« السابقةمتابعة »
THE objects of the Classical Association are to promote the development and maintain the well-being of classical studies, and in particular (a) to impress upon public opinion the claim of such studies to an eminent place in the national scheme of education; (b) to improve the practice of classical teaching; (c) to encourage investigation and call attention to new discoveries; (d) to create opportunities for intercourse among lovers of classical learning.
Membership of the Association is open to men and women alike. The annual subscription is 5s. (life composition, £3 15s.), and there is an entrance fee of 5s. (not charged to Libraries). Members receive a copy of the annual Proceedings of the Association and, on payment of 2s. 6d., of The Year's Work in Classical Studies (both post free). They may also obtain the Classical Review and Classical Quarterly at reduced prices, provided that the subscriptions be paid before January 31st in each year. Subscriptions sent in later than that date must be at the rates offered to the general public.
Inquiries and applications for membership should be addressed to the Hon. Treasurer, Prof. H. A. Ormerod, 46, Cliff Road, Hyde Park, Leeds; or to either of the Hon. Secretaries, Rev. G. C. Richards, Oriel College, Oxford, and Mr. M. P. Charlesworth, St. John's College, Cambridge; or to the Hon. Secretary of any of the district Branches-viz., Mr. E. W. V. Clifton, 26, Danesbury Road, Chorlton-cum-Hardy, near Manchester; Dr. G. A. Auden, Education Office, Margaret Street, Birmingham; Miss F. M. Rees, The University, Liverpool; Mr. E. P. Barker, 426, Woodborough Road, Nottingham; Miss P. K. Downes, Redland High School, Bristol; Mr. Basil Anderton, The Public Library, New Bridge Street, Newcastle-upon-Tyne; Miss C. E. Parker, Westfield College, Hampstead; Mr. W. E. Nash-Williams, University College, Cardiff; Mr. E. E. Bibby, The University, Leeds; Miss E. M. Watson, Central Girls' School, Sheffield; Mr. E. D. T. Jenkins, University College, Aberystwyth; Mr. J. Whatmough, University College, Bangor; Miss Buckley, Simon Langton School for Girls, Canterbury; Miss D. J. L. Poole, 19, Banbury Road, Oxford; Mr. J. M. Gaussen, 6, Lewes Crescent, Brighton; Mr. A. B. Jeffries, 100, Cedar Road, Southampton; Mr. F. Fletcher, University College, Exeter; and Mr. C. W. Baty, 49, Waterloo Road, Bedford.
OBJECTS.-The Society for the Promotion of Hellenic Studies was founded in 1879 for the following objects:—
I. To advance the study of Greek language, literature, and art, and to illustrate the history of the Greek race in the ancient, Byzantine, and Neo-Hellenic periods, by the publication of memoirs and unedited documents or monuments in a Journal to be issued periodically. II.-To collect drawings, facsimiles, transcripts, plans, and photographs of Greek inscriptions, MSS., works of art, ancient sites and remains, and with this view to invite travellers to communicate to the Society notes or sketches of archæological and topographical interest.
To organize means by which members of the Society may have increased facilities for visiting ancient sites and pursuing archæological researches in countries which, at any time, have been the sites of Hellenic civilization.
Application for membership, or for information about the Society, should be addressed to the Secretary, at 19 Bloomsbury Square, W.C. 1.
The Journal of Hellenic Studies and other publications of the Society are issued by Messrs. Macmillan & Co., Ltd., and can be purchased from any bookseller, the published price to non-members being 30s, net per volume or 15s. net each part. Members are entitled to receive a copy of the Journal on publication during their membership, and can purchase back volumes at the subscription rate of 21s. per annum.
Members also have the use of a well-equipped library at 19 Bloomsbury Square and of a large collection of lantern-slides illustrative of Classical Studies,
THE CLASSICAL QUARTERLY
EURIPIDES' ALCMAEON AND THE APOLLONIVS ROMANCE.
THE genesis of the Greek prose romance is still in large part shrouded in darkness, in spite of the researches of Erwin Rohde, one of the greatest scholars of the last generation. The reasons are evident; the material at our disposal is far too scanty, the loss of early specimens of this literary form is far too great to allow of a flawless reconstruction of the history of the Greek romance. The same lacunae have also prevented us from obtaining as complete an insight into the sources of the extant romances as would be desirable. Rohde conjectured that the genre was the result of a skilful combination of mythological narrative and adventure novel;1 Warren thought that the Greek prose romance had about the same origin and took the same development as the old French prose romance—that is, it developed out of the epic.2 At all times scholars have been aware of the fact that the great rôle which love plays in the Greek romance has a parallel in the tragedies of Euripides,3 who may be considered the first tragic poet to introduce the love theme on the stage. But so far as I am aware, it has not been pointed out that Euripides was drawn upon for whole episodes in order to enrich the plot of the novel. Yet such seems to have been the case for one of the best-known passages of the Apollonius Romance,5 as I shall endeavour to show in the following pages.
It will be recalled that Apollonius, after his marriage, sets out to sea, but loses his young wife after the birth of a daughter. As she is thought dead, her body, enclosed in a chest, is thrown overboard. Apollonius arrives at Tarsus and there entrusts his daughter Tharsia to a friendly couple, Stranguillio and Dionysias, while he goes again to sea. Tharsia receives a good education and grows up to be a beautiful girl. Then Dionysias grows jealous because her own daughter is extremely ugly. Accordingly, she has her taken to the beach by a slave, there to be killed. At the last minute a band of pirates land at that point of the coast, make a raid, and liberate the girl, only to take her on board their ship, and sail off with her. Dionysias, thinking her dead, has a monument erected to her. Some time later Apollonius returns to visit his
1 E. Rohde, Der griechische Roman und seine Vorläufer, Leipzig, 1900.
2 F. M. Warren, A History of the Novel previous to the Seventeenth Century, New York, 1895, pp. 21 sqq.
3 Rohde, op. cit., pp. 31 sqq.
NO. II., VOL. XVIII.
5 On this work cf. Hartung, Die byzantinische Novelle, Archiv f. d. Studium d. neueren Sprachen, L (1872), p. 28; Rohde, p. 435; Dunlop, History of Prose Fiction, London, 1896, I. 82.
58 EURIPIDES' ALCMAEON AND THE APOLLONIVS ROMANCE daughter, and is inconsolable on learning the news. He again leaves the country by ship and arrives at Mitylene, where he makes the acquaintance of a young man, Athenagoras. To console him, Athenagoras leads on board a young girl, an expert musician, whom he had found in a brothel. She is none other than Tharsia, whom the pirates had sold to the owner of the establishment. Owing to her musical talent she had succeeded in escaping the dangers of the place, and had made friends with Athenagoras. The episode ends by father and daughter recognizing each other. Finally he even recovers his wife, who had been dead only in appearance and had likewise been saved.
It is my contention that this important episode, or group of episodes, was borrowed from one of the lost tragedies of Euripides, entitled Alcmaeon.1 Its content was fortunately summarized by Apollodorus, as follows:2
Εὐριπίδης δέ φησιν ̓Αλκμαίωνα κατὰ τὸν τῆς μανίας χρόνον ἐκ Μαντοῦς Τειρεσίου παῖδας δύο γεννῆσαι, ̓Αμφίλοχον καὶ θυγατέρα Τισιφόνην, κομίσαντα δὲ εἰς Κόρινθον τὰ βρέφη δοῦναι τρέφειν Κορινθίων βασιλεῖ Κρέοντι, καὶ τὴν μὲν Τισιφόνην διενεγκοῦσαν εὐμορφίᾳ ὑπὸ τῆς Κρέοντος γυναικὸς ἀπεμποληθῆναι, δεδοικυίας μὴ Κρέων αὐτῆν γαμετὴν ποιήσηται· τὸν δὲ Ἀλκμαίωνα ἀγοράσαντα ταύτην ἔχειν οὐκ εἰδότα τὴν ἑαυτοῦ θυγατέρα θεράπαιναν, παραγενόμενον δὲ εἰς Κόρινθον ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν τέκνων ἀπαίτησιν καὶ τὸν υἱὸν κομίσασθαι.
The chief differences between the narrative of the romance and the tragedy of Euripides are: (1) In Euripides the father loses and recovers his daughter and his son, in the romance his daughter and his wife. (2) In Euripides the jealous wife fears that the heroine may deprive her of her husband's love, in the romance she is jealous of her adopted daughter because she is more beautiful than her own child. (3) Euripides says nothing about the pirates and the brothel; the jealous wife of the foster-father sells her directly as a slave, and the girl's own father buys her without knowing her. (4) To the royal milieu of the tragedy corresponds a more bourgeois one in the romance.
All these changes, especially 3 and 4, are perfectly intelligible from the standpoint of the technique peculiar to the Greek novel. Thus the interference of the pirates and the girl in the brothel would have been impossible on the classical stage; but both fitted into the romance admirably, such episodes belonging to the stock-in-trade of the late Greek romancer. The second difference is due to the influence of a widespread fairy-tale type.3
To conclude, there can be no reasonable doubt that the episode or group of episodes under discussion is a literary borrowing, and that the author of the romance drew on the Alcmaeon of Euripides for this part of his work, adding to the more simple plot of the tragic poet and complicating the action by new adventures which suited the taste of a late Greek public.
FLAT RIVER, Mo.,
1 Tragicorum Graecorum Fragmenta, ed. A. Nauck, pp. 479 sqq.
2 Bibl. 111. 7. 7.
ALEXANDER HAGGERTY KRAPPE.
3 A. Aarne, Verzeichnis der Märchentypen, Helsinki, 1911, types 403A; 510A; 511.
PVBLIVS CLODIVS AND THE ACTS OF CAESAR.
De domo, § 40:
'Tu tuo praecipitante iam et debilitato tribunatu auspiciorum patronus subito exstitisti . . .; tibi M. Bibulus quaerenti se de caelo seruasse respondit idemque in contione dixit, ab Appio tuo fratre productus, te omnino, quod contra auspicia adoptatus esses, tribunum non fuisse. tua denique omnis actio posterioribus mensibus fuit, omnia quae C. Caesar egisset, quod contra auspicia essent acta, per senatum rescindi oportere; quod si fieret, dicebas te tuis umeris me custodem urbis in urbem relaturum.'
On the strength of this passage historians have assumed that Clodius in 58 B.C. had turned against Caesar and seriously intended to rescind his acts.
Thus Heitland1 says: 'Anyhow he was no longer on terms with the triumvirs. He ended his year of office by a wild attack upon Caesar and his Julian laws as being illegally carried.'
Ferrero2 has the same view: 'Clodius adopted the most unexpected of all his many devices. He turned against his old master, Caesar, and made advances to the Conservatives, promising to declare Caesar's laws null and void.'
So also Meyer says: Clodius was far from considering himself a mere tool of the men in power; as these had used him, so he had used them for his own purposes. Now that Caesar was in Gaul, Clodius had no further need to consider him,' and, again, 'Clodius also attacked Caesar; he declared his laws. invalid.
No one, however, has attempted to explain how exactly Clodius hoped to benefit himself by this mad-dog policy, or has, in fact, treated him as a reasonable being.
It is the object of this paper to suggest that De domo, 40 admits of a very different interpretation from the above; that the policy of Clodius in 59 and 58 was in fact quite rational; that he was deliberately used by Caesar as a check upon Pompey, and that he consistently performed that function.
I would also lay stronger emphasis than is usual upon the fact that Caesar could not, or certainly did not, trust Pompey from the very inception of the triumvirate.
I. THE INTERPRETATION OF DE DOMO, § 40.
The ordinary view-that Clodius attacked Caesar in 58-has probability and a good deal of evidence into the bargain against it. In its favour De domo, § 40 is the only piece of evidence.
1 Roman Republic, Vol. III., pp. 173-4.
Vol. II., p. 30.
3 Meyer, Caesar's Monarchie, pp. 103 sqq.
If, accepting this view, we examine the evidence, we can only conclude that Clodius was in fact the raving madman Cicero so often called him. For if it is true to say that he attacked the laws of Caesar, it is equally true to say that he made a wild attack upon his own tribunate'—which as a matter of fact none of the historians has imputed to him, though Cicero with professional effrontery actually does do so1—or that he suddenly championed the cause of Cicero which he very certainly did not do. The words 'meis umeris Ciceronem custodem urbis in urbem referam' were obviously merely sarcastic. However, Cicero does not say that Clodius 'promised to declare' or did 'declare Caesar's laws null and void,' but that he declared that all Caesar's acts, since they had been carried against the auspices, ought to be rescinded by the Senate; if that was done he would himself bring Cicero back from exile on his own shoulders.'
If allowance is made for the fact that Cicero, being a barrister and a politician, habitually takes his opponents' words verbatim out of their context and puts a false construction upon them,2 we may conjecture that in reality Clodius's argument was as follows:
'It is said that Cicero can return because my tribunate and consequently my measures are illegal. If they are, so are all the acts of Caesar for precisely the same reason. Therefore if they are going to rescind mine the Senate ought to rescind his; if they do that, then certainly I'll fetch Cicero back on my own shoulders.'
Clodius knew very well he was safe in his offer and would not be called upon to undertake that arduous physical task; he probably even found pleasure in pressing his suggestion, as it placed his opponents, Pompey and the Optimates who were friendly to him, in a very awkward predicament. On the one hand they were determined to have Cicero back. On the other to rescind the acts of Caesar would be to rescind the settlement of Pompey's veterans and the ratification of Pompey's acts; and Clodius's logic was unanswerable.
The above involves the presumption that it was formally proposed that Cicero could return from exile as Clodius's adoption and therefore all his measures were illegal. This is rendered probable by the evidence of De domo, 34-39; Plutarch, Cato Minor, 40; and Dio Cassius, 39. 21; cf. also Greenidge, Legal Procedure of Cicero's Time, p. 361, note 5 and Heitland, Vol. III., 173-4. I suggest that it is proved positively by this passage in De domo, 40. Possibly such was the substance of Ninnius' motion in the Senate of June, 58.
Heitland (ibid.) says that Pompey felt that this raised the question of the validity of the acts of Clodius other than those aimed against Cicero, and therefore urged special legislation' and corresponded with Caesar. But De domo, 40 gives a far stronger reason than that. The acts of Caesar were involved and to them Pompey more than any living man 'inligatus tenebatur.'
1 Ibid. Videte hominis amentiam (cum) per suum tribunatum Caesaris actis inligatus teneretur. ...'
2 He does this repeatedly in the In Vatinium, e.g. 41, where he plays on the meanings of this same word oportere.