صور الصفحة
النشر الإلكتروني

In the second place, it is hardly possible that a character-indication could become a vocative at a time when manuscripts were reproduced by scribes copying independently, and directly from a manuscript, the practice in the Middle Ages. These writers would not have mistaken for a vocative the Greek letters which appear at the head of each scene and are used throughout to indicate the speakers. In ancient times, however, it appears that manuscripts were reproduced in numbers by several slaves who wrote simultaneously, from the dictation of a single reader: see Birt, Kritik und Hermeneutik nebst Abriss des Antiken Buchwesens, 309 (Müller's Handbuch 1.3 [19131). If the reader simply mentioned the speaker's name before each speech, a scribe might readily understand it as a vocative and consequently write a hypermetric line, in this case, nam is postquam excessit ex ephebis, Sosia, nam antea. The second step in arriving at the present form of the text took place when a reader or a scribe, realizing that the word Sosia finished a metrical line, mistook the marginal note liberius vivendi, etc., in some annotated and hence superior copy as part of a line, which a former scribe had omitted, before nam. From such a manuscript arose the archetype of our present manuscripts and Donatus's text.

There are several passages in manuscripts of Plautus in which editors have recognized the possibility of confusion between text and character-indication. In some instances, it is believed, a character-indication has become a vocative. Conversely, a vocative has been used as character-indication. Occasionally also, when a character speaks immediately after he is addressed, a scribe has viewed the repetition of the name, first a vocative, then a character-indication, as a mistake on the part of the reader and has written it but once.

A character-indication has clearly become a vocative in Pseudolus 61. This verse in all manuscripts, with the exception of the Ambrosian Palimpsest, in which the underlined word is omitted, appears as follows:

PS. Eheu. CA. Neque intus mummus ullus est, Pseudole. PS. Eheu.

Since this reading is common to all the inferior manuscripts, it evidently dates from the archetype of all. Here, precisely as in Andria 51, a copyist understood as a vocative, Pseudole, the Pseudolus which the dictator intended to indicate a new speaker (the difference in the final syllable is accounted for by the fact that it was unaccented and was probably slurred in pronunciation). A later scribe, realizing that Eheu is really spoken by Pseudolus, supplied the necessary character-indication. Since the vocative destroys the meter and is not given in A, it is universally omitted by modern editors without reference to the cause of its occurrence in the text.

Lines 1065-1066 of the same play are given thus in all manuscripts:

BA. O fortunate, cedo fortunatam manum,
Simo. SI. Quid est? BA. Iam--SI. Quid iam?
BA. Nihil est quod metuas. SI. Quid est?
The use of a vocative at the end of a speech but at the

beginning of a new line is unusual. Again, although a proceleusmatic occurs occasionally, especially in the first foot, the line reads more smoothly if the word Simo is omitted. Bentley did omit the name. Ussing (4.275) justifies the omission by the statement that the Simo of the manuscripts has arisen from a characterindication.

Goetz, in Symbola Critica ad Priores Plauti Fabulas, 105, in Analecta Plautina 1, has emended Epidicus 24 by assuming that the nota personae of A resulted from a misunderstanding of a vocative. He assigns the line to a single speaker, and reads:

EP. Te volo

percontari, Thesprio, operam da! opera reddetur tibi. This text has been accepted in general by subsequent editors, since it satisfies the meter.

A lacuna in Miles 1345 has been filled by Ritschl on the supposition that a vocative has been omitted. The manuscript reading gives the passage 1343–1345 in two lines, which Acidalius arranged as three, with two omissions, thus:

Quom abs te abeam. PY. Fer animo aequo. PA. Scio ego quid doleat mihi.

PH. Sed quid hoc? Quae res? quid video? lux, salve!

PL. Iam resipiçti? PH. obsecro.

Ritschl's suggestion that a vocative Philocomasium has fallen out after resipisti is accepted by Ribbeck, Rheinisches Museum 29.22, Schenkl, Studia Plautina, 87, and others. Schenkl, moreover, employing the same principle to avoid the lacuna, at the end of 1344 supplies the vocative, Pleusicles, in the speech of Philocomasium before the reply of her lover, whose name furnishes the required metrical value. The passage would then read:

Quom abs te abeam. PY. Fer animo aequo. PA.
Scio ego quid doleat mihi.
PH. Sed quid hoc?
salve, Pleusicles.


Quae res? Quid video? lux,

Iam resipisti, Philocomasium? PH. obsecro

In Mostellaria 804, Schoell reads: TH. Do tibi ego operam. TR. Senex illic est. Em tibi adduxi hominem, <Simo>. This suggestion has been accepted by some editors. C. W. F. Mueller, Plautinische Prosodie, 20, discarding the usual reading of Stichus 330, that of Acidalius, supplies the name Pinacium at the end of the line before the boy begins to speak. The line is then an octonarius.

PA. Quisnam hic loquitur tam prope nos? GE. Pinacium. PA. Ubi is est? Pinacium. Most editors omit the last word. Again in the same play, under similar conditions, the vocative, Sangarine, 668, is offered by Ritschl to fill the verse:

ST. Sequere ergo hac me intro, <Sangarine.> SG. Ego vero sequor.

Lindsay accepts this emendation. Others regard the line together with the following verses as decidedly corrupt.

The inferior manuscripts of the Epidicus, except B, present line 553 thus:

PER. Fabulata's. PH. Mira memoras. PE. Em istuc rectius.

B has the letters Mul, with a sign of abbreviation before hem. Bothe apud Goetz, Analecta Plautina, 105, Note, conjectured that this represented a character-indication which has resulted from the misreading of a vocative. Studemund, Titi Macci Plauti Fabularum Reliquiae Ambrosianae, suggested that the lacuna in A might be filled by the name, which is that of the next speaker, thus:

[blocks in formation]

There may possibly be other difficult passages in the text of Plautus and Terence which might be satisfactorily emended by one who kept this source of corruption in view. From a consideration of the lines cited, it at least seems quite probable that such confusion between text and character-indication in the work of the dramatic poets did occur at an early period. On the other hand an error which could arise from a misunderstanding of a line as heard from dictation furnishes added weight to the view generally accepted by students of palaeography that manuscripts were reproduced by dictation in the classical period.

[blocks in formation]

Even in jokes there is little new under the sun. The famous fish story of antiquity is revived at least once every year in our daily press. Some marvellous details may be added, but we recognize Polycrates of Samos and his ring none the less.

It is, however, rather amazing to discover a piece of Aristophanic satire in an American novel of 1817. The Yankee Traveller, or The Adventures of Hector Wigler, is a cross between a satire upon contemporary scholarship, or rather the American Philosophical Society and the politics of the period on the one side, and a romance of roguery on the other1.

A member of the American Philosophical Society is thus satirized:

He has accounted for the cause of that wonderful agility in fleas, in five volumes, octavo, in which learned and useful work he has ascertained that the flea will leap five thousand times its length and the ninety-ninth part of a barley-corn over.

Admirers of Aristophanes will remember with a smile a similar satire upon contemporary scholarship or the Athenian Philosophical Society; compare Clouds 143 ff. (in Rogers's translation):

'Twas Socrates was asking Chaerephon
How many feet of its own a flea could jump.
How did he measure this? Most cleverly.

He warmed some wax and then he caught the flea

'Bradsher, Some Aspects of the Early American Novel, The Texas Review 3.255.

And dipped its feet into the wax he'd melted: Then let it cool, and there were Persian slippers! These he took off, and so he found the distance. Did the anonymous author of The Yankee Traveller know Aristophanes? Perhaps he did. More likely he knew Samuel Butler's satirical description of the astrologer, William Lilly, and the inaccurate, though This slavish, use of this passage from the Clouds. contemporary "philosopher" is also said to have ascertained

How many scores a flea will jump,
Of his own length from head to rump,
Which Socrates and Chaerephon

In vain assayed so long agone.

It is quite possible that the author had no other source for his joke than his native Yankee wit. But even so it is noteworthy that the Attic Salt has lost none of its savor.

[blocks in formation]

Latin Reader. Nature Study and Easy Stories for Sight Reading During the First Year in Latin. By A. B. Reynolds. New York: D. C. Heath and Company (1918). Pp. xxiv +349. $1.20. This is one of the most interesting and suggestive books for First Year Latin that have appeared in recent years. The author is original and courageous, and gives many indications that he is an inspiring teachera teacher whose energetic and vigorous methods will produce good results with any book, but most of all with his own. Like all experienced teachers, Mr. Reynolds has learned that 'well begun is half done', and has observed that learners who have a good, inspiring, first year in Latin under a competent, sympathetic, teacher are interested in Latin throughout their student days, and are likely of their own volition to continue their Latin studies to reasonable fruition rather than to faint by the wayside.

The book is based on the reasonable theory that the way to learn to read is to read, and to read something that is interesting to the reader-interesting in its matter rather than in its grammar only. Therefore Mr. Reynolds has introduced ideas and words from writers other than Caesar in addition to the usual words from that author. From the publishers' point of view, the book will be a greater or less success according to the decision of the question whether Caesar is to continue to be the only author read in Second Year Latin. To a mature mind Caesar is one of the most interesting of Latin writers-never more so than since August, 1914. But Caesar is also the grave-yard of Latin pupils. In spite of the Great War, and the wealth of illustrative parallels, but few boys can maintain their interest in Caesar for a whole year; and among girls ninety per cent. never have any genuine interest in Caesar, in spite of their academic docility. So that, 2See Hudibras, II, III, 311-314.

sooner or later, (if Latin is to remain), Caesar will have to go as Second Year reading. Pending the accomplishing of this desirable change teachers will recoil from forcing pupils to memorize during the first year words that do not occur in Second Year Latin, and perhaps not in Third or Fourth. Successful First Year books of to-day are successful because they prepare for Caesar only. When the reading selected for Second Year Latin is material that is interesting for its own sake to boys and girls (it need not be literary skim milk, it must not be childish), Caesar will withdraw from his strange, unhappy, and uncongenial position of grammarmaster for the young, and will resume his proper dignified place in literature as grim soldier, statesman, and philosopher. Then such a book as Dr. Reynolds's will leap into deserved popularity.

From a purely technical point of view there are too many hints and explanations in the book. They hinder the teacher, because they are just so many more things to be explained to the class. They hinder the pupil, because they distract his attention from the essential facts. Nowhere is the principle 'The half is greater than the whole' more important than in a First Year Latin book. Another similar fault lies in the fact that the author has allowed his natural desire for scientific completeness to lead him to incorporate in the book material wholly useless for a beginner-material in fact that is out of place in any book except a complete reference Grammar for University students. A notable instance of this is the exhaustive information on pronouns and adverbs given on pages 180-183. It is bad for such things to be in a Beginners' book, no matter how plainly the teacher tells the class to ignore them. The fact that they are there, staring the timid learner in the face, discourages him, for he fears that the evil day is merely postponed, that some day he must memorize it all-must swallow the indigestible mass, and is disheartened, sometimes unconsciously, by the prospect.

A splendid feature of the book is its copious hints in connection with Latin-English etymology. This is a field in which the eye of the learner accomplishes more than the voice of the teacher, and the frequent appeal to the eye along this line of progress is most profitable,

The best feature of the book is the reading lessons. These are well calculated to be interesting to boys and girls. They begin with short readings in nature study under such topics as earth, sun, moon, stars, winds, seasons, etc. These are followed by short readings on boyhood life in Roman days, including (in School) colors, measures of time and space, numbers and arithmetic, reading and writing, and (out of School) the house, the home life of a boy, and a visit to the city. Then follows the story of Arminius, a Suebian boy, in which we meet Gauls and Germans.

The lessons are full of stimulating information, and bristling with opportunities for a live teacher to waken the interest and kindle the zeal of his pupils. The book

[blocks in formation]

Virgil and Isaiah: A Study of the Pollio, with Translations, Notes, and Appendices. By Thomas Fletcher Royds. Oxford: B. H Blackwell (1918). 5 shillings.

This attractive little volume, by the author of The Beasts, Birds, and Bees of Virgil, is a worthy companion to the editions of single books of the Aeneid published by the same firm. It is to be hoped that it is an earnest of more contributions of the kind. In his Preface the author expresses his preference for the spelling Virgil, quoting to the confusion of innovators Matthew Arnold's refusal to pass his life in a wilderness of pedantry, in order that posterity may enter into an orthographical Canaan, a remark which sounds as impressive and means as little (especially in this connection) as some of the other utterances of that sapient critic.

Mr. Royds believes that the child of the poem was the unborn offspring of Octavian and Scribonia, and, although that infant turned out to be a girl, and a very naughty one at that, no other conclusion seems tenable in the face of verse 49, cara deum suboles, magnum Iovis incrementum. Besides this question, the introductory pages discuss the nature and character of prophecy, the historical background of Vergil and Isaiah, and other interesting and pertinent topics, interspersed with obiter dicta on the stirring events of 1914-1918. Mr. Royds considers Vergil, as well as Isaiah, a true prophet of Christ, not, however, in the sense of the earlier generation of commentators; for he did not foresee the birth of Jesus of Nazareth; still less did he forecast the theology of the Incarnation; but he saw a great light from afar and was

glad in it already. The Latin text is followed by two English versions, one "an almost line for line" translation into smoothlyreading hexameters, and the other a paraphrase into Biblical prose. The text and translation of Georgics 1.118-146 and 2.458-end are also given. These selections are all provided with brief explanatory notes at the bottom of the page, one of which enriches our vocabulary with the useful word "antikreophagous". The Appendices are three in number. The first discusses the textual problem of the last four lines of the Eclogue. Since Mr. Royds apparently decides in favor of the manuscript reading, cui non risere parentes, one is somewhat puzzled to find in his text qui non risere parenti; and the footnote, while it seems to imply that the latter reading is the result of a consultation of Holdsworth's Remarks on Virgil, makes no direct mention of a change of opinion. In Appendix B the author discusses the literary sources of the Eclogue, finding "very little evidence that Virgil had read the whole Book of Isaiah", but abundant traces of Jewish influence. The striking likeness of 3.787-794 of the

[blocks in formation]

The Story of Eleusis. A Lyrical Drama. By Louis V. Ledoux. New York: The Macmillan Company (1916). Pp. xiv + 96.

It is perhaps a severer test of poetic power to write interestingly on a topic that is centuries old than to strike out a new theme. Mr. Ledoux bravely faced the test, and has stood it well. He was wise in choosing one of the loveliest of the Greek myths, that of Demeter and Persephone, treated with exceptional beauty in the 'Homeric' Hymn to Demeter, as the groundwork of his "lyrical drama". While there is nothing novel in his handling of the story, he has produced a readable and in places really charming poem. The style and versification are, with a few exceptions, facile and graceful, and some passages show real beauty of thought and expression, as for example the lines

For life is like a mound of shifting sand On some low island set in leagues of sea; The winds of being blow from out the waste, And up the beaches rolls the crumbling wave. Everywhere a fine and delicate feeling for the loveliness of nature is evident.

The piece is constructed in five acts, as follows: I Persephone-scene laid in Sicily, on the hillside whence she was carried off by Hades; II Beside the Well at Eleusis-Demeter in the guise of an old woman is hired to tend the infant Demophon; III Demeter at Eleusis-her plan of making the child immortal is frustrated by the terrified mother; IV Persephone in Hades's realm, and released by command of Zeus; V The temple-the institution of the Eleusinian ritual.

The poem is hardly likely to be effective if played as a drama, nor indeed need we suppose that the author intended it for actual performance; yet a dramatic reading of large parts of it, in costume, given by students of Barnard College, proved to be very interesting. COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY. E. D. PERRY.

Studies in Stichomythia. By John Leonard Hancock. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (1917). Pp. 97. 75 cents.

The dialogue in Homer suffered from two limitations: a formula was used to introduce the speaker, and the poet's objection to enjambement prevented the exchange of brief utterances. But the drama made possible the mimesis of actual conversation. In tragedy, which came into being at the time when the archaic art of Greece was laying undue stress on form at the expense of true imitation, the briefer conversations tended to fall into the line-dialogue, the so-called stichomythy. Oracula Sibyllina, recensuit Aloisius Rzach, Vindobonae, 1891,

p. 90.

Dr. Hancock has investigated certain phases of this strange literary phenomenon. His Studies fall naturally into three groups of about equal length: (1) The motives and uses of stichomythy in Attic tragedy and in Seneca (Introduction, Chapters I, II; we note in passing that Sophocles in contrast with his two rivals shows the freedom of the true artist, and that, "though Seneca achieved a surface brilliance, an epigrammatic subtlety, he went no further"); (2) Special devices of the line-dialogue in Greek tragedy, and similar features in the conversational parts of the Platonic dialogue (Chapters III, IV); (3) Survivals in post-classic drama, from the Latin plays of the eleventh and twelfth centuries and the early French, Italian and English drama, to Shakespeare, and finally to Meredith and the modern prose drama (Chapters V, VI).

The author rejects the conclusion of Gross (Die Stichomythie, etc., 1905) that the line-dialogue arose from the influence of choral responsion, and finds for its use three original motives: the agonistic tendency of all Greek literature, the love of subtlety, and the fondness for symmetry. The emphasis which he lays in his Introduction (compare also page 10) upon the first of these motives leaves the impression that he regards it as more than anything else the cause of stichomythy. This theory is hardly supported by the evidence. In the tragedy which is in all probability the earliest that we possess, the Supplices of Aeschylus, there are six stichomythic passages, and of these three contain no agonistic element, two more only a 'touch', and only one a real wrangle. In the other plays which Dr. Hancock analyses there is abundant evidence that the linedialogue was used frequently for other purposes than as a vehicle for debate, repartee, etc. Again, the stichomythic passages of Seneca, who is far from origins, "are more uniformly agonistic in spirit than those of Greek tragedy". Finally, in Aristophanes1 the debate is a prominent feature, yet stichomythy plays an insignificant part: in the Agons of both the Clouds and the Frogs, for example, the dialogue is exceedingly free. Hence it is hard to believe that the agonistic tendency of Greek literature had very much to do with the origin of stichomythy. Nor do we think that the author is reasoning in the right direction when he argues that subtlety is one of the reasons for the adoption by the father of tragedy of the line-dialogue as a literary form. We should prefer to hold that the love of subtle retort and flash of wit which is seen in so much of Greek literature finds in the line-dialogue an excellent medium of expression. For this keenness of retort is equally manifest in the forensic speeches of Sophocles and Euripides, in the Antigone, the Alcestis and the Medea, for example. Therefore, while Dr. Hancock by his analyses has made clear two very important features of stichomythy, it seems to us that he has been led to emphasize unduly the value of these as evidence for the explanation of its origin.

Comedy is outside the limits of the dissertation.

The second part of the dissertation, a rather minute study of the particles and other devices by which the shorter dialogue portions of Greek tragedy and of Plato are made lively, is the most valuable part of the monograph. One could wish that Dr. Hancock had carried his investigations further, and had linked his discussion of Plato a little more closely with his theme. It would be interesting to know how far the Platonic dialogue is really stichomythic, and to what extent it is possible to discover any principles which may have governed Plato in his use of the strictly conversational form as a structural part of his dialogues. An attractive field for further investigation is likewise offered by the divergence of Aristophanes from the Attic tragic poets in the handling of the dialogue.

The quest for survivals of classic stichomythy in medieval and modern drama (Chapters V, VI), in spite of the fact that the trail is crossed by influences of the native religious drama and of ancient comedy, yields much interesting material which does not lend itself readily to summary here. Excellent indices (rare in the doctoral dissertation) render the many interesting observations easily available and will help to make Dr. Hancock's Studies welcome to all who concern themselves with the study of literary forms. UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT.



Several evenings ago we happened to be studying in the same room with a Sophomore engineer. an experience which was able to supply us with an inspiration for this article. The gentleman in question was doing his regular English lesson, in. Hamlet,

and was incidentally revealing to us an amazingly incredible and plentiful lack of understanding of even the simplest literary phrases and allusions, so common in Shakespeare. Every minute or two he would anxiously inquire what this word meant, that phrase, or perhaps some classical allusion. The section which he was studying happened to be particularly rich in words of Latin origin, and references to Greek and Roman mythology. For instance, in the players' scene, the first player speaks. of Priam, Hecuba, and the fall of Troy. to our engineer the word Troy conveyed no association other than collars, and Hecuba, for all he knew, might have been some prize milch-cow. We could see that he was for the most part reading mere words.

The appreciation

of the wonderful range of imagination, the great opportunity for psychological study afforded by an intelligent understanding of the Shakespearean characters through their speeches were absolutely lost to him. And then they ask us why we study the classics, and present to us arguments about the futile impracticability of studying what men have written and thought hundreds of years ago.

This article, by Mr. Henry E. Rosenberg, Union College, '19, appeared in The Concordiensis, the students' paper at Union, on Friday, February 7. Professor Kellogg, who sent me a copy of this issue, assures me that Mr. Rosenberg wrote sua sponte, immo vero ultro, and, as Plautus would have said, entirely de suo. Professor W. P. Clark, of the College of William and Mary, at Williamsburg, Virginia, kindly sent me a copy of the students' paper, The Flat Hat, for February 12, 1919, which has an unsigned editorial on The True Education. There is, unfortunately, not space to quote the writer's plea against mere utilitanarism in educa


Such utterances as these, by students, unsolicited, are of interest and importance. C. K.

Hundreds of years ago? No. The classics have no years for us; they are new-born every year, every day. They have become part of cur human heritage just as much as our reasoning faculties and our senses are part of us. What the ancients have said and done, what those Greek and Roman thinkers and poets have accomplished, can never be surpassed by us. Every day we find new applications, taken from classic study, to the problems and questions of modern life. What they have to teach us is always fresh and practical.

The theory of Lucretius, for instance, about the nature of matter, namely, that it is composed of atoms and void, and is indestructible, has been taken up and accepted almost in its entirety by all scientists of today. Regarding the genesis of things, Lucretius foreshadows modern science in the nebular hypothesis, and in the doctrine of the evolution of man from the brute state. Galileo was not by any means the first man who held a correct conception about the shape of the world and the organization of the universe. An ancient Greek was ahead of him. Greek and

Roman methods of architecture are followed to this day. The ancient mathematicians and physicists have provided the basis for many of the subjects which our engineers are now studying. Finally, if we glance at any of the modern and near modern systems of philosophy, we find that they are all based upon Greek or Roman theories of life. The monists, the dualists, the materialists, the empiricists, and the transcendentalists all had their counterparts in the ancient world. And is the idea of moderation and selfcontrol in all things, the central point of all classical theories of living, any less applicable or profitable now than it was in the days before our era? The principle of moderation, an echo from Horace, Catullus, Socrates, Lucretius, has today been hailed as the panacea for bodily and mental ailments.

The study of the classics provides one of the most important methods of training a man for the battle of life, in these fight or-go-down times A man who has delved deep into the world's history and literature, and who has studied and compared ancient and modern philosophers is a much solider, wiser, largerliving, individual than the man who merely has a superficial knowledge of things present. Which would make the better executive and leader of men? He who has studied the teachings of ancient philosophers, who has gone right to the well-springs of knowledge, and read what the ancient authors have had to say about man and men is by far the best judge and master of himself, and consequently of other men.

to us.

Our language consists in large part of words of Latin derivation. If we do not understand these longer Anglicized Latin words, our ability to appreciate fully the best ideas that have been expressed by men may be seriously crippled. Fine shades of meaning are lost It is the larger words of classic derivation that possess in themselves specialized particular meanings without which subtle ideas cannot find expression. It is the short, common words that possess general meanings, and frequently lack the finer, more sensitive distinctions of thought. Conversely, the man who can express his thoughts accurately, convincingly, and graphically, by the use of these specialized words, and by examples and illustrations from older civilizations, is much more likely to carry through his projects successfully, and to leave his ideas and plans for future generations to use and imitate just as we use the classic writers.

THE NEW YORK CLASSICAL CLUB The New York Classical Club began its meeting on February 8 by unanimously passing resolutions express

« السابقةمتابعة »