صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني
[ocr errors]

HUMANISTIC CONFERENCES AT

CHAUTAUQUA

The week of July 10, officially styled Art and Archaeology Week at Chautauqua, was rounded out by a series of Humanistic Conferences on Friday and Saturday, July 14-15. The program and arrangements were in the hands of Dr. Mitchell Carroll, Secretary of the Archaeological Institute of America, and Professor R. H. Tanner, of Illinois College, both members of the faculty of the Chautauqua Summer Schools. The announced aim of the Conferences was to consider problems pertaining to the teaching and presentation of the Classics and archaeology in High School and College, so as to win for them a larger place in the thought and life of students and of the general public. The Conferences were designed to appeal to two classes of people, the general public, as exemplified by the Chautauqua community, and the classical enthusiast.

Probably the most beneficial results came from the regularly scheduled lectures of Art and Archaeology Week. Classics and archaeology were brought to the attention of many persons by the lectures of Professor F. W. Kelsey on St. Peter and St. Paul in Rome and on the Classics, of Professor Carroll on America's Archaeological Heritage and on Athens, of Professor J. H. Breasted on Egypt and on Archaeology, of Mr. Bailey on Theseus and the Minotaur, and by Professor Clark's readings of the Antigone, the Trojan Women, the Clouds, and Stephen Phillips's Ulysses.

Professor Carroll, in explaining briefly the purposes of the Conferences, dwelt on the importance of the study of the achievements of man, as illustrated by language and literature, history and archaeology. Professor Kelsey followed with the main address of the first Conference, on Classics in High School and College. After tracing the great development of education in this country, he pointed out certain faults of our system: specialization, politics, lack of discipline. The Classics, he said, are needed for breadth of culture, for discipline and for artistic excellence.

Professor B. L. Ullman, of the University of Pittsburgh, read a paper on The New Latin, in which he pointed out how the teaching of Latin has responded to the newer demands in education. He stressed particularly the importance of the Latin element in the English language and showed how the events of the day as reported by the newspapers can be utilized in the Latin class-room to give added meaning to the Latin texts. Professor L. E. Lord, of Oberlin College, presented a most interesting paper on Classics and the Asphyxiating Gas of the Educational Requirement. He called attention to a situation which is of vital concern to all who are interested in the teaching of High School subjects. As he put it, the appreciation of the Classics depends on enthusiastic High School teaching. Enthusiastic teaching depends upon thorough mastery of the subject to be taught. professors of education are succeeding in having laws passed requiring students to know the theory of education to the neglect of subject-matter. It is ridiculous to infer that a professor of education is capable of teaching pupils how to teach just because he has been taught how to teach them to teach. Subject-matter is of prime importance. Professor Lord's paper made such an impression that a committee was appointed to draft resolutions covering the points raised. The following resolutions were adopted at the Saturday meeting:

a

But

"The Humanistic Conference comprised of representatives from educational institutions of many states views with apprehension the tendency to narrow legislation in certain States which is defining the preparation of High School teachers legally in terms of study in the history and methods of education without reference to preparation in the subjects

taught. The Conference recommends the framing of such legislation hereafter as shall make the emphasis upon preparation in the subjects taught at least equal to that upon methods of teaching".

on

On Saturday morning Professor J. H. Breasted, of the University of Chicago, spoke informally Twentieth Century Methods of Teaching Ancient History. He stressed the importance of oriental history. A paper by Professor Henry Browne, of University College, Dublin, on How to Quicken Appreciation of the Classics, urged the circulation of loan exhibits of slides, photographs and small antiquities. Professor Tanner closed the session with an illustrated lecture on Modern Productions of Greek Tragedy. After reviewing the history of Greek plays in America, he showed in a most interesting way how the various practical problems connected with the giving of Greek plays can be met. It should be added that during the summer the Antigone and the Electra were given at Chautauqua under Professor Tanner's direction. It is not possible to predict whether these Conferences will have an increasing importance as the years go by. They have in them great possibilities-there is need of something to bring together the various humanistic forces of the country. In any case it will be distinctly worth while to encourage a classical week at Chautauqua in order to bring classical subjects of interest to the attention of the Chautauqua public. UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH. B. L. ULLMAN.

THE NEW YORK LATIN CLUB

The first meeting of The New York Latin Club for 1916-1917 will be held at Hunter College, 68th Street and Lexington Avenue, Saturday, November 11, at 11.30. Mr. John Jay Chapman will address the Club on the subject of Lucian. Luncheon will be served immediately after the address.

All who expect to attend the luncheon are asked to notify Miss J. G. Carter, at Hunter College, on or before November 8. Information concerning dues to The New York Latin Club, the cost of tickets to the luncheons, etc., may be had of the Treasurer of the Club, Dr. W. F. Tibbetts, Curtis High School, New Brighton, S. I., New York.

In June last, Professors P. O. Place and C. C. Bushnell, of Syracuse University, published a pamphlet of 16 pages, entitled Latin and the Agitation for a Single Degree in Liberal Studies. By way of preface the authors write:

Our purpose in this pamphlet is to oppose the reduction of the Latin requirement for the A.B. degree that would follow the establishment of but one degree for all courses in institutions where at present the B.S. degree is given.

The topics treated in this most interesting and helpful pamphlet are I. Historical Development of Three Types of Liberal Studies (1-2); II. The Attack on Latin, and a Counter-Attack (3-12); III. The Three Degrees as Versus the One Degree (13-16). Under II proof is offered, by a detailed presentation, through tables, of the situation with respect to Latin all over the country in Colleges and Universities, that there is not a tendency in this country against Latin (3-10). Then follow a Discussion of the Etymological Argument for Latin, of the Disciplinary Argument for Latin, of the Importance of a Knowledge of the Past, an answer to Herbert Spencer's charge that Latin is "undemocratic", an argument that Latin is really a living language to the American, much more so than, for example, German, etc.

There is, finally, a useful page of suggestions about methods and ways of teaching Latin. The authors will gladly furnish copies of this pamphlet on application.

C. K.

[graphic]

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 NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 13, 1916

VOL. X

As I watch from week to week the growth of Volume 10 of THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY, I have often asked myself, How much demand would there be for a General Index to Volumes 1-10 of THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY, printed and sold separately, in booklet form, at say 75 cents to a dollar. Even if made no more elaborate than the Index to the separate volumes has been, such a General Index would take up 40 pages of THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY, i. e. would fill five full issues, and would therefore be a rather expensive undertaking. It would be necessary to sell some 350 copies, at 75 cents per copy, to escape financial loss. The preparation of the General Index would, of course, be a heavy task, but no doubt it would be possible to find persons altruistic enough to endure the labor, if the plan of publishing such a General Index should seem likely to secure adequate financial support. I should be glad to hear from readers of THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY with respect to the suggestion just thrown out.

Last year the University of Chicago Press published a General Index to Classical Philology, Volumes 1-10 (75 cents). The Index, compiled by Professor Frank Eggleston Robbins, of the University of Michigan, covers 40 pages, two columns to the page.

On pages

7-17 there is a List of Contributors. Then comes, on pages 18-20, an Index of Words, Greek, Latin, English, Gothic, Icelandic, Lithuanian, Old English, Old High German, Oscan, Sanskrit, Umbrian. There are few entries under any caption here other than Greek and Latin (the highest number is 5, under Sanskrit). It appears, however, from the Preface that the compiler's purpose was to include only some of the more important words the etymology of which had been discussed in Classical Philology. The remaining pages (21-46) provide an Index of Subjects.

Experience in the making of Indexes and in the writing of lexicographical articles has filled me with charity for any one who essays such a task as Professor Robbins attempted in this General Index to Classical Philology, and has imbued me with gratitude, deep and unfailing, for whatever is offered in such an Index. I remember a saying of a former instructor of mine to the effect that his professors in Germany used to declare that they absolved themselves from reading a book which had no Index, and that they did not feel in the slightest degree disturbed if they found that they had published as their own discoveries things which had appeared in printin works unprovided with an Index. So I welcome

No. 6

Professor Robbins's work and thank him for it. At the same time I cannot help regretting that, having done the labor of going through the volumes, he has not printed more of the material he collected, or rather printed that material more in detail, so that the Index would be more fully serviceable to busy scholars.

I have in mind such a matter as the following. On the very first page, under List of Contributors, I note, under a certain name, this entry:

Reviews: I, 312; II, 361, 492; V, 528, 530

At once one asks, Reviews of what? Suppose one knew that the scholar in question had reviewed, somewhere in the first ten volumes of Classical Philology, an edition of St. Augustine's De Civitate Dei, but could not recall in which volume the review had appeared. He would get no aid toward quick finding of the coveted review from such an entry as the one quoted above. Under the name of Shorey, Paul, on page 16, after the caption Reviews, references are given for over 60 reviews!

The List of Contributors is profoundly interesting. By examining this, and the Indexes to the volumes of The American Journal of Philology, one will get much light on the history of classical studies in this country. Mention of such history makes one regret that Professor Capps has never been willing to print the interesting and stimulating paper which, as President of The American Philological Association, he delivered at the Haverford meeting, in the Christmas holidays of 1914, entitled Reflections on Classical Scholarship in America. To every American who wants to think well of American classical scholarship this paper, and Professor Shorey's modification of his Presidential address to The American Philological Association, entitled American Scholarship (see THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 4. 226-230), afford comfort and inspiration. I wish I knew of some way of bringing pressure enough, at last, on Professor Capps to secure his paper for THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY.

Every little while some one writes asking for a discussion in THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY of the value of Latin and Greek. Frequently such a person is a new subscriber or a new member of the Association. But often enough the cry for such material comes from one who has long been a reader, presumably, of the paper, but, for some reason, has overlooked the fact that there is an Index to each volume. No small part of the Managing Editor's time is taken up, every year, in answering earnest appeals for material which the

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

ROMAN LITERARY CHARACTERIZATION Analysis is the most prominent feature in linguistic study. Questions of form and of grammatical relation are studied, with great care, and dependence and independence are looked at from every standpoint. In addition to these features, the flowers of speech may be sought with equal diligence in the study of poetry. More than two score kinds of Vergil's tropes and figures are mentioned in the Commentary of Servius; see J. L. Moore, American Journal of Philology, 12. 157– 192, 267-292. The results of analysis are given by description. In contrast with this is characterization, which is synthetic, and is worthy of close study.

If we

In analyzing and describing we look at the individuals; in characterization we look at the mass. consider the latter in terms of things that can be seen, it is the expression of a unified impression, a visual e pluribus unum. To get this we must withdraw ourselves until the many is lost in te one. Then on the landscape the rivers appear only as threads of silver. The splendor of the grass, the glory of the flower, the tint of leaves are no longer seen, and the trees themselves disappear in the forest. Or, if the appeal is through some sense other than that of sight, the unification of impressions is the result desired, and it finds expression in such terms as suaviloquentiam, sonum Trachali, acerbitas, and iucunditas, each expressing the sum-total of the sense-perceptions.

Characterization gives the face, description the features. Some illustrations of the latter will be given. The Brutus of Cicero gives us here and there many-sided views of men, and from their persons we must judge their oratory. Adjectives are chiefly used. In 28 it is said of the writers of the age of Thucydides that grandes erant verbis, crebri sententiis, compressione rerum breves et ob eam ipsam causam interdum subobscuri; in 63 Cato is like some of the Greeks, who are acuti, elegantes, faceti, breves; according to 129 Fimbria habitus est sane, ut ita dicam, truculentus, asper, maledicus, genere toto paulo fervidior atque commotior. By the side of these we may place the ununified description of Crassus as given in 143 erat summa gravitas, erat cum gravitate iunctus facetiarum e. urbanitatis oratorius, non scurrilis lepos, Latine loquendi accurata et sine molestia diligens elegantia, in

disserendo mira explicatio . . . ; argumentorum et similitudinum copia. Nouns chiefly are used also in Pliny, Epp. 6.21.5 non illi vis, non granditas, non subtilitas, non amaritudo, non dulcedo, non lepos defuit; ornavit virtutes, insectatus vitia, fictis nominibus decenter, veris usus est apte. Descriptions giving forms of activity and the manner are illustrated by Pliny, Epp. 2.3.3 Isaeus . . prooemiatur apte, narrat aperte, pugnat acriter, colligit fortiter, ornat excelse, postremo docet, delectat, adficit, quid maxime, dubites, crebra évoυμýμara, crebri syllogismi, circumscripti et effecti. Compare with this Cicero Brutus 164 multa in ea oratione graviter, multa leniter, multa aspere, multa facete, dicta sunt (the nouns gravitas, lenitas, asperitas, facetiae might have been used).

...

When one attempts to characterize the composite picture by a summative term, use must be made of adjectives or nouns, adverbs or verbs, as in description. In the use of such terms writers iffer. Cicero is inclined to use adjectives, such as acer and vehemens, non infans and disertus, so that he does not show every orator distinct from the rest. Still he has some good illustrations of the use of nouns, as in Brutus 89 elegantiam in Laelio, vim in Galba. . . . Still better is De Oratore 3.28 Suavitatem Isocrates, subtilitatem Lysias, acumen Hyperides, sonitum Aeschines, vim Demosthenes habuit. . . . Gravitatem Africanus, lenitatem Laelius, asperitatem Galba, profluens quiddam habuit Carbo et canorum. Rarely is literary movement indicated by a verb, as in Brutus 58 latrant enim iam quidam oratores, non locuntur. Compare Quintilian 2.9.12 a viro bono in rabulam latratoremque convertitur; 10.1.52 raro assurgit Hesiodus; 10.1.96 Horatius. . . insurgit aliquando. The best example of this, however, is in Fronto (page 114, in Naber's edition), which will be quoted later.

The source from which the characterizing material is taken is one of the most interesting features of the study. The Younger Pliny, Epp. 3.5.6, has in regard to the Historia Naturalis of his uncle the following: nec minus varium quam ipsa natura. This we can put into one word, varietas, well characterizing his assembled host of different facts. Looking elsewhere at the terms which have been used, we find that objects in nature, and man, either in his physical or in his psychical nature, are taken to shadow forth literary qualities.

The portrayal of Pindar as a downrushing mountain torrent in Horace, Odes 4.2.5-8, is well known:

Monte decurrens velut amnis, imbres
quem super notas aluere ripas,
fervet immensusque ruit profundo
Pindarus ore.

Compare with this the statement in Quintilian 10.1.61 velut quodam eloquentiae flumine. Far different is the view of Lucilius given by Horace, in Sermones 1.4.11 cum flueret lutulentus-a veritable Cumberland at high water mark. Quintilian (10.1.78) says of Lysias, puro tamen fonti quam magno flumini propior; in

10.1.62 he says of Stesichorus, redundat et effunditur. Compare with these the longer statement in 12.10.19 neque fontibus puris neque torrentibus turbidis sed lenibus stagnis similes habentur.

Taking the river as the central place, let us group around it the things that are seen representing the literary work of men.

The mighty trees that fringe the river's bank show us the meaning of the characterization of Ennius in 10.1.881: Ennium sicut sacros vetustate lucos adoremus, in quibus grandia et antiqua robora iam non tantam habent speciem quantam religionem. But there are also younger trees, which have quidam uber iucundus sucus, of which Cicero speaks, Brutus 36, sucus ille et sanguis incorruptus usque ad hanc aetatem oratorum fuit, in qua naturalis inesset, non fucatus nitor. Here we find a floridum (12.10.58) and a floridius genus (2.5.18), and here also efflorescat non multum inter se distantium tempore oratorum ingens proventus (12.10.11). In the overblooming class some put Cicero himself, for in their judgment he was nimiis floribus. But, in addition to the flowers, there are also the light and the shade, and we find it said in 9.1.25 that Cicero quidem omnia orationis lumina in hunc locum congerit; and, in 10.5.16, that intulisse eloquentiae lumen. Above the river is the gleaming sky. So a divine glimmer was seen in Theophrastus (10.1.83), but was lacking in Pacuvius. Menander, dark with excessive light, fulgore quodam suae claritatis tenebras obduxit (10.1.72); and above all is Pericles, a veritable Jove, quem fulminibus et caelesti fragori comparant comici (12.10.24), and further, in 12.10.65 hanc vim et celeritatem in Pericle miratur Eupolis, hanc fulminibus Aristophanes comparat, haec est vera dicendi facultas.

A few other terms from other external sources will be given. We find in Cicero Brutus 262 qui volent illa calamistris inurere. Similar is Orator 78: tum removebitur omnis insignis ornatus quasi margaritarum; ne calamistri quidem adhibebuntur. For the calamistri, 'curling irons', compare Arnobius 2.41: idcirco animas dedit . . . nec in formis erubescerent masculorum calamistris vibrare caesariem. In Tacitus, Dialogus 26.2, they are used to indicate the effeminacy of the style of Maecenas: malim hercule C. Gracchi impetum aut L. Crassi maturitatem quam calamistros Maecenatis aut tinnitus Gallionis. Compare Suetonius Augustus 86 exagitabat . . . in primis Maecenatem suum, cuius myrobrechis, ut ait, concinnos usque quaque persequitur et imitando per iocum irridet. Equally noticeable is the characterization in Cicero, Brutus 64 genere toto strigosior. The same adjective is used by Livy in 27.47.1 to describe the Roman horses as they appeared to the eyes of Hasdrubal just before the battle of the Metaurus.

Taking as our guide the proposition qualis homo ipse est, talis eius est oratio (Cicero, Tusc. Disp. 5.47), we

When the work is not named the reference is to Quintilian.

may expect to find man's mental work set forth in terms derived from his physical as well as his mental and moral traits. Cicero himself gives an indication of this (ibidem, § 46): Anticlea laudat Ulix pedes abluens, Lenitudo orationis, mollitudo corporis. Negative terms are not commonly used, for there is need of positive qualities to justify enrollment among the elect of literature. Still there are a few, as in 12.10.14 unde nunc quoque aridi et exsucci et exsangues. Hi sunt enim, qui suae imbecillitati sanitatis appellationem . . . obtendunt. Only a few positive terms need be given as examples: plurimum sanguinis atque nervorum (10.1.60); carnis tamen plus habet, minus lacertorum (10.1.77); non athletarum toros sed militum lacertos (10.1.33). The training places are also contrasted in 10.1.79 palaestrae quam pugnae magis accommodatus, just as declamations and orations are in 10.2.12 minus sanguinis ac virium declamationes habeant quam orationes. Notice in 10.1.2 solida atque robusta oratio. The transfer to the activities of man is easy, and the characterization in 10.1.102, immortalem illam Sallusti velocitatem, can be characterized by its own adjective.

Words expressing personal and mental traits are freely used; vis and gravitas are staple terms. In 1.7.35 nitidus is applied to Messalla without suggestion, however, of the conditions mentioned by Quintilian in 10.1.43 recens haec lascivia deliciaeque et omnia ad voluptatem multitudinis imperitae composita delectant. We take what is said of Cassius Severus in 10.1.117 as an indication that different taste-perceptions might be developed in the same writer: nam et ingeni plurimum est in eo et acerbitas mira et urbanitas eius summa.

The larger part of the characterizations are in the works of Cicero and Quintilian. The latter is the superior, as he had the benefit of all the critical scrutiny after the age of Cicero. The Brutus of Cicero, and the tenth book of Quintilian are portrait galleries; in Quintilian 10.1 we see what title had been won by the best writers of Greece and Rome. Yet other views are occasionally found elsewhere. Ennius used the expressions suaviloquenti ore Cethegus, flos delibatus populi and Suadae medulla (Cicero, Brutus 58-59). While it may smack too much of the modern to translate Suadae medulla by 'the spinal cord of Persuasion', these words certainly give as much force as the terms quoted by Cicero. We find a view of some of the predecessors of Horace in Horace, Epp. 2.1.55–59: aufert

Pacuvius docti famam senis, Accius alti,
dicitur Afrani toga convenisse Menandro,
Plautus ad exemplar Siculi properare Epicharmi,
vincere Caecilius gravitate, Terentius arte.

Ovid counted among his friends Marsus magnique Rabirius oris Iliacusque Macer sidereusque Pedo (see Ex Ponto 4.16.5-6). Martial, closing 11.80 with the line quid gaudiorum est Martialis et Baiae!, at least suggests that a picture of his work can be found in the countless dimplings of the sea at Baiae.

« السابقةمتابعة »