« السابقةمتابعة »
not, were anxious that the Gracchan movement should be crushed and the 'tyranny' averted. The consul hung back, none of the other magistrates could or would come to the fore, and it was left to Nasica, though a priuatus (see Kornemann, op. cit. 3), to take the lead. But it was confidence, not curiosity, which he wished to arouse in his followers, the confidence born of the feeling that their leader was no mere upstart but the recognized head of the state religion. How could he win this confidence save by the display of the badge of his office? and how would this more readily catch the eye and the attention of the bystanders than by its display on the pontiff's head?
To this argument from probability and consistency we may add another of a linguistic nature. Appian nowhere, I believe, uses the adjective apάonpos, nor would that word, which means primarily 'counterfeit ' and secondarily 'conspicuous,' 'marked,' be happily chosen here to denote singular,' 'quaint,' 'bizarre.'
Liddell and Scott render the phrase, which is misquoted év T Tapaσýμw, by the significance of his gesture'; but while we allow that in Appian oxua may mean 'gesture' (as it perhaps does in Iber. 26 and 53), this version gives to rapáσnμov a meaning for which I find no parallel, nor does Appian indicate wherein that 'significance' lay.
What course, then, is open to us? Can we accept Benecke's rendering, 'by displaying the badge of his rank'? That this is attractive and suits the context admirably no one will deny. The words τ τаρaσýμ cause no difficulty, for Tapáσnμov is regularly used for 'badge,' 'token,' and the like. So Appian uses it in Syr. 15, the only other passage in his extant works where it occurs; comparing the six axes of the praetor with the twelve of the consul, he says τὸ ἥμισυ τῆς ἀξιώσεως ἔστι τοῖσδε Toîs σTρaτηYOîs kaì тà ýμíσea mapáσnua. Similarly Plutarch, Sulla, 9, refers to the στρατηγικὰ παράσημα. The difficulty lies in giving to σχῆμα the sense of rank, 'position,' 'office,' which this interpretation demands. In none of the twenty-three other examples which I have collected from Appian does the word seem to have this meaning, and though Liddell and Scott give 'dignity,' ' rank,' they refer specifically only to two passages in Polybius (iii. 85. 9, cf. v. 56), in which the phrase kaтà σxŵμa pépeiv must surely mean 'to bear in a dignified or seemly manner' and not 'to bear as befitted their (his) rank.' Wyttenbach, however, translates (Plutarchi Moralia, viii. p. 1509) σxμa by munus, ordo, magistratus' in Aelius Aristides, i. 137 (i. p. 223 ed. Dindorf), οἱ μὲν (sc. Λακεδαιμόνιοι) ὄνομα ἡγεμόνων, οἱ δ' (sc. 'Αθηναῖοι) ἔργα παρείχοντο, καὶ τοσούτῳ κάλλιον αὐτοῖς τὸ σχῆμα καθίστατο ὅσῳ τῶν ἡγεμόνων αὐτῶν εἶχον Tv nyeμovíav. Here it clearly denotes a de facto position in contrast to a nominal one, and stands in sharp antithesis to its use in the phrase Tv éì σxýμатos nyeμоvíav used of the Spartans only a few pages earlier (i. 134 = i. 217 Dind.). In other phrases found in the same author exμa approximates perhaps more nearly to 'position' or 'status,' e.g., ἔσωσε τὸν πρεσβευτὴν τὸ σχῆμα τῆς προξενίας (i. 144 = i. 233 Dind.), διὰ τὸ σχῆμα τῆς προξενίας ἀφεῖσαν (ii. 217 = ii. 286 Dind.), τὸ τῆς πρεσβείας σχῆμα (i. 490 = 1. 730 Dind.), exovтas Tò Tŵν vπηkówν oxŵμɑ (i. 176=i. 289 Dind.). Two epigraphical examples afford clearer evidence. At Olympia a certain Claudia Baebia Baebiana is honoured ἐπὶ σεμνότητι βίου καὶ σωφροσύνῃ ἐν ἱερείας σχήματι (Inschr. von Olympia, 94r). In an honorary inscription of Prusias ad Hypium (Waddington 1178, I.G. Rom. iii. 69) the phrase év Tσxýμaтi occurs; Waddington comments 'Exμa signifie ici "dignité," à savoir celle de Bithyniarque,' and Cagnat renders 'in gerendo officio.'
But all this is not conclusive, and while I am not prepared definitely to abandon Benecke's interpretation, to which I have long clung, I wish to suggest an alternative which to some may seem preferable. Exua frequently and easily passes from the sense of shape,' 'appearance '-sometimes (as in B.C. i. 103, iv. 31), though not always, contrasted with reality-to that of 'guise,' 'uniform,' 'dress.' This is apparently its meaning in Appian, B.C. iv. 45 ἐς στρατηγοῦ σχῆμα κοσμήσας ἑαυτόν,
ν. 126 τὸ σχῆμα ἀλλάξας ἔθει πρὸς τὸν Καισαρα . . . ὁ δὲ Καῖσαρ ἔπεμψεν ἐς Ρώμην ἐφ ̓ οὗπερ ἦν σχήματος, v. 130 ἐπὶ κίονος ἐν ἀγορᾷ χρυσοῦς ἑστάναι μετὰ σχήματος οἵπερ ἔχων ἐσῆλθε, and unquestionably in v. 76 σχήμα τετράγωνον ἔχων καὶ ὑπόδημα Αττικόν, with which we may compare the corresponding statement in Plut. Ant. 33 rÀ TÝS ἡγεμονίας παράσημα καταλιπὼν οἴκοι μετὰ τῶν γυμνασιαρχικῶν ῥάβδων ἐν ἱματίῳ καὶ paikaσíois poýεL. Here again two epigraphical examples may help us. φαικασίοις προῄει. An inscription of Prusias ad Hypium (I. G. Rom. iii. 1422) commemorates a certain Asclepiades τὸν . . . πρῶτον τειμηθέντ[α] ἄρχοντα ἐν τῇ πατρίδι τῷ τῆς πορφύρας σχήματι, i.e., as the editor explains, lato clauo exornatum. In an Athenian decree of about A.D. 2052 it is resolved that the cosmetes be instructed κατὰ τὰ ἀρχαῖα νόμιμα [ἄ]γειν Ἐλευσῖνάδε τοὺ[ς ἐφήβ]ους με[τὰ τ]οῦ εἰθισμένου σχήμα[τος] τῆς ἅμα ἱεροῖς πομπῆς, and later ἄγειν τοὺς ἐφή[βους πάλιν Ε]λευσεῖνάδε μετὰ τοῦ αὐτοῦ σχήματος, where the word appears to me to refer to the dress rather than to the formation of the ephebi. May not this be the sense in which Appian uses the word in the phrase under discussion? If so, T жаρаσýμų тоû σxμatos would mean 'by the badge of his costume,' i.e. 'by (the display of) that part of his robe which indicated his (pontifical) office.' In other words, we have reached an interpretation which, while substantially the same as that of Benecke, uses σxμa in a sense which is common and well recognized instead of one which is doubtful and, at the best, rare.
Appian, B.C. i. 54. 1, τοῦ δ' αὐτοῦ χρόνου κατὰ τὸ ἄστυ οἱ χρῆσται πρὸς ἀλλήλους ἐστασίασαν, οἱ μὲν πράττοντες τὰ χρέα σὺν τόκοις κτλ.
With these words Appian introduces his account of the financial crisis at Rome which followed the Social War and culminated in the murder of the urban praetor, A. Sempronius Asellio, in 89 B.C. The facts, which are recorded not only by Appian but also very briefly in the Epitome of Livy lxxiv. and with rather more detail by Valerius Maximus (ix. 7. 4), do not here concern us. It is to the difficulty caused by the words of Xpηjoraι that I turn.
J. L. Strachan-Davidson's comment runs as follows: 'If the text be sound the word must be used in a comprehensive sense to include both parties to a loan.' As the text is allowed to stand, we may infer that Strachan-Davidson accepted as at least possible such a comprehensive use of the term xpnorat, just as other scholars, e.g. Schweighäuser, had previously done. The same explanation was adopted by Horace White, who translated thus: 'About the same time dissensions arose in the city between debtors and creditors since the latter exacted the money due to them with interest.' Mendelssohn, on the other hand, dissatisfied with this solution of the problem, noted in his apparatus criticus (ii. p. 617):
Oi Xpηoraι cum esse uix possint et debitores et creditores uno eodemque vocabulo comprehensi, πρὸς ἀλλήλους uerba corrupta uidentur. an πρὸς τοὺς δανειστὰς ?* οἱ χρῆσται < καὶ οἱ χρεῶσται> πρὸς ἀλλ. Nauckius.
1 Cf. B.C. ii. 120, iii. 94, V. 41; more doubtful are iv. 13, 35, v. 11. Porphyrius, de Abstin, iv. 6, uses of the Egyptian priests the phrase del évtòs τοῦ σχήματος «αἰς χεῖρες. Numerous other examples from literature are collected in Liddell and Scott and in the Thesaurus, s.v.
2 I.G. ii.2 1078 (=S.I.G.3 885), l. 10 sqq., 20 sq.; cf. I.G. ii.2 1079. The inscription is dated by Kirchner and Dittenberger, ca. A.D. 220; but
see P. Graindor, Chronologie des Archontes Athéniens, 229 sqq.
3 They are sufficiently dealt with in such standard works as Th, Mommsen, History of Rome (English translation, 1887), iii. 258 sq.; W. E. Heitland, The Roman Republic, § 857; F. Münzer in Pauly-Wissowa, R.E. ii.A, 1363 sq. For the date see also T. Reinach, Revue Historique, xlv. 50 sq.
This conjecture of Nauck has been accepted by E. F. M. Benecke, who translates: At the same time the debtors [and the creditors] at Rome had a quarrel,' and refers in a footnote to Nauck's reading.
P. Viereck, the most recent editor of the text of Appian's Bell. Ciu. (Teubner, 1905) prefers another method of meeting the difficulty; retaining Mendelssohn's text, he notes (ii. 58):
· Οἱ χρῆσται καὶ οἱ χρεώσται> ci. Nauck, praetulerim οἱ χρῆσται <καὶ davelotai (cf. Dittenb., Syll. inscr. Graec.2 226, 181; 510, 40), nisi forte oi χρῆσται et debitores et creditores significat; πρὸς τοὺς δανειστὰς pro πρὸς ἀλλήλους maluit Mend., haud probabiliter,'
and E. Iliff Robson, who revised and prepared for the press the last two volumes of White's translation for the Loeb Library, adds to the words 'between debtors and creditors' the footnote 'Xpηora in the Greek apparently includes both, unless kai δανεισταί is to be inserted.
That the word xporns sometimes means 'debtor' and sometimes 'creditor' is open to no question. The grammarians and the lexicographers (e.g. Choeroboscus, ii. 436 χρῆσται δέ εἰσιν οἱ δανείζοντες καὶ οἱ δανειζόμενοι, Harpocr. s.v., Εtym. Magn. s.vu. χλόη, χρήστης, Suidas s.vv. χρήστης, χρῆσται, χρήστη, Eustath. 1807. 12, etc.) are quite explicit on this point, and many examples occur in extant Greek literature illustrating the use of the word in both senses. In Appian it occurs, to the best of my knowledge, only here and in two other passages, Mithr. 22 and B.C. ii. 48. In the former it is contrasted with οἱ δανεισταί, in the latter with οἱ δανείσαντες ; in both the context shows beyond any possible doubt that it refers only to debtors. We may conclude, I think, that for Appian this is the primary, if not the sole, meaning of the word. If this is so, Nauck's conjecture must be unhesitatingly rejected, for not only does the term xpeworms not occur in Appian, but its meaning is, always and everywhere,1 debtor,' so that the phrase oi xporaι <Kai oi XpeŵσTaι> is tautologous.
Further, I cannot believe that Appian would have used the term Xpora in this passage to denote both parties to loan-transactions. Such a use would be harsh, not to say unparalleled, and would be due simply and solely to a desire for brevity-a desire which does not, so far as my impression goes, manifest itself elsewhere in Appian's work. Moreover, the harshness would be increased by the use of the following phrase, οἳ μὲν πράττοντες τὰ χρέα κτλ., with reference not to the debtors but to the creditors, i.e. not to the party explicitly named but to that implicitly indicated in the term xpηoral. Are we then to acquiesce in Mendelssohn's solution of the problem and write πρὸς τοὺς δανειστάς in place of πρὸς ἀλλήλους? Palaeographically the conjecture has little to recommend it, nor, I must admit, does the phrase πρòs ¿λλńλous arouse my suspicions. Besides, there is a grammatical obstacle, serious at least if not insuperable, in the way of our acceptance of the conjecture; for oï pèv πрάτTоνтes should agree grammatically with the word for 'creditors' to which they refer, and in Mendelssohn's restoration that word is not in the nominative but in the accusative.
For these reasons I am strongly inclined to write οἱ χρῆσται <καὶ οἱ δανεισταί>, or rather, in order to indicate more clearly what I believe to be the source of the omission, οἱ χρῆσται καὶ οἱ δανεισταί. I had reached this conclusion before I knew that it had been to a large extent anticipated by Viereck, and I still prefer it to his conjecture, in which the definite article is omitted before daveiraí. The passage to which he himself refers in an Olbian inscription, S.I.G. 226 (=S.I.G.3 495),
1 The sole exception is Suidas, who explains χρεώστης as ὁ δανειστής. But the word is never found with this meaning in extant Greek litera.
ture, and it seems best to assume that Suidas is here guilty of an inadvertence.
1. 181 [το]ς τε δανεισταῖς καὶ τοῖς χρήσταις, seems to me to lend some support to my suggestion.
Appian, B.C. i. 54. 2, ἀποστραφῆναι γάρ μοι δοκοῦσιν οἱ πάλαι Ῥωμαῖοι, καθάπερ Ἕλληνες, τὸ δανείζειν ὡς καπηλικὸν καὶ βαρὺ τοῖς πένησι καὶ δύσερι καὶ ἐχθροποιόν, ᾧ λόγῳ καὶ Πέρσαι τὸ κίχρασθαι ὡς ἀπατηλόν τε καὶ φιλοψευδές.
H. White translates the latter part of the sentence thus: 'and by the same kind of reasoning the Persians considered lending as having itself a tendency to deceit and lying.' This rendering seems to me not only to miss the true meaning of Kíxpaola, which denotes borrowing and not lending, but also to obscure the reasoning which underlay the Persian aversion to borrowing, and to afford no justification for Appian's separation of the Persians from the Greeks and Romans. Benecke's translation gives its true value to rò κíxpaσdai, but by rendering the words Tò daveilev as 'usury' fails to make sufficiently clear the antithesis between the two verbs.
It has long been recognized1 that Appian bases his statement regarding the Persians upon Herodotus, an author who finds frequent echoes in Appian's pages. In his account of the manners and customs of the Persians Herodotus says (i. 138) αἴσχιστον δὲ αὐτοῖσι τὸ ψεύδεσθαι νενόμισται, δεύτερα δὲ τὸ ὀφείλειν χρέος, πολλῶν μὲν καὶ ἄλλων εἵνεκα, μάλιστα δὲ ἀναγκαίην φασὶ εἶναι τὸν ὀφείλοντα καί τι ψεῦδος λέγειν. In the light of this passage the distinction between Greeks and Romans on the one hand and Persians on the other becomes clear and unmistakable. The former regard the moral effect produced upon the lender; the niggling, shifty spirit of the huckster is fostered, the heart is hardened against the poor, the lender becomes contentious and stirs up bitter feelings of enmity. The Persians look rather to the deterioration brought about in the character of the borrower, who is sorely tempted to have recourse to deceit and lying in order to evade his liabilities. The phrase & λóye kaí, which unites the two statements, is meant to draw attention to the fact that, though the nations of antiquity approached this question from two totally different standpoints, the aversion which each entertained for the giving or accepting of loans at interest was based upon one and the same consideration, namely that of the effect produced by such transactions upon the moral nature of those who were parties to them. If I am right in thus interpreting the passage, I cannot regard as justified the criticism of Strachan-Davidson, Appian seems rather to confuse the moral drawbacks attaching to the position of the borrower with the condemnation of usury exacted by the lender.’ M. N. TOD.
1 See comments ad loc. of Schweighäuser, 2 A. Zerdik, Quaestiones Appianeae, Part I. Strachan-Davidson, and others.
SUMMARIES OF PERIODICALS.
LITERATURE AND GENERAL.
American Journal of Philology. XLIV. 4. October-December, 1923. R. S. Radford, Tibullus and Ovid, Part III. Concludes the discussion by a statement of the evidence to be derived from the metrical schemata. E. H. Sturtevant, The Ictus of Classical Verse. Investigates the nature of the ictus metricus, and advances seven arguments to show that it was a stress. Lays great emphasis on the obvious efforts of the Roman poets to secure a definite relation between accent and ictus, which indicate that the two had a common element. S. E. Bassett, The Proems of the Iliad and the Odyssey. Examines the literary merits of the two introductions, and points out certain stylistic and grammatical similarities which should be taken into account in estimating the value of the 'chorizontic view' of the authorship. Alice F. Braunlich, Against Curtailing Catullus' Passer. Suggests that vv. 11-13 may be retained on the supposition that they are addressed directly to Lesbia after she has, in an imagined aside, indicated that the suit is pleasing to her. R. G. Kent, Addendum on Catullus' Passer. Also retains vv. 11-13, but explains the meaning as <To play with you as she does> would be, etc. Est is equivalent to sit, and the grammatical difficulty is caused by the shift to another type of conditional sentence. T. Frank, Cicero Ad Atticum IV. 16, 14. By a slight rearrangement of the text (monumentum . . . solebas placed after basilicam) finds a double reference in the passage (a) to a complete rebuilding of the Basilica Aemiliana undertaken by Paulus, (b) to the first plans for the Basilica Julia, entrusted to Cicero and Oppius. W. S. Fox, Note on the Johns Hopkins Tabellae Defixionum. Accepts certain suggestions for the better interpretation of these tablets made by E. Vetter in Glotta XII. (1922), in particular the reading quisquis or quisque for quicquid in Avonia 38.
Athenaeum (Pavia). I. 4. 1923.
A. Vogliano reproduces a new inscription found in Thessaly, and published by Comparetti in Atene e Roma. The sixteen lines are carved on marble. Comparetti restores a few syllables missing at the end of some lines, and conjectures that the original was a letter from an Egyptian oracle belonging to the Serapis and Isis cult in Thessaly, and was written on papyrus. This papyrus having got worn down by time was then by reverent disciples cut into marble exactly as it was with all its lacunae. V. rejects this theory, and gives his own emended reading, basing it on hexameter lines. He sees in it a hymn to Isis, and (in the first few lines) a glorification of her gifts. The later lines are full of difficulties. C. Pascal revises after an interval of many years his own version and explanation of the Oscan deuotio generally known as the curse of Vibia, containing imprecations against Paquius Cluatius and all his family. The curses, P. holds, are to be carried out by the hands of Vibia Aquia, probably a priestess of Ceres. The much discussed words Valaimas puklum, rendered variously as 'Optimae (i.e. Proserpinae) purgamentum,' or as 'optimae puerorum'