. 

ARTICLE  II.  —  OFFICERS. 

1.  The  officers  shall  be   a   President,  two  Vice-Presidents,  a  Secretary  and 
Curator,  and  a  Treasurer. 

2.  There  shall  be  an  Executive  Committee  of  ten,  composed  of  the  above 
officers  and  five  other  members  of  the  Association. 

3.  All  the  above  officers  shall  be  elected  at  the  last  session  of  each  annual 
meeting. 

ARTICLE  III.  —  MEETINGS. 

1.  There  shall  be  an  annual  meeting  of  the  Association  in  the  city  of  New 
York,  or  at  such  other  place  as  at  a  preceding  annual  meeting  shall  be  deter- 
mined upon. 

2.  At  the  annual  meeting,  the  Executive  Committee  shall  present  an  annual 
report  of  the  progress  of  the  Association. 

3.  The  general  arrangements  of  the  proceedings  of  the  annual  meeting  shall 
be  directed  by  the  Executive  Committee. 

4.  Special  meetings  may  be  held  at  the  call  of  the.Executive  Committee,  when 
and  where  they  may  decide. 

cxli 


cxlii  American  Philological  Association. 

ARTICLE  IV.  —  MEMBERS. 

1.  Any  lover  of  philological  studies  may  become  a  member  of  the  Association 
by  a  vote  of  the  Executive  Committee  and  the  payment  of  five  dollars  as  initiation 
fee,  which  initiation  fee  shall  be  considered  the  first  regular  annual  fee. 

2.  There  shall  be  an  annual  fee  of  three  dollars  from  each  member,  failure  in 
payment  of  which  for  two  years  shall  ipso  facto  cause  the  membership  to  cease. 

3.  Any  person  may  become  a  life  member  of  the  Association  by  the  payment 
of  fifty  dollars  to  its  treasury,  and  by  vote  of  the  Executive  Committee. 

ARTICLE  V.  —  SUNDRIES. 

1.  All  papers  intended  to  be  read  before  the  Association  must  be  submitted 
to  the  Executive  Committee  before  reading,  and  their  decision  regarding  such 
papers  shall  be  final. 

2.  Publications  of  the  Association,  of  whatever  kind,  shall  be  made  only  under 
the  authorization  of  the  Executive  Committee. 

ARTICLE  VI. — AMENDMENTS. 

Amendments  to  this  Constitution  may  be  made  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of 
those  present  at  any  regular  meeting  subsequent  to  that  in  which  they  have  been 
proposed. 


PUBLICATIONS   OF  THE  ASSOCIATION. 


THE  annually  published  "  Proceedings "  of  the  American  Philo- 
logical Association  contain  an  account  of  the  doings  at  the  annual 
meeting,  brief  abstracts  of  the  papers  read,  reports  upon  the  progress 
of  the  Association,  and  lists  of  its  officers  and  members. 

The  annually  published  "Transactions"  give  the  full  text  of  such 
articles  as  the  Executive  Committee  decides  to  publish.  The  Pro- 
ceedings are  bound  with  them  as  an  Appendix. 

The  following  tables  show  the  authors  and  contents  of  the  volumes 
of  Transactions  thus  far  published  :  — 

1869-1870. —Volume  L 

Hadley,  J. :  On  the  nature  and  theory  of  the  Greek  accent. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  On  the  nature  and  designation  of  the  accent  in  Sanskrit. 

Goodwin,  W.  W. :  On  the  aorist  subjunctive  and  future  indicative  with  oirais  and 

OV  fjLT}. 

Trumbull,  J.  Hammond :  On  the  best  method  of  studying  the  North  American 

languages. 

Haldeman,  S.  S. :  On  the  German  vernacular  of  Pennsylvania. 
Whitney,  W.  D. :   On  the  present  condition  of  the  question  as  to  the  origin  of 

language. 
Lounsbury,  T.  R. :  On  certain  forms  of  the  English  verb  which  were  used  in  the 

sixteenth  and  seventeenth  centuries. 
Trumbull,  J.  Hammond :  On  some  mistaken  notions  of  Algonkin  grammar,  and 

on  mistranslations  of  words  from  Eliot's  Bible,  etc. 
Van  Name,  A. :  Contributions  to  Creole  Grammar. 
Proceedings  of  the  preliminary  meeting  (New  York,  1868),  of  the  first  annual 

session  (Poughkeepsie,  1869),  and  of  the  second  annual  session  (Rochester, 

1870). 

1871.  —  Volume  n. 

Evans,  E.  W. :  Studies  in  Cymric  philology. 

Allen,  F.  D. :  On  the  so-called  Attic  second  declension. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  Strictures  on  the  views  of  August  Schleicher  respecting  the 
nature  of  language  and  kindred  subjects. 

Hadley,  J. :  On  English  vowel  quantity  in  the  thirteenth  century  and  in  the  nine- 
teenth. 

March,  F.  A.  :  Anglo-Saxon  and  Early  English  pronunciation. 

Bristed,  C.  A. :  Some  notes  on  Ellis's  Early  English  Pronunciation. 

cxliii 


cxliv  American  Philological  Association. 

frumbull,  J.  Hammond  :  On  Algonkin  names  for  man. 

Greenough,  J.  B. :  On  some  forms  of  conditional  sentences  in  Latin,  Greek  and 
Sanskrit.  ", 

Proceedings  of  the  third  annual  session,  New  Haven,  1871. 

1872. — Volume  m. 

Evans,  E.  W. :  Studies  in  Cymric  philology. 

Frumbull,  J.  Hammond:  Words  derived  from  Indian  languages  of  North 
America. 

Hadley,  J. :  On  the  Byzantine  Greek  pronunciation  of  the  tenth  century,  as  illus- 
trated by  a  manuscript  in  the  Bodleian  L'brary. 

Stevens,  W.  A. :  On  the  substantive  use  of  the  Greek  participle. 

Bristed,  C.  A. :  Erroneous  and  doubtful  uses  of  the  word  such. 

Hartt,  C.  F. :  Notes  on  the  Lingoa  Geral,  or  Modern  Tupf  of  the  Amazonas. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  On  material  and  form  in  language. 

March,  F.  A. :  Is  there  an  Anglo-Saxon  language? 

March,  F.  A. :  On  some  irregular  verbs  in  Anglo-Saxon. 

Trumbull,  J.  Hammond :  Notes  on  forty  versions  of  the  Lord's  Prayer  in  Algon* 
kin  languages. 

Proceedings  of  the  fourth  annual  session,  Providence,  1872. 

1873. — Volume  IV. 

Allen,  F.  D. :  The  Epic  forms  of  verbs  in  aw. 

Evans,  E.  W. :  Studies  in  Cymric  philology. 

Hadley,  J. :  On  Koch's  treatment  of  the  Celtic  element  in  English. 

Haldeman,  S.  S. :  On  the  pronunciation  of  Latin,  as  presented  in  several  recent 
grammars. 

Packard,  L.  R. :  On  some  points  in  the  life  of  Thucydides. 

Goodwin,  W.  W. :  On  the  classification  of  conditional  sentences  in  Greek  syntax. 

March,  F.  A. :  Recent  discussions  of  Grimm's  law. 

Lull,  E.  P. :  Vocabulary  of  the  language  of  the  Indians  of  San  Bias  and  Cale- 
donia Bay,  Darien. 

Proceedings  of  the  fifth  annual  session,  Easton,  1873. 

1874.  — Volume  V. 

Tyler,  W.  S. :  On  the  prepositions  in  the  Homeric  poems. 

Harkness,  A. :  On  the  formation  of  the  tenses  for  completed  action  in  the  Latin 

finite  verb. 

Haldeman,  S.  S. :  On  an  English  vowel-mutation,  present  in  cagt  keg. 
Packard,  L.  R. :  On  a  passage  in  Homer's  Odyssey  (A.  81-86). 
Trumbull,  J.  Hammond :  On  numerals  in  American  Indian  languages,  and  the 

Indian  mode  of  counting. 
Bewail,  J.  B. :  On  the  distinction  between  the  subjunctive  and  optatives  modes  in 

Greek  conditional  sentences. 

Morris,  C.  D. :  On  the  age  of  Xenophon  at  the  time  of  the  Anabasis. 
Whitney,  W.  D. :  *iWt  or  Otyti  —  natural  or  conventional? 
Proceedings  of  the  sixth  annual  session,  Hartford,  1874. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxlv 

1875. —Volume  VL 

Harkness,  A. :  On  the  formation  of  the  tenses  for  completed  action  in  the  Latin 

finite  verb. 

Haldeman,  S.  S. :  On  an  English  consonant-mutation,  present  in  proof,  prove. 
Carter,  F. :  On  Begemann's  views  as  to  the  weak  preterit  of  the  Germanic  verbs. 
Morris,  C.  D. :  On  some  forms  of  Greek  conditional  sentences. 
Williams,  A. :  On  verb-reduplication  as  a  means  of  expressing  completed  action. 
Sherman,  L.  A. :  A  grammatical  analysis  of  the  Old  English  poem  "  The  Owl 

and  the  Nightingale." 
Proceedings  of  the  seventh  annual  session,  Newport,  1875. 

1876.  —  Volume  VII. 

Gildersleeve,  B.  L. :  On  ««'  with  the  future  indicative  and  &b»  with  the  subjunctive 

in  the  tragic  poets. 

Packard,  L.  R. :  On  Grote's  theory  of  the  structure  of  the  Iliad. 
Humphreys,  M.  W. :  On  negative  commands  in  Greek. 
Toy,  C.  H. :  On  Hebrew  verb-etymology. 
Whitney,  W.  D. :  A  botanico-philological  problem. 

Goodwin,  W.  W. :  On  shall  and  should  in  protasis,  and  their  Greek  equivalents. 
Humphreys,  M.  W. :  On  certain  influences  of  accent  in  Latin  iambic  trimeters. 
Trumbull,  J.  Hammond :  On  the  Algonkin  verb. 
Haldeman,  S.  S. :  On  a  supposed  mutation  between  /  and  u. 
Proceedings  of  the  eighth  annual  session,  New  York,  1876. 

1877.  —  Volume  VHI. 

Packard,  L.  R. :  Notes  on  certain  passages  in  the  Phaedo  and  the  Gorgias  of 

Plato. 

Toy,  C.  H.  t  On  the  nominal  basis  on  the  Hebrew  verb. 
Allen,  F.  D. :  On  a  certain  apparently  pleonastic  use  of  us. 
Whitney,  W.  D. :  On  the  relation  of  surd  and  sonant. 
Holden,  E.  S. :  On  the  vocabularies  of  children  under  two  years  of  age. 
Goodwin,  W.  W. :  On  the  text  and  interpretation  of  certain  passages   in   the 

Agamemnon  of  Aeschylus. 

Stickney,  A. :  On  the  single  case-form  in  Italian. 

Carter,  F. :  On  Willmann's  theory  of  the  authorship  of  the  Nibelungenlied. 
Sihler,  E.  G. :  On  Herodotus's  and  Aeschylus's  accounts  of  the  battle  of  Salamis. 
Whitney,  W.  D. :  On  the  principle  of  economy  as  a  phonetic  force. 
Carter,  F. :  On  the  Kiirenberg  hypothesis. 
March,  F.  A. :  On  dissimilated  gemination. 
Proceedings  of  the  ninth  annual  session,  Baltimore,  1877. 

1878.  —  Volume  IX. 

Gildersleeve,  B.  L. :  Contributions  to  the  history  of  the  articular  infinitive. 
Toy,  C.  H. :  The  Yoruban  language. 

Humphreys,  M.  W. :  Influence  of  accent  in  Latin  dactylic  hexameters. 
Sachs,  J. :  Observations  on  Plato's  Cratylus. 


cxlvi  American  Pliilological  Association. 

Seymour,  T.  D. :  On  the  composition  of  the  Cynegeticus  of  Xenophon. 
Humphreys,  M.  W. :  Elision,  especially  in  Greek. 
Proceedings  of  the  tenth  annual  session,  Saratoga,  1878. 

1879.  — Volume  X. 

Toy,  C.  H. :  Modal  development  of  the  Semitic  verb. 

Humphreys,  M.  W. :  On  the  nature  of  caesura. 

Humphreys,  M.  W. :  On  certain  effects  of  elision. 

Cook,  A.  S. :  Studies  in  Heliand. 

Harkness,  A. :  On  the  development  of  the  Latin  subjunctive  in  principal  clauses, 

D'Ooge,  M.  L. :  The  original  recension  of  the  De  Corona. 

Peck,  T. :  The  authorship  of  the  Dialogus  de  Oratoribus. 

Seymour,  T.  D. :  On  the  date  of  the  Prometheus  of  Aeschylus. 

Proceedings  of  the  eleventh  annual  session,  Newport,  1879. 

1880. —  Volume  XI. 

Humphreys,  M.  W. :  A  contribution  to  infantile  linguistic. 

Toy,  C.  H. :  The  Hebrew  verb-termination  un. 

Packard,  L.  R. :  The  beginning  of  a  written  literature  in  Greece. 

Hall,  I.  H. :  The  declension  of  the  definite  article  in  the  Cypriote  inscriptions. 

Sachs,  J. :  Observations  on  Lucian. 

Sihler,  E.  G. :  Virgil  and  Plato. 

Allen,  W.  F. :  The  battle  of  Mons  Graupius. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  On  inconsistency  in  views  of  language. 

Edgren,  A.  H. :  The  kindred  Germanic  words  of  German  and  English,  exhibited 

with  reference  to  their  consonant  relations. 
Proceedings  of  the  twelfth  annual  session,  Philadelphia,  1880. 

1881. —Volume  XII. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  On  Mixture  in  Language. 

Toy,  C.  H. :  The  home  of  the  primitive  Semitic  race. 

March,  F.  A. :  Report  of  the  committee  on  the  reform  of  English  spelling. 

Wells,  B.  W. :  History  of  the  rt-vowel,  from  Old  Germanic  to  Modern  English. 

Seymour,  T.  D. :  The  use  of  the  aorist  participle  in  Greek. 

Sihler,  E.  G. :  The  use  of  abstract  verbal  nouns  in  -<ns  in  Thucydides. 

Proceedings  of  the  thirteenth  annual  session,  Cleveland,  1881. 

1882. —Volume  XIII. 

Hall,  I.  H. :  The  Greek  New  Testament  as  published  in  America. 

Merriam,  A.  C. :  Alien  intrusion  between  article  and  noun  in  Greek. 

Peck,  T. :  Notes  on  Latin  quantity. 

Owen,  W.  B. :  Influence  of  the  Latin  syntax  in  the  Anglo-Saxon  Gospels. 

Wells,  B.  W. :  The  Ablaut  in  English. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  General  considerations  on  the  Indo-European  case-system. 

Proceedings  of  the  fourteenth  annual  session,  Cambridge,  1882. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxlvii 

1883.  —  Volume  XIV. 

Merriam,  A.  C. :  The  Caesareum  and  the  worship  of  Augustus  at  Alexandria. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  The  varieties  of  predication. 

Smith,  C.  F. :  On  Southernisms. 

Weils,  B.  W. :  The  development  of  the  Ablaut  in  Germanic. 

Proceedings  of  the  fifteenth  annual  session,  Middletown,  1883. 

1884.  — Volume  XV. 

Goodell,  T.  D. :  On  the  use  of  the  Genitive  in  Sophokles. 

Tarbell,  F.  B. :  Greek  ideas  as  to  the  effect  of  burial  on  the  future  life  of  the  soul 
Perrin,  B. :  The  Crastinus  episode  at  Palaepharsalus. 
Peck,  T. :  Alliteration  in  Latin. 

Von  Jagemann,  H.  C.  G. :  Norman  words  in  English. 
Wells,  B.  W. :  The  Ablaut  in  High  German. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  Primary  and  Secondary  Suffixes  of  Derivation  and  their  ex- 
changes. 

Warren,  M.:  On  Latin  Glossaries.     Codex  Sangallensis,  No.  912. 
Proceedings  of  the  sixteenth  annual  session,  Hanover,  1884. 

1885. — Volume  XVL 

Easton,  M.  W. :  The  genealogy  of  words. 

Goodell,  T.  D. :  Quantity  in  English  verse. 

Goodwin,  W.  W. :  Value  of  the  Attic  talent  in  modern  money. 

Goodwin,  W.  W. :  Relation  of  the  np6eSpot  to  the  Upvravtis  in  the  Attic  BouMj. 

Perrin,  B. :  Equestrianism  in  the  Doloneia. 

Richardson,  R.  B. :  The  appeal  to  sight  in  Greek  tragedy. 

Seymour,  T.  D. :  The  feminine  caesura  in  Homer. 

Sihler,  E.  G. :  A  study  of  Dinarchus. 

Wells,  B.  W. :  The  vowels  <?  and  i  in  English. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  The  roots  of  the  Sanskrit  language. 

Proceedings  of  the  seventeenth  annual  session,  New  Haven,  1885. 

1886.  —Volume  XVIL 

Tarbell,  F.  B. :  Phonetic  law. 
Sachs,  J. :  Notes  on  Homeric  Zoology. 
Fowler,  H.  N.  :  The  sources  of  Seneca  de  Beneficiis. 
Smith,  C.  F. :  On  Southernisms. 
Wells,  B.  W. :  The  sounds  o  and  «  in  English. 
Fairbanks,  A. :  The  Dative  case  in  Sophokles. 

The  Philological  Society,  of  England,  and  The  American  Philological  Associa- 
tion :  Joint  List  of  Amended  Spellings. 
Proceedings  of  the  eighteenth  annual  session,  Ithaca,  1886. 


cxlviii  American  Philological  Association. 

1887.  — Volume  XVHL 

Allen,  W.  F. :  The  monetary  crisis  in  Rome,  A.D.  33. 

Sihler,  E.  G. :  The  tradition  of  Caesar's  Gallic  Wars,  from  Cicero  to  Orosius. 

Clapp,  E.  i-. :  Conditional  sentences  in  Aischylos. 

Pease,  E.  M. :  On  the  relative  value  of  the  manuscripts  of  Terence 

Smyth,  H.  W. :  The  Arcado-Cyprian  dialect. 

Wells,  B.  W. :  The  sounds  o  and  u  in  English. 

Smyth,  H.  W. :  The  Arcado-Cyprian  dialect.  —  Addenda. 

Proceedings  of  the  nineteenth  annual  session,  Burlington,  1887. 

1888.  — Volume  XIX. 

Allen,  W.  F. :  The  Lex  Cunata  de  Imperio. 

Goebel,  J. :  On  the  impersonal  verbs. 

Bridge,  J. :  On  the  authorship  of  the  Cynicus  of  Lucian. 

Whitney,  J.  E. :  The  "  Continued  Allegory  "  in  the  first  book  of  the  Fairy  Queene 

March,  F.  A. :  Standard  English :  its  pronunciation,  how  learned. 

Brewer,  F.  P. :  Register  of  new  words. 

Proceedings  of  the  twentieth  annual  session,  Amherst,  1888. 

1889.  — Volume  XX 

Smyth,  H.  W. :  The  vowel  system  of  the  Ionic  dialect 

Gudeman,  A. :  A  new  source  in  Plutarch's  Life  of  Cicero. 

Gatschet,  A.  S. :  Sex-denoting  nouns  in  American  languages. 

Cook,  A.  S. :    Metrical  observations  on  a  Northumbrianized  version  of  the  Old 

English  Judith. 

Cook,  A.  S. :  Stressed  vowels  in  ^Elfric's  Homilies. 
Proceedings  of  the  twenty-first  annual  session,  Easton,  1889. 
Index  of  authors,  and  index  of  subjects,  Vols.  I.— XX. 

1890.  — Volume  XXT. 

Goodell,  T.  D. :  The  order  of  words  in  Greek. 

Hunt,  W.  I. :  Homeric  wit  and  humor. 

Leighton,  R.  F. :  The  Medicean  Mss.  of  Cicero's  letters. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  Translation  of  the  Katha  Upanishad. 

Proceedings  of  the  twenty-second  annual  session,  Norwich,  1890. 

1891.  — Volume  XXIL 

Capps,  Edw. :  The  Greek  Stage  according  to  the  Extant  Dramas. 

Clapp,  Edw.  B. :  Conditional  Sentences  in  the  Greek  Tragedians. 

West,  A.  F. :  Lexicographical  Gleanings  from  the  Philobiblon  of  Richard  de  Bury 

Hale,  W.  G. :  The  Mode  in  the  phrases  quod  sciam,  etc. 

Proceedings  of  the  twenty-third  annual  session,  Princeton,  1891. 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cxlix 

1892.  —  Volume  XXIH. 

Whitney,  W.  D. :  On  the  narrative  use  of  imperfect  and  perfect  in  the  Brahmanas 
Muss-Arnolt,  W. :  On  Semitic  wunls  in  Greek  and  Latin. 
Humphreys,  M.  W. :  On  the  equivalence  of  rhythmical  bars  and  metrical  feet. 
Scott,  Charles  P.  G. :    English  words  which  hav  gaind  or  lost  an  initial  con- 
sonant by  attraction. 
Proceedings  of  the  twenty-fourth  annual  session,  Charlottes ville,  1892. 

1893. —Volume  XXIV. 

Sonnenschein,  E.  A. :  The  scientific  emendation  of  classical  texts. 

Breal,  M. :  The  canons  of  etymological  investigation. 

Streitberg,  W. :   Ein  Ablautproblem  der  Ursprache. 

Osthoff,  H.:   Dunkles  und  helles  /  im  Lateinischen. 

Shorey,  Paul :  The  implicit  ethics  and  psychology  of  Thucydides. 

Scott,  C.  P.  G. :  English  words  which  hav  gaind  or  lost  an  initial  consonant  by 

attraction  (second  paper). 

Hale,  W.  G. :  "  Extended  "  and  "  remote  "  deliberatives  in  Greek. 
Proceedings  of  the  twenty-fifth  annual  session,  Chicago,  1893. 

1894.  — Volume  XXV. 

Knapp,  Charles :  Notes  on  the  prepositions  in  Gellius. 

Moore,  F.  G. :  On  urbs  aeterna  and  urbs  sacra. 

Smith,  Charles  Forster :  Some  poetical  constructions  in  Thucydides. 

Scott,  C.  P.  G. :  English  words  which  hav  gaind  or  lost  an  initial  consonant  by 

attraction  (third  paper). 

Gudeman,  Alfred :  Literary  forgeries  among  the  Romans. 
Proceedings  of  the  twenty-sixth  annual  session,  Williamstown,  1894. 

1895.  — Volume  XXVI. 

Bloomfield,  M. :  On  Professor  Streitberg's  theory  as  to  the  origin  of  certain  Indo- 
European  long  vowels. 

Warren,  M. :  On  the  contribution  of  the  Latin  inscriptions  to  the  study  of  the 
Latin  language  and  literature. 

Paton,  James  M. :  Some  Spartan  families  under  the  Empire. 

Riess,  Ernst :  On  ancient  superstition. 

Perrin,  B. :  Genesis  and  growth  of  an  Alexander-myth. 

Slaughter,  M.  S. :  The  Acta  Ludorum  and  the  Carmen  Saeculare. 

Scott,  C.  P.  G. :  The  Devil  and  his  imps  :  an  etymological  inquisition. 

March,  F.  A. :  The  fluency  of  Shakespeare. 

Proceedings  of  the  special  session,  Philadelphia,  1894, 

Proceedings  of  the  twenty-seventh  annual  session,  Cleveland,  1895. 

1896.  — Volume  XXVII. 

Riess,  E. :  Superstition  and  popular  beliefs  in  Greek  tragedy. 

Harkness,  Albert  Granger :  Age  at  marriage  and  at  death  in  the  Roman  Empire. 


cl  American  Philological  Association. 

Allinson,  F.  G. :  On  the  accent  of  certain  enclitic  combinations  in  Greek. 

Wright,  John  H. :  The  origin  of  sigma  lunatum. 

Proceedings  of  the  twenty-eighth  annual  session,  Providence,  1896. 

1897.  —  Volume  XXVIII. 

Brownson,  C.  L. :  Reasons  for  Plato's  hostility  to  the  poets. 

Sihler,  E.  G. :   Lucretius  and  Cicero. 

Bloomtield,  M. :  Indo-European  notes. 

Peck,  Tracy :  Cicero's  hexameters. 

Fairbanks,  Arthur :  On  Plutarch's  quotations  from  the  early  Greek  philosophers. 

March,  F.  A. :  The  enlargement  of  the  English  dictionary. 

Collitz,  H. :  Traces  of  Indo-European  accentuation  in  Latin. 

Smyth,  H.  W. :  Mute  and  liquid  in  Greek  melic  poetry. 

Proceedings  of  the  twenty-ninth  annual  session,  Bryn  Mawr,  1897. 

1898.  —  Volume  XXIX. 

Fay,  E.  W. :  The  origin  of  the  gerundive. 

Hempl,  G. :  Language-rivalry  and  speech-differentiation  in  the  case  of  race-mixture. 

Harry,  J.  E. :  The  omission  of  the  article  with  substantives  after  ovros,  55e,  ^/cetwj 

in  prose. 
Ebeling,  H.  L. :  The  Admetus  of  Euripides  viewed  in  relation  to  the  Admetus  of 

tradition. 

Smyth,  H.  W. :  Mute  and  liquid  in  Greek  melic  poetry  (II.). 
March,  F.  A. :  Orthography  of  English  preterits. 
Wolcott,  J.  D. :  New  words  in  Thucydides. 
Proceedings  of  the  thirtieth  annual  session,  Hartford,  1898. 

1899. —  Volume  XXX.    - 

Fairclough,  H.  R. :  The  text  of  the  Andria  of  Terence. 

Wheeler,  A.  L. :  The  uses  of  the  Imperfect  Indicative  in  Plautus  and  Terence. 

Hempl,  G. :  The  origin  of  the  Latin  letters  G  and  Z,  with  Appendix,  on  the  coceulod 

orieso  of  the  Salian  hymn. 

Johnson,  C.  W.  L. :  The  motion  of  the  voice  in  the  theory  of  ancient  music. 
Harkness,  A.  G. :  The  scepticism  and  fatalism  of  the  common  people  of  Rome  as 

illustrated  by  the  sepulchral  inscriptions. 

Bates,  W.  N. :  The  Lenaea,  the  Anthesteria,  and  the  temple  4v  \ifj.vais. 
Bates,  F.  O. :  The  Deme  Kolonos. 

Ferguson,  W.  S. :  Some  notes  on  the  Archons  of  the  third  century. 
Proceedings  of  the  thirty-first  annual  session,  New  York,  1899. 

1900. —Volume  XXXI. 

Rolfe,  J.  C. :  The  formation  of  substantives  from  Latin  geographical  adjectives 

by  ellipsis. 

Bonner,  Campbell :  The  Danaid-myth. 

Fowler,  H.  N. :  Pliny,  Pausanias,  and  the  Hermes  of  Praxiteles. 
Showerman,  Grant:  Was  Attis  at  Rome  under  the  Republic? 


Proceedings  for  July,   1903.  cli 

Carter,  J.  B. :  The  cognomina  of  the  goddess  Fortuna. 

Smith,  C.  F. :  Traces  of  epic  usage  in  Thucydides. 

Seymour,  T.  D. :  Notes  on  Homeric  war. 

Gudeman,  A. :  The  sources  of  the  Germania  of  Tacitus. 

Capps,  E. :  Studies  in  Greek  agonistic  inscriptions. 

Hale,  W.  G. :  Is  there  still  a  Latin  potential? 

Heidel,  W.  A. :  On  Plato's  Euthyphro. 

Hempl,  G. :  The  Salian  hymn  to  Janus. 

Chase,  G.  D. :  Sun  myths  in  Lithuanian  folksongs. 

Wilson,  H.  L. :  The  use  of  the  simple  for  the  compound  verb  in  JuvenaL 

Bennett,  C.  E. :  The  stipulative  subjunctive  in  Latin. 

Proceedings  of  the  thirty-second  annual  session,  Madison,  1900. 

1901.  —  Volume  XXXII. 

Wheeler,  B.  I. :  The  causes  of  uniformity  in  phonetic  change. 

Clapp,  E.  B. :  Pindar's  accusative  constructions. 

Merrill,  E.  T. :  Some  observations  on  the  Arch  of  Trajan  at  Beneventum. 

Harry,  J.  E. :  A  misunderstood  passage  in  Aeschylus  {Prom.  119). 

Franklin,  S.  B. :    Public  appropriations  for  individual  offerings  and  sacrifices  in 

Greece. 

Morgan,  M.  H.:   Rain-gods  and  rain-charms. 
Warren,  M. :  Some  ancient  and  modern  etymologies. 
Adams,  C.  D. :  The  Harpalos  case. 
Steele,  R.  B. :  Anaphora  and  chiasmus  in  Livy. 
Hempl,  G. :  The  variant  runes  on  the  Franks  casket. 
Bill,  C.  P. :  Notes  on  the  Greek  6eo>p<5s  and  Qewpia. 
Elmer,  H.  C. :  On  the  subjunctive  with  Forsitan. 
Proceedings  of  the  special  session,  Philadelphia,  1900. 
Proceedings  of  the  Philological  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast,  San  Francisco, 

1900. 
Proceedings  of  the  thirty-third  annual  session,  Cambridge,  1901. 

1902. — Volume  XXXIII. 

Earle,  M.  L. :    Studies  in  Sophocles's  Trachinians. 

Morgan,  M.  H. :    Remarks  on  the  water  supply  of  ancient  Rome. 

Richardson,  L.  J. :   On  certain  sound  properties  of  the  Sapphic  strophe  as  employed 

by  Horace. 

Shipley,  F.  W. :    Numeral  corruptions  in  a  ninth  century  Ms.  of  Livy. 
Steele,  R.  B. :    Some  forms  of  complemental  sentences  in  Livy. 
Prentice,  W.  K. :    Fragments  of  an  early  Christian  liturgy  in  Syrian  inscriptions. 
Allen,  J.  T. :    On  the  so-called  iterative  optative  in  Greek. 
Wheeler,  B.  I. :    Herodotus's  account  of  the  battle  of  Salamis. 
Perrin,  B. :   The  Nikias  of  Pasiphon  an  1  Plutarch. 
Hempl,  G. :    The  Duenos  inscription. 

Proceedings  of  the  thirty-fourth  annual  session,  Schenectady,  1902. 
Proceedings  of  the  Philological  Association  of  the  Pacific  Coast,  San  Francisco, 

1901. 


clii 


American  Philological  Association. 


1903.  — Volume  XXXIV. 

Moore,  F.  G. :  Studies  in  Tacitean  Ellipsis:  descriptive  passages. 

Goodell,  T.  D. :  Word-accent  in  Catullus's  galliambics. 

Brownson,  C.  L. :  The  succession  of  Spartan  nauarchs  in  Hellenica  I. 

Prescott,  H.  W. :  Magister  curiae  in  Plautus's  Aulularia  107. 

Miller,  C.  W.  E. :   Hephaestion  and  the  anapaest  in  the  Aristophanic  trimeter. 

Radford,  R.  S. :  The  Latin  monosyllables  in  their  relation  to  accent  and  quantity. 

A  study  in  the  verse  of  Terence. 
March,  F.  A, :  Three  new  types. 

Proceedings  of  the  thirty-fifth  annual  meeting,  New  Haven,  1903. 
Proceedings  of  the  fourth  annual  meeting  of  the  Philological  Association  of  the 

Pacific  Coast,  San  Francisco,  1902. 


The  Proceedings  of  the  American  Philological  Association  are 
distributed  gratis  upon  application  to  the  Secretary  or  to  the  Pub- 
lishers until  they  are  out  of  print. 

Fifty  separate  copies  of  articles  printed  in  the  Transactions,  ten  of 
articles  printed  in  the  Proceedings,  are  given  to  the  authors  for  dis- 
tribution. Additional  copies  will  be  furnished  at  cost. 

The  "  Transactions  for "  any  given  year  are  not  always  published 
in  that  year.  To  avoid  mistakes  in  ordering  back  volumes,  please 
state  —  not  the  year  of  publication,  but  rather  —  the  year  for  which 
the  Transactions  are  desired,  adding  also  the  volume-number,  accord- 
ing to  the  following  table  :  — 


The  Transactions  for  1869  and 

1870  form 

Vol.  I. 

The  Trans,  for 

1871     " 

"    II. 

K         « 

1872     " 

"    III. 

«         <« 

1873     " 

"    IV. 

u         u 

1874     " 

«    V. 

"         « 

1875     " 

"    VI. 

«         « 

1876     " 

"    VII. 

"         " 

1877     «• 

"    VIII. 

u            « 

1878     « 

"    IX. 

U                 « 

1879     " 

"    X. 

II                 II 

1880    " 

"    XL 

«                 U 

1881     " 

"    XII. 

««                 « 

1882    " 

"    XIII. 

"                 " 

1883    " 

"    XIV. 

II                 II 

1884    " 

"    XV. 

l<                 It 

1885    " 

"    XVI. 

U               U 

1886    " 

"  XVII. 

The  Trans,  for  1887  form  Vol.  XVIII. 


1888   " 

"  XIX. 

1889   " 

"  XX. 

1890    " 

"  XXI. 

1891    " 

"  XXII. 

1892    " 

"  XXIII. 

1893  " 

"  XXIV. 

1894  " 

«  XXV. 

1895  " 

"  XXVI. 

1896   " 

"  XXVII. 

1897  " 

"  XXVIII. 

1898   " 

"  XXIX. 

1899  " 

"  XXX. 

1900     " 

"  XXXI. 

1901     " 

"  XXXII. 

1902    " 

"  XXXIII. 

1903   « 

«  XXXIV. 

Proceedings  for  July,  1903.  cliii 

The  price  of  these  volumes  is  $2.00  apiece,  except  Volumes  XV., 
XX.,  XXIIL,  and  XXXII.,  for  which  $2.50  is  charged.  The  first  two 
volumes  will  not  be  sold  separately.  A  charge  of  fifty  cents  each  is 
made  for  the  Index  of  Authors  and  Index  of  Subjects  to  Vols.  I.-XX. 
and  to  Vols.  XXI.-XXX. 

BINDING. 

Back  volumes  will  be  bound  in  the  style  of  this  volume  for  twenty- 
five  cents  each  by  F.  J.  Barnard  &  Co.,  1 7  Province  St.,  Boston,  Mass., 
provided  at  least  twelve  volumes  are  sent  at  a  time,  and  the  cost  of 
transportation  both  ways  is  paid  by  the  owner.  All  parcels  should 
be  plainly  marked  with  the  name  and  address  of  the  sender,  and  the 
binders  should  be  notified  at  the  time  the  unbound  volumes  are  sent 
in  order  that  the  sender  may  be  identified. 

Libraries  may  obtain  bound  copies  of  the  annual  volumes  at  twenty- 
five  cents  per  volume  in  addition  to  the  regular  price. 

REDUCTION  IN  THE  PRICE  OF  COMPLETE  SETS. 

Single  COMPLETE  SETS  of  the  Transactions  and  Proceedings  will  be 
sold,  until  further  notice,  at  a  reduction  of  20%. 

It  is  especially  appropriate  that  American  Libraries  should  exert  themselves  to 
procure  this  series  while  it  may  be  had.  It  is  the  work  of  American  scholars, 
and  contains  many  valuable  articles  not  elsewhere  accessible  ;  and,  apart  from 
these  facts,  as  the  first  collection  of  essays  in  general  philology  made  in  this  country, 
it  is  sure  to  be  permanently  valuable  for  the  history  of  American  scholarship. 


GINN  &  COMPANY'S  PUBLICATIONS 

The  International  Modern  Language  Series 

In  the  New  Series  Binding.     i6mo.    Semi-flexible  Cloth 
A  few  recent  additions  to  the  Series  :  — 

LIST  PRICK  LIST  PRICE 

Aldrich  and  Foster's  French  Reader    $050  Merimee's  Colomba 40 

Daudet's  La  Belle  Nivernaise    ...      .35  Heine's  Harzreise 40 

Gerstacker's  Germelshausen    nearly  ready  Rostand's  Les  Romanesques  .    .      .35 

Boileau-Despreaux's    Les    Heros  de  Schucking's  Die  Drei  Freier   .    .      .30 

Roman 75  Sand's  La  Mare  au  Diable      .    .      .35 

Allen  and  Greenough's  New  Latin  Grammar 

By  J.  B.  GREBNOUGH,  late  Professor  of  Latin  in  Harvard  University;  Prof.  GEORGE  I.VMAN 
KITTREDGE,  and  Prof.  A.  A.  HOWARD,  of  Harvard  University;  and  BENJAMIN  L.  D'OoGE, 
Professor  of  Latin  in  the  Michigan  State  Normal  College.     List  price,  $1.20. 
This  well-known   Latin  Grammar,  although    in  a  new  form,  still  remains  the  Allen  and 
Greenough  Grammar  in  scope  and  in  general  plan,  and  retains  the  characteristic  qualities 
that  have  given  the  book  a  world-wide  distinction.     But  the  work  has  been  revised  in 
every  detail  to  bring  it  into  harmony  with  the  latest  results  of  scholarship  the  world 
over,  and  has  been  rearranged  where  necessary  to  make  it  as  convenient  for  use  as  is 
possible. 

Hale  and  Buck's  Latin  Grammar 

By  WILLIAM  GARDNER  HALE,  Professor  and  Head  of  the  Department  of  Latin,  and  CARL 
DARLING  BUCK,  Professor  of  Sanskrit  and  Indo-European  Comparative  Philology  in  the 
University  of  Chicago.  List  price,  $i  oo. 

Hale  and  Buck's  Latin  Grammar  is  the  work  of  specialists,  and  embodies  the  results  of 
many  years  of  independent  study.  In  general,  the  authors  have  aimed  to  give  only  such 
explanations  as  are  certain,  reasonable,  simple,  and  deal  with  the  relations  between  existing 
Latin  forms.  Nevertheless,  care  has  been  taken  to  present  the  true  historical  development  of 
the  language  in  a  way  that  will  best  appeal  to  the  intelligence  of  the  young  student,  that  will 
be  most  helpful  to  his  memory,  and  that  will  give  him  a  sound  foundation  for  possible  further 
study. 

Barnum's  Grammar  of  the  Innuit  Language 

By  the  Rev.  FRANCIS  BARNUM,  S.J.     Price,  $5.00  net. 

The  first  complete  treatise  on  the  Eskimo  tongue  that  has  ever  been  published  in  America. 

Studies  and  Notes  in  Philology  and  Literature 

VOL.  VIII.  — - 1.  Iwain  :  A  Study  in  the  History  of  Arthurian  Romance. 

By  ARTHUR  C.  L.  BROWN. 
2    Arthur  and  Gorlagon :  An  Unpublished  Text  with  a  Study  of  its  Literary  Relations. 

By  GEORGE  LYMAN  KITTREDGE,  Professor  of  English  in  Harvard  University. 

8vo.     Paper.     275  pages.     List  price,  $1.50. 

University  of  Pennsylvania  Publications 
Series  in  Philology  and  Literature 

VOL.  VIII.  —  No.  I.  The  Faire  Maide  of  Bristow.    (A  Comedy.) 
By  ARTHUR  H.  QUINN.    $1.00. 

No.  II.  The  Sources  of  Plutarch's  Life  of  Cicero. 
By  ALFRED  GUDEMAN.    $1.25. 

VOL.  IX.  — No.  II.  Friedrich  Schlegel's  Relations  with  Reichardt  and  his  Contribu- 
tions to  ••Deutschland." 
By  SAMUEL  PAUL  CAPEN.    50  cents. 

GINN  &  COMPANY  Publishers 

Boston  New  York  Chicago  London 

San  Francisco  Atlanta  Dallas  Columbus 


American  Philological  Associ- 
ation 

A5       Transactions  and  proceed- 
v.34   ings 


PLEASE  DO  NOT  REMOVE 
SLIPS  FROM  THIS  POCKET 


UNIVERSITY  OF  TORONTO 
LIBRARY