صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني
[merged small][ocr errors]

1. Thus the Subjunctive may denote—

(a) An act in preparation for which the main act takes place: as,—

priusquam dimicarent, foedus ictum est, i. e. in anticipation of the fight, a treaty was struck.

By an extension of this usage, the Subjunctive is sometimes used of general truths, where the anticipatory notion has faded out; as,—

tempestas minatur antequam surgat, the tempest threatens before it rises.

(b) An act anticipated and forestalled, as,priusquam telum adici posset, omnis acies terga vertit, before a spear could be hurled, the whole army fled.

(c) An act anticipated and deprecated, as,— animum omittunt priusquam loco demigrent, they die rather than quit their post.

2. After historical tenses the Imperfect Subjunctive is used, especially by post-Augustan writers, where the notion of anticipation has entirely vanished; as,

Sol antequam se abderet fugientem vidit Antonium, the sun before it set saw Antony fleeing.

If a student using this grammar wishes to write sentence (a) above, he may draw two different conclusions. He may argue that the dependent clause cannot "denote an Actual Fact", and that it may be considered "an act in preparation for which the main act takes place". He will, therefore, use the Subjunctive. Or he may observe that the only future sentence given among the Latin examples is the second and, without noticing the negative, since no mention is made of its significance, he may decide that the Future Perfect Indicative must be used in his sentence and in all other future sentences.

Many teachers as well as students deplore the use in this grammar of the phrases "anticipated and forestalled" and "anticipated and deprecated". These categories, originated by Professor Hale in his monograph on The Anticipatory Subjunctive in Greek and Latin, written for mature scholars, seem strangely out of place in a school grammar which is elsewhere characterized by a remarkable degree of simplicity and clearness in wording and definition.

To the shool boy they present formidable, sometimes insurmountable difficulty; even to the college student they give pause. Even when the teacher is able to make their meaning quite clear while the student is looking at the examples, the difficulty of remembering them makes them undesirable.

1 There is not the same loop-hole here as in the statement in the other grammar, where the wording is an action viewed as an Actual


It may, of course, be urged that the editor deemed it of importance to keep the 'anticipatory' idea in the foreground and hence was willing to use words unfamiliar to the average boy rather than simpler language which might necessitate the omission of the word 'anticipatory'. It is a matter of opinion just how much importance should be attached to this consideration.

I should not find myself in sympathy with this contention, because I do not believe that the 'anticipatory' conception was the chief reason for the Subjunctive with antequam, nor can I believe that it is well to emphasize in a school grammar an explanation of the Subjunctive which breaks down in so many sentences which the student will en


Not to extend these objections indefinitely, we may conclude with a single allusion to one other grammar. In it the very first statement on this subject is this: "With antequam and priusquam, 'before', the Perfect Indicative states a Fact which preceded the main verb :—antequam tuas legi litteras, hominem ire cupiebam, before I read your letter, I wished the man to go".

Perhaps the type-setter misplaced a word; for this should read either 'which the main verb preceded' or 'which followed the main verb'. The statement exactly reverses the actual order of antecedence and subsequence.

Many other points in these and other grammars might be touched upon here but enough has perhaps been said to give concrete examples and illustrations of the difficulties occasioned in the mind of the student by over-condensation and failure to stress the negative. WALTER HULLIHEN,

UNIVERSITY OF THE SOUTH, Sewanee, Tennessee. (To be concluded).

[blocks in formation]

This little book, intended primarily for school use, is an edition of Philippics I, II, and III, and contains, besides the Greek text, an introduction and explanatory notes. The introduction, which gives a brief account of the history of Macedonia, Philip's activities against Greece and the life of Demosthenes, is good, but is all too short, for it includes no discussion whatever of the style and literary characteristics of the greatest representative of the Canon of the Ten.

The notes seem well adapted to the needs of young students. Following the example of the majority of the editions of these orations, there is considerable translation of words and phrases.

[blocks in formation]

Greek Diminutives in ov: a Study in Semantics. By Walter Petersen. Weimar: R. Wagner Sohn (1910). Pp. VII+ 299.

Begun as a doctor's dissertation, which was suggested by Brugmann and written under Professor Oertel's guidance, the book before us is chiefly founded upon the work of these two scholars. In fact some knowledge of Professor Oertel's contributions to the theory of semantics is necessary if one would understand the author's point of view. But the abundance of the material has caused the work to outgrow the usual limits of a dissertation, and the results are unusually important and striking.

Probably every teacher of Greek has felt a twinge of conscience (or an impulse to smile) when explaining to his class that μеiрáкiov, 'boy of about fourteen years', is really a diminutive of μeîpač, 'girl of about fourteen', or that repúуov, 'flap of a coat of mail', properly means 'little wing', or that when the people of Tegea called their marketplace πλινθίον they were laboring under the impression that it was smaller than an average brick. More than one prairie-bred boy has been filled with just disdain for a language which implies that small size is an essential characteristic of a plain. Now it is quite true that we have managed to save our own reputations and that of the author we happened to be reading by explaining that the diminutive force has faded out of such words as these. Petersen shows that in these and hosts of other words -Lov is not a diminutive suffix at all. In fact it is always incorrect scientifically as well as pedagogically to assume an original diminutive force for this suffix where there is no evidence for such force in the literature or other monuments of antiquity. For the diminutive force of the suffix -ov is of comparatively late origin: its earliest quotable occurrence is Todlov, 'a little foot', in Epicharmus: and so the chances are always against the supposition that a word in o occurring in a classical author has lost a diminutive force which it once possessed. Our decision must in every case be based upon the actual use of the word in question.

On this point we cannot get any help, as certain scholars have tried to do, from the accentual peculiarities of diminutives in -Lov; for, on the one hand, the same peculiarities are common in other substantives, and,, on the other, there are many exceptions even among the diminutives. Petersen summarizes the matter as follows: "Trisyllabic substantives in -LOV, if all connection with the adjectival types from which they are derived has faded from the mind, have a tendency to accent the penult if they are dactylic, but the antepenult if they are tribrachs".

In all doubtful cases we should prefer to interpret the suffix in one of its other meanings: 'that which is connected with, comes from, is made of,

belongs to, belongs to the category of, is like but not equivalent to' the primitive. "But", some one says, "if our students must remember all these meanings for the suffix their last state is worse than their first". The case is not so bad as that: for all ordinary purposes we may group them under the two meanings 'that which comes from' and 'that which is like'.


The diminutive force arose by a specialization of the meaning that which is like the primitive but not equivalent to it'. Probably the most influential of the pattern words was raidlov. This was originally used of a baby by someone who felt that was properly designated a larger child, and who therefore formed παιδίον to mean 'that which is like and yet different from it'. Since the difference was a matter of size, the new word really meant ‘a small Taîs' and the suffix meant 'small'. In that sense it was then used to form words designating small objects even in cases where every one must feel that the primitive might be applied to them. Thus 'a little daughter' was called Ovyáтpiov even though Ouyaтhp was as applicable to babes as to grown wo


The word raidlov was influential also in developing the familiar hypocoristic use of diminutive -ov, because "endearment is oftenest and most evidently associated with small size in case of children". The process, however, must have been helped along by many other words, such as θυγάτριον, κύριον, τεκνίον.

Petersen thinks that the deteriorative use of the suffix represents an independent development from the meaning 'that which is like but not equal to the primitive'. ȧvýp is always an honorable term, and so a cowardly, dishonest, or wicked man was called ȧvoplov, 'something like a man but not a real man'. Similarly Texvlov means properly 'something like an art but not a real art'. In such words, however, the suffix was inevitably interpreted as meaning 'a poor sort of', and in this sense it was used to form new derivatives.

The book closes with an exhaustive discussion of conglutinates with -LOV as final member, such as -ιδιον, υδιον, -ακιον, -ισκιον, some of which have almost as wide a range of meaning as the simple suffix.

The word index covers nineteen pages and, with the excellent table of contents, makes everything in the book easily accessible.

It is a pity that so excellent a piece of work could not have been published in better form. Many of the misprints are doubtless to be charged against the German typesetter, but there are numerous stylistic infelicities for which he cannot be blamed. The word already is sadly overworked. Also.. not and even. . .not do duty for not. . . either. Such phrases as the following are all too common: "a few more important points of view for the arrangement" (p. 7), "the generally ac

[ocr errors]
[blocks in formation]


No lover of Vergil is for a moment unwilling to admit his vast indebtedness to Homer and other Greek poets but even those who are most liberal in their allowances cannot fail to be astonished at the statements made by Professor Herbert Weir Smyth before The New York Latin Club as reported in THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY of March 18 (4155-158). It is bad enough to take Pope for an authority, who did not know Greek and translated Homer because Dryden had done the Aeneid and wrote his encomium on Homer partly as an advertisement for his translation and partly out of jealousy of Dryden's success with Vergil, but to make, straight from the shoulder, the claim that Vergil's "point of departure is not his own perception" and that "his comparisons, so far as they refer to natural phenomena, are all borrowed from the Greek", is not merely gross exaggeration but profoundly vicious and mischievous in its probable influence.

If every pre-Vergilian verse had perished, including Homer, how many comparisons employed by Vergil would ring false? It is a great pity that Homer's borrowings will never be known. Could they be known, we might find some stock figures recurring as incessantly in the pre-Homeric epic as the lion and the lamb in the Old Testament, and that the figurative range of Homer was identical with that of the bards in general. So far as nature is concerned, the figurative range of poets is as narrowly restricted by the geography of the country they inhabit as is the food of the people.

Now the climates of Italy and Greece or maritime Asia Minor, the fauna and flora, seasons, winds, and rainfall are practically the same. The natural imagery of Homer was capable of making a direct appeal to all Italians and it was not always Homer that suggested to Vergil the incidents in nature, but, having learned Homer by heart as a boy, he was inevitably reminded by certain natural phenomena of Homer. Nor is this a demerit of Vergil, although it appears to be so when stated in the sly words of that slyest of English men of letters.

But let us take Professor Smyth's example. It is an unhappy choice for him, since a better for his purpose might have been found. The Aeneadae are compared to wolves, in Aen.2.355, Ulysses and Diomede to lions, in I1.10.297. Now I should like to leave it to any candid reader to look up both contexts and decide whether it seems probable that we have imitation here. There are two Greeks, many Aeneadae. The point of the Latin compari

son is the recklessness arising out of extremity : the Greek passage, without detail, depicts a deed of courage and daring only. Again, if Homer is in Vergil's line of vision, why are the animals not lions in the dark? They are in fact wolves in the mist such as Vergil knew in the Alps or the Apennines.

I feel sure that only one who had formed a certain habit of mind would call this a case of immitation, and, furthermore, I am prepared to say that such a one has used Conington's edition as his vade mecum. Conington's edition is invaluable for one who desires to master the Aeneid but it is disastrous to use him alone, for he sees his author through Pope's monocle, and every passage he refers to must be suspected and examined in its original setting. Even when he quotes the alleged model you are not safe to rest on his judgment. Only last week I fell by mere chance upon his note to Aen.6. 707, where the innumerable peoples of the happy valley are flitting about like bees in a meadow and the whole plain is filled with a murmuring sound. Now Homer had a simile from bees, and so, although Vergil's father was a bee-keeper and Vergil an authority on bees, the simile must come perforce, according to Conington, from Homer. This time, however, the felony is compounded, for Vergil stole from Apollonius and he from Homer! But take the lines of Greek quoted in Conington's edition, which he says Vergil has translated, and you can only regard Conington's suggestion as a rash and blind misstatement. The language, save for one word, is all different, the application of the comparison quite diverse, and all trace of imitation lacking.

With respect to the assertion that Vergil is in debt to Homer for all comparisons so far as they relate to nature, take an interesting example from Aen.5.273. The boat, awkwardly endeavoring to make progress with broken oars, is finely compared to a struggling serpent, wounded on the highway by a passing wheel. Conington searched his Homer and his Apollonius in vain for the original of this comparison, then, after insinuating a possible, or rather, impossible source in Lucretius, grudgingly wrote: The comparison seems to be Vergil's own. Acquitted for lack of evidence, in other words!

In conclusion I say: By all means read all the Greek you can for the sake of your Vergil, but don't let Conington, or Pope's jealous preface, or SainteBeuve's seductive essay come between you and your author. It is important that you should look at him first with your own eyes, often and intently: Vergil is, of all authors, most easily spoiled by annotation. Remember that though the parts are not all made in his own factory, yet they are well tooled and well assembled. Don't fail to remember either that he lived in the same natural world as Homer, that Greek literature scarcely needed to be acclimated in Italy, and that he essayed to tell a story placed squarely in the Homeric world and in

[blocks in formation]

Will you spare me space in THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY for a few words of appreciation of Mr. Stephen A. Hurlbut's admirable exhortation in the issue of April 1 to teachers of Latin to busy themselves with the Italian tongue? I heartily approve of Mr. Hurlbut's article, and am sure that it will be of the greatest value to those Latin teachers, if any there be now, who share the prejudice which, under the idea that it was a vulgar and degenerate derivative of Latin, I had against Italian before I knew the language.

I may say in passing that Mr. Hurlbut's remarks about the feminine plural uova, eggs, with the masculine singular uovo, from the Latin neuter ovum, recall to my mind another instance of feminine tenacity in Italian. Almost, if not quite, the only ordinary Italian noun ending in -o which is not of the masculine gender is mano, hand, which has steadfastly maintained the feminine gender of its Latin prototype, itself a marked exception to the rules for grammatical gender in the parent language.

There is only one point in regard to which I should be sorry to see Mr. Hurlbut's suggestions prevail, and that is the matter of pronunciation. Like himself, I never heard Latin so beautifully pronounced as by an Italian gentleman who happened to be my fellow-passenger in a railway carriage in Italy, and I recognize fully the beneficent influence of practising the pronunciation of Italian upon our pronunciation of Latin, but I should regard it as a misfortune to adopt the changes in the pronunciation of certain letters in Italian that have developed from the sounds which we know were given them by the Romans of classical times. Apart from the feeling of what the Germans call Pietät towards the ancient Romans themselves, the greater simplicity of having a single sound each for c and g in all cases is worth something, and it would be a pity to reintroduce, on the other hand, the unique case of one vowel sound represented by different characters that would be involved in giving up the Republican pronunciation of ae. While, too, we may properly despair, with Professor Bennett, of attaining the exact pronunciation of the ancients, we can approach it nearly enough for practical purposes, and surely very few scholars would seriously consider a return to "the abominations of the English method".

ST. GEORGE, Staten Island, New York.



So far as I can follow up the notes in our school editions, it appears that they all correctly explain obaeratus as meaning 'one who in payment of his

debts has given himself into servitude'. One edition even refers the student to B.G.6.13, where Caesar mentions this as Gallic custom. In spite of this, the vocabularies all translate the word by 'debtor'. In view of the facts (for which compare Varro De Lingua Latina 7.105, quoted by W. W. Fowler, Social Life at Rome in the Age of Cicero, 219, note 2, where obaerati are described as those qui suas operas in operam dant pro pecunia quam debebant), should we not rather define the word by 'serf'? ERNST RIESS.

From the February number of The Periodical, a magazine published by the Oxford University Press, to give notice of new and forthcoming books, we quote a paragraph which occurs under the caption Obiter Scripta, because it chimes in with an utterance to be found in THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 4.185: "Annotated School-books are the very devil", says a writer in the July Cornhill, "but the remedy is easy-use plain texts". "Whether others have found this saying borne out by their experience", Professor D. A. Slater says in his Stories from Ovid's Metamorphoses, "I do not know. But a good many teachers will probably hesitate before expecting beginners to read with profit any work in a foreign language in the way in which Macaulay read the classics in India. He used plain texts, and the method which he describes is no doubt the ideal method at a later stage. But it has its perils, and there is food for reflection in 'A.G.'s ironical advice:

If you should consult the classics (and at times I think you must,

Just to show they're persons whom it's quite impossible to trust),

Do not seek the verbal meaning and the literal sense to render.

Read them (like the late Macaulay) with your feet upon the fender' ".

In a small book of only 48 pages (if the number of The Periodical quoted above is to be trusted), published at the high price of $2.50 net, entitled Hannibal's March through the Alps, Professor Spenser Wilkinson argues that the pass followed by Hannibal was the Col du Clapier, and that the "acceptance of this route leads to a simple and possible explanation of the apparent discrepancies between the text of Polybius and that of Livy”. The study is illustrated by two figures and four maps.

In the preface to his translation of Aristotle's De Generatione Animalium, Professor Arthur Platt writes:

"Should any man of science come fresh to the reading of his treatise, he will, I think, be amazed and delighted to see what grasp and insight Aristotle displays in handling questions which still absorb us after all that time. If we smile at some parts, and those very considerable parts, . . . let us remember that most of these oddities were accepted by no less a man than William Harvey, and that Darwin wrote with generous enthusiasm concerning another of the zoological works: 'Linnaeus and Cuvier have been my two gods, though in very different ways, but they were mere schoolboys to old Aristotle'".

THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY is published by The Classical Association of the Atlantic States, weekly, on Saturdays, from October to May inclusive, except in weeks in which there is a legal or school holiday, at Teachers College, 525 West 120th Street, New York City.

All persons with in the territory of the Association who are interested in the literature, the life and the art of ancient Greece and ancient Rome, whether actually engaged in teaching the Classics or not, are eligible to membership in the Association. Application for membership may be made to the Secretary-Treasurer, Charles Knapp, Barnard College, New York. The annual dues (which cover also the subscription to THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY), are two dollars. Within the territory covered by the Association (New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, District of Columbia) subscription is possible to individuals only through membership. To institutions In this territory the subscription price is one dollar per year.

Outside the territory of the Association the subscription price of THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY is one dollar per year.

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

This is a unique text because it is the only book on the market today which is sufficiently clear and simple for the beginner and also sufficiently complete and scholarly for the college student. It has been critically examined by experienced teachers and professors, who are unanimous in their praises. SPECIAL POINTS OF EXCELLENCE

Its live, vigorous quality, which is due to the fact
that its author views Latin as a living language.
Its treatment of the formation of words under
the separate parts of speech.

Its clear arrangement, uniform numbering of
sections and lack of confusing sub-divisions.
Its effective method of showing the relative
importance of the facts stated.

Write for further information

[blocks in formation]
« السابقةمتابعة »