صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

How do your pupils translate?

Do they get the meaning from the words in their Latin order as did the Romans? Probably not, yet this is the only way in which they can come to a real appreciation of the spirit of the original.


By FRANK GARDNER Moore, Columbia University

is designed especially to train the pupil in right habits of translation. It is for use during the second year and contains Latin passages for translation, punctuated in an ingenious manner to suggest the viva vox. It teaches pupils 'to recognize phrases instead of words as the units of thought and to take them in the order of the original.

[blocks in formation]

Bishop, King, and Helm's Cicero (Morris Harness, Kirtland, and Williams's Cicero and Morgan's Latin Series)

Edited by J. REMSEN BISHOP, Ph.D., Principal, Eastern High School, Detroit; FREDERICK ALWIN KING, Ph.D., Instructor in Latin and Greek, Hughes High School, Cincinnati; and NATHAN WILBUR HELM, A.M., Principal, Evanston (Ill.) Academy of Northwestern University. Cloth, 12mo, with introduction, notes, and vocabulary.


HIS edition is issued in two forms: one containing the six orations most frequently required by Colleges for entrance-the Manilian Law, the four orations against Catiline, and Archias; the other giving, in addition, the Milo, Marcellus, Ligarius, and Murena, and selections from the Letters. The Murena is included because it exhibits Cicero's powers to a generous degree, and with the Milo affords material for rapid reading.

Such help as seemed to be required by the ordinary student is freely given. Grammatical principles are enunciated as far as possible, and references to the leading Latin grammars are given.

Edited by ALBERT HARKNESS, Ph.D., LL.D., late Pro-
fessor of Latin, Brown University, assisted by J. C.
KIRTLAND, Professor in Phillips Exeter Academy, and
G. A. WILLIAMS, Ph.D., Professor in Kalamazoo College.
Cloth, 12mo, with notes, vocabulary, and illustrations.


OR convenience this edition of Cicero has been published in two forms. The larger volume includes the four orations against Catiline, the oration for the Manilian Law, for the poet Archias, for Marcellus and for Ligarius, and the Fourteenth Philippic. The smaller volume contains the first six of these orations.

The notes are in keeping with modern methods of teaching, and have been prepared with a view to meeting the needs of both student and teacher. The vocabulary contains the primary meanings of words and such special meanings as occur in the orations. Particular attention is paid to etymology and to the significant elements of compound and derivative words.








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






Miss Jane Harrison, in The Year's Work in Classical Studies, for 1915, page 76, enthusiastically endorses a statement of Professor Grace Harriet Macurdy, of Vassar College, in The Classical Quarterly 8.213, that the

Odyssey differs from the Iliad not only in knowing Zeus less in his aspect of sky-that is aether-God, but in its lack of sensibility to all the phenomena of the heaven. 'Fire and hail, snow and vapours, wind and storm fulfilling his word'.

But there is no lack of sensibility to all the phenomena of the heaven in the Odyssey. That poem in fact abounds in perception of such phenomena. It mentions cloud or mist, wind, lightning, thunder, (or 'thunderer' sometimes), rain, snow, storm, frost, the Dawn, Sun, Moon, the stars, the firmament in its external sense (apart from specific mention of the stars) not less, I count, than 287 times1. Surely no lack of sensibility to the heaven!

The following figures are substantially accurate as to the number of times allusions to these various phenomena occur in the Odyssey. Cloud or mist, wind, lightning (both from clouds and from clear sky), thunder (or 'thunderer' sometimes), rain, tempest and clear sky are directly associated with Zeus about 56 times. The number of allusions is as follows: Zeus in relation to cloud or mist 16, wind 8, lightning 9, thunder (or 'thunderer' sometimes) 18, rain 3, tempest I, and clear sky 1. Directly associated with Poseidon we have cloud once, the wind twice and the storm once. The wind is directly associated with Athene at least four times, with 'some angry god' once (19.201), with 'the gods' once (4.520), with Circe twice, with Calypso once, and with Aeolus more than once. Atlas upholds the pillars separating earth and sky.

Again, cloud or mist, wind or storm (sometimes 'the spirits of the storm'), frost, dew, rain and snow, not associated with any god, are mentioned not less than 76 times. The Dawn (Eos, as goddess of the morn) is spoken of about 51 times, and each time is invested with ethereal beauty. What more gorgeous trait of heavenly phenomena than Homer's 'goldenthroned', 'rosy-fingered', 'fair-tressed' dawn!

This total, however, includes some repetition.

I exclude several references to the dawn, and a few allusions to the 'dawning'.

No. 14

The Sun, including Helios Hyperion as a luminary only, appears about 50 times, the Moon about 8 times, the stars or starry sky about II times. The firmament (I include in the term, for instance, 'wideheaven', 'sky', 'heaven', etc., all in an external sense and exclusive of specific references to the stars and to 'the starry sky') is mentioned about 20 times. Not included in any of the foregoing references is the fact that the Odyssey repeatedly names Zeus as the author of the days, the nights, and the seasons. Furthermore, the poem repeatedly alludes to 'the immortal night', 'the divine night', 'the sacred day'.

Homer's Zeus in the Odyssey stirs us, as only Homer can, with the dazzling flashes of the lightning, the peal upon peal of the thunder, the awful majesty of the storm.

The real prominence of sensibility to all the phenomena of the heaven in the Odyssey will be better appreciated if that poem is compared with the works of Sophocles. The Odyssey comprises 12,120 lines, the extant works of Sophocles about 10,341 lines (this, however, is not the exact relation between the two in the extent of matter, owing to the difference in spacing between epic and dramatic poetry). As we have noted, the total number of references in the former to the phenomena stated is at least 287, whereas the total number of such references in Sophocles does not exceed about 100! But Sophocles cannot be justly considered to be lacking in sensibility to the phenomena of the heaven; far from it.

Professor Macurdy correctly observes that there are more allusions to such phenomena in the Iliad than in the Odyssey, but she fails to appreciate that this difference, rightly viewed, implies no plurality of authors. It simply signifies a difference in theme and scope between the two poems.

Professor John A. Scott, with his characteristic penetration, in The Classical Journal 12.145-146, in reference to Professor Macurdy's statement unanswerably points out that the greater extent of open air life in the Iliad rendered observations of the heavens more natural and more frequent than in the Odyssey. Furthermore, I think, the Iliad was composed when the immortal poet's fire of imagination was all aglow, while the charm of the Odyssey was produced in the evening of his life.

The marvelous consistency in these numerous allusions to heavenly phenomena which characterizes

both the Homeric poems is but one of the many links in the invulnerable chain of proof of the artistic unity of each poem. This is true not only in the relation of each poem to itself but in its relation to the other. This artistic unity is the certain stamp of a single, supreme, genius.

Critical legerdemain with reference to Homer has had its day. Future scholarship in general will be astonished (as much of present scholarship already is) at the influence F. A. Wolf had on the learned world for rather more than a century.

What has become of the doctrines of the Peisistratean theory, Athenian Interpolations, Solar Myths, Expurgations, Traditions (to name but a few)? They have returned to the aether whence they came; see some comparatively recent and unanswerable criticisms along these lines, such as those of John A. Scott in Classical Philology 6.419 ff. and 9.395 ff., and in The Classical Journal 12.119 ff.; that of Andrew Lang in Appendix B to his book The World of Homer; also Dr. Leaf's Homer and History, 310, though of course Dr. Leaf is a Separatist (no sentiment not directly quoted or cited should be imputed to any modern authority referred to in this article).

That celebrated Homerist, Friedrich Blass, declares (Die Interpolationen in der Odyssee, 12, published in 1904) that the difficulty of conceiving a single Homer author of both poems decreases as our knowledge of antiquity increases. And much progress has been made since even Blass's time. The brilliant J. W. Mackail of Oxford (an Homeric Unitarian) says (Lectures on Greek Poetry, 3, published 1911):

During the last generation our knowledge of the ancient world, our methods of investigation, our armament of criticism, have all undergone immense expansion.

As is well known, the stream of reaction against Separatist Criticism flows broad and strong; recall Professor Shewan's highly impressive presentation of authorities in his article, Recent Homeric Literature, in Classical Philology 7.190 ff.

Why do not the Separatists refute Andrew Lang and Karl Rothe after a lapse of about ten years? Simply because those epoch-making authorities regarding Homer are irrefutable.

There will be generally restored that Homer whose personality was not doubted by the world's two greatest original thinkers, Plato and Aristotle. Their acceptance of that personality-thousands of years nearer the Homeric Age than our time-is a fact of immense import and one to which due weight has not been accorded by modern critics.

One of the three or four foremost of modern intellects, far ahead of his time, answered the Wolfian school nearly a hundred years ago; Goethe, whose genius penetrated the grey mists of Ages, in his final words regarding Homer observed:

Behind these poems there stands a splendid unitya single, lofty, creative mind.




In De Bello Gallico 3 Caesar describes the ships of the Veneti and the battle between 220 of these ships and the Roman fleet commanded by Decimus Brutus. The contest presented peculiar difficulties, for the enemy's ships were built of oak in such solid fashion that the beaks of the Roman galleys made but slight impression upon them'. Moreover, they stood so much higher out of water than the Roman ships that their sterns overtopped even the towers erected on the decks of their opponents. But as in the famous action between Gaius Duilius and the Carthaginians, Roman resourcefulness triumphed over adverse conditions. Since the enemy depended wholly upon their sailing powers3, the Romans made the sails the special object of their attack, cutting the ropes which held them up, and so bringing down sails and yards together.

There seems to be no doubt as to the result of the Romans' device, but exactly how it was accomplished is not perfectly clear from Caesar's language. He describes the manoeuver as follows (3.14.5-7):

Una erat magno usui res praeparata a nostris, falces praeacutae insertae adfixaeque longuriis, non absimili forma muralium falcium. His cum funes qui antemnas ad malos destinabant conprehensi adductique erant, navigio remis incitato praerumpebantur <prorumpebantur, ß>. Quibus abscisis <praecisis, B> antemnae necessario concidebant; ut, cum omnis Gallicis navibus spes in velis armamentisque consisteret, his ereptis omnis usus navium uno tempore eriperetur.

It is clear enough from this description that certain ropes were cut and that when they were severed the sails fell to the deck. It seems altogether probable that the ropes in question were the halyards.


is the view of Dr. T. Rice Holmes, who in Caesar's Conquest of Gaul2, 91, renders the passage as follows:

Then with sharp hooks fixed to the ends of long poles, the Romans caught hold of the halyards and pulled them taut; the rowers plied their oars with might and main; and the sudden strain snapped the ropes. Down fell the yards.

With this rendering I should agree, except that I believe that the ropes were cut rather than snapped by the sudden strain. This is indicated by Caesar's words, quibus abscisis (3.14.7), as well as by the sharpness of the falces, whether praeacutae be taken to mean 'very sharp' or 'with sharp edges'. On pages 236-237 Dr. Holmes discusses the question in some detail. He makes it perfectly evident that it would have been impossible for the Romans to cut the 'ropes which bound the yards to the masts' if these were the

Neque his nostrae rostro nocere poterant (tanta in his erat firmitudo), neque propter altitudinem facile telum adigebatur, et eadem de causa minus commode copulis continebantur (3.13.8). Turribus autem excitatis, tamen has altitudo puppium ex barbaris navibus superabant, ut neque ex inferiore loco satis commode tela adigi possent et missa ab Gallis gravius acciderent (3.14.4). in velis armamentisque

'cum omnis Gallicis navibus spes consisteret (3.14.7).

'See The Classical Journal 6.133 ff.

That the second meaning is possible, although in my opinion not probable, is shown by such uses as Vergil, Eclogues 7.12 praetexit arundine ripas Mincius; Aeneid 6.5 litora curvae praetexunt puppes.

ceruchi, but that they might have reached the halyards of the Gallic ships, if these were made fast to the gunwale, or near it, as was in all probability the case. In his edition of The Gallic War he gives further arguments in favor of the same opinion, which, considering the height of the enemy's ships, seems to me undoubtedly correct. Since only the yards fell, and not the masts, the ropes which were cut were not stays. They must have been either ceruchi or halyards, and under the circumstances could only have been the latter.

Nevertheless it is quite impossible for me to believe that one who knew anything at all about ships and their rigging, or even one who saw a ship for the first time, could by any possibility describe the halyards as funes qui antemnas ad malos destinabant. The purpose of the halyards is so obviously that of hoisting the sails, that even a man wholly unacquainted with the sea and with ships would hardly think of calling them 'the ropes which bound the yards to the masts'. I certainly cannot believe that Caesar, who, though perhaps not much of a sailor, had certainly travelled a good deal by sea, would have been guilty of such an inaccuracy.

How, then, is Caesar's account of the battle to be reconciled with the facts of the case? I think this may be done, if we bear in mind that Caesar did not take part in the contest, but witnessed it from the cliffs near by. His account was therefore based upon what he saw from a distance and somewhat imperfectly and on what he afterwards learned from Brutus. Caesar saw the sails of the enemy's ships fall, and either saw or learned from Brutus the contrivance with which the result was accomplished, but he was probably not near enough to see exactly what ropes were cut. He therefore drew his own conclusions at the time and probably never thought of making further inquiries. The result was obvious and important; the exact manner in which it was accomplished was unimportant. Now, if Brutus brought down the sails and yards of the ships of the Veneti by cutting the halyards, those ships must have been rigged like a modern cat-boat, except that the mast was probably not so far forward, while the sail was approximately square. Or, in other words, they were like the primitive Homeric ship on a large scale, the sail of which together with the yard was hoisted and lowered by the halyards. Such an arrangement is also made probable by the fact that their sails were of skins or of leather, for such sails would have been more readily handled in that way.

But in their size and weight the ships of the Veneti resembled the Roman naves onerariae, and these were rigged in quite a different fashion. The yard, although it might in some cases be lowered, was not ordinarily let down when the sails were furled, but the sails were brailed up upon it, as in the well known

'pelles pro velis alutaeque tenuiter confectae (3.13.6).

Ostia relief. Sometimes this was done from the deck by means of brail-ropes; at other times the sailors went aloft for the purpose, as we know both from the literature and the monuments".

In the ships of war, on the contrary, the mast could be lowered and often was lowered. The process of raising the mast is described in some detail by Lucan, 2.695 ff. Apparently the yard was first attached to the mast with the sail brailed up upon the yard. Then in this case, after the mast was raised, the sails were let down from the yard by the sailors, who went aloft for the purpose, not apparently because it could not have been done from the deck, but to avoid the noise made by the ropes and pulleys, since they were trying to escape the notice of the enemy. Conversely the yards were sent down before the mast was lowered: see Bellum Alexandrinum 45.3; Lucan, 3.45; Livy, 36.44.2; Cicero, Verr. 2.5.88.

Thus, when Caesar saw ropes being cut which brought down yards and sails together, he naturally thought of the ceruchi and described them accurately enough as funes qui antemnas ad malos destinabant, without particularly considering the difficulty of reaching ropes at the yards of ships of such great size. We may bear in mind in this connection the criticism which Asinius Pollio passed upon the Commentaries, according to Suetonius (Julius 56.4):

Pollio Asinius parum diligenter parumque integra veritate compositos putat, cum Caesar pleraque et quae per alios erant gesta temere crediderit, et quae per se vel consulto vel etiam memoria lapsus perperam ediderit, existimatque rescripturum et correcturum fuisse.

[blocks in formation]

The Dramas and Dramatic Dances of Non-European Races in Special Reference to the Origin of Greek Tragedy, with an Appendix on the Origin of Greek Comedy. By William Ridgeway. Cambridge: at the University Press (1915). Pp. xv+ 448. 92 Illustrations.

In 1910 Professor Ridgeway published a book entitled The Origin of Tragedy with Special Reference to the Greek Tragedians. In this he accepted Aristotle's statement that Greek tragedy originated with "the leaders of the dithyramb", but maintained that "certainly in Pindar's own time, and probably from its first rude beginnings, the dithyramb was used in commemoration of heroes" (page 6), never having been confined solely to the ritual of Dionysus. rejected, moreover, the canonical doctrine that satyric drama formed the intermediate stage in the develop


In the naves onerariae, in which oars were not used, except sometimes for special purposes such as turning the ship, the yard seems to have remained up permanently, the sails being brailed up upon it from the deck by means of brail-ropes, or by sailors who went aloft: compare Ovid. Metamorphoses 3.614 f. and the relief from Pompeii in Daremberg and Saglio. Dictionnaire des Antiquités, 1.705 f., 851, and Hill, Illustrations to School Classics, 399.

ment of tragedy from the dithyramb, and argued that tragedy and the satyr-play were independent. In his opinion, only the latter was Dionysiac in origin, being derived from licentious rites of fertilization such as still survive in the North Greece carnivals, while tragedy developed from "propitiatory rites performed at the tombs of heroes" like Adrastus of Sicyon (compare Herodotus 5.67). Evidently anticipating that not many classical scholars would be ready to abandon the Dionysiac origin of tragedy, Mr. Ridgeway tried to forestall this eventuality by saying (93)

that, as Dionysus himself had almost certainly once been only a Thracian hero, even if it were true that Tragedy had risen from his cult, its real ultimate origin would still be in the worship of the dead.

This argument reappears on pages 5 f. of the present work; and it is interesting to note, in passing, that in order to establish the status of Dionysus as a hero Mr. Ridgeway has to resort to so late an authority as Plutarch. Under less favorable circumstances he is not unaware what criticism to pass upon such a procedure (see below). Inasmuch as so unreliable an argument could afford but scant security to Mr. Ridgeway's drifting craft, he dropped a final anchor to windward in Chapter III. This was entitled Primitive Dramas amongst Asiatic Peoples, and sought to establish a certain plausibility for ancestor worship as the origin of Greek tragedy by attempting to prove that Asiatic drama likewise sprang from the same


The present volume is an amplification of this chapter in the earlier work and ought frankly to be recognized as a last desperate effort to keep a floundering hypothesis afloat. The first of its eleven sections serves as an Introduction and is devoted to refuting recent theories as to the origin of Greek drama, especially those propounded by Miss Jane Harrison, Professor Gilbert Murray, Mr. F. M. Cornford, and others belonging to what Mr. Pickard-Cambridge has dubbed "the confraternity of the Eniautos-Daimon”. In the main, these writers have turned their attention to dramatic origins only since the appearance of Mr. Ridgeway's earlier work, and their refutation was apparently another animating motive for expanding it. The author's wit and penchant for debate make this section piquant reading. Especially amusing is the following reductio ad absurdum (60 f.):

But a moment's reflection will convince the reader that the features which Professor Murray takes as characteristic of this ancient ritual drama of the death and rebirth of the Year can be found not only at any moment in human life, but in the whole realm of nature. For example, on a garden lawn is a happy family, two old sparrows feeding their young; enter the lady's favourite cat; she pounces on a baby sparrow (Peripeteia), a short struggle (Agon), speedy death (Pathos), and the cat retires rending her victim (Sparagmos). All under the eyes of little Tommy, who (Messenger) runs in to tell his mother what the naughty cat has

done; meantime the parent sparrows are expressing their grief (Threnos) in unmistakable terms; the lady comes forth and discovers (Anagnorisis) the cat (Theophany) returning (possibly with an eye to another of the brood), her former victim lodged comfortably within, the two now in process of forming one body, if not one personality.

Sections II to X take up in geographical order the "dramas and dramatic dances" of nine regions ranging from the Near East to Japan. The uniform object is to prove that Hassan and Hussein (the grandsons of Muhammad), Adonis, Attis, Antinous, Osiris, Rama, the thirty-seven Nats of Burma, and countless others whose sorrows or achievements have been commemorated or venerated throughout these countries were not Vegetation spirits but historical characters, and that "dramatic" ceremonies in honor of their shades were the immediate source of the native drama in each case. So far as the argument is here directed against the Vegetationists, the reviewer has little to say; the sight of one anthropologist attempting to expose the fallacies and extravagances of the others is not likely to cause a mere classicist much regret. But, when Mr. Ridgeway endeavors to frame a constructive hypothesis, all who have regard for the nature of evidence must suffer pangs of logical indigestion. To begin with, the arguments are built after the ex pede Herculem principle; if one link in the chain of evidence is present, the whole case is at once acclaimed as if proved beyond dispute. It is but of a piece with this to say that, except where they are needed to demolish his opponents, Mr. Ridgeway seems constitutionally incapable of drawing distinctions. Thus, on page 154 he is quick to differentiate between "ritual dialogue" and "dramatic ritual", because it militates against his adversaries to do so. But the differences between mourning for the departed, respecting their memories, commemorating their exploits by quasi-pageants, coercing their powers by sympathetic magic, and genuine ancestor worship apparently lie beyond his ken. Still worse is the loose way in which the word "dramatic" is employed. The ceremonies are rare indeed, especially if they can in any way be brought into connection with ancestor worship, which Mr. Ridgeway does not deem worthy of being characterized by this epithet.

Section XI is devoted to more primitive races of the present day. Mr. Ridgeway concludes (375) that the initiatory ceremonies of the Australian bushmen, the natives of Polynesia, the African aborigines, the Indians of North and South America, etc., upon which the partisans of the Eniautos-Daimon have laid such stress

have no prior or separate existence, but are mere later parasitic growths upon the primary and primitive belief in the existence of departed spirits, in whose honor the dramatic rites in every case are held.

This conclusion exemplifies the fundamental tenet of the present volume: in our author's opinion, "Vege

« السابقةمتابعة »