صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

Entered as second-class matter November 18, 1907, at the Post Office, New York, N. Y., under the Act of Congress of March 1, 1879 VOL. IV NEW YORK, MARCH 25, 1911

It is an imperative necessity that the lovers of the Classics shall have reasons for the faith that is in them. However, strong, unwavering faith and ability to formulate justification of such faith do not always go hand in hand. Herein lies one allimportant reason why we should constantly remind one another, as well as the outside world, of the importance and value of the Classics. Again, Quot homines tot sententiae applies to our situation. What appeals to one reader as a justification for classical study leaves another cold and unimpressed. The time will never come, therefore, when there will cease to be a place for articles intended to strengthen our own faith and to supply us with reasons which we may bring to bear on the world without..

I myself read with unflagging interest pleas for classical studies, to my great profit. Thoughts which have lain half-formulated in my mind find full expression in the words of another; points that had never occurred to me at all constantly meet my eyes; old thoughts are put in new and refreshing ways. In two recent issues of The Nation there is matter of interest within our field.

In a letter printed in the issue of March 2, under the caption Science and the Classics, Professor H. H. Yeames of Hobart College comments on the paper of Professor Stevenson in a recent number of Popular Science Monthly (see THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 4.97-98). One paragraph seems well worth quoting here:

Translation, we are told, will suffice to give acquaintance with ancient literature, at least; but how much more true this is of modern literature! English versions of French and German classics are far more satisfactory than translations from Greek and Latin, because modern modes of thought and expression, and modern verse-forms, have much in common; whereas no ancient poet has been rendered in a way to satisfy those who know him: the magic remains incommunicable. If one must get great literature through the unsatisfying medium of translation, it is far better that the modern literatures should come to him that way; both because they are essentially less great than the ancient, and because translators can do them greater justice. It may be added that the classicist is more likely to have a fair reading-knowledge of modern languages, a fair acquaintance with modern literatures, than is the modernist to have a first-hand acquaintance with the classics.

In the issue of the Nation for March 9 Mr. H. F. Hamilton, of Amherst College, has a letter entitled Greek in the New York Schools, brought forth by

No. 21

the fact that recently the school authorities of New York City, in the interests of economy, ordained that in the Borough of Queens Greek should hereafter be taught in but a single high school, that at Jamaica. I append, without comment, extracts from this letter:

In 1908 I began a systematic attempt to see how far an ignorance of classical mythology might be responsible for the indifference to good reading among the school children of the United States. Taking mixed classes of boys and girls in New York city who were of college age or nearly so, and most of whom were fitting themselves to enter college work, I began to use a series of questions testing each pupil in the amount of information he possessed in those three great literary storehouses of the race, the Scriptures, mythology, and chivalry. The results were discouraging. The objection always brought against Milton was the necessity for using a classical dictionary when reading the Comus. After weeks of preparation more than half the classes failed on questions involving mythological names. It is true that the homes represented were often of the peasant or artisan class in Europe, yet the pupils had received their training in American schools and were soon to be counted among the earnest students of American colleges. So it is hard to account for boys of eighteen who had never heard of Venus. Classes were often aghast at being expected to know Apollo without looking him up. Even when Jupiter had been mastered, Jove was described as the queen of love and beauty. In other words, questions

in English that should prove child's play to pupils who had read Ovid, Virgil, or the Iliad, as well as the Bible, were invariably found to be the severest tests of the memory, and even of the interest, of such young people as now throng our city schools. What a wealth of literary allusion, and of poetic inspiration, must be lost to readers of such limited background.

It has since been possible for me to make a more scientific investigation as to the amount of culture brought by the entering class to a good Eastern college. In 1910, a paper including twelve questions in the Bible and classical mythology was set for the entering class of 150 men in Amherst College. In each series of six, two were the easiest that could be thought of, two were exceedingly difficult, so as to test the intimate as well as the average knowledge of the men. Other general statements were asked for, which were answered with much apparent frankness.

The results were amazing......As many as 27, or 17 per cent., were quite untrained in the classics, 18 were ignorant of Hercules, 59 of Jason; 52, or 34 per cent., were confused about Apollo. On the other hand, it is surprising that 40 men, or 26 per cent. of the 150, could give no information concerning the fall of Troy, although all had studied Latin for three years. Only four men answered all six questions in

mythology. Only three students, or 2 per cent. of the whole class, answered all the questions.

These figures are, of course, merely indications, although a repetition of the examinations (this year) gave virtually the same results.

It would, however, require several such tests, taken during the next four or five years, in many different institutions, to procure a fair basis for estimating the exact effect of substituting, during the last ten years, a little Latin and English for the old-fashioned classical training. If the Dartmouth statistics, published in your issue of February 16, proving that men with Greek training have furnished 54 per cent of the successful scientific students, as opposed to only 20 per cent from the scientific section...be added to the appalling indications from the Amherst examinations, then it would seem impossible that the Board of Education in New York city should attempt to economize by eliminating the Greek departments of the public schools. The abolishing of Greek generally in the public high schools will mean that only the sons of wealthy men who can attend the best private institutions are to enjoy the culture of true classical studies. It will mean that poor men's sons, who have hitherto furnished far more than 50 per cent. of its successful men to the country, must now be entirely excluded from the disciplined efficiency as well as the culture that can come only from the study of the humanites, especially from the study of Greek. C. K.

CAESAR AND THE CENTRAL PLATEAU
OF FRANCE1

During a ten days' confinement to my bed in the spring of 1898, I re-read Caesar's commentaries, partly to pass the time and partly to find out whether Caesar's campaigns were more intelligible in the light of Professor Davis' lectures on French geography, which I had recently heard. Judge of my delight when I found that the origin and course of the Gallic wars were closely bound up with a very prominent feature in the physical geography of France: namely, the Central Plateau.

Now, this central plateau is a very complex affair, but underlying its complexity of detail is an extremely simple structure, which may be imagined in the following manner:

Suppose France to be a fairly level country and conceive the ground to be suddenly cracked along lines diverging from the mouth of the Isère, on the Rhone, towards Dijon in the north, and Toulouse in the southwest. You will now suppose that the portion of France between these lines is lifted up, as if hinged to Northern France, along a line through Poitiers and Orléans. Along this hinge line there is no uplift, but to the southeast the surface rises steadily until we come to the crack, beyond which the surface lies undisturbed at the old level. The uplifted block has been slightly tilted, but the highest parts are several thousand feet above the

1 This paper is reprinted by permission from The Journal of School Geography, 3.84-89 (March, 1899).

undisturbed portion. This tilted block is the Central Plateau, and the cliffs exposed along the cracks, or faults, are the eastern and southern Cevennes.

The relation of this conception to the reality is such that if a combination of geometric surfaces, such as those suggested above, could be superposed on an exact model of France, the true and the ideal surfaces would be everywhere near each other, and their departures from coincidences could, in general, be completely accounted for from considerations of geological structure and history.

Of the complexities, then, I shall say nothing, since, until we are familiar with the general ideal scheme, they merely obscure it. For the rest, they are precisely what the usual maps and encyclopaedia notices emphasize, and the reader may find them for himself.

We shall find the drainage of Southern France in good accordance with our general conception. Close to the summit of the Cevennes cliff, in the southeast, rise the streams that flow on long westward and northward slopes to reach the sea through the Garonne and the Loire, while the waters of the Saône and Rhone flow close under the eastern escarpment and away southward to the Mediterranean. In B. C. 58 the Roman Province in Gaul lay to the south of the Central Plateau, between the great fan of wash from the Pyrennes on the west and the Maritime Alps on the east. In the open valley, to the east of the escarpment the boundary of the Province lay along the Rhone from near Lyons to Geneva.

In free Gaul the powerful tribes seem to have been the possessors of the rougher country. The Sequani held the Jura mountains, with portions of the Saône valley-the modern departments Jura, Doubs, Haute Saône, with parts of Ain and Saône et Loire. The Aedui held the northeast corner of the central plateau and some lands on the Saône-Saône et Loire, Nièvre and part of Côte d'Or. The Arverni held the western and central portion of the central plateau in the departments Cantal, Puy de Dôme. Allier and part of Haute Loire. These were the three most powerful tribes.

We must remember that this was a period of tribal migrations and the possessors of the high country were in the best position to defend themselves at home and even to hold some of the adjoining lowlands. Thus the Aedui and Sequani were able to control the whole of the Saône valley from the highlands on either side.

In 58 B. C. the Swiss Gauls became discontented with the narrowness of their territory, and sought to migrate from the regions north and east of the Lake of Geneva to the sea coast between the Loire and the Garonne. The natural road is deflected southward by the Cevennes uplift and passes through the lowland to the south of the central plateau, go

ing through territory already occupied by the Romans and thence over the low watershed at the sources of the Garonne.

To prevent these 400,000 barbarians from passing through his territory Caesar entered on his Gallic campaigns. He kept them north of the Rhone, attacked them fiercely as they were crossing the Saône to ascend the escarpment they could not avoid.

Thence he pursued them up the west bank of the Saône as high as Mâcon, where they struck into the highlands by a pass to the northwest towards Cluny and Autun, that for centuries was the usual line of westward travel from Mâcon and is now followed by the railway. The pass had this advantage for the Gauls, that it saved them from flank movements. All that Caesar could do was to follow closely in the rear. Near Autun a battle was fought and the Swiss completely routed. In the pursuit of the fugitives the Roman troops reached the upper tributaries of the Seine.

So far, Caesar's campaign conferred a positive benefit on the Gallic tribes, whose territory the Swiss had threatened with invasion. He was now invited to add to this service the expulsion of the Germans under Ariovistus, who had crossed from the open valley of the Alsatian Rhine to the Saône valley, where they endangered the very existence of the Sequani and Aedui. Caesar drove the Germans out, but left his troops to spend the winter at Besançon, while he returned to northern Italy to hold court and attend to matters of administration.

But the presence of the Roman army through the winter alarmed the Gauls to the extent that there was extensive arming and preparing for war among them, and Caesar in turn took offense at these preparations. From these resentments followed the summer conspirings of the next six years.

These summer campaigns led the Romans pretty well all over the portions of France east, north and west of the central plateau, across the Rhine and the English Channel. But the Gauls, though everywhere defeated, did not fail to learn something of Caesar's method of fighting and to note that much of the Roman success in arms depended on the presence of Caesar himself. Thus in 54 B. C., when the scanty harvest following a drought had induced Caesar to scatter his legions in separated winter quarters, Sabinus and his troops were destroyed in their isolated quarters, probably at Tongres, and the brother of Cicero, the orator, only escaped a similar fate by his prudence and the timely approach of Caesar. Again Caesar was victorious, but the impression had gained that all must unite and attack the Romans when Caesar could not lead them, if Gaul was to recover her liberty.

Many futile attempts were made in this direction,

culminating in the great uprising of the year 52. Then for the first time, the Arverni of the Central Plateau joined their fellow Gauls, and for the first time so grave a doubt was thrown on the fealty of the Aeduans, Caesar's long-time allies, that he dared not expose his life by a journey through their territory. The Arverni succeeded not only in calling out the tribes of the Garonne valley, but in producing great restlessness in the Roman Province itself.

Caesar cannot join his troops by the usual route up the Rhone-Saône lowland, still less by the western passage through the Garonne country. He does not care to run the risk of calling his legions to fight their way south without his leadership. His mind is made up quickly. While it is still winter, he scales the southern Cevennes escarpment with a small body of troops, passing through six feet of snow into the country of the Arverni at Le Puy and Brioude, and harries the country with his cavalry. When Vercingetorix, leader of the Arverni, is called southward to the upper plateau to defend his home country, Caesar, leaving his cavalry to continue the appearance of his presence and activity on the upland, swiftly hastens to Vienne on the Rhone, gathers another band of horsemen, and crosses the Aeduan country by long stages while they still think him engaged in raiding the plateau in the south. Effecting a junction with his legions, he opens another season of victories, and the Gallic tribes are subdued never again to rise against the great commander. The plateau country is reduced despite the successful resistance of its stronghold, Gergovia, and all Gaul is Caesar's.

The strong escarpment of the eastern Cevennes deflected the Swiss Gauls in 58 toward Roman territory and brought Caesar into the field. It guided Caesar's usual journeys along the Rhone valley in the years that followed, and in 52 offered a fancied barrier to invasion that Caesar broke with his pretense of raiding the southern plateau, to cover his hasty journey over the accustomed route.

A central lowland in 58 would have allowed free westward passage to the migrating Swiss; they would have avoided Roman territory, and Caesar would have lacked occasion to invade free Gaul, which might never have come under Roman sway.

A central lowland in 52, lacking the rampart of the southern Cevennes, must have been guarded by the Gallic tribes; Caesar might have failed to effect a junction with his troops; Gaul might have been lost, and Caesar ruined in the esteem of the Roman people.

So the heights that had guarded the Arverni from invading Germans, finally brought Gaul under the yoke of Rome, and served Caesar as a stepping-stone to the highest pinnacle of power.

[blocks in formation]

REVIEWS

Lateinische Laut- und Formenlehre. Von Friedrich Stolz. Müller's Handbuch, zweiter Band, zweite Abteilung. Vierte Auflage. München: Beck (1910).

In this new edition of the Stolz-Schmalz grammar, Stolz's account of the sounds and forms has increased from the 193 pages of the edition of 1900 to a total of 302 pages. Almost every paragraph in the book shows modifications and additions, and many have been entirely rewritten (e.g. the sections on ablaut, pp. 55-60, and on vowel weakening in compounds, pp. 68-71). Several new topics have been introduced, such as linguistic method (pp. 12 f.), the sounds of the Indo-European parent speech (pp. 22 ff.), and syllable division (p. 39).

The author has succeeded, in spite of the additional material, in making his treatment much clearer than before. This has been accomplished largely by breaking up long paragraphs which contained a number of coordinate details. The new arrangement enables the reader to see at a glance where the logical divisions of the subject matter fall, and at the same time makes it far easier to pick out any one item upon which information is wanted. The phrasing, too, of many passages has been put into a more lucid form; for example, the puzzling statement (p. 119 of the third edition), that all nouns except o- and a- stems form the nom. pl. masc. and fem. with the suffix -ĕs I-E. -ěs, has been so modified (pp. 191 f. of the fourth edition) as to bring into proper relief the contrast existing between I-E. -es and the various Latin innovations.

The plan of the book remains unchanged except for the omission of a few sections and the addition of a few new ones. The author retains even his arbitrary distribution of the vowel changes into a number of categories that have no recognizable relation to the vowel system of either Indo-European or Latin. Why, for instance, should sinciput from *semi-caput or imber from *mbhri be treated under the caption, “I-E. e=Lat. i”? And why should that topic be included in a section on (Latin) e? Aside from points of style, there are very few changes in the entire book that can be traced to the author's own study of his subject. The improvements nearly all come from Brugmann's Kurze Vergleichende Grammatik, the second edition of Vol. 2, Part 1 of the Grundriss, Sommer's Handbuch der Lateinischen Laut- und Formenlehre, and Walde's Lateinisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Stolz could not have chosen better guides, and he displays abundant good sense in refusing to follow them when their attempts to blaze new paths prove unsuccessful. The result is a book upon which students in related fields may generally rely with some confidence, although specialists in grammar will rarely turn to it except for one purpose.

As in the former editions, the references to the literature are very full. There are, as was inevitable, occasional omissions. Bennett's Latin Language is nowhere mentioned, although the Appendix finds a place in the list of bibliographical abbreviations. Solmsen's theory (Beiträge zur Griechischen Wortforschung 179) that mox was originally a nom. sing. should have been mentioned on page 155 or page 175. The reviewer's monograph on Contraction in the Case Forms of the Latin io- and ia- Stems and of deus, is, and idem might have been consulted with profit. For example, the demonstration there offered (pp. 5 f.) that -ie from -iei did not contract in the time of Plautus and Terence might have prevented the grotesque statement on page 194 that in the iostems the earlier language preferred the contracted forms of the nom. pl., such as fili, or the one on page 216 that mi is a contraction of mihi (for Plautus pronounced mihe).

Even the literature to which the author refers has not been fully assimilated, excepting always the works of Brugmann, Sommer, and Walde. An illuminating example of his method of dealing with other scholars occurs on page 56. The Anmerkung which was inserted in the third edition, to the effect that "the view expressed in the two previous editions with respect to Plautine scansions like deus has been completely disproved by Skutsch (Satura Viadrina 122 f.)", is reprinted word for word (even to the phrase "in the two previous editions”!), with the addition of "Cf.... most recently on synizesis in Latin in general Radford, Class. Phil. 3.153 ff.". Now Radford's paper is not on "synizesis in Latin in general", but contains merely certain addenda to his longer and more important article on Plautine Synizesis, TAPA. 36.158-210. The two papers together constitute an elaborate defense of the traditional theory of synizesis in the early Latin dramatists, in opposition to C. F. W. Müller, Skutsch, and Havet, who consistently scan měŏ and ĕŏ as well as bono and ămă, according to the iambic law, in all cases where the verse requires those words to contain only two morae. The subject is of first rate importance, and one upon which Classical scholars have a right to expect light from a linguistic specialist. Stolz is surely correct in following Skutsch (see the delightful ridicule which Exon heaps upon the orthodox view in Hermathena 35.121-143); but it was his duty to digest all the literature on the topic (Skutsch's article in Tépas pp. 108 ff., and Radford's longer paper are not even mentioned) and to give us a mature opinion upon the question-even though Brugmann, Sommer and Walde have not yet spoken.

In the new edition, as in its predecessors, Stolz's work is convenient and fairly reliable for all points that have passed the controversial stage, but it cannot be even remotely compared with Brugmann's companion volume on Greek grammar.

[blocks in formation]

Herodotus, Books VII and VIII. Edited with Introduction and notes by Charles Foster Smith and Arthur Gordon Laird. New York: American Book Company (1908). Pp. 442.

This edition of Herodotus VII and VIII is a thoroughly good work and makes it possible to give our college students something of the charm of Herodotus and at the same time enable them to study at first hand that period of Greek history that was so pregnant with consequences. Of an author whose comparative difficulty is so slight it is possible for the student to read a considerable portion, and we must thank Professors Smith and Laird for enabling our students to do this reading where the history itself is most vital.

The text and the Historical Introduction are both drawn largely, as the editors themselves say, from the standard German editions, and they are adequate. Bringing the results of careful German scholarship to our ordinary student in such a form as to make it practical and effective is a thing to be commended. Under Division B of the Introduction the short chapter entitled Summary of the Dialect Forms (pages 20-22) is admirable. It furnishes the student a ready means to solve some of the greatest difficulties he meets in his first acquaintance with Herodotus. A greater use of such means would help our students to follow somewhat the advice of Goethe: "Lesen, viel lesen, sehr viel lesen". And it is right along this line that I would criticize the second part of this chapter, that on Syntactical Usage (pages 22-78). Books of this kind, I conceive, are made primarily for the student, not for the teacher. Very little should be put into them that the student may not be encouraged to use. Many students are discouraged from using notes and introduction by meeting something for which they are utterly unable to see the use; whether the thing referred to be too simple or too advanced the result is the same. For example on page 51 the statement is made in regard to conditions that "In general the usage is as in Attic". Then follows a long list of references to Herodotus. It is the rarest student that will ever make any use of these. In fact it is better to emphasize the use as it is met in the reading of the living language.

My greatest objection to the book is the placing of the notes at the bottom of the page; but this is the fault of the series and not of this particular book. Almost invariably, when using a book with the notes so arranged, when a question is asked, I note that the eyes of the student drop to the bottom of the page; this shows that what is there has not been mastered, and that the notes are being used as a crutch and not as a help. This is especially bad when translations of short passages are given. Examinations prove that these are the passages that the student has failed to master.

There are some places where I would differ in

[blocks in formation]

A Caesar Composition Book. By H. F. Scott and Charles H. Van Tuyl. Chicago: Scott, Foresman & Co. (1910). Bound in Tough Manila. Price $0.30.

The main part of this book consists of twentynine lessons based on the first twenty-nine chapters of Book I of the Gallic War, and thirty-three lessons based on Book II. There follow in an appendix a half dozen college examination papers, based on Caesar, fifty pages of grammatical matter, mostly inflections, reprinted from the Bellum Helveticum of the same publishers, and an English-Latin vocabulary.

At the beginning of each lesson, except a very few, two principles of syntax are stated, and illustrated by phrases or sentences taken from the chapter of Caesar on which the lesson is based. Only common constructions are treated, but in introducing them no attempt is made to follow a systematic order. For instance, Lesson I treats of the Predicate Nominative and the Ablative of Specification; Lesson II, of the Ablative of Accompaniment and the Dative with Special Verbs; Lesson III, of the Dative of Indirect Object and the Accusative of Duration of Time; and so on. This is not a defect peculiar to this book, but one common to most books following the pari passu method. By a good many, indeed, it is not considered a defect at all, and from some points of view it is, perhaps, a matter of little moment. The important point is that rules of syntax shall be stated simply and clearly, and that is usually the case in this book.

There are references to the grammars (Allan and Greenough, Bennett, Harkness, Hale and Buck, and the Grammatical Appendix to Walker's Cæsar) for those who wish them, though the book contains all the grammatical material which the student will need in writing the exercises. Half of each exercise consists of short, simple sentences, the other half of sentences longer and somewhat more complex. The sentences are superior to those in some text-books, in that they do not follow the text of Caesar so closely as to leave to the student merely the task of selecting the proper phrases and piecing them together.

In the opinion of the reviewer the book is a good one, and one which will prove useful in the schools. The student who thoroughly masters it has all the Latin composition he needs in a four-year Latin course. If Latin is to be saved to the secondary schools, and not to go the way which Greek has gone, it must be by enriching our courses with the

« السابقةمتابعة »