صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني



The sort of Latin that is really worth while and that makes for
more rapid progress in succeeding years.

VOCABULARY-It provides a definite scheme for the acquisition of vocabulary;
a limited vocabulary, used constantly and systematically reviewed; ninety-five
percent of the words Caesarian and all of common occurrence in classical Latin.
CONSTRUCTIONS-Every construction is a Caesar construction. The
grammar is developed logically, closely related inflections or constructions being
treated in successive lessons. The pupils gain a genuine command of Latin

During the past school year D'Ooge's Latin for Beginners was used in more than 3,000 Schools, including the High Schools in 38 of the one hundred largest cities of the United States. The nearest competing text of any other publisher was used in only 21 of the one hundred largest cities.


New York

A Story in English Which
Makes the Pupil Appreciate Caesar

Whitehead's Standard Bearer

By A. C. WHITEHEAD, Instructor in Latin, Boys' High School, Atlanta, Ga.

This interesting, well-written story tells about Roman army life in the time of Caesar in such a realistic manner that it a "ords an exceptional introduction to the reading of the Commentaries in Latin. The scenes are laid in Northern Italy, Gaul, Britain, Germany, and Rome.

The average pupil reads his Caesar as unrelated daily assignments, without any real idea as to the thread of the narrative, or any comprehensive understanding of Caesar's ampaigns, and the conditions of tho e times. He looks upon those events as essentially prehistoric; and it never occurs to him that many of Caesar's campaigns have been repeated very closely in the present Great European war. As a simple remedy for this point of view Mr. Whitehead's story is very effective.

[blocks in formation]

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 VOL. XI


(Concluded from page 58)

Next Dr. Dutton calls attention (20) to Vergil's quick sympathy for other than human creatures. Witness his picture of the wounded pet stag (Aeneid 7.500-503). "Again and again he compares human beings in desperate plight to animals in hopeless distress. . . ." Twice Vergil compares the falling of a youth in death to the dying of a flower. In Aeneid 9.435-437 we have:

purpureus veluti cum flos succisus aratro languescit moriens, lassove papavera collo demisere caput pluvia cum forte gravantur. Here, very probably, as Dr. Dutton says, Vergil was thinking of Catullus 11.22 and of Iliad 8.306-308. The other passage is Aeneid 11.67-71:

Hic iuvenem agresti sublimen stramine ponunt, qualem virgineo demessum pollice florem seu mollis violae seu languentis hyacinthi, cui neque fulgor adhuc nec dum sua forma recessit, non iam mater alit tellus virisque ministrat. This comparison seems to be Vergil's own.

The great tenderness shown in these comparisons of the two youths whom, next to Iulus, Aeneas must most have loved in this Latin war, nearest akin to the nature of Aeneas,-and to Vergil's own,- illustrates the poet's interest in young men.


This interest in young men is shown again in Vergil's description of the game of Troy (Aeneid 5.545-603): . . . the spirited detail of Vergil's account shows that he must himself have taken delight watching the eager, excited young lads in their equestrian maneuvres. Nor could he have been so successful in his memorial verses to the young Marcellus had he not felt keenly the tragedy of the blighted promise of youth, and of that youth whom Rome loved, and upon whom the hopes of his mother and of Augustus his uncle were centered.

Other passages pertinent here are Aeneid 4.140 ff., 5.672, 7.497, 9.310-313, 9.672 ff.

Dr. Dutton then discusses (21-22) other passages in which Vergil portrays delicately and effectively other relationships both within and without the family (Aeneid 2.510 ff., 723, 3.489-491, 6.694, 5.766, 8.155, 10.392, 11.443-444).

Dr. Dutton (24-25) calls attention to three passages in which Vergil gives us glimpses of quiet domestic life: Georgics 1.291-296, 2.523-531, Aeneid 8.407413. Here, in the Eclogues, and in the Georgics everywhere else we breathe the atmosphere of Vergil's

No. 9

country home. See especially Aeneid 2.626 ff., 4.441, 6.311, 6.453, 10.97-99, 415-419, 12.521 f. For his references to animals and to birds compare 11.456, 2.355, 9.59, 11.809, 9.339, 9.793, 12.749, 10.707, 12.4, 10.454, 4.68, 9.551, 563, 12.103, 12.715, 2.379, 471, 5.88, 273, 11.751; and 1.397, 2.515, 4.254, 7.699 ff., 9.563, 10.264, 11.456, 721, 751, 12.473. Note especially this passage (26):

Vergil's fondness for birds is shown in two brief passages which only a bird lover would have conceived: As Aeneas sails up the Tiber (Aen. 7.32-34), "around and above are varied birds which haunt the banks and the bed of the river lulling the air with their song and flitting about in the groves", and Evander (Aen. 8.455, 456) is aroused from sleep in his humble dwelling by "the fair light and the morning songs of birds beneath his roof".

Vergil's interest in rivers, especially his home river, the Mincius, is next considered. Dr. Dutton reminds us that Vergil must often have seen the Mincius in flood, working damage to the surrounding land. As she notes, this thought gives special point to his allusions to rivers in flood: see Aeneid 2.304, 496, 10.603, 11.297, 12.503, Georgics 1.332-334. In Eclogues 1.48, 7.12, 9.28-29, and Georgics 2.199 Vergil speaks of the Mincius in quieter mood. The ship that bears the five hundred Etruscans whom Ocnus leads from Mantua against Mezentius is called Mincius; the figure-head of the ship represents the river. We may recall here Vergil's allusions to the amoenus fluvius, the Tiber: Aeneid 7.29-36, 151, 8.31, 62-65, 72, 73-78, 86-89, 95, 96, 330-332, 10.421-423, etc. Compare now Professor Warner's paper, Epithets of the Tiber in Roman Poets, THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 11.52-54.

Next comes a very interesting discussion (27-29) of the influence on Vergil of the renewed interest in art, of which he saw examples everywhere in Rome. Passages in point here are his description of the temple of Juno in Carthage, and of Daedalus's temple to Apollo at Cumae. So too is the passage describing the shield of Turnus (Aeneid 7.789-792), and, above all, that describing the shield of Aeneas (8.627-731). Mr. A. S. Murray (History of Greek Sculpture, Chapter 3)

thinks that Vergil had throughout obtained very definite suggestions from actual works of art for the designs upon the shield, instancing particularly the description of the wolf (630-634), of Augustus at

Actium (680, 681), and of the Nile (711-713). We observe, too, the devices on the beak of Aeneas' ship (10.166 ff.), and the belt of Pallas (10.496-499), upon which the fatal wedding night of the Danaids is pictured in gold. I have never seen it noted. but I believe that this also was suggested to Aeneas by the recently built temple of Apollo on the Palatine of which the statues of Danaus and his fifty daughters formed one of the chief decorations.

Other passages that may be noted in this connection are 10.134-138, 6.847-848, 7.572-573; these involve separate references to objects of art.

It is clear, then, that, in the brief compass of thirty pages, Dr. Dutton has put together, evidently in the main from personal reading of the great poet, a deal of material of interest to the lover of Vergil. We may close this imperfect abstract of her paper by calling attention, as she does (29), to two recent discussions of Vergil, perhaps not as well known as they ought to be. The first is Lecture XVIII, pages 403-429, of the book by W. Warde Fowler, The Religious Experience of the Roman People (Macmillan, 1911); the chapter deals with Religious Feeling in Virgil. The other is the paper entitled Vergil, by H. W. Garrod, which occupies pages 146-166 of the volume entitled English Literature and the Classics (Oxford, 1912). For a review of the latter book, by Professor Van Hook, see THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 8.125-127; for a review of the former book, by Professor C. H. Moore, see THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 5.221223. To these I may add T. F. Royds, The Beasts, Birds, and Bees of Virgil (B. H. Blackwell, Oxford, 1914); W. Warde Fowler, "Virgil's Gathering of the Clans", Being Observations on Aeneid VII. 601-817 (Blackwell, Oxford; Longmans, Green and Co., New York, 1916); R. S. Conway, The Youth of Vergil (Longmans, New York, 1917); and The Boy Ascanius, by H. O. Ryder, THE CLASSICAL WEEKLY 10.210-214.

C. K.


To those of us who studied the history of our own country in College some fifteen or twenty years ago, the American histories of the last few years seem to speak a new language. Campaigns and heroic exploits, dominant personalities and state papers are yielding space to accounts of Salem importers, records of trade-rivalry, pressure of brewers and farmers upon legislatures and conventions, in fact to a study of the material interests of shippers and producers, who are assumed to be the powers that controlled our long-worshipped statesmen and generals. This tendency, which now permeates all modern history, quickly reacted of course upon the study of ancient history, and the Economic Interpretation has produced not only the excellent special studies

This paper was read at the Tenth Annual meeting of The Classical Association of the Atlantic States, held at the Central High School, Philadelphia, April 15, 1916.

of Francotte, Eduard Meyer and their followers, but has, as we all know, furnished the point of view in the works of Ferrero, Cornford, and a host of others. The contention of this school is based upon general psychological grounds which are on the whole sound. In brief, they assume that the strongest and most enduring instinct, the will to live, has always driven the human being to get for his own use, by foul means if not by fair, the necessities of life, that, since he acquired the faculty of calculating for the future, he has not only appropriated for immediate needs. but has also hoarded against possible exigencies, that the struggle for existence has always been so exacting that he occupies most of his waking hours in satisfying the acquisitive instinct, and that, accordingly, when he acquires social or political power, he is most likely to employ that power for economic ends. It seems to follow that political and social changes are chiefly manifestations and effects of the manoeuvres of this instinct; that consequently a historian should always delve below the political phenomena to the question cui bono (economico), and should study first of all the economic needs and aspirations of the social groups, assuming that these are the primary causes of social and political movements. I believe that the main contention has a solid basis in fact, and that, though there is always a chance for a slip at any link in the chain of the argument, there have been epochs in some national histories when every link has proved sound. We must admit in any case that the economic factor is at all times likely to be not merely one out of a dozen plausible agents of importance in history, but rather one of the very few dominant forces. There are periods in both Greek and Roman history when purely economic causes mastered the then ruling party and employed the government to their own ends. However, the student of Roman history-and I shall here confine myself to that-finds after a careful attempt to apply this general view of human nature that it somehow fails to work in a surprisingly large number of crises. It is obviously impossible to review the evidence here; to save space I beg permission to refer to an attempt at explaining the causes of Rome's international conflicts which I made some time ago2. There, rightly or wrongly, I found myself forced to the conclusion that the economic factor stood out predominantly at only a few points. This conclusion, unexpected as it was, has suggested the need of examining further into Roman conditions for a fuller explanation of the fact.

Let us begin with industrial conditions, where economic pressure upon politics is to-day very patent. The laboring man now exerts a strong influence in governmental affairs. In America, for instance, his class is well organized and commands a powerful vote. No man who has strongly antagonized the group is

"Roman Imperialism (1914).

ever nominated as a presidential candidate by either party. In the cities, Congressional candidates must take pains to explain their policies to the labor vote. Whether promising to maintain the full dinner pail or to lower the cost of living, both platforms must contain satisfactory planks. All bills dealing with revenue, immigration, 'preparedness', corporations, what not, are scrutinized by the representatives of labor. In a word, domestic affairs and foreign relations are to no small extent controlled by the working man, and it is naturally the economic aspect of each question that most deeply concerns the man who has received least of the world's goods. But at Rome the laboring man had little power. He was either a slave whose voice was never heard, or a client who, considering his immediate advantage, voted as his patron told him. Even if he chose to vote independently his ballot was usually counted in one of the four city wards with those of ex-slave offspring. He could not organize to elevate his economic position, since slave wages and slave conditions of life determined his own. He got only what the ruling powers saw fit to give him, and that was usually charity. It is apparent, then, that in this instance one link of the economic argument proves weak, not because the laboring man did not need and desire material benefits, but because he had no way of exerting effective pressure upon the government to get them. In this case at least the possible economic pressure was neutralized by an adequate 'shock-absorber'.

When we turn from the employees to the employer, a similar difference between Roman and American conditions is disclosed. Our business men hold a position of esteem that the world has never before accorded to men of business. The banker, the manufacturer, and the merchant are the first to be heard in the legislatures. They organize, retain counsel to draw up bills and to secure their passage. What with our economic theories which teach us to measure the worth of civilization in terms of prosperity and our democratic abandonment of the old class distinctions which permits a new aristocracy of wealth to arise and impose the standards of the dollar mark, we yield as a matter of course to the claims of this class. We consider a business administration as the greatest of boons, we look upon the banker as the leading citizen, we consult the manufacturer of perambulators on questions of education and world peace. Now, obviously, this has not always been so, despite the economists' axiom that human nature has always been the same. It is not so long ago that the business man carried the apologetic air of a parvenu with him when he appeared in the exclusive circles of European courts. So it was at Rome. There the nobles spoke the words negotiator and mercator with much the same curl of the lip as a somewhat old-fashioned wife of a Prussian Oberst would expectorate the word Kaufmannskreise to-day. So far was the business man from being a leading citizen at

Rome that even Cicero, who needed him for his concordia ordinum, found it possible to discuss whether he was quite respectable. Cicero concluded that he was! But Cicero was equally sure that any man who went to the provinces on a business tour was beneath contempt: a worthy citizen could hardly leave the center of civilization for mere financial reasons. If wealth had been able to gain for men social and political prestige at Rome, the nobility could not have excluded the capitalists from the Senate as they did till Caesar's day. The novus homo seldom made his way to the consulship, and, when the miracle was performed, it was not through financial power but through forensic ability or military prowess. The Roman Republican government was in fact blind to the political value of a soundly based industry and commerce, and failed to appreciate the relatively few Romans of ability who engaged in these pursuits. It might have devised tariffs and subsidies in aid of those who were facing foreign competition, but it did not. A lobby of manufacturers and shippers in the Roman Senate is quite inconceivable to one who knows Roman society and manners intimately. There was economic conflict enough, but the pressure was seldom exerted through political channels: apparently in this case it was the social caste-system that acted as a shock-absorber. To be sure the man of wealth gained some recognition in a limited field, that is, when the civil service needed him. Since the Roman Republic with its frequent changes of executives could not build up permanent bureaus and boards for revenue collecting and public works, it needed the capitalist to carry the contracts, and for this service it was willing to grant him a title, a ring, and a seat in the theater. Consequently the equites became a well organized political influence in the last century of the Republic, and latterday expansion was in some measure attributable to this class; Pompey's commission to the Eastern provinces furnishes an excellent instance of economic causes working through political machinery. But it is interesting to note that the particular class operative in this instance had been able to gain their social, position through semipolitical service to the state, and that this position was definitely conceived of as quite inferior to that of the ruling nobility.

The agricultural class on the other hand was very powerful during most of the Republic. The farmers and land owners were probably in control of all the rural tribes, and their interests often coincided with those of the senators, who usually owned large tracts of land. It is rather surprising therefore that we never hear of laws to protect3 Roman farm produce, and that the State itself imported Sicilian grain for distribution, to the detriment of the native farmer. However, even if we cannot find in Roman legislation any traces of positive measures in favor of the farmers,

See Roman Imperialism, Chapter XVI.

we may perhaps attribute to their predominance the apathy of the government to industrial and commercial needs, an unenlightened revenue system, a cumbersome financial policy, and the exclusion of the intricate problems that generally arise from economic conflicts.

To be sure many historians believe that the early wars in Italy were due to the farmers' greed for more land. This seems not at all unreasonable, even if we recall that early Roman custom disallowed aggressive wars-for greed has frequently enough found its way through the most sacred of customs. In the absence of all proof, however, we can only say that the reasonableness of the economic interpretation is not an adequate substitute for facts. Militating against the hypothesis is the fact that Rome did not expropriate much land during the conquest, and that Roman citizens constituted only a part of the colonists to whom conquered land was allotted. The allies shared largely in the so-called Latin colonies. It would seem that the citizen body never was much overcrowded, a fact readily explained by the wastage of wars, the pestilences of the southern climate, and the time-honored custom of expositio.

It has been suggested also that the farmers in the tribal assembly entered into the First Punic War with the purpose of relieving themselves of the landtax by winning the tribute-paying province of Sicily; but if so, they must have been far-sighted enough to know that the new tribute would come to Rome in the form of wheat which would glut their best market. Indeed, if the farmers had weighed these questions at all, it seems likely that those who depended upon the Roman market must have opposed the war, while the more distant ones may have found a balance of advantages in favor of conquests. And this will illustrate our chief difficulty in reaching a satisfactory explanation for a putative common action on the part of the farmers. Being without ready means of transportation, they had to consider the advantages of the market nearest at hand, and thus this group readily split into various diverse factions, each moved by different interests. Perhaps this is why we can point to so little positive legislation that clearly bears the granger stamp. The most positive influence of the landed class seems to me to show itself early in a desire for safety on the border and consequently well ordered relations between tribes. As has often been said, the prospering farmer in the open plains had all to lose and nothing to gain from a state of borderbrigandage, so that he became a convert to fetial rules and faith in the sacredness of vested interests. Then he organized his military machine and struck back at the raiders till he converted them to his viewsnot forgetting to exact an indemnity, and, in special cases, applying the doctrine of dreadfulness. If this interpretation is correct, the economic factor was of great importance in shaping the Latin federation, but that does not imply the presence of a positive economic pressure.

The nobility which directed Rome's policies could of course usually express their desires in action, and their economic interests, which were fairly uniform, were probably not neglected. We have seen that they paid far too little heed to the needs of industry and commerce on the one hand, and of the laboring classes on the other. To their own desires they were naturally not so heedless, though we need not assume that these desires were always of a material nature. The average Roman noble was rather hard and practical, prudently calculating, not very sentimental, but on the whole fairly just. Material interests were very important to him, for he must conserve his property qualifications or fall below his class. For this purpose he needed to have his lands well managed, to receive legacies from his clients, to rule a province which should net him more than his expenses; sometimes he manoeuvered to lead his army where there was booty to be gotten. But the motives that might influence a senator were many and various. Now, the economic interpreter holds that, since man is engaged in acquiring property most of his waking hours, he naturally employs to the same end what political power he may have. If we are to apply this test to the Roman senator, we need to keep in mind that most of the influences about him were not of an economic nature. He was not a business man and he spent very little of his time with his own material concerns. What is more, he was not obsessed with the doctrines of Adam Smith. Problems of state and judicial or legal service usually engaged his attention, so that his daily concerns naturally kept him less occupied with the economic viewpoint than is true of men we know.

Since the economist takes cognizance of environment, we may consider how this affected the Roman senator. From boyhood he lived in the presence of the imagines of his ancestors. Some of them had died on the battle field, some had triumphed, some bore names that were inscribed upon laws, and treaties, and dedicated temples. There were among them consuls, judges, orators, governors of provinces-there were no captains of industry. They had won the memoriam sempiternam that Roman history held before man as his highest goal. Could the son of a noble pass daily before those statues and not be kindled with a yearning for gloria? Nullam enim virtus aliam mercedem laborum periculorumque desiderat praeter hanc laudis et gloriae-a sentence that had not yet lost its meaning even in the dark days of civil strife that made the best of men cynical. No people has ever more treasured the glories and the virtues of ancestors. The nobles themselves wrote the nation's history: Fabius, Cincius, Postumius, Cato, Piso, Fannius, Sempronius, and a score of others. They embodied their deep respect for brave deeds in their institutions: the laudatio funebris, the triumphal arch, the honorary dedications, the heroic burial, the pomp of triumph, and all the rest. To catch the spirit that entered these men one must read Vergil's

« السابقةمتابعة »