Cornell University 
 Library 
 
 The original of this book is in 
 the Cornell University Library. 
 
 There are no known copyright restrictions in 
 the United States on the use of the text. 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924073631040 
 
STUDIES IN HONOR OF 
 BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE 
 
M^o C -^t> 
 
Studies in Honor 
 
 of 
 
 Basil L. Gildersleeve 
 
 i 
 
 tl^B 
 
 mw 
 
 \ '1 ?l!i % "" 
 
 kV 
 
 \^ 'ip 
 
 f 
 
 • baltimore 
 The Johns Hopkins Press 
 1902 
 
 9 
 
THE FRIEDENWALD COMPANY 
 
 BALTIMORE, MO., U. i. A. 
 
 ^,lL(d'\ 'K.-- 
 
 itO 
 
 Copyright, 1902, by 
 Thb Johns Hopkins Press 
 
TO 
 
 (g&eit jSannertu (5ithivekiH 
 
 in commemoration of 
 
 The Seventieth Anniversary of His Birth 
 
 these studies are dedicated 
 
 as a token of affection, gratitude, and esteem 
 
 by his pupils 
 
 6tis (v<f>pa>v (II) Xoin-oif ev\ais 
 
 October 23, 1831 
 October 23, 1901 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Apostolic Commission i 
 
 By Charles A. Briggs. 
 
 Homeric Echoes in Matthew Arnold's ' Balder Dead ' 19 
 
 By Wilfred P. Mustard. 
 
 Ad Catull. XXX 4-5 29 
 
 By William Hamilton Kirk. 
 
 The Symbolic Gods iy 
 
 By Maurice Bloomfield. 
 
 The Use of the Simple for the Compound Verb in Persius. . . 49 
 By Harry Langford Wilson. 
 
 The Motion of the Voice in Connection with Accent and 
 
 Accentual Arsis and Thesis 57 
 
 By C. W. L. Johnson. 
 
 Augustus Princeps 77 
 
 By E. G. Sihler. 
 
 The Athenian in his Relations to the State 87 
 
 By Charles Albert Savage. 
 
 Use of the Suffixes -anus and -Fnus in forming Possessive 
 
 Adjectives from Names of Persons 95 
 
 By Robert S. Radford. 
 
 The Fall of the Assyrian Empire 113 
 
 By Christopher Johnston. 
 
 Ne emisses, ne poposcisses, and Similar Expressions 123 
 
 By H. C. Elmer. 
 
 Notes on the Latin Verbs of Rating 131 
 
 By Gordon J. Laing. 
 
 The Pentapody in Greek Poetry i37 
 
 By E. H. Spieker. 
 
 Horace and Lucilius: A Study of Horace Serm. I, 10 151 
 
 By George Lincoln Hendrickson. 
 
viii CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The Aim and Results of Plato's Theaetetus 169 
 
 By W. J. Alexander. 
 
 On the Uses of the Prepositions in Homer i°i 
 
 By ^. S. Haggett. 
 
 An Erroneous Phonetic Sequence i°9 
 
 By Edwin W. Fay. 
 
 The Connection between Music and Poetry in Early Greek 
 
 Literature ^°S 
 
 By H. Riishtoji Fairclottgh. 
 
 Some Statistics on the Order of Words in Greek 229 
 
 By Herman Louis Ebeling, 
 
 The Athens of Aristophanes 241 
 
 By Mitchell Carroll. 
 
 On the Theory of the Ideal Condition in Latin 253 
 
 By Gonzalez Lodge. 
 
 On the Case Construction of Verbs of Sight and Hearing 
 
 IN Greek 263 
 
 By James William Kern. 
 
 The Scenic Value of the Miniatures in the Manuscripts 
 
 of Terence 273 
 
 By John W. Basore. 
 
 Pupula Duplex 287 
 
 By Kirby Flower Smith. 
 
 Ingenium in the Ablative of Quality and the Genitive of 
 Quality 301 
 
 By George Vail Edwards. 
 
 Magic in Theokritos and Vergil 315 
 
 By Morris C. Sutphen. 
 
 The Interpretation of Euripides' Alcestis 329 
 
 By Augustus Taber Murray. 
 
 Chiasmus in the Epistles of Cicero, Seneca, Pliny and 
 
 Pronto 33g 
 
 By R. B. Steele. 
 
 On Causes Contributory to the Loss of the Optative, etc., 
 in Later Greek 353 
 
 By Francis G. Allinson. 
 
CONTENTS. XX 
 
 PACK 
 
 The Etymology and Meaning of the Sanskrit Root i(} 357 
 
 By Jetts A. Ness. 
 
 The Technic of Shakspere's Sonnets 363 
 
 By Thos. R. Price. 
 
 The Attitude of Alcuin toward Vergil ^17 
 
 By Omera Floyd Long. 
 Notes on Lucian's Syrian Goddess 387 
 
 By Daniel A. Penick. 
 
 The Greeting in the Letters of Cicero 395 
 
 By E. M. Pease. 
 
 Oration XI of Dio Chrysostomus. A Study in Sources 405 
 
 By Walter A. Montgomery. 
 The Use of atque and ac in Silver Latin 413 
 
 By Emory B. Lease. 
 
 Indicative Questions with ^7 and 3pn juij 427 
 
 By J. E. Harry. 
 
 Rime-Parallelism in Old High German Verse 435 
 
 By Bert John Vos. 
 
 Did Euripides write oKviivav Hipp. 1276? 443 
 
 By Henry N. Sanders. 
 
 The Participle in Apollonius Rhodius 449 
 
 By George Melville Boiling. 
 
 M7 for o£p before Lucian 471 
 
 By Edwin L. Green. 
 
 A Tragic Fragment of Ion 481 
 
 By John Adams Scott. 
 
 The Metaphor in Aeschylus 483 
 
 By /as. T. Lees. 
 
 The Relation of the Rhythm of Poetry to that of the 
 Spoken Language with especial reference to Ancient 
 Greek 497 
 
 By C. W. E. Miller. 
 
 Index S13 
 
THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 
 
 Critical investigation of the four Gospels and the Book of Acts 
 in recent years has thrown a flood of light upon the origin of 
 Christianity. I propose in this article to use this light in a study 
 of the Apostolic Commission. 
 
 Early in his ministry Jesus called Simon to leave all and follow 
 him (Mk. i. 16-20). He named him Peter, the rock, as the fore- 
 most of the disciples, their chief and spokesman. The Gospels 
 differ as to the time of this naming: Mk. iii. 16; Mt. x. 2, xvi. 
 17-19; Lk. vi. 14; John i. 40-42; but a critical study of these 
 passages makes it probable that it did not take place until late in 
 Jesus' ministry, when his Messiahship was recognized by the 
 Twelve.' 
 
 Jesus also called James and John, who with Simon constituted 
 the innermost circle of the Twelve, to whom Jesus entrusted the 
 highest privileges. Next to these was Andrew. Levi (Matthew) 
 also had a special call. 
 
 Seven others with these five were selected from the body of the 
 disciples (Mk. iii. 14-19) to constitute the Twelve, who were con- 
 stantly with Jesus as his companions in his ministry. There can 
 be little doubt that St. Peter was the chief of the Twelve and that 
 there was a primary group of four — Peter and Andrew, James 
 and John. Philip was first of the second group, composed of 
 Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew and Thomas. The third group 
 was James, son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Zealot, and 
 Judas Iscariot. These three groups constituted the Twelve, who 
 were sent forth in pairs, with authority from Jesus to preach, and 
 teach, and heal during his ministry (Mk. vi. 7-13 = Mtth. x. 
 I seq. = Lk. ix, i seq.). The four lists vary somewhat in the 
 order of the names within the groups ; but in no case in the four 
 lists of Mk., Mtth., Lk. and Acts is there any change of the names 
 out of the three groups. 
 
 'See Briggs, Study of Holy Scripture, pp. 514-516. 
 
2 C. A. BRIGGS. 
 
 The order of names in Acts (i. 13) differs somewhat from the 
 order of Luke (vi. 13-16) as well as from those of Matthew 
 (x. 2-4) and Mark (iii. 14-19). 
 
 In the first group John's name comes second in Acts, whereas 
 in Mtth. and Lk. it is last, the name of Andrew having taken its 
 place in these lists. It seems that the order of names comes from 
 the Jerusalem source, • and that John is coupled with Peter in the 
 list as he is in the history. Philip comes first in all the lists of 
 the second group. But the other three names appear in an 
 entirely different order in Acts from that of any of the Gospels : 
 Thomas, Bartholomew, Matthew. There is no reason for this 
 that appears in the history. In the third group James, son of 
 Alphaeus, is always first and Judas Iscariot last. The order of 
 Simon and Thaddaeus differs. In Luke and Acts, Simon is first ; 
 in Mark and Matthew, Thaddaeus is first. The reason for this 
 change lies below the surface of the history. We may think of a 
 change in their relative historical importance. 
 
 The original term used by Jesus for these Twelve was simply 
 the Twelve. The term apostle seems to be peculiar to the usage 
 of St. Paul, in his epistles, and of St. Luke, in the Gospel and the 
 Acts.' We may say with confidence that the word apostle, as 
 applied to the Twelve, was not in any of the primitive sources, 
 whether the Logia of Matthew, the original Gospel of Mark, the 
 original John, or the Hebraistic source of the history of the 
 Church at Jerusalem. In all cases in the Book of Acts, it came 
 from the final author and not from the source. The few uses ' in 
 the Gospels other than Luke's are redactional. The term apostle 
 was a generic term, including in Pauline usage the Twelve and 
 also Paul, Barnabas, and many others ; an indefinite number of 
 apostles. The number twelve was a limited number selected by 
 Jesus as his companions during his earthly life. It could never 
 be exceeded. Paul and Barnabas were Apostles, but they could 
 never enter into the group of the Twelve. The treachery and 
 death of Judas removed him from the number of the Twelve. 
 The first thing they had to do was to fill his place and make 
 their number complete. It seems at first strange that Jesus him- 
 
 ' There was probably a Hebraistic Jerusalem source used by Luke as the 
 basis of the first part of the Book of Acts. 
 
 ^McGiffert, Christianity in the Apostolic Age, pp. 647 seq. 
 'Mt. A. 2 ; Mk. iii. 14, vi. 30. 
 
THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 3 
 
 self did not select the substitute for Judas during the forty days; 
 and some have inconsiderately argued that the Twelve acted 
 without the authority of Jesus and the influence of the Divine 
 Spirit in the selection of the substitute for Judas, and have even 
 gone so far as to represent that the Lord had really in mind to 
 substitute St. Paul for Judas. But this is certainly a mistake. 
 St. Paul maintains his rights as an Apostle, immediately commis- 
 sioned by the Lord himself, and his equality in this respect with 
 St. Peter, St. John and St. James (Gal. i. ii seq.). But nowhere 
 does he, or any one else for him, claim that he was one of the 
 Twelve. Indeed, he had not the qualifications to be one of the 
 Twelve. 
 
 Acts i. 15-26 gives an account of the assembly of the brethren 
 for the selection of a substitute for Judas. This narrative in the 
 main comes from the source, although it is probable that vers. 
 i6(5-i9 contain additional material from the author of Acts. 
 This explanatory gloss gives the more specific application of the 
 Psalm to Judas, and gives an account of the death of Judas in the 
 Field of Blood. The words apostles and apostleship are also 
 glosses. But the story itself is original to the source. The 
 qualification to be one of the Twelve was : 
 
 "Who have companied with us all the time that the Lord 
 Jesus went in and went out among us (Luke adds : ' beginning 
 from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up 
 from us'): of these must one become a witness with us of his 
 resurrection" (ver. 21-22). 
 
 Two were proposed : i) Joseph Barsabbas-Justus; 2) Matthias. 
 The choice did not depend on the Eleven, or on the 120 
 brethren assembled, but upon the Lord himself. Only Jesus, the 
 Messiah, could make the choice. As the Divine Spirit had not 
 been imparted, they were forced to use the sacred lot, the deter- 
 mination of which, according to the Old Testament usage, was 
 with God the searcher of minds ; but which, according to their 
 new conception that Jesus was Lord and also searcher of minds, 
 could only come from him. The lot decided for Matthias, and 
 the number of the Twelve was complete. It should be said at 
 this point that the choice of a substitute for Judas was made, 
 not because he had died, but because he had betrayed his trust 
 and had by his own wicked act departed from his high office. 
 No one thought of selecting a substitute for St. James when he 
 
4 C. A. BRIGGS. 
 
 died, or for any other of the Twelve. The Twelve continued to 
 be the Twelve when they departed to the higher life. They 
 became the foundations of the New Jerusalem (Rev. xxi. 14). 
 The Twelve could not possibly have successors as the Twelve, 
 any more than their number could be increased. They might, 
 however, have successors as apostles, an office which they shared 
 with St. Paul, St. Barnabas, and others. It is improper, therefore, 
 to speak of the Twelve Apostles as a class by themselves. The 
 Twelve were set apart as those favored with the especial intimacy 
 of Jesus during his earthly life; chosen to be with him during 
 that life, to bear witness of that life and of his resurrection ; and 
 St. Peter was their chief. But in addition to this they subse- 
 quently became apostles, and as such shared the apostolate with 
 many others. St. Paul, St. Barnabas, and others were their 
 equals as apostles. Whether the Apostles as apostles had suc- 
 cessors is a question which is debatable. Whether the Twelve 
 had successors or could have successors is not debatable. It was 
 impossible from the very nature of the case. 
 
 The same question emerges with reference to St. Peter, as with 
 reference to the Twelve — namely, whether he could have suc- 
 cessors. If the Twelve could have no successors, then St. Peter 
 as the chief of the Twelve could have no successor. We have 
 seen, however, that the Twelve were also apostles, and as such 
 had a ministry to the Church other than the witness which was 
 their peculiar privilege as the Twelve ; and that this apostolate 
 they shared with St. Paul, St. Barnabas, and others ; and that the 
 apostolate therefore might have successors, as it had additions 
 made to it during the lifetime of the Apostles. If now St. Peter 
 was not only primate of the Twelve, but also primate of the 
 Apostolate and so of the Church in other relations than in those 
 peculiar to the Twelve, then it is quite possible that St. Peter 
 might have successors in the primacy and the headship over the 
 Church. 
 
 The narrative represents that 1 20 of the dSeX^oi were present 
 when the selection of Matthias was made. We may assume that 
 Joseph Barsabbas and Matthias, Mary the mother of Jesus, and 
 his brothers, James and Jude, were present ; and that those 
 unnamed were women as well as men (Acts i. 14, 15, 23). These 
 statements probably come from the source and not from the final 
 author. St. Paul, in I. Cor. xv. 6, states that Jesus appeared to 
 
THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 5 
 
 above 500 brethren at once. Even this number can hardly 
 represent the sum total of the brotherhood that Jesus had 
 gathered about himself during his brief earthly ministry. 
 
 In addition to the Twelve, St. Luke reports a group of dis- 
 ciples named the Seventy (Lk. x. i). It is doubtless a later 
 statement than those derived from the Logia and St. Mark, which 
 know nothing of such a body ; but there is no sufificient reason to 
 doubt its genuineness. 
 
 The story of Luke is : On leaving Galilee for his Perean 
 ministry Jesus set apart 70, those whom he had called to follow 
 him, who should go before him in pairs and prepare the way for 
 his ministry, by heralding the advent of the kingdom of God and 
 working miracles in his name. The reason why Luke mentions 
 the Seventy is that he alone reports the Perean ministry. The 
 Logia, Mark, Matthew and John know but little of any work in 
 Perea, and therefore had no occasion to speak of the ministry of 
 the 70. 
 
 It is clear, however, from the Logia and Mark, that other men 
 than the Twelve were called by Jesus to follow him in special 
 ministry, abandoning property and family and all things for his 
 sake and the proclamation of the gospel of the kingdom. There 
 is no evidence that the group of 70 disciples was continued. 
 They probably were a special selection for this service. But that 
 which the 70 represented — a larger group of ministerial followers 
 of Christ than the Twelve — was certainly continued. In all prob- 
 ability the number 70 had increased very greatly. It is quite 
 possible that the most of the 120 brethren were followers in this 
 special and stricter sense ; and it is not beyond reason to suppose 
 that even the 500 witnesses of the resurrection were mostly repre- 
 sentatives of the disciples of Christ, and not the whole body of 
 them, and so made up of men and women of this class. 
 
 We may safely conclude, therefore, that the whole brotherhood 
 of Jesus, in the week before Pentecost, in Galilee, Perea, Samaria 
 and Jerusalem, where Jesus and the Twelve and the Seventy had 
 preached and wrought miracles, consisted of several thousand 
 men and women ; that upwards of 100 of these were disciples 
 who had received the special call to follow him in a ministry 
 which required the renunciation of property and family ties, and 
 exclusive attention to the preaching of the gospel ; that the 
 Twelve were the recognized chiefs of this new religious com- 
 munity, and that St. Peter was the recognized head of them all. 
 
6 C. A. BRIGGS. 
 
 There is no report in the Gospel of Mark (apart from the 
 appendix), or in the Logia, of a commissioning of the disciples by 
 Jesus, subsequent to his resurrection. But there can be little 
 doubt that such a commission is mingled in the extracts from the 
 Logia given in connection with the sending forth of the Twelve 
 and the Seventy; for many of these utterances of Jesus had 
 reference to a wider and a larger ministry than any reported in 
 the Gospels during the lifetime of Jesus. From these statements 
 of the Logia we may gather the following summary statement : 
 Jesus commissioned the disciples to preach the kingdom of God. 
 He identified himself with them ; so that the treatment of them 
 would be regarded as the treatment of him. These disciples were 
 required to love him supremely, to forsake relatives, property, and 
 all other duties, and to follow him supremely in poverty, self- 
 denial, crossbearing, and obedience to his word.' 
 
 The Apocalypse of Jesus has inserted in it (Mk. xiii. 9-13 — Lk. 
 xxi. 12-19) ^ logion, which appears also in the commission of the 
 Twelve (Mtth. x. 17-22). A comparison of the three texts gives 
 the following three strophes, each of 6 trimeter lines : 
 
 I. 
 
 " But take heed to yourselves. 
 They will deliver you up to Sanhedrim, 
 And in synagogues will ye be beaten, 
 And before governors will ye stand, 
 And it will turn out unto you for a testimony, 
 And unto the nations must the gospel be preached. 
 
 II. 
 
 " And when they lead you to deliver you up. 
 Be not anxious how ye shall speak ; 
 For it will be given in that hour. 
 That which ye shall speak; 
 For it is not ye who speak, 
 But it is the Spirit that speaketh. 
 
 ^ Mtth. viii. 21-22 = Lk. ix. 59-60. 
 " X. 7-16= " X. 2-11. 
 " X. 40 = " X. 16. 
 " A. 37-38 = " xiv. 26-27. 
 " xvi. 24 = " ix. 23, xiv. 27. 
 See Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, p. 238 seq. 
 
THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 7 
 
 III. 
 "And brother will deliver up his brother, 
 And father will deliver up his child, 
 And children will rise up against their parents. 
 And they will put them to death, 
 And ye will be hated by all ; 
 But he that endureth to the End will be saved." 
 
 The Hebrew Logion would be (following in the main the usage 
 of Dslitzsch, N. T. in Hebrew, but keeping in view the rhythm of 
 Hebrew Wisdom) : 
 
 nvD33 'm 13m 
 
 tn^^ *isS iN3ini 
 
 nnyS DD? n*nni 
 
 i^\nn nyB'a |ny-*3 
 
 Dnman dhn nt^d 
 n^nxsn nnn dk-»3 
 
 Dnx in*o* nam 
 
 Dnx-':'^^ D^NiJB' vnm 
 
 ytrr xp'^'^V nanism 
 
 1. 1. Mt. has irpoaix^^^ ii avb tov avBpimav, which does not seem to be so 
 original or natural as Mk., pHnert 6k vfielg eavrovg. Lk. omits this line. 
 
 2. This line is omitted by Lk. but given by Mt. 
 
 3. Mt. is more specific, using /laoTtyiiaovaiv, scourge, for Mk., iap^aeade, 
 which may be original. Lk. generalizes : " But before all these things 
 they will lay their hands on you and will persecute you, delivering you up 
 to the synagogues and prisons." 
 
 4. All have /kings as well as governors. But it makes the line too long, 
 and is a natural insertion from the history. The order of the two is 
 
8 C. A. BRIGGS. 
 
 inverted in Lk. Mk. has aToBfjatade ; Lk., airayoficvovg ; Mt., axSr/acaBe, M 
 going back on the original "iX^nJll- ^"^'^^^ ^f^^ '^ explanatory addition. 
 
 5. Lk., " It shall turn unto you for a testimony," niiyS D37 nTinii 
 seems to preserve the original line which is interpreted in Mt. and Mk. as 
 "for a testimony unto them." 
 
 6. This line is omitted by Lk., is condensed by Mt. into Kal Toiq Wveaiv, and 
 enlarged by Mk. into el; Travra to. iBvri vparov Scl KTifyuxOvvai to evayjihov, 
 which may be regarded as an explanatory addition, making the line too 
 long. C£. Mt. xxiv. 14. 
 
 n. I. Condensed by Mt. into ixapaSuatv v/ia; ; omitted by Lk. 
 
 2. Mtth. has TTuf fj ri, how or what, which is enlargement. It is para- 
 phrased by Lk.: " Settle it therefore in your minds not to meditate before- 
 hand how to answer." How of Mtth. and Lk. is more probable intrinsi- 
 cally than what of Mk. 
 
 3 and 4. These two lines must be restored by conjecture. They are 
 condensed in Mk. into : " Whatsoever shall be given to you in that hour, 
 that speak" ; which is prose. Mtth. has the first line correctly; but only 
 ri laXTjCJiTE of the second line. Combining this with the first words of 
 Mark's sentence, we get the second line. Lk. paraphrases, and combines 
 these two lines with the remaining two, thus : " For I will give you a mouth 
 and wisdom, which all your adversaries will not be able to withstand or to 
 gainsay." 
 
 5. This line is the same in Mk. and Mtth. 
 
 6. This line varies. In Mk.it is aAXd ro 7rv£ii/za to ayrai;. But Jesus never 
 used holy with Spirit — that is Lukan, and redactional in other gospels. 
 Mtth. has TO irvivfia Tov iraTpbg vfiGiv to Xa?u)vu ev vfiiv. This, without the 
 qualifying Toii jraTpo; vjiliv and the explanatory iv v/ilv, gives us the original 
 line. It was the usage of Jesus to speak of " the Spirit." Lk. explains 
 this as the personal direction of Jesus himself, which is a later concep- 
 tion and interpretation. 
 
 III. I. fif BavaTov is explanatory addition from line 4; otherwise the 
 same in Mtth. and Mk. 
 
 2. The Hebrew would repeat vb., as Delitzsch, Heb. N. T.; Mt. *. 21. 
 
 3. This is the same in Mtth. and Mk. 
 
 4. The line is defective in both texts; Kal davaTuoovaw avToi;, Mk., Mt. 
 We might conjecture subject ; this should then sum up the three previous 
 lines in a demonstrative nQri' '^"' Mtth. xxiv. 9, condensed in Lk. xxi. 16, 
 
 is doubtless based on the same original as Mk. xiii. 12, and it suggests a 
 change of subject here rather than first in line 5. Mt., Kal awoKTevoiaiv vfiag. 
 Lk., Kal BavaTuaovatv If iipCiv, But on the whole it seems best to read IH/J^m 
 
 5. (!id TO bvojia fiov is an explanatory addition, making the line too long. 
 
 6. The ot'Tijf makes the line too long, and is an emphatic addition. 
 
THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. g 
 
 We may not be able to determine when this commission was 
 given, and whether it was given to the Twelve or to the larger 
 ministry. But this much is plain : we may know without doubt 
 essentially what Jesus said to them. Their ministry was to be 
 before the Sanhedrim, in synagogues, and before Roman gov- 
 ernors; just as Jesus' ministry was. They would give their 
 testimony in these places and suffer for Christ's sake. They 
 were not only to preach the gospel in the land of Palestine, but 
 also unto the nations. It is not evident whether this ministry was 
 conceived as to the Jews and the proselytes scattered among the 
 nations, or as an effort to proselytize the nations beyond the 
 scope of the proselyting of the Pharisees. It is not hkely that it 
 was, as given by Jesus, in the specific Pauline sense of later date. 
 It was not inconsistent with it, but it did not compel that interpre- 
 tation. It did, however, conceive of a world-wide ministry. 
 
 There was a specific promise of the presence and guidance of 
 the Divine Spirit in this world-wide ministry; and not only a 
 general guidance, but a specific, one may say an ecstatic, guid- 
 ance ; for the Spirit is conceived as so taking possession of them, 
 that they speak not their own words but the words of the Divine 
 Spirit. It is also distinctly taught that they will suffer persecu- 
 tion, and that patient endurance until the End of the Age, the 
 Second Advent of the Lord, is necessary for their full and final 
 salvation. 
 
 One finds in the four Gospels a large amount of material 
 relating to the work that the Twelve and the larger ministry had 
 to do, in the world, in following the Master. It is impracticable 
 for us to take all this into consideration. But it is necessary to 
 consider whether Jesus gave a final commission to his ministry 
 after his resurrection, and if so, what was the extent of that com- 
 mission. The reports are so different in the Gospels, that we 
 must use all the resources of literary and historical criticism to 
 get at the real facts of the case. There is, as we have seen, no 
 report of a final commission in the Logia or in Mark. The 
 report in the Appendix to Mark is a general statement coming 
 from a late date. Mtth. xxviii. 18-20, however, gives us a com- 
 mission in connection with the appearance of Jesus to the Eleven 
 on a mountain in Galilee. A careful study of this commission 
 shows us that in all probability a logion or original sentence of 
 Jesus underlies it ; but that it has been enlarged and explained 
 after the method of the Gospel of Matthew in other similar cases. 
 
10 C. A. BRIGGS. 
 
 The Logion was probably as follows : 
 
 "All authority hath been given unto me. 
 Go ye therefore into all the earth, 
 And make disciples of all nations. 
 Baptize them into my name, 
 And teach them to keep my commands : 
 And I am with you unto the End." 
 
 The Hebrew Logion may be constructed essentially as follows: 
 
 ^aB'n Qm^< hi^ 
 ^m^ffi ibti'S naSi 
 
 If this be the original form of the Logion, it is precisely the same 
 in structure as the three-strophed Logion already considered ; and 
 it is quite possible that it was originally an integral part of the 
 same commission, for it harmonizes quite well with it and might 
 indeed be its initial strophe. 
 
 " In heaven and on earth " is a quite natural and true interpretation of 
 "a// authority." 
 
 "Go ye therefore " seems to require a statement whither. The context 
 suggests "all the earth." 
 
 The baptismal formula is evidently a late addition. Jesus could not 
 have used it. He probably commanded his disciples to baptize in his name 
 as well as to keep his commands. The practice of the disciples, as we see 
 it in the Pauline epistles and in the Book of Acts, was to baptize in the 
 name of Jesus, or the name of the Lord,' which is one and the same thing.'^ 
 The Trinitarian formula was eventually substituted by apostolic authority, 
 and so came into Mtth.'s text. 
 
 The End is the technical term for the End of the Age. Sometimes the 
 
 more precise term is given— ai(jv= Q^^iy, but I doubt whether, in any of 
 the words of Jesus, he said more than " t/ie End."'' 
 
 •Acts ii. 38, viii. 16, x. 48; cf. I. Cor. i. 13, so tif Xpioriiv ; Rom. vi. 3; 
 Gal. iii. 27. 
 ^McGiffert, Christianity in the Apostolic Age, pp. 60 seq. 
 ^Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 138, 231. 
 
THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 1 1 
 
 This Logion imparts the authority from the Lord to enter upon 
 a world-wide ministry. This ministry was to consist — 
 
 (i) In making disciples of all nations — that is, making them 
 disciples of Christ. It does not open up the question what their 
 relation to Judaism would be. It does not in itself imply any 
 more than that the disciples should do as the Pharisees did, 
 proselyte the nations — only those commissioned by Jesus were 
 organized and energized by Jesus and were sent forth as a band 
 of missionaries to do it. They were certainly to make the nations 
 disciples of Jesus. 
 
 (2) They were to baptize them into the name of Jesus. As 
 John baptized his disciples, so the disciples of Jesus were to be 
 baptized. The baptism of John had been a baptism unto repent- 
 ance ; the baptism of Jesus was a baptism into his name as the 
 Messiah. It involved a recognition of Jesus as the Messiah, the 
 Lord and King of the kingdom of God. 
 
 (3) They were to teach the commands of Jesus, and see to it 
 that these commands were observed by the disciples. This con- 
 ceives of a discipleship of obedience to commands or laws, only 
 these commands are specifically those of the Messiah. There is 
 involved no antithesis to the Law of Moses, but there is implied a 
 new law, that of the Messiah. This conception is in entire keep- 
 ing with the Logia and especially with the statement of Jesus : 
 " I came not to destroy the Law, but to fulfil it" (Mtth. v. 17). 
 The fulfilment of the Law that Jesus taught was in the Law of 
 Love. It is noteworthy that there is no promise of the Divine 
 Spirit here ; but instead of the Spirit, Jesus promises his own 
 presence with his ministers in all their ministry, even until the End 
 of the Age of the world. 
 
 This commission, even if given to the Eleven alone, yet com- 
 prehends the entire ministry for all time. There is nothing in 
 this commission which ever was peculiar to the Twelve. The 
 entire ministry in the Apostolic Age did all these things. They 
 made disciples ; they baptized ; they taught Jesus' commands ; 
 Jesus himself was present with them. 
 
 The same commission also covers all their successors in the 
 ministry throughout all time : for the Master's presence was 
 promised until the End of the Age, until the Second Advent. 
 
 There is a report in Lk. xxiv. 46-49 of a commission given to 
 the Eleven in Jerusalem. This is in general terms and does not 
 
12 C. A. BRIGGS. 
 
 give the contents of the commission itself. It states that Jesus 
 said unto them: "Thus it is written, that the Messiah should 
 suffer, and rise again from the dead the third day; and that 
 repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
 unto all nations, beginning from Jerusalem. Ye are witnesses of 
 these things. And behold, I send forth the promise of my Father 
 upon you ; but tarry ye in the city, until ye be clothed with 
 power from on high." 
 
 This report gives three essential things : (i) An explanation 
 by Jesus to the Eleven of the real meaning of his death and 
 resurrection, and of the relation of the prophecies of the Old 
 Testament thereto. We have not the contents of this teaching of 
 Jesus; but it was the most natural thing in the world that the 
 risen Lord should explain just these things to the Eleven ; and 
 there is every reason for us to believe that he did it. This teach- 
 ing of Jesus is doubtless represented in the interpretation of the 
 Old Testament by the Apostles ; but it is impracticable to distin- 
 guish between the teaching of the Apostles and the teaching of 
 Jesus in this particular. 
 
 (2) He commissions the Eleven to preach in his name unto all 
 nations, beginning from Jerusalem. This is simply a reiteration 
 of what we have found in the Logia, except the phrase " begin- 
 ning from Jerusalem," which was quite a natural thing for Jesus 
 to say. But it matters little if we should suppose that clause to 
 be an addition of the Evangelist. The words " Ye are witnesses 
 of these things " are only a paraphrase of the witness of the Logion. 
 What they are to preach : " repentance and remission of sins," 
 is what Jesus himself preached, after the example of John the 
 Baptist. It is what the Twelve actually did preach, according to 
 Acts. It is altogether probable that Jesus taught them just this. 
 It is true the Logion commands that they should teach to keep 
 all the commands of Jesus. But if Jesus had specified later or on 
 the same occasion what those commands were, he would have 
 certainly said first of all, repentance, and he would have attached 
 to repentance, as a condition, the remission of sins. All this is 
 entirely in accord with the primitive tradition, and is not in 
 accordance with Paulinism, which makes liitle of either of these 
 things. 
 
 * (3) The promise of the Spirit is given in the Logion. The 
 only thing special in this passage is the definite attachment of the 
 
THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 1 3 
 
 fulfilment of that promise to a specific day, and the command to 
 postpone entrance upon their ministry until they were endowed 
 with the special gift of the power (Suva/uir) from on high. 
 
 The statement in Acts i. 2-8 is in entire accord with this. It is 
 chiefly from the final author of Acts ;. but there seem to be 
 underlying it statements from the earlier document, as follows: 
 
 "John indeed baptized with water; 
 But ye shall be baptized with the Spirit." 
 
 _(Ver. s.) 
 
 This is a logion, an antithetical couplet. It is verified as a 
 logion of the Lord by St. Peter in Acts xi. 16. But St. Peter 
 omits " not many days hence," which is therefore an explanatory 
 addition of the author from his context, charging the Eleven not 
 to depart from Jerusalem, but to wait for the fulfilment of the 
 promise. So also the original document gives us the inquiry of 
 the Eleven : " Lord, dost thou at this time restore the kingdom to 
 Israel?" (ver. 6). They naturally inquired about the kingdom, 
 and they naturally supposed that the resurrection of the Lord had 
 something to do with the restoration of the kingdom. They were 
 certainly looking forward to the setting up of a kingdom of Israel 
 in the land of Palestine. Jesus' reply is also original to the source 
 for the most part : 
 
 " No one can know times or seasons. 
 Which the Father hath set within his own authority. 
 Ye shall receive power, when the Spirit is come upon you, 
 And ye shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and unto the uttermost part of 
 the earth." 
 
 The Hebrew Logion was essentially as follows : 
 
 nnn do^Sj; nu3 nnnj iSspn 
 pNn nxp-nyi ^h^T\'i ny nn^^ni 
 
 This is a logion of four pentameters, and it is doubtless an 
 original logion of Jesus. Luke has modified it only slightly by 
 the insertion of " in all Judaea and Samaria," in order to make 
 it correspond with his subsequent history ; and, as usual, " Holy " 
 is appended to " Spirit " in Luke. We follow in the first line 
 
14 C. A. BRIGGS. 
 
 the Western text, which seems intrinsically more probable than 
 the usual text— " It is not for you to know"— and it is more 
 in accord with Jesus' words in his apocalypse, "But of that 
 day or that hour knoweth no one, not even the angels in 
 heaven, neither the Son, but the Father" (Mk. xiii. 32).' It 
 is much more probable that Jesus here, as there, included 
 himself among the " No one can know," than that he should 
 assume to know and decline to tell it to the Eleven who asked 
 him. A later scribe would not change the "It is not for you to 
 know" into "No one can know." ,A scribe would be more 
 likely to reverse the process. 
 
 The promise of the Spirit here is what we have had elsewhere 
 with sufficient frequency. The commission to be witnesses is also 
 now familiar. " The uttermost parts of the earth " is in accord- 
 ance with the other logion as truly as is "Jerusalem." 
 
 In addition to the story from the original document, the author 
 of Acts gives the general statement : 
 
 " After that he had given commandment through the Holy 
 Spirit unto the apostles, whom he had chosen; to whom he also 
 showed himself alive after his passion by many proofs, appearing 
 unto them by the space of forty days, and speaking the things 
 concerning the kingdom of God ; and being assembled together 
 with them, he charged them not to depart from Jerusalem, but to 
 wait for the promise of the Father " (vers. 2-4). 
 
 The Appendix, Mk. xvi. 15-18, gives a commission in connec- 
 tion with an appearance to the Eleven in Jerusalem, which is 
 evidently a compilation from several sources. 
 
 a) " Go ye into all the world 
 
 d) and preach the gospel to the whole creation. 
 
 c) He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; 
 
 d) but he that disbelieveth shall be condemned." 
 
 This part may be regarded as parallel with the commission 
 given by Matthew ; but lines 2, 3 and 4 of Matthew are here 
 condensed, and the language changed in a, b; and c, d really 
 substitute Pauline faith for the obedience of Matthew, which latter 
 is the conception of Christ and the Twelve. The second part is 
 more manifestly compiled from the point of view of the experi- 
 ence of the Apostolic Age: 
 
 ' Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, p. 161. 
 
THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 1 5 
 
 " And these signs shall follow them that believe : in my name 
 shall they cast out demons ; they shall speak with (new) tongues; 
 they shall take up serpents, and if they dtink any deadly thing, 
 it shall in no wise hurt them ; they shall lay their hands on the 
 sick, and they shall recover." 
 
 The use of signs, <rr)fifia, agrees with the final author of John and 
 Luke against the other Synoptists. The earlier term was Smii/jias. 
 The use oi tongues reflects the tongues of the epistle to the Corin- 
 thians (I. Cor. xii. 28, xiv. 13 seq.), if not the gifts of the story of 
 Acts (Acts ii. 4 seq.). The references to demons and the laying 
 hands on the sick may have been taken from the earlier commis- 
 sion, as they resemble those of the Synoptic tradition. The 
 reference to serpents seems to reflect the story of Paul, Acts xxviii. 
 1-6, and the reference to the poisonous drink has nothing to 
 correspond with it. On the whole this composite commission 
 reflects a late conception, and is little help to construct the 
 original commission of Jesus. It combines the historic results of 
 the commission with the commission itself. 
 
 When, now, we turn to John's Gospel, we find in Jo. xx. 21-23 
 a report of a commission given to ten of the Twelve in Jerusalem 
 in the absence of Thomas : 
 
 " As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when 
 he had said this, he breathed on them, and said unto them : 
 Receive ye the Holy Spirit. Whosesoever sins ye forgive, they 
 are forgiven unto them ; whosesoever sins ye retain, they are 
 retained." 
 
 A critical examination of this passage shows that verse 23 is a 
 variation of Matthew xviii. 18, and that it does not belong here. 
 It is in the midst of an ancient canon of Church discipline, Mtth. 
 xviii. 15-20' : 
 
 " What things soever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven : 
 And what things soever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven." 
 
 But it is also contained in the naming of St. Peter, Mtlh. xvi. 
 17-19: 
 
 " I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of God ; 
 And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : 
 And whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 
 
 "See Briggs, Messiah of the Gospels, p. 193. 
 
l6 C. A. BRIGGS. 
 
 The connection here is much more appropriate, and is doubt- 
 less original. If these words be eliminated from the narrative of 
 John, we have simply the sending of the disciples, and the 
 symbolic action with the words: "Receive ye the Holy Spirit." 
 The adjective "holy" we may regard as redactional, in other 
 respects the phrase is doubdess original. The symbolic action of 
 Jesus, " breathing" on these ten, is entirely Hebraistic in concep- 
 tion, and probably comes from the original John. The words of 
 Jesus, " I send you as the Father hath sent me " and " Receive ye 
 the Spirit," are entirely in accord with the other narratives. The 
 only difficulty lies with the interpretation of the act. If Jesus 
 actually imparted the Divine Spirit to ten of the Twelve at this 
 time, there is an inconsistency with the narrative of the Book of 
 Acts, that the Spirit was first given at Pentecost. We notice also 
 the absence of Thomas, and also of the substitute for Judas. 
 Did the writer think that Jesus communicated the Divine Spirit 
 officially only to ten of the Twelve? This conception of an impar- 
 tation of the Divine Spirit by Jesus during his presence with the 
 disciples' is inconsistent with the conception of the previous dis- 
 courses, that it was necessary for Jesus to go away to the Father 
 before he could send the Divine Spirit as another Paraclete (xvi. 7). 
 Jesus' final departure to the Father, at his Ascension, was necessary 
 prior to the advent of the Spirit. We must take the passage as 
 a symbolical prophecy on the part of Jesus, and regard the words 
 "Receive the Spirit" as prophetic. This interpretation harmo- 
 nizes the Gospel of John with itself and also with the narra- 
 tives of the other Gospels and of Acts, and is in accordance 
 with prophetic analogies. It seems probable that a considerable 
 amount of the material in the discourses of the Gospel of John, 
 especially vi. 51^5-58 and portions of chapters xv.-xvii., are post- 
 resurrection discourses, delivered in that same upper room where 
 the last Passover was celebrated, and where the disciples were 
 accustomed to meet after the resurrection of Jesus, which was 
 probably the same as the house of Mary, the mother of John 
 Mark (Acts xii. 12). It was not unnatural, therefore, that the 
 post-resurrection discourses and the pre-resurrection discourses 
 given in the same place to the same disciples should appear 
 together in consecutive discourses in the Gospel of John, chrono- 
 
 ' McGiffert, Christianity in the Apostolic Age, pp. 49 seq. 
 
THE APOSTOLIC COMMISSION. 17 
 
 logical order having been abandoned for a topical one, just as in 
 the Sermon on the Mount (Mtth. chap, v.-vii.). At all events, the 
 discourses, chap, xv.-xvii., delivered after the words: "Arise, let 
 us go hence" (xiv. 31), centre about a promise of the Divine 
 Spirit and an exhortation, warning and commission of the Eleven 
 after the departure of Jesus to the Father : 
 
 " Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit ; and so 
 shall ye be my disciples" (xv. 8). 
 
 "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love" 
 (xv. 10). 
 
 " Ye did not choose me, but I chose you, and appointed you, 
 that ye should go and bear fruit, and that your fruit should 
 abide" (xv. 16). 
 
 "A servant is not greater than his lord. If they persecuted 
 me, they will also persecute you; if they kept my word, they will 
 keep yours also" (xv. 20). 
 
 "But when the Paraclete is come, whom I will send unto you 
 from the Father {even the Spirit of Truth, which proceedeth 
 from the Father), he shall bear witness of me: and bear ye also 
 witness, because ye have been with me from the beginning" (xv. 
 26-27), 
 
 " They shall put you out of the synagogues : yea, the hour 
 Cometh, that whosoever killeth you shall think that he offereth 
 service unto God" (xvi. 2). 
 
 " It is expedient for you that I go away : for if I go not away, 
 the Paraclete will not come unto you ; but if I go, I will send him 
 unto you" (xvi. 7). 
 
 "When he, the Spirit of Truth, is come, he will guide you into 
 all the truth" (xvi. 13). 
 
 " While I was with them, I kept them in thy name which thou 
 hast given me; and I guarded them, and not one of them per- 
 ished, but the son of perdition" (xvii. 12). 
 
 " As thou didst send me into the world, even so sent I them into 
 the world " (xvii. 18). 
 
 " Neither for these only do I pray, but for them also that 
 believe on me through their word " (xvii. 20). 
 
 It is plain that the advent of the Spirit to guide, the command- 
 ment of love, the sending forth to bear witness of Christ, the 
 persecutions that they will undergo — all this is entirely in accord 
 with the commission as given in the Logia. That which is 
 
 3 
 
1 8 C. A. BRIGGS. 
 
 especially emphasized here is the Personal Spirit, the New Com- 
 mand of Love (XV. 12, 17), and the indwelling of the Spirit in the 
 witnesses (xiv. 7). 
 
 The commissions are attached to the Twelve in all cases where 
 we have any information as to those who were present. But 
 they are all of such a character as apply to the ministry as a 
 whole and throughout all time. Is it involved in this commission 
 that all other ministers derive their commission mediately 
 through the Twelve, while the Twelve derived their ministry 
 immediately from the Lord himself? In a sense this must be 
 true, because only the Twelve received authority from the Lord 
 before he left the earth to go to the Father. If all the authority 
 for the ministry were derived from the original commission, this 
 would be the inevitable result. But the commission did not 
 complete the authority for the ministry. According to all the 
 reports, the coming upon them of the Divine Spirit was to endow 
 them with the authority and the power to undertake their 
 ministry. The commission of the Twelve was, as it were, the 
 instruction and the call of the primary ministers by the Lord 
 before he ascended to his throne. It was necessary that he 
 should actually ascend his throne and enter upon his reign, ere 
 he could impart to even the chosen Twelve the royal authority to 
 organize and to advance the kingdom on earth. 
 
 Union Theological Seminary, New York. r\ A BriGCS 
 
HOMERIC ECHOES IN MATTHEW ARNOLD'S 
 'BALDER DEAD.' 
 
 The poem ' Balder Dead,' published in 1855, may be regarded 
 as illustrating the 'classical' theory of Arnold's famous Preface of 
 1853. The subject— Romantic or Gothic as could well be chosen 
 — is taken from the Younger Edda'; the treatment is consciously 
 and purposely Homeric. In particular, the account of the funeral 
 of Balder is to be compared with the account of the funeral of 
 Patroklos, and the description of Hermod's visit to Hela's realm 
 with the description of Odysseus' visit to the abode of Hades. In 
 these passages there is a more or less consecutive imitation of 
 particular books of the Iliad and Odyssey, but throughout the 
 narrative one may notice many lines and phrases which seem to 
 have been borrowed here and there in Homer, as the growth of 
 the poem recalled them at random to the author's mind. 
 
 The poem begins with the wailing of the gods and heroes over 
 the dead Balder's body : 
 
 "And now would night have fall'n, and found them yet 
 Wailing; but otherwise was Odin's will." 
 
 Compare the wailing of the Greeks over the body of Patroklos, 
 II. XXIII 154': "And so would the light of the sun have gone 
 down on their lamentation, had not Achilles said," etc.; or the 
 wailing of the Trojan women over the body of Hector, II. XXIV 
 713. Odin checks their wailing, and reminds them that Balder 
 has but met the doom which the Nornies spun for him at his 
 birth, just as Thetis checks the wailing of Achilles, II. XIX 9 : 
 " for by the will of gods from the beginning was he brought low." 
 And even as Achilles directs, II. XXIII 49, that in the morning 
 
 '" Mallet, and his version of the Edda, is all the poem is based upon," 
 Letters of Matthew Arnold, vol. I, p. 55 (Dec. 1855). 
 
 'The Homeric passages in this paper are quoted from the standard prose 
 versions by Messrs. Butcher, Lang, Leaf and Myers. 
 
20 WILFRED P. MUSTARD. 
 
 the folk shall bring wood, and furnish forth a funeral-pile, so Odin 
 gives command : 
 
 "to-morrow, when the morning dawns. 
 Bring wood to the seashore to Balder's ship. 
 And on the deck build high a funeral-pile." 
 
 The funeral-feast of II. XXIII 55, a feast which lasts until night- 
 fall, has its counterpart in the funeral-feast of the gods and heroes 
 
 " While twilight fell, and sacred night came on." 
 
 In this line Arnold borrows the Homeric epithet Kvi^as Up6v, II. 
 XI 194 ; XVII 455, and in another line of the same passage : 
 
 "And the Valkyries crown'd their horns with mead," 
 he adapts the Homeric expression "and the young men crowned 
 
 the bowls with wine " (jcpr)Trjpas iivecrTe^avro woto7o), II. I 47°, etc. 
 
 When the grief-stricken Hoder leaves the feasting gods, and 
 wanders out through the city gates : 
 
 " Down to the margin of the roaring sea 
 He came, and sadly went along the sand," 
 
 we are reminded of the sorrowing Achilles, II. XXIII 59, who, at 
 the end of the funeral-feast, went apart from the rest, and "upon 
 the beach of the sounding sea lay groaning heavily ... in an open 
 place, where waves were breaking on the shore." Compare, also, 
 the famous line, II. I 34, which tells how Chryses the aged priest 
 "went in silence along the beach of the loud-sounding sea": 
 
 /3^ 5 aKeo>v napa diva TroXu^XoiV/Soio da\aa-(TT]s- 
 
 In the wailing of Nanna and "the Goddesses who wrought her 
 will," as they stand by Balder's bier : 
 
 " And at his head and feet she station'd Scalds 
 Who in their lives were famous for their song ; 
 These o'er the corpse intoned a plaintive strain, 
 A dirge — and Nanna and her train replied," 
 
 we seem to hear the wailing of Andromache and the Trojan women 
 over the body of Hector, II. XXIV 720 : "And they . . . laid him 
 on a fretted bed, and set beside him minstrels leaders of the dirge, 
 who wailed a mournful lay, while the women made moan with 
 them." And when their wailing is done ; 
 
 "and Nanna went 
 Into an upper chamber, and lay down ; 
 And Frea seal'd her tired lids with sleep,'' 
 
MATTHEW ARNOLD- S 'BALDER DEAD.' 21 
 
 we think of the recurrent grief of Penelope, Od. I 362, etc.: "She 
 ascended to her upper chamber with the women her handmaids, 
 and then was bewailing Odysseus, her dear lord, till grey-eyed 
 Athene cast sweet sleep upon her eyelids." 
 The vision which comes to Nanna : 
 
 " Then Balder's spirit through the gloom drew near, 
 In garb, in form, in feature as he was. 
 
 Alive ; he stood 
 
 Over against the curtain of the bed. 
 
 And gazed on Nanna as she slept, and spake : — 
 
 ' Poor lamb, thou sleepest, and forgett'st thy woe I ' " 
 
 is very like the vision which came to Achilles, as he slept, II. 
 XXIII 65: "then came there unto him the spirit of hapless 
 Patroklos, in all things like his living self, in stature, and fair eyes, 
 and voice, and the raiment of his body was the same; and he 
 stood above Achilles' head and spake to him : ' Thou sleepest, 
 and hast forgotten me, O Achilles.' " And just as Achilles tries 
 to embrace the shade of Patroklos, II. XXIII 99, "but clasped 
 him not; for like a vapour (j^vn Ka-nvii) the spirit was gone 
 beneath the earth," so Nanna tries to embrace the shade of 
 Balder; but he fades away into the night, like a smoke which is 
 seen to "hang in the air afield and disappear." Compare, also, 
 Virgil, Geor. IV 499 : 
 
 "dixit, et ex oculis subito, ceu futnus in auras 
 commixtus tenues, fugit diversa." 
 
 Odin's command : 
 
 " Go quickly, Gods, bring wood to the seashore, 
 With all, which it beseems the dead to have. 
 And make a funeral-pile on Balder's ship," 
 
 is an echo of the words of Achilles, II. XXIII 49: "rouse the 
 folk to bring wood and furnish all that it beseemeth a dead man 
 to have when he goeth beneath the misty gloom." And the 
 description of the gods bringing down wood for the funeral-pile is 
 distinctly Homeric. They "took axes and ropes," and, with 
 Thor at their head, 
 
 " Forth wended they, and drave their steeds before. 
 
 And up the dewy mountain-tracks they fared 
 
 To the dark forests, in the early dawn ; 
 
 And up and down, and side and slant they roam'd." 
 
22 WILFRED P. MUSTARD. 
 
 There they lopped and clove the pine trees, 
 
 " And bound the logs behind their steeds to draw, 
 And drave them homeward ; and the snorting steeds 
 Went straining through the crackling brushwood down. 
 And by the darkling forest-paths the Gods 
 FoUow'd, and on their shoulders carried boughs. 
 And they came out upon the plain, and pass'd 
 Asgard, and led their horses to the beach, 
 And loosed them of their loads on the seashore, 
 And ranged the wood in stacks by Balder's ship." 
 
 In the closing lines of this passage Asgard seems to be visualized 
 as a sort of Ilios — with a Mount Ida on one side of it, and on the 
 other the sea. But the whole passage is closely modelled on the 
 description of the Greeks bringing down wood for the pyre of 
 Patroklos, II. XXIII iioflf. In the Homeric passage, men are 
 sent from all the huts to fetch wood, with Meriones to watch over 
 them. "And they went forth with wood-cutting axes in their 
 hands and well-woven ropes, and before them went the mules, 
 and uphill and downhill and sideways and across they went. But 
 when they came to the spurs of manyfountained Ida, straightway 
 they set them lustily to hew high-foliaged oaks with the long- 
 edged bronze, and with loud noise fell the trees. Then splitting 
 them asunder the Achaeans bound them behind the mules, and 
 they tore up the earth with their feet as they made for the plain 
 through the thick underwood. And all the woodcutters bare 
 logs ; . . . And on the shore they threw them down in line, where 
 Achilles purposed a mighty tomb for Patroklos and for himself." 
 Another of Odin's commands: 
 
 " But now, put on your arms, and mount your steeds, 
 And in procession all come near, and weep 
 Balder ; for that is what the dead desire. 
 When ye enough have wept, then build a pile 
 Of the heap'd wood, and burn his corpse with fire 
 Out of our sight ; that we may turn from grief, 
 And lead, as erst, our daily life in Heaven," 
 
 combines two commands of Achilles: II. XXIII 8, "with horses 
 and chariots let us go near and mourn Patroklos, for such is the 
 honour of the dead"; and II. XXIII 52, "rouse the folk to bring 
 wood ... to the end that untiring fire may burn him quickly 
 
MATTHEW ARNOLD' S 'BALDER DEAD.' 23 
 
 from sight, and the host betake them to their work." And the 
 military honors paid to Balder : 
 
 "And thrice in arms around the dead they rode. 
 Weeping ; the sands were wetted, and their arms. 
 With their thick-falling tears — sp good a friend 
 They mourn'd that day, so bright, so loved a God," 
 
 are borrowed bodily from II. XXIII 13': "So thrice around the 
 dead they drave their well-maned steeds, moaning . . . Bedewed 
 were the sands with tears, bedewed the warriors' arms ; so great 
 a lord of fear they sorrowed for." Virgil has imitated the same 
 passage, Aen. XI 188-91 ; compare, in particular, the line: 
 
 "spargitur et tellus lacrimis, sparguntur et arma." 
 The wailing of Odin : 
 
 "And Odin came, and laid his kingly hands 
 On Balder's breast, and thus began the wail," 
 
 is like the wailing of Achilles, II. XXIII 17, or XVIII 317 : "And 
 Peleus' son led their loud wail, laying his man-slaying hands on 
 his comrade's breast." When Freya, "the loveliest Goddess she 
 in Heaven," takes Balder's head in her hands, and recalls his 
 kindness : 
 
 " Thou only, Balder, wast for ever kind, 
 To take my hand, and wipe my tears, and say : 
 ' Weep not, O Freya, weep no golden tears I 
 One day the wandering Oder will return.' 
 
 and Balder now is gone. 
 
 And I am left uncomforted in Heaven," 
 
 one thinks of the lament of Briseis, "that was like unto golden 
 Aphrodite,'' over the body of Patroklos, II. XIX 295 : " But thou, 
 when swift Achilles slew my husband . . . wouldst ever that I 
 should not even weep . . . Therefore with all my soul I mourn 
 thy death,' for thou wert ever kind." Compare, also, the wailing 
 
 1 Similar military honors are recorded as paid by various ancient peoples 
 to their heroes : by the Greeks to Achilles, Od. XXIV 68 ; by Germanicus 
 and his legions to Drusus, Tacitus, Ann. II 7, 4 ; by the Carthaginians to 
 Gracchus, Livy, XXV 17, 5 ; by the Hans to Attila, Jordanes, Get. XLIX ; 
 \ty the Jutes to Beowulf, Beow. 3170. 
 
 ' T(ji a' a/iOTOv K\aia rcdwiSra, iieiKixov am. Compare the lament of the hero 
 Regner ; " Therefore with grateful heart I mourn thee dead." 
 
24 WILFRED P. MUSTARD. 
 
 of Andromache, II. XXIV 724, "while in her hands she held 
 the head of Hector, slayer of men" ; and the lament of Helen, II. 
 XXIV 774 : "for no more is any left in wide Troy-land to be my 
 friend and kind to me, but all men shudder at me." And the 
 line at the end of Freya's lament : 
 
 " She spake, and all the Goddesses bewail'd," 
 may be compared with such lines as II. XXIV 746: "Thus spake 
 she wailing, and the women joined their moan." 
 
 After the burning of Balder's funeral-pyre, the gods went and 
 
 " sate down in Odin's hall 
 At table, and the funeral-feast began." 
 
 So in the closing lines of the Iliad, after Hector's funeral-pile is 
 burned : "when they had heaped the barrow they went back, and 
 gathered them together and feasted them right well in noble feast 
 at the palace of Priam, Zeus-fostered king." 
 
 When Frea explains that the messenger who is to go to Hela's 
 realm must ride on until he hears " the roaring of the streams of 
 Hell," and sees the "feeble shadowy tribes" and 
 
 "the wailful ghosts 
 Who all will flit, like eddying leaves, around," 
 
 we are reminded of Circe's instructions to Odysseus when he is 
 about to go to the abode of Hades, Od. X 504 ff. The Greek 
 hero is to journey on until he comes to "a meeting of the two 
 roaring waters," and when he has entreated "the strengthless 
 heads of the dead," then will many spirits come to him " of the dead 
 that be departed." The 'flitting' ghosts of the English poem 
 recall Homer's aiaaovaw, Od. X 495, and Virgil's 'volitare,' Aen. 
 VI 293, 329. Moreover, Arnold's messenger, as he journeys 
 through the darkness, 
 
 "must ever watch the northern Bear, 
 Who from her frozen height with jealous eye 
 Confronts the Dog and Hunter in the south, 
 And is alone not dipt in Ocean's stream," 
 
 much as Odysseus, Od. V 270, steers his course by "the Bear, 
 which they likewise call the Wain, which turneth ever in one 
 place, and keepeth watch upon Orion, and alone hath no part in 
 the baths of Ocean." And the promise made to Hermod when 
 he is bidden to set forth to Hela's realm : 
 
 '• And they shall be thy guides, who have the power," 
 
MATTHEW ARNOLD'S 'BALDER DEAD.' 25 
 
 recalls the comforting words of Od. IV 827 : " For lo, such a 
 friend goes to guide him, as all men pray to stand by them, for 
 that she hath the power {hvvarai yap), even Pallas Athene." 
 
 In Arnold's version of the manner of Nanna's death — by a 
 "painless stroke" from Frea— we have the Homeric fancy which 
 ascribes the sudden death of women to the "gentle shafts" of 
 Artemis ; compare Od. XI 173. And Hela's amazement when 
 the living Hermod appears before her : 
 
 " Unhappy, how hast thou endured to leave 
 The light, and journey to the cheerless land . . . 
 Being alive ? " 
 
 repeats the amazement of the spirit of Anticleia, Od. XI 156: 
 "how didst thou come beneath the darkness and the shadow, 
 thou that art a living man?"' 
 
 When Hermod first addresses Balder in Hela's realm : 
 " Even in the abode of death, O Balder, hail I " 
 
 we hear once more the cry of Achilles, II. XXIII 20, 180: "All 
 hail, Patroklos, even in the house of Hades." And a part of 
 the dialogue between them is a very clear echo of the dia- 
 logue between Odysseus and the shade of Achilles. Hermod is 
 speaking: 
 
 "'And sure of all the happiest far art thou 
 
 Who ever have been known in earth or Heaven ; 
 Alive, thou wast of Gods the most beloved. 
 And now thou sittest crown'd by Hela's side. 
 Here, and hast honour among all the dead.' 
 
 He spake ; and Balder utter'd him reply . . . 
 
 ' Hermod the nimble, gild me not my death ! 
 Better to live a serf, a captured man, 
 Who scatters rushes in a master's hall. 
 Than be a crown'd king here, and rule the dead.'" 
 
 Compare Od. XI 483 ff., where Odysseus is speaking: "'while 
 as for thee, Achilles, none other than thou wast heretofore the 
 most blessed of men, nor shall any be hereafter. For of old, in 
 the days of thy life, we Argives gave thee one honour with the 
 
 'Messrs. Butcher and Lang (The Odyssey of Homer, p. 416) quote the 
 passage of the Kalevala, in which the Daughters of Death find a similar 
 difficulty when the living VVainamoinen tries to enter Tuonela, the Finnish 
 Hades. 
 
26 WILFRED P. MUSTARD. 
 
 gods, and now thou art a great prince here among the dead. 
 Wherefore let not thy death be any grief to thee, Achilles.' 
 
 " Even so I spake, and he straightway answered me, and said : 
 ' Nay, speak not comfortably to me of death, O great Odysseus. 
 Rather would I live on ground as the hireling of another, with a 
 landless man who had no great livelihood, than bear sway among 
 all the dead that be departed.'" 
 
 When Odin proposes to go to Hela's realm and bring back 
 Balder by force : 
 
 " He spake, and his fierce sons applauded loud," 
 
 we think of II. VIII 542 ; 
 
 'Qy''EKT<i)p ayopiv , fVi hi TpSyes Ke\d8riarav, 
 
 "So Hector spake: the Trojans roar'd applause," as it runs in 
 Tennyson's specimen translation. The same line recurs in II. 
 XVIII 310. And the words in which Balder is made to foretell 
 the downfall of heaven : 
 
 "The day will come, when fall shall Asgard's towers. 
 And Odin, and his sons, the seed of Heaven," 
 
 are modelled on the words of Hector, II. VI 450, or of Aga- 
 memnon, II. IV 164 : "the day shall come for holy Ilios to be laid 
 low, and Priam and the folk of Priam of the good ashen spear." 
 
 The ship-burial of the Old Norse story is retained in the English 
 poem, but many of the details are either omitted or modified. 
 Fcr example, in the original account' the gods are unable to 
 launch Balder's ship, and so send to Jotunheim for the giantess 
 Hyrrokin. She comes riding upon a wolf, with twisted serpents 
 for reins ; and while four Berserkers contrive to hold her plunging 
 steed, she goes to the prow, and launches the ship "with one 
 single push ; but the motion was so violent that fire sprang from 
 the underlaid rollers and all the earth shook." In Arnold's poem 
 this grim giantess is not mentioned at all, and the might of Thor 
 is made equal to the task : 
 
 "and Thor 
 Set his stout shoulder hard against the stern 
 To push the ship through the thick sand ; — sparks flew 
 From the deep trench she plough'd." 
 
 ' R. B. Anderson, The Younger Edda, p. 133; Karl Simrock, Die Edda, 
 p. 287. 
 
MATTHEW ARNOLD' S 'BALDER DEAD: 2/ 
 
 The ship, it will be noticed, becomes a classical ship — beached as 
 ships in Homer are beached, with the prow pointing toward the 
 sea.' Again, in the Norse story Nanna dies of grief before 
 Balder's funeral-ship ; in Arnold's version she dies in Homeric 
 fashion, in her bed : 
 
 " Frea, the mother of the Gods, with stroke 
 Painless and swift, set free her airy soul." 
 
 The grotesque incident of the dwarf whom the angry Thor kicked 
 into the blazing pyre is omitted altogether. Moreover, in the 
 Edda "this funeral-pile was attended by many kinds of folk" — 
 Odin and his ravens, Frea, and the Valkyries ; Frey drawn in his 
 chariot by the boar Gullinburste, Heimdal riding his steed Gull- 
 top, and Freya driving her cats ; there came also a great company 
 of frost-giants and mountain-giants. In Arnold's version most of 
 these details are omitted — whether as unclassical or as unessen- 
 tial — and the gods who remain become somehow nobler person- 
 ages. For the treatment is Homeric, and Homer is 'always 
 noble.' 
 
 In one of his letters' Arnold has something to say of Tennyson : 
 " The fault I find with Tennyson in his Idylls of the King is that 
 the peculiar charm and aroma of the Middle Age he does not 
 give in them." In the Preface of 1853 he had argued for the 
 Greek theory of poetic art : " All depends upon the subject ; 
 choose a fitting action, penetrate yourself with the feeling of its 
 situations ; this done, everything else will follow." Just how far 
 the atmosphere or tone of the Norse mythology is reproduced in 
 ' Balder Dead,' how thoroughly the author had penetrated him- 
 self with the feeling of its situations, I must leave it to others to 
 say. It is somewhat bewildering to hear Odin and Hermod and 
 Balder speaking in the very words of Achilles or Odysseus, and 
 then to see such very Homeric gods eating of the boar Serimner's 
 flesh, and drinking from "horns and gold-rimm'd skulls." One 
 is reminded of the Irish critic's protest against Conington's 
 verse translation of the Aeneid — "setting Virgil a-chorusing 
 with Sir Walter Scott and Clan- Alpine's boatmen.'" When 
 
 ■Compare II. XIII 333; XV 704; XVI 124. 
 
 2 Vol. I, p. 147 (Dec. i860). 
 
 'J. Henry, Aeneidea, vol. I, p. 53. 
 
28 WILFRED P. MUSTARD. 
 
 Arnold wrote his 'Sohrab and Rustum,' he took especial pains 
 to 'orientalize' the similes, because he thought they "looked 
 strange, and jarred, if Western."' His sensitive ear could detect 
 "one continual falsetto" in the "pinchbeck Roman Ballads of 
 Lord Macaulay"^; but he seems to have found no incongruity of 
 details in his own deft mosaic of Norse and Homeric story. 
 
 Wilfred P. Mustard. 
 
 Haverford Collhgh, February i, 1901. 
 
 'Letters, vol. I, p. 37. 
 
 ^ On Translating Homer, pp. 187, 295. 
 
AD CATULL. XXX 4-5. 
 
 Nee facta impia fallacum hominum caelicolis placent. 
 Que tu negtegis et me miserum deseris in malis. 
 
 Cum ita scriptum sit in O et Gcodicibus, necesse fuit ut pro eo, 
 quod ferri non posset, que aliquod vocabulum e coniectura infer- 
 retur. Primum igitur codices recentiores et editiones veteres quos 
 exhibent, quam coniecturam Avantio Sillig, Guarino Baehrens 
 tribuit ; receperunt earn ex editoribus recentioribus Riese et Post- 
 gate, probavit Richter in Catullianis (progr. Lips. 1881), p. 5. 
 Facilior et fortasse etiam prior emendatio quae cui debeatur, 
 nescio ; sed iam pridem vulgata erat lectio, cum earn complures 
 liuius saeculi editores receperunt, ut Lachmann, Rossbach, Vahlen 
 (in editione Hauptiana quarta, et, nisi fallor, iam ipse Haupt), Ellis, 
 Merrill, Palmer. Maluit L. Mueller quod scribere, cum d finalem 
 "sine dubio sequentis verbi litera initiali" haustam esseaffirmaret ; 
 quern secutus Owen corruptelam tamen e compendio scripturae 
 ortam esse putat, quoniam e qd nota facile q: effici potuerit. Priora 
 aspernatus Baehrens quern coniecit, quae et ipsa f'acilis erat emen- 
 datio; sed cum ad amiculi vocabulum pronomen relativum 
 spectare deberet, etiam ordo versuum necessario commutabatur, 
 ut V. 5 post V. 3 poneretur. Sed ipse Baehrens in commentario 
 post decennium emisso suam sententiam reliquit, Munronis pro- 
 bavit, qui (Crit. and Elucid., p. 114) commate post placent inter- 
 pungi et quom scribi iussit. Denique queis, i. e. quibus, dubitanter 
 coniecit H. Richards, CI. Rev. XI, p. 304, coll. L. Muell. ad 
 Catull. LXIV 31. 
 
 Certe, si quae scribas, a lectione codicum vix disceditur ; sed de 
 sensu dubitatum est. Nam qui primus id scripsit, voluit fortasse 
 (niiiil enim de ea re comperi) sic intellegi, quasi ad earn quae 
 antecedit 'enuntiationem pronomen relativum spectaret ; quae 
 tamen enuntiatio cum unam tantum notionem complectatur, dubi- 
 taverunt viri docti, num recte sic pluralis adhiberetur, quern ad 
 plures sive res sive notiones referri debere opinatur Ellis in adno- 
 tatione ad v. 3; cf. etiam H. Bluemner, Nov. Ann., 1885, pp. 879 
 
30 G UILELMUS HA MIL TON KIRK. 
 
 sqq. Ilium igitur sensum cum L. Mueller exhibere vellet, singu- 
 larem pro plurali posuit ; quae autem lectionem cum et Ellis et 
 Merrill retinere mallent, lacunam ille statuit, hie ita interpretatus 
 est, ut qvae ad impia facta spectare, neglegis idem quod negle- 
 genter committis valere censuerit. Sed neque in neglegendi verbo 
 sic simpliciter posito committendi notio inest sed omittendi, neque 
 ex eo quo Merrill nisus est loco, Hor. C. I 28, 30-31, negle- 
 genter ac temere facere idem esse efficitur. lam vero H. Magnus, 
 Ann. Burs., 1885, p. 258, brevissime sane quaesivit, an omnino 
 iusta esset ilia de qua dixi dubitatio, neque quid ipse de ea re 
 sentiret, plenius exposuit. Venerat ei fortasse in mentem, apud 
 Graecos interdum pronomen plurali numero poni, ubi singularem 
 potius exspectes ; qua de re nuper monuit Milden in dissertatione 
 Hopkinsiensi quae inscribitur "Limitations of the Predicative 
 Position in Greek," p. 33. Ille unum affert locum, de quo 
 disputat, Isocr. I 34, alia exempla in Ponickavii de Isocratis 
 Demonicea libello congesta esse testatur; qui liber cum mihi 
 praesto non sit, apponam quae ipse collegi : Isae. Ill 48 ■^ivoiiivav 
 
 avrav, quod ad verba ur e'^ iraipar ov<rav airqv iyyvaadai spectat ; 
 Isocr. XVII 24 TovTOls }<rxvpiei(rdai, i. e. t^ to ypajXfiaTtiov 8»f- 
 <l>6dp6ai', Dem. XXIII 126 Tvyxavnv Tourav, i. e. tov jroXixas- yeveaBai', 
 LIX 86 vitfp airav ; Plat. Gorg. 448 A aira ravra ; At. Ran. 
 
 598, 695-6. Etiam Dem. XXXVI 30 si, ut Sandys, Reiskii inter- 
 pretationem sequaris, verba airav TovTav idem significant atque 
 id quod paulo ante praecedit roCro; aliter in commentario suo. 
 Act. Sem. Erlang. IV 131, Huettner interpretatur, sed minus 
 probabiliter, qui neque avrav pronominis vim neque i^iaOuiri 
 participii sensum satis videatur servavisse. 
 
 CatuUum igitur ex imitatione Graecorum sic locutum esse 
 credo, quamquam pluralem id genus etiam Romani fortasse in 
 legibus edictis sim. usurpaverunt ; cf. Rhet. ad Her. I 21 senatus 
 decrevit, si earn legem ad populum ferat, adversus rem publicam 
 videri ea facere ; Fest., p. 233 M. e formula praetoria, uti nunc 
 possidetis eum fundum . ; . ita possideatis, adversus ea vim fieri 
 veto. Et verba adversus ea, ad notiones modo unam modo plures 
 spectantia, saepius recurrunt, sed ea paene pro adverbio fuisse ex 
 Sc. de Bac. 24 apparet : quel advorsum ead fecissent quam suprad 
 scriptum est : quo magis veri simile est, e Graeco CatuUum potius 
 'quam e iuris sermone hausisse, praesertim cum Catulliano loco 
 ille simillimus sit, quern e Rhet. ad Her. attuli, ubi verba ipsa 
 
AD CATULL. XXX 4.-5. 3 1 
 
 senatusconsulti fideliter tradita esse vix licet confidenter affirmare. 
 Sed quod Cicero, C. M. 49, ilia posuit, animadvertendum est, ea 
 quae sequitur enuntiatione duas contineri notiones, quarum altera 
 per participium, altera per infinitives exprimitur ; cf. Dem. XLI 
 15 ; Ar. Ran. 610 sq., 693 sqq. 
 
 At etiam in primo versus 4 vocabulo viri docti haesitaverunt, 
 cum coniunctionem copulativam male adhiberi iudicarent; qua 
 opinione aliqua ex parte moti sunt et Lachmann, ut hos versus in 
 finem carminis relegaret, et Ellis, ul lacunam statueret. Nunc 
 Baehrens, num coniecit Schwabe, quern Postgate secutus est ; 
 neque banc coniecturam aut Riese aut L. Mueller improbavit, 
 quamquam hie in textu nihil mutavit, non ille maluit, quod etiam 
 Richtero placuit. Cur tamen coniunctio offenderet, Ellis non 
 exposuit, dum nihil aliud nisi nee sensu carere dicit ; quod autem 
 de inepta affirmatione Baehrens protulit, id eo minus operae est 
 refellere, quod rationibus parum aptis ipsius coniectura nititur. 
 At Bluemner 1. 1. ita scripsit : " Der anschluss dieses gedankens 
 an den vorhergehenden durch das blosse nee ist entschieden auf- 
 fallend ; man erwartet bei einem so starken gegensatze, wie er 
 hier stattfindet, eine deutliche gegeniiberslellung durch eine ad- 
 versativpartikel, zum mindesten aber die reine negation, nicht den 
 copulativen anschluss mit nee." Hoc quid sit, haereo; neque 
 enim profecto id negare voluit, satis crebro apud Latinos con- 
 iunctionem copulativam occurrere, ubi linguae vel Germanicae vel 
 Anglicae consuetude particulam magis requirat adversativam. 
 At ne hoc quidem dici potest, respuendam esse illam, si res 
 plane dissimiles componantur, cum Ciceronis, Off. Ill 41, haec 
 verba sint : " id quod utile videbatur neque erat." Sed mihi ne 
 videntur quidem ea, quae hoc versu efferuntur, adeo cum ante- 
 cedentibus pugnare, ut in coniunctione vis adversandi agnoscenda 
 sit ; de illo potius usu cogitandum est, quem tangit Naegelsbach, 
 Stil'., p. 720: "Und zwar niehl. So steht neque allerdings 
 zumeist in parenthetisch eingeschobenen Satzen, wie Liv. 28, 42, 
 6 . . . 5, 53, 3 ■ • • Aber doch auch am Anfang selbstandiger 
 Perioden : 3, 36, 4." Eius generis etiam haec sunt : Liv. I 28, 6 
 nee ea culpa; Rhet. ad Her. HI 15 nee hoc genus causae; ib. 39 
 nee nos banc verborum memoriam ; Liv. I 23 fin. nee mirari 
 oportet; Veil. I 3, 3 neque est quod miremur; ib. 17, i neque hoc 
 in Graecis ; adde etiam locutiones quae sunt nee mirum, neque 
 iniuria. In quibus omnibus vox, ut ita dicam, monentis est; et 
 
32 GUILELMUS HAMILTON KIRK. 
 
 a non tali modo nee differt, ut illud simpliciter et cum gravitate 
 neget, huic minus gravilatis sed vis insit vividior, et illud quasi 
 vocis intentionem, hoc quasi digiti sublationem reddat. 
 
 Altera sane exstat interpretatio, qua nee aliqui tuentur; nam id 
 vocabulum " more prisco pro non positum " esse primus A. Statius, 
 ut videtur (cf. Baehr. ad h. 1.), turn Munro et eum secutus Merrill 
 censuerunt. Breviter Munro in Adversariis rem tetigit, plura 
 idem protulit in adnotatione ad Lucret. II 23, cum eis exemplis 
 niteretur, quae in libello de particulis, p. 24, Ribbeck congesserat. 
 Sed quae turn de neque indefinito Ribbeck disseruit, ea hodie vix 
 quisquam in universum tuebitur; ita enim loqui videtur, quasi 
 etiam apud eos, qui post Augustum scriptores fuerunt, 7ieque 
 baud idem quod ne — quidem valeat, sed pro non semper accipi- 
 endum sit. Neque vero nunc probatur (vid. e. g. Schmalz', p. 
 455). quod in excursu ad Cic. Fin. tertio, p. 821, Madvig affir- 
 mavit, nee pro ne — quidem Livium admittere noluisse; qui etiam sic 
 admisit, ut per earn particulam neque adderetur aliquid neque res 
 augeretur sed tantum expressius affirmaretur, volut I 25, 6 qui nee 
 
 prOCul aberat ; cf. Xen. An. I 3, 12 xal ■yap oiSe Trnppa fioKoJ/ie'c /loi 
 
 aiiTov Ka6q<rdai. Nuper autem (Philol. LVIII) Frederking, ei 
 quoque sententiae adversatus quae ex auctoritate Madvigii usque 
 adhuc valuit Ccf. tamen etiam Kuehn. II 660-1), recte, ut opinor, 
 contendit Ciceronem quoque tiee tali sensu adhibuisse; id enim 
 et Catullus fecit (LXVI 73 nee si, i. e. oiS' d, cl. etiam Post- 
 gate ad LXII 59) et Lucretius (VI 1214 neque se possent co- 
 gnoscere ut ipsi, i. e. nrjS' airoi avrois). Haec poetarum sunt, 
 concedo ; at Cicero, Caesari plane contrarius, ut adversus res 
 novas timidus, ita in novis vocabulis locutionibusque audax fuit ; 
 qui si ei pro eHai7t posuit, certe nulla causa est, quin eum etiam in 
 negatione Graecos imitatum esse credamus. Neque vero in bac 
 re primus novavit ; nam 7ieque pro 7ie — quidevi etiam priscos admi- 
 sisse Gildersleeve-Lodge, §480, n. 1, affirmant, idque Plauto 
 Schmalz', 455 tribuit. 
 
 Aliud tamen est priscum illud nee, quod saepe apud Plautum 
 aliosque eiusdem aetatis scriptores occurrere teniere aliqui dixe- 
 runt, cum re vera in paucis tantum locis locutionibusque inveni- 
 atur. Hoc adverbium non ni.si per nee recte scribi et O. Mueller 
 (Suppl. Adnot. ad Fest., p. 387) et Buecheler (Nov. Ann., 1863, 
 p. 785) existimaverunt; quare etiam Kayser in Cic. Legg. II 22 
 nee pro eo quod est in codicibus neqtie recepit. At ibidem 
 
AD CATULL. XXX 4-5. 33 
 
 C. F. W. Mueller codicum lectionem retinet ; cf. Ribbeck 1. 1. 
 quaeque Planta, II 469 profert: "Das o(skisch) u(mbrische) 
 p widerlegt die Meinung dass nee = non deiktisches c enthalte 
 (Draeg. II 67 f.). Eher koniite man ein indefinites -que -c -p 
 (also eigentlich " nicht irgend ") neben dem copulativen annehmen 
 (vgl. z. B. Sclunalz', 461 ; Stokes-Bezzenberger bei Fick, 11* 62)." 
 In compositis an etiam neg- factum sit, illis statuendum relinquo, 
 quorum de talibus rebus indicium est ; sed nee opinans et nee 
 opinahis pro compositis haberi nolo, cum et sic separatim scripta 
 occurrant (cf. Ter. Andr. 180, Haut. 186 Urapf., Lucr. Ill 959) et 
 in B. Alex. 63 et 75, B. Afr. 66 neque op. legamus, ut haec 
 vocabula etiam extremis liberae reipublicae temporibus nonduni 
 in unum confusa esse colligas; sane in alio numero necopinus est 
 adiectivum, quod neque vere compositum et coniunctim semper 
 scribendum est. 
 
 lam nee adverbium in XII Tabularum reliquiis occurrit : V 4 
 cui suus heres nee escit, 7 b ast ei custos nee escit, VIII 16 si 
 adorat furto quod nee manifestuni erit. Etiam V 5 plerumque sic 
 scribitur, codices tamen nescit praebent, quod tuetur Stolz, ed. 2, 
 P- 313! efl- 3i P- 126. His igitur locis vere adverbium est, quo- 
 niam nisi cum verbo non adhibetur ; quamquam enim uno loco, 
 VIII 16, adiectivo praepositum est, tamen vi sua verbum quoque 
 afficit. At in eis locutionibus, quae multis saeculis postea apud 
 iuris scriptores exstantes 7iec priscum exhibent, alia ratio obtinet ; 
 nam si de rebus nee mancipi aut de furto nee manifesto illi dis- 
 serunt, nunquam banc particulam ad verbum trahunt, sed cum 
 vocabulo sequent! artissime coniungitur, neque ab zw- differt nisi 
 quod separatim scribitur; quod iam in Gai definitione satis appa- 
 ret: III 185 nam quod manifestum non est, id nee manifestum 
 est. At etiam clarior res fit, si particula nullo mode ad verbum 
 referri potest, velut Gai. II 18: magna autem differentia est inter 
 mancipi res et nee mancipi. At Plautinae aetatis media quaedam 
 ratio est; particula enim, cum ad verbum quoque pertineat, 
 tamen cum alia parte orationis, eaque adverbio, artius videtur 
 coniungi, ut in his : Naev. B. P. 53 B., 71 M. quod bruti nee satis 
 sardare queunt ; Cat. agr. 141, 4 si quid tibi ... neque satis 
 factum est ; Turpil. ap. Fest., p. 162 M. nee recte did mihi quod 
 iam dudum audio. Et nee reete dicere sexies apud Plautum 
 occurrere Lorenz ad Most. 240 docet: As. 155, 471, Bac. 119, 
 Most. 240, Poen. 516, Ps. 1085; semel etiam nee recie loqui, Bac. 
 3 
 
34 G UILELMUS HA MIL TON KIRK. 
 
 735. At plerunique male dicere vel loqui in consuetudine fuit, et 
 satis si negative efferre volebant, parum dicebant. Neque vero 
 negaverim, etiam non rede (ut Cic. Lael. 59) et non satis in usu 
 fuisse, sed in his particula negativa ah adverbio disiungi potest, 
 sicut Quintilianus, VII, pr. §1 satis non «/ scripsit, in illis autem 
 non disiungitur. Ergo si Plautina aetate non nisi in illis locutio- 
 nibus nee pro non adhibetur, sic statiiere licet, illas e vetustiore 
 tempore receptas Plautum aequalesque eius ita admisisse ut nihil 
 earum mutare auderent, nee autem indefinitum nisi in illis traditum 
 non fuisse et e consuetudine loquendi iampridem abiisse. 
 
 Contra quam sententiam facere mihi quidem non videtur locus 
 ille Ennianus, Trag. 78 R. cui nee arae patriae domi slant, fracfae 
 disiectae iacent; nam hie nee pro ne — quidem esse iam coliocatio 
 ipsa verborum et totius loci contextus satis evidenter declarant. 
 Magis disputandi locus est in Enn. A. 288, 3 B., 453 M. sed nee 
 pote quisquam undique nitendo corpus discerpere ferro ; poterat 
 enim fieri ut nee pote pro nequit veteres usurparent. Sed cum 
 in Plauti fabulis et/<?/^ satis frequenter adhibeatur neque illud 7iec 
 desit, tamen coniuncta nusquam inveniuntur ; et sed nee si apud 
 posteriores legimus (ut Ov. P. I i, 19; Tac. A. IV 34 ; Mart. IV 
 87. 5)) turn e Graeco id translatum esse facile coneedimus. 
 Veri simile autem est, saepius in certis coniunctionibus ver- 
 borum tales translationes primum factas esse, velut et pro 
 etiam Cicero aut post quasdam particulas aut cum pronomine 
 posuit (vid. Gildersleeve-Lodge, §478, n. 2); et quamquam in eo 
 quem Ennius versum exprimebat, II. n 107, oiSe hmavTo est, baud 
 mirum tamen si ille, cum verbum pro verbo non redderet, adver- 
 sandi notionem maiore vi efferre et sic vertere maluit, quasi aXX' olU 
 legeretur. Quod si fecit, turn apud eum quoque, sicut apud Liv. I 
 25, 6, nee intendendi tantum vim habet, sicut apud Latinos inter- 
 dum ne— quidem {ci. Rhet. ad Her. Ill 15, IV 10; Cic. Catil. Ill 
 24) et apud Graecos avU vel yixijSe; cf Piat. Rep. 328 C; Philem. 
 99, I K.; Anaxandr. 12, 3 K. Atque particulam hoc sensu accipi- 
 endam existimo in II. A 119, * 493 eVti oi.Se coixec, quamquam 
 Kuehner, Gr. Gr. II 834, Naegelsbachium secutus sic interpre- 
 tatur : " weil sich's gar nicht einmal ziemt, geschweige denn dass 
 es billig wiire"; quam interpretationem etiam Leaf, sed non sine 
 dubitatione, recipit. At particula si duas notiones inter se oppo- 
 nit, aut exprimuntur ambae aut ex altera altera intellegitur ; 
 extrinsecus autem inferri nihil debet. Idem sensus est in M 212, 
 
AD CATULL. XXX 4-3. 35 
 
 ubi particula bis ponitur ; cf. etiam T 295 ovil ^liv ovhi \i laaKii, e 
 cuius simili loco pendere videtur Cir. 239 quod nee sinit Adrastea. 
 
 At tertius locus obstare videtur: Plaut. Trin. 281 sqq. nolo ego 
 cum inprobis te viris, gnate mi, neque in via neque in foro nec- 
 ullum sermonem exsequi ; sic enim et Brix et Schoell scripserunt, 
 cum in A codice neq. ullum, in ceteris ullum sit. Atque olim 
 magis placere poterat necullus, quia etiam necuter receptum 
 erat ; quod postquam nuper (Rh. M. LII) validis rationibus Birt 
 expulit, de illo altero iam liberius dubitare licet. Et mihi quidem 
 Plautus non secus atque is qui Cirim conscripsit (Cir. 270 nee 
 ullo volnere) Graecum illud o4Se tfr in linguam Latinam transtu- 
 lisse videtur ; sed tamen si ei necullum vel neque ullum ex dome- 
 stica copia in promptu fuisse concedimus, aliud nihil efficitur nisi 
 banc verborum coniunctionem eum ex vetustioribus recepisse ; 
 ipsum vero nee Plautum ita recepisse, ut id ad suum arbitrium 
 adhibere et cum quolibet verbo coniungere posset, non efficitur. 
 
 Sane Cicero, cum in formis quibusdam legum confingendis inter 
 alia vetusta etiam nee pro 7wn admitteret, ita locutus est quasi 
 nequaquam vetustissimum sermonem referre vellet; cf. Legg. II 18 
 " sunt certa legum verba, Quinte, neque ita prisca, ut in veteribus 
 XII sacratisque legibus, et tamen, quo plus auctoritatis habeant, 
 paulo antiquiora quam hie sermo est." Ex qua oratione haec 
 coliigere licet, et in legibus post decemviralem aetatem con- 
 scriptis nee adhibitum fuisse (cuius rei tamen nulla exempla super- 
 sunt) et id nisi in legibus exstare Ciceronem quidem non existi- 
 mavisse. Quod tum quoque ille recte opinari poterat, si Plautini 
 illius nee recte et nee satis Naeviani et eius, quo ipse utebatur, 
 nee opinaius optime meminerat ; neque enim in sermone suae 
 aetatis nee quovis modo adhibitum sed solum in illis norat locu- 
 tionibus. 
 
 At quod in Verg. Eel. IX 6 nee priscum vulgo agnoverunt, 
 animadvertendum est, magis id iure fortasse veteres grammaticos 
 fecisse quam qui huius saeculi editores idem senserunt. Nam 
 Donatus cum in Ter. Ph. 678 legisset 
 
 quae quidem illi res vortat male 
 
 haec adnotavit: "non desinit poeta ostendere avaritiam Demi- 
 phonis, qui nee ideo libenter fert dari ah'quid Phormioni, quia sic 
 commodum ei est. Virgilius [Eel. IX 6] hos ill), quod nee bene 
 vertat, mittimus hoedos." Grammaticus de ethesin tantum 
 
36 G UILELMUS HAMIL TON KIRK. 
 
 loquitur, de oratione nihil dicit; at tamen ex eo ordine verborum, 
 quern in versu Vergiliano exscribendo servat, suspicari possis, ut 
 pro male dicere exstabat nee recte dicere, sic etiam nee bene 
 vertere pro male vertere in aliqua consuetudine fuisse. Sed nunc 
 editores nee vertat bene scribere malunt cum propter optimi 
 codicis Palatini auctoritatem turn quia numerosius sic verba 
 cadunt. Quae si vera lectio est, etiam hie Graecae linguae ves- 
 tigia agnoscenda censeo, ut nee pro //i;8f sit; quod autem in 
 enuntiatione et relativa et optativa intendendi causa particula 
 adhibetur, id fortasse ne in Graeco quidem sermone multum in 
 usu fuit, neque aliud mihi exemplum in promptu est; sed tamen 
 fere simile illud est Antiphontis, I 23, 6 xal TroiijcraTe. At si quis 
 aliter sentit, ei demonstrandum erit, nee priscos etiam pro ne 
 admisisse; quod ad pervincendum non multum valet is locus, in 
 quo solo ita admittitur, Cic. Legg. Ill 6 nee esto, ubi nei pro 7iec 
 Buecheler 1. 1. scribi iussit. 
 
 Rutgers College. GuILELMUS HAMILTON KiRK. 
 
THE SYMBOLIC GODS. 
 
 A Greek philosopher, Euhemerus by name, who seems to have Euhemerism. 
 been neither fool nor cynic, declared that the gods originally were 
 excellent and notable men, transplanted after death to heaven. 
 There was also a school of Hindu ' legendarians ' {aitihdsika) 
 who made bold, for instance, to reduce the Ajvins, the Ai/or KoCpot 
 (cf. Vedic divo napdta), to the position of pious kings of yore 
 {rdjandu punyakrldu^). This is just what the author of the 
 Odyssey does (xi. 300 ff) : he makes heroes of them, 
 
 ' Kastor, the tamer of horses, and Poludeukes, skilled with his fist . . . 
 They died and received honor like unto the gods.' 
 
 The possibility of Euhemerism appears in many quarters of 
 Indian religious history. The Hindus stood ready at all times to 
 efface the line that parts gods and men. The gods sin and ' wipe 
 off' their sins on a scape-god Trita who in turn wipes them off' on 
 wicked men. The gods perform sacrifices. Asceticism or spir- 
 itual fervor (tapas) is a creative instrument in their hands, but 
 men vie with them in this ; it becomes necessary at times to divert 
 the tapas of great ascetics, when it threatens to shake the founda- 
 tions of the universe, by dispatching (in the manner of the St. 
 Anthony episode) divine nymphs on their customary mission. In 
 Buddhism the gods are passably good Buddhists, as Professor 
 Rhys Davids aptly puts it. The Brahmans say that there are two 
 kinds of gods : divine gods, and Brahman gods ; from their point 
 of view this is, I am sure, neither as naive nor as impudent as it 
 has seemed to be at first sight. The gods descend from heaven 
 {avatar) and men ascend to be gods. During the last fifty years 
 there were still leading Vedanta preachers of the Brahma, so holy, 
 so sanctifying in character and example, that their canonization 
 by popular voice as Paramahaiisas, 'supreme spirits,' comes dan- 
 gerously close to identifying them with God himself. 
 
 We need not attempt to conceive of natural religion, of religion 
 
 ' Yaska Nirukta xii, i. 
 
38 MAURICE BLOOMFIELD. 
 
 that is not controlled by academic commands, as ever entirely 
 free from hero worship: the hero may be canonized or made 
 into a god. The impressive object-lesson of superiority, physical 
 or spiritual, may make a god of a tribal chief, a Roman emperor, 
 or a Hindu ascetic. This is the true element in Euhemerism ; in 
 the outer world that surrounds each human being, there is a 
 power, constant, intimate and compelling, namely, the power of 
 other men. Let this but exhibit itself dominant or helpful to an 
 unusual degree, and it must be conciliated or gratefully adored ; 
 here is some of the raw material out of which a god maybe made. 
 Yet science has wisely repudiated Euhemerism as a general 
 theory of religion, because the contact between man and man is 
 but a patch of the complex tissue of existence ; there are other 
 relations which man has to establish with forces even more exact- 
 ing, and certainly more mysterious. At the present time Euhe- 
 merists are trying their hand exceedingly in the explanation of 
 Vedic mythology. The theory is a convenient catch-all for almost 
 any mythological fact of obscure origin, for it obliterates conve- 
 niently the distinction between things hard to interpret and things 
 that require no interpretation at all. 
 Father- Worship of the Manes (Fathers and Mothers) is in principle 
 Worship. ^Qj. yg^y different from the preceding. What shall primitive man 
 do with his deceased relations that have become poor relations 
 all at once? Death does not rid him of them, for they appear in 
 dreams and visions. They hover over the hearth, they are at the 
 table and must be fed. The graddhas, feasts set out for the 
 Fathers, are the most important religious act of the ordinary 
 Hindu. The Greek Satfiav {avBpanvoba'iiiav) and ijptat require per- 
 sonal attention. The same is true of the Roman Lares and 
 Penates who are coupled with the worship of Vesta, the goddess 
 of the hearth; they all testify to the persistent intimacy between 
 the living and the dead. Worship of the dead is an important 
 factor in religion, rising here and there to a supreme position. It 
 is predestined also to assimilate itself to god-worship. The dead 
 may require order and government like the living; hence the 
 Chthonic gods (Hades and Persephone, xdovioi fleoi) rule the spirits 
 of the dead (x^Ji/ioi, f«pot).' Or there maybe a Father Epony- 
 mos, a pioneer Father, who discovers the permanent abode of the 
 departed ; hence Yama, the son of Vivasvant, who has found the 
 
 ^Fairbanks, A. J. Ph. xxi. 243. 
 
THE SYMBOLIC GODS. 39 
 
 bright places where the Fathers carry on a delightful existence in 
 his company. Yama is first of all a king; next, king of the dead, 
 Pluto ; and finally a god. 
 
 In primitive times a rich field for religious impressions is found 'Auto- 
 in what is usually spoken of as animism or spiritism. Both terms '"°''P'"'"'-' 
 are open to objection ; they can not belong to a primitive stage of 
 religious evolution, since soul and spirit with their implied human 
 twofoldness, baffling even to the modern philosopher, can not be 
 counted conceptions of primitive savage man. But the narrower 
 and best sense in which animism is used is not to be misunder- 
 stood ; I mean what might be more properly called automor- 
 phism. Taking as a class the living organic beings ordinarily 
 seen, that is, man himself and the animal world beside himself, 
 we know that they are reproduced in man's consciousness in 
 countless exalted and distorted forms. That is to say, they serve 
 as a suggestion for other shapes, other bodies that evolve them- 
 selves before the mind with a degree of reality scarcely less than 
 that of the man and beasts he meets in his daily life. Night, full 
 of vague and flitting shapes; the fire that dispels them, while 
 itself producing them ; the clouds and vapors that hover over 
 mountains and marshes reproduce and exaggerate the shapes of 
 men and beasts to the point of independent creation, almost ex 
 nihilo. Dreams, nightmares, delirium, and hallucination fill the 
 mind with delightful and monstrous fancies in which the auto- 
 morphic figures become so real that they may not be doubted. 
 The Upanisads, an intellectually far advanced product of the 
 Hindu mind, pretty nearly, if not quite, believe in the reality of 
 dream-life. By its own light the human mind fashions the 
 materials seen while awake into a new world of forms: 
 
 ' In the state of dream he roameth up and down 
 As a god creates for himself many forms. 
 Now joyfully dallying with women, 
 Now beholding monstrous forms.' 
 
 — Brhad-Aranyaka-Upanhad'vi. 3. 13. 
 
 How inextricable is the mutual entanglement of real and 
 visionary life in the consciousness of early man we can scarcely 
 realize, still less certainly can we count the number of more or 
 less divine personalities, especially of the uncanny, demoniac sort, 
 that have been recruited from visions. 
 
40 MAURICE BLOOMFIELD. 
 
 Nature- All this material for making gods taken collectively is in reality 
 Worship, nothing but the deification of human persons, or persons shaped 
 in the image of man. The religious object is the will of these 
 persons ; the religious motive is their conciliation ; the religious 
 act is praising and giving to these persons, that is, prayer and 
 sacrifice. Now the discovery of the Veda has established the 
 following important fact. From what precedes we may presume 
 that primitive man was conscious of his own power of perception 
 and volition, else how could he ascribe to others helpful or dis- 
 turbing exercise of these functions ? The Vedic hymns, though 
 themselves high up in the scale of human production, have con- 
 vinced us that primitive man at his very awakening to conscious- 
 ness extended these simple processes of reasoning to inanimate 
 nature, or, let us say even more broadly, to his inanimate sur- 
 roundings. The phenomena and forces of nature, no less than the 
 human and automorphic shapes are ever active ; man's being and 
 well-being is altogether dependent upon them. The earth that 
 nourishes ; the heavens that fructify the earth (father and mother) ; 
 the sun, source of light ; wind, rain, lightning and fire ; they are 
 all in motion and action. They are all, too, forces which man is 
 bound to recognize as superior to himself A simple step forward 
 in primitive reasoning endows these forces with will and intention, 
 personification follows of sheer necessity, and again man must 
 establish a modus vivendi with these persons. The grander forces 
 of nature are not the only living things. The forest is alive with 
 trees, the plain with plants; the rivers with waters; the moun- 
 tains with clouds ; and even rocks and stones, more or less 
 shaped, simulate form, life, will and intention. These processes 
 go on as civilization dots the environment of man with artificial 
 objects. The sheltering house has life, personality, and divinity ; 
 the ' goddess furrow,' Sita, becomes in time one of the most 
 charming figures of Hindu myth and story ; the nourishing por- 
 ridge, that puts on a home-spun garment, the staple fee of the 
 Brahmans, in a moment of recklessness turns god ; the battle- 
 drum, the spear and the ' trusty blade,' ' and even the senseless 
 stone or stump by the road-side (fetish) may be at any moment 
 irradiated by the will and intention that is seen shining in them to 
 such an extent that they appear to be gods. 
 
 'Beowulf's swords, Naegling and Hrunting; King Arthur's Escalaber. 
 C£. Gummere, Germanic Origins, p. 246. 
 
THE SYMBOLIC GODS. 41 
 
 But there is left over a kind of god even more shadowy than Symbolic 
 many of those egoistic (and egotistic) personages who can ^°^' , 
 exercise their wills in a manner favorably or unfavorably to man. 
 I mean the abstract gods, according to the usual designation; 
 since, however, many of the abstract gods are not entirely 
 abstract, let us say the symbolic gods. To this there can be no 
 objection whatever ; this type of divinity at whatsoever stage of 
 development we may meet with it symbolizes something desired 
 or feared. It is a quality or condition, good or bad, useful or 
 noxious, that has turned divine ; the quality itself may exist in 
 nature, but it is not the special property of any one natural object. 
 More often the quality is even more subjective ; it exists only in 
 the mind. Such gods, for instance, as 'Health,' and 'Immor- 
 tality ' ; ' Fear,' and ' Grudge,' are symbolic to the last degree, 
 they simply record a desire, an anxiety, a fear, an aversion. To 
 sum up, the so-called abstract gods are the symbolic gods, in the 
 first instance nothing but mental experiences of qualities, good 
 and bad, subjective valuations of these qualities from the personal 
 point of view of a given individual. We may, therefore, also 
 define them as subjective gods, in distinction from all the other 
 classes of gods, outlined at the beginning, who are in some way 
 based upon an object, who are objective. 
 
 If I am not mistaken, the chronology of the symbolic gods is Chronology 
 implied in the definition just given. I mean, as my readers will g ' bolic 
 easily guess, that they are primitive, that the state of mind needed Gods, 
 to form them is absolutely that of natural man ; if the state of 
 mind existed, some form of expressing it is not likely to have 
 long been wanting. There is, to be sure, a vague feeling among 
 readers of religious literature that there is something ' secondary' 
 about these gods. We need but remember Virtue, Honor, Repu- 
 tation, Love, and Hate, all spelled with capital letters, all common 
 in modern poetry and oratory, to understand that symbolic divini- 
 ties can be, and no doubt largely are the product of an advanced, 
 artistic, plastic, reflective state of mind. That they are almost as 
 common in Homer, Hesiod and the Veda as with modern poets 
 proves only that ancient poetry operates with the same instru- 
 ments and figures as modern poetry ; or shall we say that modern 
 poetry has not weaned itself from ancient models in this respect ? 
 The appeal to the imagination made by such glib personifications 
 has at all times found response; they count among the safest 
 
42 MAURICE BLOOMFIELD. 
 
 assets of him that speaks poetically or rhetorically. But though 
 the records of artistic literature can tell us nothing about the actual 
 time when these gods began, we may nevertheless reason safely 
 that they are founded upon the bed-rock of early human con- 
 sciousness. Can we imagine a time when a savage shaking with 
 ague in the forest, or in his primitive hut, did not crave the quality 
 ' warm ' ; or, when burning with fever, did not long for the quality 
 'cool'? The Atharva-Veda 'makes obeisance' to 'cool and to 
 hot fever.' In various parts of the earth fever is cured by tying 
 a frog, the coolest of animals, to the body of the patient. 
 How The Veda has taught us the lesson of the nature-gods (anthro- 
 ^'""cods potnorphic gods), so that we shall not forget it ; it may serve us 
 are Made, equally well with the symbolic gods. Symbolism is based upon 
 the crude notion that qualities have a kind of independent indi- 
 vidual existence, aside from the concrete objects that possess a 
 given quality. Let us take, e. g., the obvious fact that there is 
 much in nature round about man that is red in color. Primitive 
 man, though notoriously awkward in devising names for color, 
 was surely conscious of that color-quality which we call red, as 
 well as of the other principal colors. Now in jaundice the com- 
 plexion turns yellow; yet all about in nature there is the quality 
 ' red.' Naturally, the wish and aim of the jaundiced person is to 
 apply to himself the abundant redness that is in nature : ' Oh, 
 that I were red, instead of yellow!' He wishes red, he wishes 
 away yellow: the wish positive or negative in connection with 
 some quality is surely the first step in making a symbolic god. 
 And now the wish is realized as much as possible, first in thought 
 next in exclamation (prayer), and finally by hugging the desired 
 quality as closely as may be, and by removing (exorcising) the 
 abhorrent quality. This is charm and amulet. Red, the color of 
 life and health (' heute roth morgen todt') is the quality, destined 
 to become a god to those suffering from jaundice, and, less par- 
 ticularly, to all that crave health and life : 
 
 ' Up to the sun shall go thy jaundice, in the color of the red 
 bull do we envelop thee.' 
 
 ' Into parrots, thrushes, and yellow wag-tails {nota bene, all 
 yellow birds) do we put thy jaundice.' — {^Atharva- Veda i. 22). 
 And then something red is placed upon the patient to be worn as 
 an amulet. 
 
THE SYMBOLIC GODS. 43 
 
 Soon we have a god ' Red' (Rohita). Now begins the process The 
 of piling upon this very simple fiction all possible myth-making acts ^°'' '^^''■ 
 derived from the grosser sphere of the visible gods. The thing 
 that is most especially red and lusty in great nature is the sun; 
 the god of red quality, Rohita, is drawn irresistibly to become an 
 attribute, a special manifestation of the sun-god. It is not good 
 for a god, any more than for man, to be alone ; from the rib of 
 the god Rohita (masculine, ' He-Red') is fashioned Rohini (femi- 
 nine, 'She-Red'). After that we may leave the happy couple to 
 the tender mercies of poets, story-tellers, old women in the 
 nursery, and even to philosophers ; they will paint the two figures, 
 with such outline, color, and perspective as they can command, 
 into the great picture of the national pantheon. 
 
 Let me hold closely to the thread of my argument. The simple- Verbal 
 minded reasoning at the bottom of all this is that the quality Red. *^°^'- 
 having some sort of objective existence, is in truth itself an object; 
 if an object, we know from what has preceded, that it may have 
 will : if will, intention: again, the real purpose of the god-making 
 act is to coax that intention, so that it may be favorable to him 
 that coaxes. Color is a very noticeable, a very salient quality, 
 but any quality will do; so, e. g., audible quality, the sound of a 
 thing as conveyed by its very name. We may take it for granted 
 that primitive folk are not able to distinguish very sharply 
 between the name of a thing and its other more inherent quali- 
 ties ; yea, for that matter, between the name of a thing and the 
 thing itself. Natural man manipulates language sensitively and 
 fruitfully, without the interference that comes from a critical under- 
 standing of the processes of word-making. He is full of the 
 belief — not quite dead yet — that the names of things are there by 
 nature (^uo-ci) ; he is not the least bit worried by the truth that he 
 himself and his ancestors have invented the names and have 
 attached them to things (Beati). 
 
 The Hindus were great grammarians and phonetists, but they 
 never seemed able, not even in their Brahmanical and Buddhistic 
 philosophies, to hold apart the names and the essence of things 
 (ndma and rupd). Hence their etymologies are almost invariably 
 childish and silly. If the name of anything sounds in a certain 
 way, that sound is for them as much part of the thing as its chem- 
 ical constituents. Therefore the name, no less inherent a quahty 
 than the color of a thing, may become a trusted basis for making 
 
44 MA URICE BL O OMFIELD. 
 
 divinities (jwmina numina). There is a 'god barley.' The 
 
 name of barley \^ yava; the verb stem ydvaya means 'defend.' 
 
 The common formula, _j'az'^ 'siydvaydsmad dve^ah ' barley (/. e., 
 
 defender) art thou, defend us from hatred,' catches the theogonic 
 
 process in the very act. It is easy to prove the example : ifinSan- 
 
 skrit^j'az'ia! were sounded with the sounds o{ hordeum, gerste ,ox Ceial, 
 
 there would be no god ' barley.' The Sanskrit word for life and 
 
 living is j'lva; any plant that has a similar sound, like jivanti or 
 
 jivald is life-giving, has supernatural power by virtue of its name. 
 
 A favorite plant for sorcery is called apdmdrga ; its power comes 
 
 to it from its supposed etymological connection with the verb 
 
 apa-marj ' wipe away.' In Hindu charms this plant is constantly 
 
 implored to wipe away diseases, to wipe out demons and wizards, 
 
 to wipe off sins and evils of all sorts. For better or for worse the 
 
 real divine element here is the ' god wiper.' 
 
 Mythology In this remote corner of the land of myth we may find a safe, 
 
 a Disease [jjough very modest, home for the famous theory that myths are 
 or Language. . \. , . 
 
 a disease of language. If we regard, as was once the fashion, 
 
 analogy in language as a disease (' false analogy '), then mythology 
 is a disease of language precisely in the degree that mythic 
 figures are created or strongly modified by analogy at work upon 
 the names of these mythic figures. 'Acppodhrj and 'A<ppoSiTt], whether 
 they come from Shemitic Ishtar or not, are surely names the 
 first of which coquets with ri^pos ' foam,' the second both with 
 a(t>p6s and Suco 'enter.' If once these two verbal ideas were read 
 into the name of the 'foam -born' goddess they became as much 
 part of her mythogonic apparatus as was the famous root dyu 
 'shine 'in the production of Zeis. Again and again the Hindu 
 myth makes female relatives for mighty {fakrd) Indra out of 
 words for strength. Indra is at first gaclpati, 'lord of might.' 
 But pati happens to mean ' husband ' as well as ' lord ' ; (acipati 
 is thought to mean 'husband of ^aci' ; hence we have his ' steady 
 company' wife ^aci. Another, rather temporary wife, Prasaha, 
 is similarly abstracted from another of Indra's epithets, /ra^a^ai- 
 pati'XoxA of strength.' His mother fawa« ' Strength ' is a pain- 
 fully obvious precipitate from Indra's epithets (avasah sunuh and 
 putrah {avasah ' son of strength ' ; from the stem gavas ' strength ' 
 the old lady is derived with the help of the obligato feminine 
 ending i. Sanskrit scholars need not be reminded that sura, a 
 common classical word for ' god' is but a pendant to asura ' devil,' 
 
THE SYMBOLIC GODS. 45 
 
 at a time when the latter word was felt in popular etymology to 
 be a-sura 'not bright.' But asura at first meant simply 'spirit.' 
 The goddess Diti, of undefinable character, is but an afterthought 
 to Aditi, the goddess 'Boundlessness." I suspect that Aditi 
 also, that vague and elusive mother of the substantial Indo- 
 Iranian Adityas (Mitra, Varuna, Aryaman, Bhaga), herself un- 
 known in the Avesta, is an abstraction. If we get ourselves to 
 regard the ddilya as the 'gods of old' (a(/z 'beginning' + suffix 
 '()/«') we have an epithet that fits them marvellously well ; grant 
 but the least darkening of the meaning of this adjective, its least 
 advance from epithet to mythic person, and Aditi results almost 
 of necessity as the basis of the seeming patronymic dditya. 
 
 We are ripe now for the final statement : Any quality, how- Complete 
 soever abstract it may seem to us, presents itself to natural man Abstraction: 
 as something solipsistic ; it is a thing per se ; the visible quality 
 'red,' the audible quality 'defending' can claim no advantage 
 over the quality 'down' in such formulas as the following: 
 
 ' Thou that niakest all men sallow, inflaming them like a sear- 
 ing fire, even now, O Fever, thou shalt become void of strength ; 
 do thou now go away down, aye, into the depths ! ' — {Atharva- 
 Veda v. 22. 2.) 
 
 Or, another time : 
 
 ' Down bloweth the wind, down burneth the sun, the cow is 
 milked downward — down shall go thy ailment ! ' — {.Rig- Veda x. 
 60. II.) 
 
 There is no god 'Down ' or 'Downer', but it seems to me that 
 I see the fumes over the alembic condensing and shaping them- 
 selves into such a one ; if there is no such god, clearly there might 
 have been. 
 
 Professor Usener, in his learned, important and — barring cer- Professor 
 tain etymologies not quite d la wt?^/^— altogether delightful book, ^p^^Jfjg^ 
 'Gotternamen,' has proposed the name 'sondergotter' for this Gods.' 
 style of god ; Professor Gildersleeve^ happily translates the word 
 by ' specialist gods.' It seems to me that the name is a little too 
 broad, and not quite as definite as it should be for the class of forma- 
 tions which we are discussing ; it fails to bring out the subjective 
 
 ' Cf. the purely linguistic production of duhkha ' miserable,' out of sukAa 
 •pleasant' (primarily of a chariot, 'having well-drilled naves of the 
 wheels ') ; or the tentative durahd ' perdition ' as pendant to svdhd ' hail.' 
 
 5 A. J. Ph. xvii. 356 ff. 
 
46 MA URICE BL O OMFIELD. 
 
 element upon which I am endeavoring to lay stress. The god 
 Agni 'Fire,' or even Zivs 'shining sky,' is also a specialist god; 
 where, indeed, do we find anything but specialist gods, until there 
 comes that final reflection which gathers up the 33 or the 3333 
 gods into a single god, or extracts all their virtue into a monistic 
 or pantheistic menstruum? The really important distinction in 
 the whole domain of god-making is between ready-made indi- 
 viduals and individual objects on the one hand, and subjective 
 states of mind born of man's adjustment of himself to his sur- 
 roundings in general, and enlivened by keen desire or fear into 
 objective reality ; heroes, Fathers, visionary personages, nature- 
 forces, nature-objects and artificial objects on the one side, desires 
 and fears on the other. In daily life, with a simplicity that car- 
 ries us back to rudimentary human emotion, we still exclaim, or 
 think, ' I wish I had,' 'I wish I were,' and proceed to build a 
 castle in the air or in Spain. The passionate wish and the lurid 
 fear have in folk-lore always tended to a certain kind of realiza- 
 tion. The gift of a certain number of wishes (usually three)' ; 
 the wishing-cap and the magic wand ; the bodily potency of the 
 curse (wish of another, hostile wish), and the evil eye show how 
 subjective emotion is conceived to glide over into objective 
 reality. It is purely a matter of insistence ; the shadowy figure, 
 conjured up before the mind again and again, thickens in sub- 
 stance, grows sharper in its outline, becomes more and more visu- 
 alized, so to speak, every time it presents itself to desiring and 
 fearing man. 
 Haurvatat The natural Aryan (Indo-Iranian) man cries out after 
 Am r rt- ^^^''^ ^"'^ immortality in endless exclamations that contain 
 the Goddess the words sarva 'sound' and amrta 'immortal.' One Aryan 
 Grudge.' people, the Persians, have made gods of these two prime desires. 
 Haurvatat and Ameretat (Khordad and Murdad), mere abstract 
 nouns from the adjectives just mentioned, figure among Ahura 
 Mazda's angels, the Ameshaspents ; they rule over the plants and 
 waters that ward off disease ; they are the gods of nutrition ; they 
 smite hunger and thirst; they nourish the blessed in Paradise. 
 
 The Brahman authors of the Vedic hymns get their living from 
 those for whom they sing and sacrifice. Naturally they love the 
 generous giver ; their dislike of the stingy, grudging, or even 
 •poor employer, knows no bounds, and is expressed in a fashion 
 
 ^ See AV xi. 1. 10; Sacred Books of the East xlii. 181, 613. 
 
THE SYMBOLIC GODS. 47 
 
 that is the reverse of mealy-mouthed in numberless passages. 
 One way of describing these much-disliked persons is a-rf, 'he 
 that gives no wealth' (ri, a form of the stem in Lat. res); the 
 abstract noun corresponding to ari is ardti 'ungenerousness,' 
 •grudge,' 'avarice.' The pretty hymn, Atharva- Veda v. 7, dis- 
 closes Arati as a full-fledged person ; she is ' golden-complexioned, 
 lovely, rests upon golden cushions,' in fact, quite an Apsaras or 
 "schone Teufelinne'; yet she is cajoled to go away: 
 
 'Bring wealth to us, do not stand in pur way, O, Arati; do not 
 keep from us the sacrificial fee, when it is being taken (to us) ! 
 Adoration be to the power of grudge, the power of failure, adora- 
 tion to Arati ' ! 
 
 ' Him whom I implore with holy speech (Vac Sarasvati), the 
 yoke-fellow of thought, the faith (that manifests itself through 
 gifts) shall find to-day, aroused (in him) by the tarown soma- 
 drink ' ! 
 
 ' To the golden-complexioned, lovely one, who rests upon 
 golden cushions, to the great one, to that Arati who wears golden 
 robes, I have rendered homage.' 
 
 We must not forget that the symbolic gods are not all common- Brahma, 
 place or mean like Haurvatat and Arati. The most exalted divine 
 conception of gentile folk, Brahma, is the symbol of pious thought 
 and holy utterance (Xdyor), the outpouring of the soul in its highest 
 longings ; it is the best wish of a spiritually-minded and gifted 
 people that has become divine essence and universal personal 
 god. 
 
 It is true, however, that the symbolic gods are largely oppor- Distinction 
 tunist, very special, and even momentary ; it is ordinarily not easy Between 
 to personify and to surround with myth transparent subjective and 
 states of mind. The names of symbolic gods are slow to congeal Objective 
 into proper names, because they are checked by the entire family 
 of words to which they belong. It is after all rather wonderful 
 that a conception like Arati does take on so much flesh and blood. 
 They make up for this restriction by their endless number ; many 
 as are the visible objects that may be deified, more is the number 
 of human moods, desires and ideals, fears and aversions. Those 
 diaphanous names share in all the processes of language ; analogy 
 steps in and makes them almost unhealthily productive. Con- 
 siderable as may have been the significance of the di certi of the 
 Roman indigiiamenta we must not take them too seriously. The 
 
48 MA URICE BL O OMFIELD. 
 
 engrossing and loving care of child-life has produced over forty : 
 Vaticanus prompts the child's first cry ; Fabulinus, the beginnings 
 of his speech ; Edusa teaches him how to eat, Potina how to drink ; 
 he leaves the house with Abeona, Iterduca guides him on the way ; 
 Domiduca brings him home again, etc. It is almost like a noun- 
 suffix that has gained favor and started on a career of indefinite 
 propagation. After all these gods are to the end little more than 
 formulated wishes. 
 
 The Sanskrit gods ending in paii 'lord,' beyond a certain 
 point, are similarly verbal and analogical rather than corporeal. 
 They range from the 'lord of food,' i^annapaii), 'lord of wealth' 
 {dhanapati), ' lord of the field ' {ksetrapati), ' lord of the chariot ' 
 {raihaspaW), 'lord (or lady) of the home' {vdsto^pati, sadaspaii, 
 and mdnasya paint), to the much loftier conceptions, 'lord of 
 speech' (vdcaspaii), 'lord of wisdom' (medhaspati), 'lord of 
 righteousness ' {dharmanaspaii), and ' lord of divine order ' 
 (I'taspaii). In many of them the .f that precedes pati is purely 
 analogical {ratkaspali, rtaspati, etc.). And what does it all 
 mean? After all nothing but the varying desires of the meaner 
 or better human nature. And so to the end of the chapter, 
 although difterent times, different symbolic gods. At one time, 
 Liberty, Equality, Fraternity ; at another, Humanity and Cosmo- 
 politanism ; again. Civilization, Colonization, and the Over-God- 
 dess Commerce. But the wish remains father to the god. 
 
 Johns Hopkins University. 
 
 Maurice Bloomfield. 
 
THE USE OF THE SIMPLE FOR THE COMPOUND 
 VERB IN PERSIUS. 
 
 The historical development of the Latin language presents few 
 phenomena of greater interest and importance than the peculiari- 
 ties which mark the literature of the Silver Age. That the Latin 
 of this period differs widely from that of the last century of the 
 Republic is well known, though very many of the details are but 
 imperfectly understood. The variety and complexity of the 
 literary forces which combined to produce what is commonly 
 called Silver Latinity, make it exceedingly difficult to estimate 
 correctly the stylistic character of the individual author and that 
 of the time. The training of the grammatical and rhetorical 
 schools, the encroachments of the language of daily life, the 
 careful study of the old masters, especially of Vergil and of 
 Horace, and the professed aversion to uniformity in writing — all 
 these and other influences united in the formation of a literary 
 medium which is at once brilliant and commonplace, brilliant on 
 account of its bold imagery and rhetorical coloring, commonplace 
 because of the lack of transcendent genius and the monotonous 
 recurrence of old forms. One of the most remarkable features of 
 the later period, to which comparatively little attention has 
 hitherto been paid, is the use of the simple for the compound 
 verb. In a recently published paper' I attempted to show, on the 
 basis of examples collected from the satires of Juvenal, the nature 
 and effect of this substitution, and to point out some of the influ- 
 ences which were at work in its propagation as an element of 
 style. The use of the simple verb,;in this pregnant sense is seen 
 now and then in the poetry of the Republic and even in Cicero, 
 while in Vergil — to some extent, no doubt, for metrical conveni- 
 gnce — the simple forms are often adopted where the sense of the 
 compound is required by the context. And yet, though by no 
 
 > 'The Use of the Simple for the Compound Verb in Juvenal,' in Trans- 
 actions of the American Philological Association, XXXI, 1900, pp. 202-222. 
 For the sake of brevity this article has been referred to below as Juvenal. 
 4 
 
so HARRY LANGFORD WILSON. 
 
 means a rarity in the classical period, this use is essentially a 
 characteristic of the Silver Age, for not till then did it reach its 
 full development. 
 
 The principal influences which caused this feature of style to 
 become so widespread during the first two centuries of the 
 Empire were the 'preservation of the simple verb in the sense of 
 the compound from the archaic period, especially in religious and 
 legal formulae, the more frequent appearance on the surface of 
 the normally hidden undercurrent of popular speech, and the 
 general dependence on the poetic models of the Augustan Age 
 which is evident in the diction even of the later prose.' These 
 influences, in some respects distinct, are yet so interwoven that 
 it is often impossible to separate them, and the attempt to do 
 so in most cases produces a result which is only partial and 
 unsatisfactory. An effort to distinguish between the colloquial 
 and the archaic elements in Apuleius, for example, cannot pro- 
 ceed very far so long as our knowledge of the spoken language 
 is confined within the present narrow limits. On the other hand, 
 the elevated diction of poetry reaching out after new and attrac- 
 tive forms in many respects runs parallel to the sernto cotidianus, 
 whose leading characteristic is fondness for the novel and the strik- 
 ing in expression.' It has been said that Persius on the vantage 
 ground of a secure social position displays greater freedom in his 
 use of colloquialisms than Horace the freedman's son ' On the 
 whole, this is doubtless true; but there are in Persius only three 
 simple verbs, used as substitutes for the compound form, that 
 are clearly colloquial, a far smaller proportion than in Juvenal.^ 
 On the other hand, a comparison with the usage of the later 
 satirist shows that Persius had more frequent recourse to this 
 device, though few of his examples are as bold and striking as 
 many of those in Juvenal; in other words, the use of the simple 
 for the compound verb in Persius is more closely in line with the 
 normal poetic diction of his time.* 
 
 ' For a discussion of these influences see Juvenal, 1. 1., pp. 204, 205, 209 f. 
 
 ^Compare Juvenal, 1. c, pp. 205, 210. 
 
 'Teuffel, Studien u. Char.', p. 407 ; Gildersleeve, lutrod. to Persius, 
 p. xxviii. 
 
 * Compare Juvenal, 1. u., pp. 205 ff. 
 .'The proportion of usage is one example for every 25;^ verses in 
 Juvenal ; in Persius, one for every 20 verses. Persius has 17 simple verbs 
 
THE SIMPLE VERB IN PERSIUS. 5 1 
 
 *Cadere for decidere. — 3, 102 uncta cadunt laxis tunc pulmen- 
 taria labris. Cf. Juv. (1. c, p. 210), who uses decidere in the same 
 connection (6, 434). A metaphorical extension of this use is seen 
 in 5, 91 sed ira cadat naso rugosaque sanna. 
 
 * Claudere ior concludere. — a) 5, 11 f. clause murmure raucus 
 nescio quid tecum grave cornicaris inepte. This stands in a 
 passage which, as scholiast and edd. remark, is a reminiscence of 
 Hor. Sat. i, 4, 19 f., but the reading in the latter is conclusas 
 hircinis follibus auras. A similar instance is found in Ovid, Fast. 
 6, 277 f. suspensus in aere clauso stat globus, b) i, 93 claudere 
 sic versum didicit ; so [Verg.J Ciris 20 et gracilem molli liceat 
 pede claudere versum. Cf., on the other hand, Hor. Sat. i, 4, 40 f. 
 neque enim concludere versum dixeris esse satis ; Cic. de Orat. 
 
 3, 48, 184 verba versu includere, and Juv., 1. c.,p. 211 f., s. v. clau- 
 dere for includere. 
 
 *Ducere for educere. — 5, 4 vulnera sen Parthi ducentis ab 
 inguine ferrum ; Verg. Aen. 12, 378 ducto mucrone ; Ovid, Fast. 
 
 4, 929 vagina ducere ferrum ; Sil. 8, 340 vagina ducitur ensis. 
 The regular word in prose, however, is educere ; see, for example, 
 Caes. B. G. 5, 44, 8; Cic. Inv. 2, 4, 14; Sail. Cat. 51, 36. Cf. 
 Juv., 1. c, p. 213. 
 
 Ferre for afferre. — cC) 2, 53 dona ferens. This expression is 
 very common ; examples are Verg. Geo. 3, 22 dona feram ; id. 
 Aen. 2, 49 dona ferentes; Ovid, Her. i, 27; Stat. Theb. 6, 168; 
 id. Ach. 2, 146. Cf., however, Ovid, A. A. 2, 264 adferat in 
 calatho rustica dona puer. b) 3, 48 i. quid dexter senio ferret, 
 scire erat in voto. Similarly Verg. Aen. 11, 345 fortuna populi 
 quid ferat, but cf. Cic. N. D. 2, 63, 158 quid enim oves aliud 
 adferunt ? 
 
 Findere for diffindere. — 3, 8 f. turgescit vitrea bills : ' findor ' ; 
 Plaut. Bacch. 251 cor meum et cerebrum . . . finditur. The use 
 of thesimple verb with reference to passion is doubtless colloquial,' 
 but in other connections it is common in poetry. Examples are 
 Verg. Aen. 9, 413 fisso transit praecordia ligno, and Ovid, Med. 
 Fac. 39 nee mediae Marsis finduntur cantibus angues. 
 
 used for 19 different compounds, and a total of 33 examples; Juvenal, 42 
 simple verbs used for 63 different compounds, and a total of 150 examples. 
 Only seven simple verbs are so employed by both in common : these are 
 indicated in the present paper by asterisks. 
 ' Cf. Otto, Sprichworter, p. 303, note. 
 
52 HARRY LANGFORD WILSON. 
 
 *Haerere for inhaerere.—^, 121 haereat in stultis brevis ut 
 semuncia recti. Cf. Cic. Tusc. 4, 11, 24 inhaeret in visceribus 
 illud malum, and Juv., 1. c, p. 215. 
 
 Pellere for expellere.—i, 83 f. nilne pudet capiti non posse peri- 
 cula cano pellere ? Similar instances are not rare in poetry, e. g. 
 Verg. Aen. 6, 382 f. pulsus parumper corde dolor tristi; Hor. C. 
 
 2, 2, 14; Ovid, Met. 14, 216 ; Sil. 7, 300, and even in prose, e. g. 
 Cic. Fin. i, 13, 43 (sapientia) maestitiam pellat ex animis, though 
 here the phrase accounts to some extent for the absence of the 
 
 prefix. 
 
 *Ponere for appofiere. — i, 53 calidum scis ponere sumen; 
 
 3, III f. positum est algente catino durum holus; 6, 23 nee 
 rhombos ideo libertis ponere lautus. There is a striking passage 
 in Martial in which he plays on this word, using it thrice, each 
 time in the sense of a different compound': i, 43, I2 ff. ponere 
 aprum nobis sic et harena solet. ponatur tibi nuUus aper post 
 talia facta, sed tu ponaris cui Charidemus apro. For further 
 illustration of the colloquial use oi ponere 'serve up' (at table), 
 see Juv., 1. c, p. 206. 
 
 * Ponere for proponere. — i, 86 f doctas posuisse figiiras lau- 
 datur; 5, 3 fabula seu maesto ponatur hianda tragoedo; Cic. 
 Tusc. I, 4, 7 ponere iubebam, de quo quis audire vellet. Cf. the 
 use of e^'ivai (deal?) and Gildersleeve's note to Persius 5, 3. 
 Possibly the technical term ponere 'paint' should be included 
 here: i, 70 f nee ponere lucum artifices. Cf. Juvenal, I.e., p. 222. 
 
 Premere for comprimere. — 5, n foUe premis ventos ; 5, 109 es 
 modicus voti ? presso lare? Similarly Verg. Geo. i, 410 f. corvi 
 presso ter gutture voces aut quater ingeminant ; Hor. Epist. 
 1, 16, 37 contendat laqueo collum pressisse paternum ; Ovid, Met. 
 9, 78 angebar, ceu guttura forcipe pressus. In such connections 
 comprimere is quite regular; cf. Ter. Phor. 868 animam com- 
 pressi, aurem admovi. 
 
 Radere for eradere. — 2, 66 f. bacam conchae rasisse . . . iussit ; 
 
 3, 49 f. damnosa canicula quantum raderet. For illustrations see 
 Ovid, Am. i, 11, 22 liltera rasa, and Tac. Ann. 3, 17, 8 nomen 
 Pisonis radendum fastis censuit. Cf , on the other hand, ibid. 
 
 4, 42, 3 Merulam . . . albo senatorio erasit. The natural use of 
 radere is seen in 3, 114 (ulcus) haud deceat plebeia radere beta, 
 
 ^Proponere, apponere and opponcre ; compare the similar play on differeiit 
 uses of ai;ere in Mart, i, 79. 
 
THE SIMPLE VERB IN PERSIUS. 53 
 
 and deradere occurs in 4, 29 seriolae veterem metuens deradere 
 limum. 
 
 Rapere for abripere. — i, 100 f. et raptum vitiilo caput ablatura 
 superbo Bassaris ; Ovid, Met. 13, 771 f. " lumen " que, " quod 
 unum fronte geris media, rapiet tibi" dixit "Ulixes." For the 
 use of the compound cf. '5, 159 canis nodum abripit; Plaut. Men. 
 193 nasum abreptum; lustin. 15,3, 8 abreptaque lingua feram 
 exanimavit, and Claudian, Rapt. Pros. 2, 342 abreptasque dolet 
 iam non sibi crescere fibras. 
 
 Rapere for corripere. — 5, 141 f. nihil obstat, quin trabe vasta 
 Aegaeum rapias ; Verg. Aen. 6, 8 rapit silvas ; Stat. Theb. 5, 3 
 campum sonipes rapit. In such connections, however, corripere 
 is usual, e. g. Verg. Aen. 5, 145 (campum); ib. 5, 316 (spatia); ib. 
 I, 418, and Ovid, Met. 2, 158 (viam). 
 
 *Rumpere for dirumpere. — i, 25 rupto iecore; 3, 27 an deceat 
 pulmonem rumpere ventis ? 5, 13 nee stloppo tumidas intendis 
 rumpere buccas; 5, 158 rupi iam vincula; 5, 185 ovo . . . rupto; 
 6, 27 trabe rupta. Examples of both simple and compound verb 
 may be found in Otto, Sprichworter, s. vv. rumpere (p. 303) and 
 risns (p. 301); cf. Juv., 1. c, p. 207. 
 
 Scindere for discindere. — 5, 154 duplici in diversum scinderis 
 hamo; here, as in the passage from Vergil quoted below, the 
 phrase suggests the force of the prefix. Plaut. Aul. 234 asini me 
 mordicibus scindant ; Verg. Aen. 2, 39 scinditur incertum studia 
 in contraria volgus ; Ovid, Ibis 278 viscera . . . scissa ; Stat. 
 Theb. 4, 660 scissas . . . ursas. But cf. Verg. Geo. 3, 514 
 discissos nudis laniabant dentibus artus. 
 
 Tangere for attingere. — 3, 107 tange, miser, venas ; but ib. 108 
 summosque pedes attinge manusque. The simple verb seems to 
 have been technical in this sense : Sen. Epist. 22, 1 vena tangenda 
 est; but Tac. Ann. 6, 50, 4 (medicus) pulsum venarum attigit. In 
 Suet. Tib. 72 we find tentare venas. 
 
 Tendere for exiendere.—i, 65 scit tendere versum ; cf. Plin. 
 N. H. 9, 85 lineam extendere. On the source of this metaphor 
 see Gildersleeve's note. 
 
 Tenere for continere.—S, 99 teneat vetitos inscitia debilis actus.' 
 This use of the simple verb is not rare in a certain sphere of prose 
 and may be colloquial ; cf. Cic. Vatin. 8, 20 vix risum tenebant ; 
 
 1 In this case the presence of continet in the preceding verse noay have 
 had an influence. 
 
54 HARRY LANGFORD WILSON. 
 
 id. Att. 12, 38, 2 sed tenendus dolor est; Hor. A. P. 5 risum 
 teneatis amici, and Sen. Epist. 113, 20 ut risum tenerenon possis. 
 Vomere for evomere. — 5, 181 pinguem nebulam vomuere lucer- 
 nae ; Verg. Aen. 5, 682stuppa vomens tardum fumum ; Ovid, Ibis 
 596 flammas Sicanis Aetna vomit. For the compound form cf. 
 Verg. Aen. 8, 252 f. (Cacus) fumum . . . evomit, and Sil. 17, 
 593 evomuit pastos per saecula Vesbius ignes. 
 
 In order to show how very little attention has been paid to this 
 important subject, and at the same time to furnish the interested 
 student with a basis for investigation, it may not be out of place 
 to conclude with a bibliographical list. Of course, it is not to be 
 expected that every casual remark should be recorded here, but 
 no important treatment, I believe, has been overlooked. 
 
 C. J. Grysar, Theorie des lateinischen Stiles, 2te Aufl., Koln, 
 1843, pp. 18, 255. 
 
 A. Draeger, Historische Syntax der lat. Sprache, 2te Aufl., 
 Leipzig, 1878, §85. 
 
 J. H. Schmalz, Lateinische Stilistik, 3te Aufl., Muenchen, 1900, 
 §36; in Iw. Miiller, Handb. d. kl. Altertumsw. II 2, p. 452. 
 
 The subject has also been taken up, usually with the utmost 
 brevity, in the following treatises which deal with the style of 
 individual authors. 
 
 M. Kleinschmidt, De Lucili saturarum scriptoris genere dicendi, 
 Marpurgi Cattorum, 1883, p. 81. 
 
 L. Constans, De sermone Sallustiano, Paris, 1881, p. 48. 
 
 L. Kuehnast, Die Hauptpunkte derlivianischen Syntax, Berlin, 
 1872, p. 332 f. 
 
 O. Riemann, Etudes sur la langue et la grammaire de Tite- 
 Live, 2' 6d., Paris, 1885, pp. 191-200. 
 
 H. Georges, De elocutione M. Velleii Paterculi, Diss., Lipsiae, 
 1877, pp. 40 ff". 
 
 H. Felix, Quaestiones grammaticae in Velleium Paterculum, 
 Diss., Halle, 1886, p. 20. 
 
 A. Draeger, Ueber Syntax u. Stil des Tacitus, 3te Aufl., 
 Leipzig, 1882, pp. 9 {. 
 
 J. Gantrelle, Grammaire et style de Tacite, 2' 6d., Paris, 1882, 
 p. 4. 
 
 L. Constans, fitude sur la langue de Tacite, Paris, 1893, p. 28. 
 
THE SIMPLE VERB IN PERSIUS. 55 
 
 A. Czyczkiewicz, Quibus poeticis vocabulis Cornelius Tacitus 
 serinonem suum ornaverit, Brody, 1891, pp. 15 f. 
 
 F. Kortz, Quaestiones grammaticae de I. Frontini operibus 
 institutae, Iserlohn, 1893, p. 30. 
 
 M. Bonnet, Le latin de Grfegoire de Tours, Paris, 1890, pp. 
 233 f- 
 
 Scattered references, too, are found in other works, especially 
 in certain standard editions. 
 
 O. Keller, Grammatische Aufsatze, Leipzig, 1895, p. 63. 
 
 L. F. Heindorf, Des Q. Horatius Flaccus Satiren, bearb. v. 
 E. F. Wiistemann, Leipzig, 1843, p. 525. 
 
 J. Mutzell, Q. Curti Rufi libri VIII, Berlin, 1841, passim; e. g. 
 note on 5, 32, i, p. 482 {capere = concipere). 
 
 Th. Vogel, Q. Curti Rufi libri qui supersunt, Leipzig, 1875- 
 1880, p. 20. 
 
 H. Schenkl, Calpurnii et Nemesiani Bucolica, Leipzig, 1885, 
 
 p. 130. 
 
 G. F. Hildebrand, L. Apuleii opera omnia, Leipzig, 1842, 
 passim ; e. g. index, s. \.ferre. 
 
 Guil. Hartel, S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani opera omnia, Vindo- 
 bonae, 1 868-1 871, index, s. v. spectare. 
 
 E. T. Schultze, De Q. Aurelii Symmachi vocabulorum for- 
 mationibus ad sermonem vulgarem pertinentibus, in Diss. Phil. 
 Halenses, 6, p. 195 (s.'vv.fuscare andfascitiare). 
 
 Th. Birt, Claudii Claudiani carmina, Berlin, 1892, passim ; e. g. 
 index, s. v. spectare. 
 
 Guil. Hartel, Magni Felicis Ennodii opera omnia, Vindobonae 
 1882, index passim, s. w.facere,ferre, ponere, spectare, etc. 
 
 H. Roensch, Itala und Vulgata, Marburg, 1875, pp. 374 {parere) 
 and 380 {siruere'). 
 
 Johns HorKiNS Univorsity. 
 
 Harry Langford Wilson. 
 
THE MOTION OF THE VOICE IN CONNECTION 
 
 WITH ACCENT AND ACCENTUAL 
 
 ARSIS AND THESIS. 
 
 The fact that there is in all articulate speech an element of pitch 
 needs no proof. It can be observed in every modern language. 
 Its existence could be assumed for ancient Greek and Latin, even 
 if there were no recognition of it in the writings of musicians and 
 grammarians. As a matter of fact the presence of pitch in the 
 tones of the human voice was considered of sufficient importance 
 by many Greek theorists to warrant a formal analysis of the 
 manner in which variation up and down took place. 
 
 Our chief authority for this analysis is Aristoxenus of Tarentum. 
 In his harmonica elemenia, I, §§25 flf., p. 8 Meib., p. 10 Westph., 
 vocal motion is divided into two classes, the continuous {dvTiait 
 a-vvex'i') and the intervallar (xiVijais Siao-TrniaTiKrf). In the former the 
 variation in pitch is such that the passage from one degree of 
 pitch to another is through all intermediate degrees, and the pitch 
 is nowhere stationary for a perceptible interval of time. In the 
 latter the passage from one degree to another is by a leap, so that 
 there is no fluctuation during the production of a note, but the 
 pitch remains steady now at this, and now at that, degree. These 
 two forms of motion characterize the speaking and the singing 
 voice respectively, and the analysis of the pitch-changes seems to 
 have been made chiefly for the purpose of differentiating these 
 two kinds of utterance. Aristoxenus expressly identifies con- 
 tinuous motion with the variation of pitch which takes place in 
 speaking, and intervallar motion with that which takes place in 
 singing {harm, elem., I, §28, p. 9 M, p. 11 W).' 
 
 Thus a comparison was instituted between the two most 
 important forms of human utterance, speech and song, and the 
 
 'Later writers make the same or a similar classification : Vitruvius, </ir 
 archii., V, 4, 2 ; Arlstides Quintilianus, de mus.,l,\\., p. 7 M,p. 4, 26 Jahn ; 
 Cleonides (Pseudo-Euclid), («/>-Oflf., 2, p. 180 KvJ ; QaviAeni\\is,introd., i, 
 p. 328 KvJ; Claudius Ptolemy, harmon., I, iv., p. 8 Wallis ; Martianus 
 Capella, IX, 937 (318 G). 
 
S8 C. IV. L. JOHNSON. 
 
 melodic or tonic element in the one was considered in connection 
 with that in the other. Variation in pitch is common to both ; it 
 is the manner of the variation which is different. A succession of 
 fixed pitches, that is, of musical notes, subject to certain rules in 
 regard to the width of the intervening intervals, constitutes the 
 melody of music proper. A succession of fluctuating pitches, 
 while it may not conform to so definite rules, nevertheless pre- 
 sents a no less interesting phenomenon. Such a succession 
 Aristoxenus calls XoySSe's -n fiiXos, "a conversational melody" 
 {harm, elem., I, §42, p. 18 M, p. 17 W), Cicero, cantus obscurior 
 (or. 17), Dionysius of Halicarnassus, SiaXe'/crou /iAo? {de C07np. verb., 
 
 xi.), TO rris <j)av'js /ie'Aof, Xiya 8' oi ttjs oiSixij; aWa rfjs yjftXrjs and ra ^leXi) 
 
 rSiv (pdoyyav {ibid., xi., fin.). The word npaaahla and its Latin 
 equivalent accentus imply the same conception.' 
 
 The nature of such prose tunes will depend upon many con- 
 siderations. Every language has its own characteristic forms of 
 melody, every individual speaker his own variations on the 
 national air, if I may call it that. Statements have one form of 
 melody, questions another. The various emotions, anger, com- 
 passion, hatred, contempt, and so forth, find expression in the tune 
 which runs beneath the words. In many languages it would 
 seem a hopeless task to formulate the laws which govern pitch- 
 changes. Laws there must be, if they could but be unravelled. 
 But in the case of ancient Greek, at least, the differences in pitch 
 were so marked in point of size and so uniform in occurrence, 
 that a formal classification of the variations could be made. Long 
 before a system of written accent-signs was devised, the stable 
 character of the melodic outline of Greek words as pronounced 
 in ordinary speech was recognized. The pitch element in words 
 was, it would seem, almost as much a fixed characteristic as is the 
 stress or intensity element in English. The pronunciation of the 
 individual speaker might present variations (in degree), but each 
 
 ' Diomedes, p. 431, i Keil : accentus est dictus ab accinendo, quod sit 
 quasi quidamcuiusque syllabae cantus. apud Graecos quoque ideoir/DtmiiS/'a 
 dicitur, quia ttpoa^iisrai raif avlXafiaig. Servius, de fin., p. 451, 10 K : 
 accentus autem est quasi adcantus dictus, quod ad cantilenam vocis nos 
 facit agnoscere syllabas. Martian as C!apella, III, p. 65, 19 Eyss.: et est 
 accentus ut quidain putaverunt anima vocis et seminarium musices, quod 
 oninis modnlatio ex fastigiis vocum gravitateque compoiiitur ideoque 
 accentus quasi adcantus dictus est. 
 
ACCENT AND ACCENTUAL ARSIS AND THESIS. 59 
 
 word ivithin the dialect had at any given epoch a normal scheme 
 of high and low pitches, to which the pronunciation of all those 
 who spoke the dialect tended to conform. 
 
 The existence of a tonic or melodic accent in the Greek 
 language throughout the classical period and down to Roman 
 times has been abundantly proved. It is not necessary in this 
 connection to review the evidence on which the universal con- 
 viction of scholars on this point is based. Besides the testimony 
 of Aristoxenus we have that of Plato and Aristotle.' We learn 
 from Varro that Theophrastus and Eratosthenes were interested 
 in the melodic accent of their language.'' After the invention of 
 the written accent marks by Aristophanes of Byzantium the sub- 
 ject of correct accentuation became naturally more and more 
 important from the point of view of grammar, and the theory of 
 the accents was handled by many writers. Dionysius Thrax 
 taught that there were three accents, the three which became 
 universal, acute, grave, and circumflex. Clear indications of the 
 nature of the Greek accent are contained in the de compositione 
 verboruvt of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. He states at the begin- 
 ning of chap, xi that prose diction to be artistic must attend to 
 these four things, /iAor, pv6\i6i, iirrafioXri, and to vpiirov, and in the 
 middle of the chapter that variation in pitch takes place within 
 the compass of the interval of the fifth. The whole of a word is 
 not spoken with the same pitch, but one part with o^tia rains, 
 another with ffapc'ia, and another with both (one after the other, of 
 course). In chap, xix he speaks of the accents as raads (jjavfis ai 
 Ka\oifievai npoaaSiai. The melodic element in the language was 
 evidently far more important to literary and grammatical studies 
 than any intensity or stress element of the sort found in most 
 modern languages. Differences in intensity cannot but have 
 existed, but in the absence of any formal consideration of them 
 by ancient writers, it is reasonable to hold that intensity-variations 
 were always affections of the whole sentence and not of individual 
 words as such. The parts played in modern English by pitch 
 and intensity would thus be reversed in ancient Greek. While 
 in English stress concerns chiefly the pronunciation of individual 
 words (although there exists an important sentence-stressing 
 
 ' Plato, Cral., 399 A-C ; Arist., r/ie/., Ill, i, 4. 
 
 2 Varro ap. Serg., de ace, p. 189 Wilm. (Keil, Gr. Lat., IV, p. 530). 
 
6o C. W. L. JOHNSON. 
 
 superimposed upon the succession of word stresses), and pitch- 
 changes affect the sentence as a whole either as an oratorical 
 element or as a capricious manifestation of personal taste ; in 
 Greek, on the contrary, pitch concerned chiefly the pronunciation 
 of separate words, and any oratorical effect produced by pitch- 
 changes was effected through a superimposed melody demanded 
 by the emotional character of the sentence as a whole, in the same 
 way that oratorical emphasis is a concern of the whole sentence. 
 When we turn to the accentuation of the Latin language, we 
 are not surprised, in view of the work done by Greek grammarians 
 for their own language, to find that there exists a great mass of 
 writing professing to deal with the corresponding phenomenon in 
 Latin. But, whereas it is now all but universally conceded that 
 the Greek TrpoaaSlai were, what their name implies, semi-musical 
 affections of words, there is not among Latin scholars the same 
 unanimity in regard to the true nature of the Latin accentus. 
 One party holds the view that in Latin of the classical period at 
 any rate the verbal accent was essentially the same phenomenon 
 as was observed by the Greek grammarians in Greek speech. 
 The other party, now in a majority, would make the accejitus an 
 intensity or stress accent of the same general character as the 
 accent in modern English and German. It is not my present 
 purpose to offer any argument for or against either of these 
 views, but it must be admitted by any one who will read the 
 passages bearing on the subject in the writings of such authors as 
 Cicero, Varro, Vitruvius, and Quintilian, to mention no writer of 
 later date, that, rightly or wrongly, these authors thought that 
 there existed in their language a verbal melodic accent, strictly 
 comparable to the Greek accent. They may have been mistaken. 
 If so, we may reject their evidence in reaching a decision as to 
 the true nature of the Latin accentus. But even so, it is important 
 to analyze the delusion under which they suffered, if only for the 
 purpose of appreciating just how far it extended, and just how 
 far it invalidates their evidence on other questions closely connected 
 with that of the accent, as for example the metrical question. We 
 must become alienists for the moment and for the purpose. Evi- 
 dently the whole truth can never be reached if we confine ourselves 
 to etymological and historical considerations, much less to those 
 which are evolved from our inner consciousness. It is imperative 
 that we regain the ancient conception of the matter, if we intend 
 
ACCENT AND ACCENTUAL ARSIS AND THESIS. 6 1 
 
 to make even the slightest use of the doctrinal matter which the 
 ancients have left us. 
 
 Now assuming for Latin a melodic accent, real or imaginary- 
 according to our preferences, let us consider the phenomenon 
 presented to the ear by ancient accent in general, and its treat- 
 ment by ancient theorists. For this purpose it will be convenient 
 to imagine the changes in pitch values to be represented by a 
 line traced by a moving point, in such manner that its motion 
 from left to right denotes the passage of time, and its variation 
 upward and downward the variation of acuteness and graveness. 
 
 In the first place there are only two possible directions, up and 
 down, in which variation can take place. So long as pitch alone 
 is under consideration, there is only one dimension for the move- 
 ment. But the number of degrees which may be recognized in 
 any system of denoting pitch is limited only by the ability which 
 the inventor of the system may fancy he possesses to discriminate 
 with certainty the finer grades ofpitch. Theoretically there cannot 
 be too exact a notation to denote the subtle gradations and varia- 
 tions of pitch easily detected by the trained ear. Continuous 
 motion demands a more complete notation, if it is to be scien- 
 tifically recorded, than does the intervallar motion of music 
 proper. In practice however the more complicated the system 
 of notation, the more easily will it break down. If the more 
 striking variations from the mean tone of the individual voice are 
 indicated, a sufficiently accurate record for practical purposes 
 would seem to have been devised. 
 
 Another consideration bears upon the kind of motion involved 
 in ordinary speech. If the definition in Aristoxenus of the con- 
 tinuous and conversational motion conforms to the facts as 
 observed (and we have no reason to suppose that it does not), 
 there are, strictly speaking, no stationary pitches at all in this 
 form of motion. Says Aristoxenus, harm, elem., I, §26, p. 8 M., 
 p. 10 W. : " In the continuous movement the voice appears to the 
 senses to traverse a certain space in such a way that it rests 
 nowhere, not even, so far as our conception of the sensation goes, 
 at the bounds, but is borne along continuously until the sound 
 ceases." ' And a little further on he says, ibid., §28, p. 9 M., p. 
 
 ' Aristoxenus, harm, elem., I, §26, p. 8 M : imra /jiv ovv Trjv avvsxv, ronov 
 Tiva ihe^uvnc faiverai 7/ (pavy r\\ alaOf/aei, ovrug if av firidaumi larnfilv^ <V>, 
 iiTiif stt' amav rav nepdrav, Kara, ye rf/v ryg mad^ceag ^avTCLaiav, d/lAd ^epo/iiv?/ 
 
62 C. W. L. JOHNSON. 
 
 II W.: " Now the continuous movement is, we assert, the move- 
 ment of conversational speech, for when we converse, the voice 
 moves through a space in such a manner as to seem to rest 
 nowhere. In the other movement, which we call intervallar, the 
 contrary process takes place. For the voice seems to rest at 
 various pitches, and all say of a man who seems to do this, that 
 he no longer speaks, but sings. Therefore in conversing we 
 avoid having the voice rest unless we are forced at times by 
 reason of emotion to resort to this style of movement; but in 
 singing we do the reverse, for we avoid the continuous and strive 
 to make the voice rest as much as possible. For the more we 
 make each of the sounds one and stationary and the same, so 
 much the more accurate does the singing seem to the senses. 
 It is fairly plain from the above that of the two movements of 
 the voice in respect to space, the continuous belongs to con- 
 versational speech, the intervallar to song.'" 
 
 Now evidently a notation would be severely taxed if it attempted 
 to indicate all the glides characteristic of our conversational 
 speech. Not only are the bounds of such downward and upward 
 movements diflficult to determine from the nature of the case, 
 supposing it to be true that all speakers employed exactly the 
 same glides for the same words, but also the rapidity of the 
 ascent or descent would defy accurate analysis. 
 
 A sentence in Greek, then, presented — what is seen in every 
 language of which we can to-day study the actual sounds — a 
 complicated succession of glides in pitch, some of them short, 
 some long, some rapidly, some slowly rising or falling in pitch, 
 some beginning and ending on acuter degrees of pitch, some on 
 graver degrees, some passing from acute to grave, some from 
 grave to acute. 
 
 ^ Aristoxenus, harm, elem., I, §28, p. 9, 20 M : rr/v /isv ovv cwexv, 'Xoyinr/v 
 elvai (jia/iev. (SiaXeyofievuv yap r/fiav, oitTuc; r/ (puvi) Kivelrai Kara t6-kov, dare fiiidafiav 
 Soneiv 'iaraaSiu. Kara ye t^v irefiav, ^v buo^a^ofiev Siaarr/ixaTiK^Vj ivavriu^ ireibvue 
 ytyveaOai. aX?ui yap 'iaTaadai te ^OKti^ Kal ndvTeg tod tovto <patv6fi£vov noteli' 
 ovidrt ^eyetf (paaiVj aAA' gtSEtv dtdTZF.p ev T(ft dtaXEyEoOai fEvyofiEv to EOTavat 
 (iBTavai Whh.) T^ ^uvip, av p.}/ 6ia irddo; wote tif Tota'uTiiv Kwr/aiv avayKaadcipen 
 eWeIv ev rfe Tu pEX(fi6slv TovvavTiov wowvpEv, TO piv yap amcxh (jiEiiyofiEV, to (it 
 EOTavaL rf/V (puni/v (if piXiara SiuKopev ■ baa yap paMov iKaoTT/v Tav (jiuvCiv piav 
 TE Kal iaTr/Kvlav Kal Tr/v amrju noirjCopEV, Toaoinu tjialvETm tJj aladl/aEi to piXng o-Kp'- 
 jUaTEpov. l>n piv S'uo Kivr/aeuv ovaav KaTO. t6kov ttjc, ^uu?/f, 7) piv avvExt)g 'KoyiKr/ 7,(; 
 EdTiv, 7/ Se thaarr/paTiKf/ pEhjdiK-f/, axeiSdv diy/lov ek tuv Etpr/pivuv. 
 
ACCENT AND ACCENTUAL ARSIS AND THESIS. 63 
 
 It is not therefore surprising to find that the various systems of 
 denoting accents by written signs agree in this, that they ignore 
 certain kinds of glides and speak of acute or grave or middle 
 tones, without further indication of their nature. It is clear ihat 
 the purpose of this apparent defect in the notations, is only to 
 simplify the theory. Even upon syllables of the shortest duration 
 there can have been no perceptible fixity of intonation, such as is 
 heard in singing. Aristoxenus and other writers recognize this 
 point. The moment a tendency towards fixed intonations can be 
 detected, the conversational manner ceases and singing begins. 
 Continuous motion is abandoned for the intervallar. But, inas- 
 much as the nature of a glide — its direction and extent — becomes 
 more difficult to analyze in proportion as its duration is short, 
 nothing essential is lost by marking short syllables or short 
 vowels with only a general indication of the region of pitch in 
 which they exist. 
 
 But in the system of accentuation which ultimately prevailed, 
 acute accents are found not only on short but also on long vowels, 
 and it cannot be claimed that the glides on such long vowels were 
 imperceptible or unimportant. In this case it would seem that 
 the accent denotes an upward glide.' The downward glide 
 retained a special mark of its own, the circumflex accent. 
 
 At one lime it would seem that all syllables were marked with 
 accents, but in course of time only those syllables in general 
 which contained an acute element were so marked. This acute 
 element was denoted either by the acute or by the circumflex 
 accent sign. Every word, not enclitic nor proclitic, bore one such 
 point of acuteness and one only. This doctrine is found in both 
 Greek and Latin theory.' 
 
 1 Brugmann, Griech. Gram? in Muller's Handbuch, §144, p. 151. 
 
 ^Dionysius Hal., de comp. verb., xi : talq &i Ttohinvkla^oiq, olai nor' av 
 aaiv, fj Tov b^vv tSvov ixovaa uia iv voKXali fiapeiaic iveariv. 
 
 Cicero, or., XVIII, 58 : Ipsa enim natura quasi raodularetur hominum 
 orationem in omni verbo posuit acutarn vocem nee una plus necapostrema 
 syllaba ultra tertiam. 
 
 Quintilian, insi. or., I, 5, 30: namque in omni voce acuta intra numerum 
 trium syllabarum continetur, sive eae sunt in verbo solae sive ultimae et in 
 iis aut proxima extremae aut ab ea tertia. trium porro de quibus loquor, 
 media longa aut acuta aut flexa erit, eodem loco brevis utique gravem 
 habebit sonum ideoque positam ante se id est ab ultima tertiam acuet. est 
 autem in omni voce utique acuta, sed numquam plus una nee umquam 
 
64 C. IV. L. JOHNSON. 
 
 Thus the melodic outline of a Greek sentence, and of a Latin 
 sentence also, if the accenius of the grammarians was really the 
 same as the Greek npoa-Ma, comprised a succession of summits 
 corresponding to the accented syllables of the more important 
 words. There was a periodic fluctuation in the tone from regions 
 of low pitch to summits of high pitch. There was a rhythmical 
 rise and fall, running through the sentence. 
 
 In music proper the upward and downward movements, in 
 which melody largely consists, received considerable attention, to 
 judge from the somewhat complicated terminology which we find 
 in the musical treatises. The usual words employed were fViVairiy 
 and av€tTLs. 
 
 Bacch'ws, i?i/rod., §19, p. 6 M, p. 297 KvJ : mAos Se W ianv; 
 
 ~ — Av€(ris Kai eniraats 5l f/^/xeAwi' (j>06yy(iiv yivofxeprj. 
 
 Ibid., §45, p. 12 M, p. 302 KvJ : TMidr] 8i rijs fieXwSi'ar Trdira 
 Xe'-yo/xei' eti-at J — 5 . — Ttva ravTa ', — Avetrtv, iniTaaiv, fiovrjVy (jTatriv, 
 
 Aj/ecrt? rt f trrt ; — 'Kivr^cris fxiKioif otto tov o^vrepov (f)$6yyov eVri to 
 ^apvT^pov. 
 
 ETTirao"!? Of t'i i<TTit/ \ — ETTiratri's" tori KLvqais /icXwi^ dnb tov ^apvTepov 
 cjidoyyov enl to o^vTepov. 
 
 Moiff} fie Tt eaTif', — OTaf ctti Toii auTov (j^Boyyov TrXcioj'ey Xe'^ets 
 /leXwSwi'Tat. 
 
 2T(i(Tiy Se tl ((TTi \ — "S-Tiiais e^JT\v vnap^Ls eppsXovs cftdoyyov* 
 
 Gaudentius, introd., i, p. 3 M, p. 328 KvJ : 17 hi ti]^ 4>avrjs 
 
 Kivqa-is eK j3apvTepov piv els o^vrepov iova-7]s Ti'mov enhaais, dvuTraXtv 
 de uif€(ns KaXclTal re Koi eaTiv. 
 
 Aristides Quintilianus, de niusica, I, v, p. 8 M, p. 5, 28 J : 
 
 Tavrris de eldrj 5uo, (ivea-ts re koi eViruo-is" aveuLs pev ovv iaTiv r^vliza 
 
 ultima, ideoque in disyllabis prior; praeterea numquam in eadem flexa et 
 acuta, quia in omni flexa est acuta, itaque neutra cludet vocem lalinam. 
 ea vero quae sunt syllabae unius, erunt acuta aut flexa, ne sit aliqua vox 
 sine acuta. 
 
 Servius, roffiw. »« Z>c«., p. 426, 15 K : unus auteni sermo unum accipit 
 accentum vel acutum vel circumflexuni, utrumque autem siinul habere non 
 potest. 
 
 Martianus Capella, III, p. 65, 22 Eyss.: omnis igitiir vox latina simplex 
 sive coniposita habet unum sonuni aul acutnni aut circumflexuni. duos 
 autem acutos aut inflexos habere numquam potest, gravis vero saepc. 
 
 ' It is not clear from the text to what Tniri/g refers. It cannot refer to 
 Tiimf of the preceding line. Perhaps it goes with r?/f mra rf/v cjiuvf/v Kivr/aeuc 
 four lines above. 
 
ACCENT AND ACCENTUAL ARSIS AND THESIS. 65 
 
 av OTTO i^vrepov tottou fit ^apvrepov 17 <^atvr) X'^PVi (^iTains 8' orav cK 
 {^tifniTfpov /icra/3aiVi; Trpos o^vTepov. 
 
 Plethon, Notices et Extraiis etc., XVI, 2, p. 234 : ^av^i 
 
 ilveais \J(7Tiv T)] e'jri to ^apvrepov peTa^oXrj, iniTa<ns he r} iir\ to 
 o^vrepov, frrdcns fie fj iv ra airm Sa-ayt Kara T171/ jiapvTrjTa fj o^vTrjTa T^r 
 
 But a more complete analysis of the melodic movements is 
 found in a number of treatises. According to Aristides Quintil- 
 
 lanus /ufXoTrou'n has three forms, dyayrj, Trtrrei'd, and 7r\oK^. The 
 
 first of these is not defined, but it is divided into three varieties, 
 which are named and described. 'Aytoyi) evSeta is an ascent by 
 consecutive notes, dymyri dvoKapnToua-a a descent of the same sort, 
 while dyayri 7Tepi(j)€pris is a kind of combination of the first two, 
 either ascending by the conjunct notes and descending by the 
 disjunct notes, or vice versd. 
 
 Arist. Quin., de miis., I, xii. p. 29 M, p. 19 J : dymy^r ph ovv 
 
 e'lSi; Tpin, tifleia, dv<iKiipTTT0V(ra, nepujxprjs' fvdfla ptv ovv iariv 17 
 Ski twv f^rfs tjjdoyyav rr/v inlraaiv notovpevT), dvanapiTTOva-a 8e ^ 8ia 
 TMC iiTopJvtav aTTOTeXoOfffi Triv ^apvTTjTOy Trepifjicprjs Se rj Kara avvrjppevoiv 
 pev fTTLTflvova'a, Kara bu^ivypivav 8 dvieloa, rj eyavrltos ' avrrj 8e Kdv 
 Tois juerajSoXntr decopecTai, 
 
 Bryennius, p. 502 Wallis, has the same analysis of dyayij into 
 (vdela, dvaKapiTTovtra, and jrfpn^epijy, but I have not access to a text 
 of his treatise. The doctrine seems to go back to Aristoxenus, 
 for we have a corrupt passage giving a similar definition. 
 
 Aristox., harm, elem., II, §70 f, p. 29, 31 M, p. 28 W : 
 
 * Kyviyr] 8 eoro) 17 8ta twv e^rjs <j>66yyajv e^codev Tmv dp^ay &v cV 
 fKaTepcodcv dcrvyOerov Kctrai 8idaTt}pa . . . cvdeia 8' rj ctti to ovto . . . 
 
 The same definition of aymyij appears in 
 
 Cleonides (Pseudo-Euclid), inirod., p. 22 M, p. 207 KvJ : 
 
 hC S>v Se peXoTToua eiTiTc\eiTai 8' ftrriv' dyioyrj, ttXok^, irtTTela, Tovrj. 
 dytoy^ pev ovv tariv fj 8ia Tav €^<js <j)ddyyav oSbs tov peXovs. 
 
 'Kymyfj is thus an (iriTaaii or Hvfcnt of consecutive notes in the 
 scale. 
 
 A different set of terms, outlining a slightly different conception, 
 
 is found in the anonymous treatise edited by Bellermann, BerUn, 
 
 1841, and by A. J. H. Vincent, Notices et Extraits des Manu- 
 
 scrits de la Bibliothcque du Roi, Paris, XVI (1847) pt. 2, p. 5 ff. 
 
 Anonymus, de musica, §16, p. 52 ff. (Bell. p. 19, nos. 2 ff. 
 
 and 84 ff.) : np6a-Xri\j/ts i(TTW en. tov ^apvTfpov (f)66yyov iiri tov 
 
 5 
 
66 C IV. L, JOHNSON. 
 
 o^vTcpov Kara fieXos iniTaais ^toi apddoaiSf ^v Ttves KaXovaiv vcpev 
 eaaydev. tovto de yiperai TToiKiKcog, afieatos re Koi dtafieaov* a^itaoas ficp 
 €K Tov iyyvs (fydoyy ov, olov' H T, TL, LF, FG, GO, OH, n<. 
 efxfieacis 6e olov dia rpimv F O , 8ta Tea-adpoiv FII, fita jrepre F <[ . 
 
 eKKrjyj/ts fie to vnevavTia tovtoisj utto ratp o^vTepcav errl to. ^apea 
 (heaiSf rjv ripes opofid^ovcri vcfiep i^atdep, olop iipeaaii p.€P GF, €fxp.€(T(OS 
 fie fita Tptav O F, fita Tetrcriipoip HF, fita Trecre <CF. 
 
 TTpoaKpovais pep earip ip xpdvots dvo €p6&, tovt eariv eKdrropoSy 
 Xpdpov fiuo pe\r}j tovt eVri dvo cf)$6yyoij diro tojp ^apeo>p eVi ra o^eUj 
 otop dpeauis pep eK tov eyyi/s <f>B6yyov FG, eppeatos fie fita Tpioip F O , fiia 
 Tetradpoip FIT, fita TreVre F<^ . 
 
 eKKpov(rts fie vTrei'ai'T-ta toutois", apeats otto Tap d^etop eVi ra ^apea^ oiov 
 dpeaciis pep GF, eppecrats fie fita rpioip O F, fita Teaadpciiv IIF, fita nepre 
 <F. 
 
 In this scheme we may notice first that the preposition w^ocr- in 
 7rp6<T\ri\JAis and n-poo-icpouCTtf evidently signifies a rise in pitch, and 
 (K- in EKXi)i/;ir and tKKpovcus a fall. Next in regard to the couple 
 irpoo-Kpouo-if and cKKpovcnt, AS is pointed out by Vincent, the expres- 
 sion fV xp"!""' Suo shows that the rise or fall in question involved 
 two noies, that is, that the movement is effected by a leap (is 
 intervallar). The other couple, 7rp6a-'KT]\j/ts and exXiji/^ir, are therefore 
 presumably glides, effected portamento-wise. This view of the 
 matter is supported by the use of the term uc^e'i/ and by the fact that 
 the musical notes' in the examples are the same for TrpooXij-^is and 
 eKKt]\j/ts as for irpoaKpovais and eKKpovats, except that the hyphen 
 mark is written under the former. Lastly in regard to the 
 subdivision of each of the four kinds of motion into species, of 
 which one takes place ' immediately ' and the other ' mediately,' 
 since the former is in all cases described as occurring onh^ from 
 one note to a neighboring note in the scale, and the latter always 
 between two notes not adjacent, but at an interval of a third, 
 fourth, or fifth, we may rest satisfied to believe that the phrases 
 afiiaas and ippiirais (or biafieaov) refer simply to the absence or 
 presence of intervening notes in the scale. 
 
 In §14 of the same treatise as edited by Vincent (Bell., p. 84, 
 no. 80, and p. 85, no. 81) tables are given with the Greek and 
 corresponding modern notation of the four motions, vp6a\r)->lris and 
 
 CKKr]i^iSj TTpoaKpoviTis and eKKpovais. 
 
 • 
 
 'The notes as printed above are only typographical make-shifts. 
 
ACCENT AND ACCENTUAL ARSIS AND THESIS. 67 
 
 At the beginning of the section we find still another terminology. 
 Anonymus, de musica, §14, p. 43 (Bell., p. 82, no. 78): 
 
 liyayr] npoaixh^ '"<^ Tmv fiapvTe'pmv oScif , fj Kivr)aK (jidoyyav eK ^apvTepov 
 TOTTOV eVi o^irepov' arnKXaais [MSS avaXvtns, Vincent araxAT/cris] 
 fie TovvavTiov. 
 
 Here the ascending motion is called simply iymyri (or is ayayfi 
 irpotrexh^ to be translated " aymyij proper " ?) and the descending 
 
 cii/afcXacrtp. 
 
 Finally the fragments of Plethon published by Vincent 
 ^Notices et Exlraits etc., XVI, 2, p. 234 ff.), entitled Kt^aXm' tvrra 
 \6yaiv povatK&v, Contain the following (p. 236) : 
 
 'Apcriv peu eti/ai o^vrepov (jjdoyyov in ^apvTt'pov /utraXiji/riy, 6e<riv fie 
 TovpavTiov ^apvTepov i^ o^vTtpov. 
 
 In this passage the words iSpms and 5eVir occur with a musical 
 signification, but it is the only passage of which I know. 
 
 Now without attempting to reconcile any inconsistencies there 
 may be in these passages, we may at least conclude that the sub- 
 ject of the movement of the ' voice ' (' human and instrumental ') 
 received a complicated theoretical treatment at the bands of 
 musicians. What practical gain was aimed at we can hardly 
 guess. To us the very naming of the various species of motion 
 seems superfluous. But the fact remains that the ancients treated 
 the matter in this way. We are thus brought to the point where 
 we cannot reasonably refuse to admit the possibility that if the 
 phenomenon of a rise and fall of pitch in music had a terminology, 
 the similar rise and fall in conversational speech may have had a 
 similar terminology. In fact the line between speech and song 
 could not be drawn with any degree of sharpness in ancient 
 theory. The very fact of a formal separation of these two kinds 
 of utterance according to the character of the vocal motion points 
 to the existence of a manner of speaking resembling singing, and 
 a manner of singing resembling speaking. The Kivr^ats p4<n) of 
 Aristides Quintilianus, partaking of the nature of both kIvj](tis 
 dvvfx'l' ^f<i Kivrjcris SiatrTtjpaTtKrj, forces US to admit that. 
 
 Accentuation thus assumes a place in ancient theory under the 
 general heading of the Movement of the Voice. The rise and 
 
 1 The MSS have avdhjaic, which can hardly be right. Vincent adopts 
 avaK^tjaic, following the Hagiopolite MS, but araxAaoif, which Vincent men- 
 tions as possible (p. igs n.), seems most likely, as it suits the other name 
 for the same motion, ayay^ avaKa/mrovaa. 
 
68 C. W. L. JOHNSON. 
 
 fall of the tone in musical melody was paralleled by the rise and 
 fall in conversational melody. 
 
 Scattered here and there through the writings of the Latin 
 grammarians are a number of passages in which I believe we can 
 see traces of doctrinal matter regarding this melodic rise and fall. 
 Inasmuch as these passages have often been cited in support of 
 one or another theory in regard to the basis of ancient versifica- 
 tion, a great deal of confusion would be removed if it could be 
 shown that the passages, or, rather, their sources, really con- 
 cerned the melodic or pitch accent of the Latin language of the 
 classical period and not its versification at all, except in so far as 
 pitch accent must needs affect versification indirectly, as it does 
 all artistic utterance. The point at which the misunderstanding 
 would arise would be in the use of the words arsis and thesis 
 or their equivalents. That these words once had a melodic or 
 accentual signification as well as the more usual rhythmical or 
 metrical one is certain.' But when the accents lost their melodic 
 character, the two uses might easily become confused. That this 
 is what happened is the explanation suggested to account for the 
 passages in question. 
 
 Sergius, after defining tenor or accentus' and explaining that 
 
 ' This fact is sometimes lost sight of, but Weil and Benloew touch upon 
 the matter in a note at p. 98 of their The'orie generals de P accentuation latine 
 (Paris, 1855), and John Foster in his Essay on the Different Nature of Accent 
 and Quantity . . . in the English, Latin, and Greek Languages (Eton, 1763) 
 devotes a postscript to chap, viii to " The Different 'Apaic of Accent and 
 and of Metre." In this work at p. 146 n. a passage from J. C. Scaliger 
 (1484-1558), De Causis Lingime Laiinae, is quuted, in which the accentual 
 meaning of apci^ is given in the words : Syllabae igilur modus, quo tollitur 
 in ea vox acutior, dictus a Graecis apaiq, recta sane, in alteram autem 
 subeuntem cum demittitur vox, Otaiv appellarunt, minus commode : — quae 
 melius KaTotieaiC dicta fuisset. — vel aeqtiabilitatem vocis potius appellassent. 
 uude etiam in musicis i/iorevei; quidam dicuntur tractus, in quibus apaic est 
 nulla. 
 
 'Cf. Donat., p. 371 K : tonos alii accentus, alii tenores nominant. Pris- 
 cian, II, 12, p. 51, 21 IC : accidit unicuique syllabae tenor, spiritus, tempus, 
 numerus literarum. tenor acutus vel gravis vel circumflexus. in dictione 
 tenor certus, absque ea incertus, non potest tamen sine eo esse. Diomedes 
 p. 431, 3 K : accentus quidam fastigia vocaverunt, quod capitibus litterarum 
 imponerentur j alii tenores vel sonos appellant ; nonnulli cacumina retinere 
 maluerunt. Idem, p. 456, 18 K : tenor quem Graeci dicunt tasin aut proso- 
 
ACCENT AND ACCENTUAL ARSIS AND THESIS. 69 
 
 the term accenlus is sometimes carelessly used to include the 
 long and short marks, the hyphen, diastole, and apostrophus, 
 says (p. 482, 14 K): 
 
 his ita se habentibus sciendum est quod acutus et gravis et 
 circumflexus soli sunt qui, ut superius diximus, naturalem 
 unius cuiusque sermonis in voce nostra elationis servent 
 tenorem. nam ipsi arsin thesinque moderantur, quamquam 
 sciendum est quod in usu non sit hodierno gravis accentus. 
 Then follow rules for the accentuation of dissyllables, poly- 
 syllables, and monosyllables with acute and circumflex accents. 
 
 In this passage versification is not under discussion at all. 
 Although the names of various feet are used, it is only in order to 
 describe various quantitative combinations, for which versification 
 afforded a convenient terminology ready made. The terms arsis 
 and thesis cannot refer to the arsis and thesis of rhythm, unless 
 one goes so far as to claim that it is here a question of accentual 
 versification, in which a stressed accent has usurped the r61e 
 played in classical verse by quantity. Commodianus is supposed 
 to have already written accentual poetry, but there is little prob- 
 ability that such a system of versification would find recognition 
 in what purports to be a commentary on classical usage. 
 Pseudo-Priscian defines accent as follows (p. 519, 25 K): 
 
 accentus nanique est certa lex ad elevandam et deprimen- 
 dam syllabam uniuscuiusque particulae orationis, qui fit ad 
 similitudinem elementorum, litterarum syllabarumque, qui 
 etiam tripertito dividitur, acuto gravi circumflexo. acutus 
 namque accentus ideo inventus est, quod acuat sive elevet 
 syllabam ; gravis vero eo, quod deprimat aut deponat ; cir- 
 cumflexus ideo, quod deprimat et acuat. 
 Then after touching upon the " spurious " accents, the restriction 
 of the Latin accent to two syllables, and certain exceptions to the 
 Latin rule of accentuation, he gives the rules for accenting mono- 
 syllabic, dissyllabic, and trisyllabic words under all conditions of 
 difference in vowel quantity." Examples are given for every 
 variety of quantitative aspect up to three syllables. Then he 
 says (p. 521, 24 K): 
 
 dian, in flexibus vocis servandus est; nam quaedam acuto tenore.pleraque 
 gravi, alia flexo desiderant enuntiari! Cledonius, p. 32, 5 K : tria habet 
 cognomenta accentus; aut toni sunt aut tenores aut accentus ; toni a sono 
 accentus ab accinendo (Keil, acuendo), tenores ab intentione. 
 ' So Diomedes, p. 430 K. 
 
70 C. W. L. JOHNSON. 
 
 ad banc autem rem arsis et thesis sunt necessariae. namque 
 in unaquaque parte orationis arsis et thesis sunt, non in 
 ordine syllabarum sed in pronuntiatione: velut in bac parte 
 natura quando dico natu, elevatur vox et est arsis intus, 
 quando vero sequitur ra, vox deponitur et est thesis deforis. 
 quantum autem suspenditur vox per arsin, tantum deprimitur 
 per tbesin. sed ipsa vox quae per dictiones formatur, donee 
 accentus perficiatur, in arsin deputatur; quae autem post 
 accentum sequitur, in tbesin. 
 Here also there can hardly be any reference to versification. 
 The extent of the arsis is determined by a property of the indi- 
 vidual word, the accentus, the rest of the pars orationis is thesis. 
 The ratio of 4 : i between rhythmical arsis and thesis is unheard of. 
 The fact that the words intus and deforis correspond in their use 
 to the terms l^iv %aa6iv and i^en 'i^adtv in the Anonymus passage, 
 de musica, §16, p. 52 ff., quoted above (p. 65 f), is also to be 
 remarked. 
 
 In the following passage I suspect that the second sentence is 
 parenthetical, and that temporis of the manuscripts should be 
 emended to tenoris. 
 
 Marius Victorinus, p. 40, 14 K : arsis igitur et thesis quas 
 
 Graeci dicunt, id est sublatio et positio, significant motum 
 
 pedis, est enim arsis sublatio pedis sine sono. thesis positio 
 
 cum sono.' item arsis est elatio temporis (? tenoris) soni, 
 
 vocis, thesis depositio et quaedam contractio syllabarum. 
 
 The writer then returns to the consideration of meter and sliows 
 
 how the various kinds of feet are to be divided into arsis and 
 
 thesis, the arsis according to this doctrine invariably preceding 
 
 the thesis.'^ But in the sentence beginning, item arsis, he merely 
 
 adds incidentally, as it were, a non-metrical definition of the tei ms 
 
 arsis and thesis. 
 
 The analysis of feet containing an uneven number of syllables 
 into the constituent parts, arsis and thesis, seems to have called 
 for rules. We are informed in certain passages that the proper 
 division into arsis and thesis can be ascertained from the accent. 
 
 ' Cf. Arist. Quin., de mtis., I, xiii, p. 31 M, p. 21 J: /nS/ioc toU'i-v iarl 
 avoTi/fia in xi'^^''^" ""''<' Tit'o- rafiv avyKti/iii'iJr, nal ra to'utuv irafh/ Kahw/iev apaiv Kcil 
 Okatv, ipo^ov Kal yfiEiiiav. 
 
 ^ In regard to the trochee, p. 40, 14 K, it is clearly necessary to read 
 tollitur iot ponilur, And ponitur for tollitiir, in view of p. 45, : K. 
 
ACCENT AND ACCENTUAL ARSIS AND THESIS. 7 1 
 
 These passages are full of difficulties, which will perhaps never 
 be cleared up, in view of the probability that the writers them- 
 selves did not understand what they wrote. In the last two of 
 the following four passages in particular it seems impossible to 
 reconcile the inconsistencies. 
 
 Terenliaiuis Maurus, de meiris, v. 1427 ff., p. 368 K : 
 pes adest supremus unus octo de trisyllabis, 
 aii(f>ifiaKpos : hunc priori (scil. Sii(l>t^pdxei) perspicis con- 
 
 trarium : 
 nam duae longae receptam continent intus brevem, 
 Romulos si nominemus, Apulos aut Doricos. 
 sescuplo metimur istum : quinque nam sunt tempora : 
 nunc duo ante Iria sequuntur : nunc tribus reddes duo, 
 Italum si quando mutat Graius accentus sonum. 
 Apulos nam quando dico, tunc in arsi sunt duo : 
 Saxpi'nriv Graius loquendo reddet in thesi duo. 
 creticum appellant cundem, forte Curetum genus 
 quo modos ludo sub armis congruentes succinat. 
 primus iste pes locatur his ubique in versibus, 
 optimus pes et melodis et pedestri gloria. 
 
 Servius, in Donatum, p. 425, 7 K : arsis dicitur elevatio, 
 thesis positio. quotienscumque contingit ut tres sunt syllabae 
 in pede vel quinque, quoniam non licet in divisione temporum 
 syllabam scindi, sed aut principio adplicatur aut fini, idcirco 
 debemus considerare, media syllaba cui parti coniungi debeat, 
 et hoc ex accentu colligimus. nam si in prima syllaba fuerit 
 accentus, arsis duas syllabas possidebit; si autem in media 
 syllaba, thesi duas syllabas damns. 
 
 Julianus, p. 321, 11 K : Quae accidunt unicuique pedi? 
 Arsis et thesis, numerus syllabarum, tempus, resolutio, figura, 
 metrum. Quid est arsis ? Elevatio, id est inchoatio partis. 
 Quid est thesis? Positio, id est finis partis. Quo modo ? 
 Puta si dicam prudens, illud pru elevatio est, illud dens 
 positio. Ill trisyllabis et tetrasyllabis pedibus quot syllabas 
 sibi vindicat arsis et quot thesis? In trisyllabis, si in prima 
 habuerit accentum, ut puta dominus, duas syllabas vindicat 
 arsis et unam thesis. Nam si penultimo loco habuerit 
 accentum, ut puta bealus, arsis vindicat unam syllabam et 
 thesis duas. Sic et tempora secundum quantitatem sylla- 
 barum sibi vindicat. 
 
72 C. W. L. JOHNSON. 
 
 Pompeius, comm., p. 120, 29 K: arsis et thesis dicitur 
 elevatio et positio. ut si dicam ego, e arsis est, go thesis est. 
 cui rei proficiat arsis et thesis, paulo post dicemus. interim 
 arsis et thesis dicitur elevatio et positio. ut puta Roma; 
 Roma prima syllaba arsin habet, secunda syllaba thesin. 
 quid si quattuor syllabarum fuerit ? duae erunt in arsi et 
 duae in thesi. quid si octo? quattuor habet arsis et quattuor 
 thesis, quid si tres sunt, id est, quid si impar numerus ? si 
 impar numerus fuerit, quotiens media syllaba accentum habet, 
 arsis habebit unum tempus et thesis duo ; quotiens prior 
 syllaba habuerit accentum, arsis habebit duo tempora et 
 thesis unum. ut puta Camillus quando dicimus, ecce media 
 syllaba accentum habet : dicimus in arsi unum et in thesi duo. 
 Romulus quando dicimus, prima syllaba habet accentum : 
 dicimus duo in arsi, unum in thesi. ergo in istis, ubi non sunt 
 aequales syllabae, quando debeat arsis duo habere tempora, 
 unum thesis, vel quando unum arsis et duo thesis, ex accentu 
 colligis. nam si media syllaba accentum habuerit, ultimae 
 syllabae iungis plura tempora, ut arsis habeat unum, thesis 
 duo ; si prior syllaba habuerit accentum, arsi iunges plura 
 tempora. 
 The most important point to determine in these passages is 
 whether they are really concerned with versification or not. All 
 profess to be. But it is difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile the 
 statements made with the accepted doctrine in regard to ihe laws 
 of ancient verse. In the first place integral words are given as 
 examples of what are supposably the feet of verse, and conclusions 
 as to the internal constitution of the feet are drawn from the pro- 
 nunciation of the words. In the next place it is not clear how 
 the accentuation can determine rhythmical arsis and thesis, unless 
 the accent be a stress or intensity accent, and either the arsis or 
 the thesis be of the same nature, or at least contain an intensity 
 element. But even so further difficulties remain. Terentianus 
 clearly brings quantity into consideration. His doctrine would 
 seem to be that in words, or, as he calls them, feet, containing five 
 morae, of the form — ^ — , the division is 2 : 3 in Latin words, 
 because the accent falls (by rule) on the antepenult (as A-pulos), 
 but is 3 : 2 when a Greek word with the accent on the short 
 
 penult (as l,aKpa-tr]v) is involved. Feet of the forms ^ 
 
 {fiaKx^loi) and ^ {avTi^aKxai) have been already disposed of 
 
ACCENT AND ACCENTUAL ARSIS AND THESIS. 73 
 
 before the passage quoted. The ratio between arsis and thesis is 
 stated to be sescuple, but the self-evident division is not specifically 
 made for each foot. In regard to the amphibrach our author 
 says that the ratio is necessarily 3 : i, but that we are at liberty 
 to give the arsis one time and the thesis three, or the arsis three 
 and the thesis one. Since this ratio is not one of the three 
 rhythmical ratios, this foot is rejected by the " musici." ' 
 
 If the Servius passage conveys the same doctrine, we must 
 consider that here also only the form — >^ — is in question, for 
 
 the division into rhythmical arsis and thesis of the forms ^ 
 
 and ^ is self-evident. This involves emending the vel 
 
 quinque of the manuscripts to ct quinque iempora, and duas 
 syllabas (in each case) to duo iempora. But if the rule is of late 
 origin, and not a precept handed down from early times, another 
 explanation is possible. , We know that the feeling for quantity 
 was no longer alive in the time of Servius.'' The passage may 
 then be regarded simply as giving a practical rule for a partial 
 determination of the (extinct) quantities in trisyllabic feet (words) 
 through an observation of the position of the accent (now, of 
 course, an intensity accent). When the first syllable is accented, 
 the second or middle must be short, and so, he says, the arsis (or 
 first part of a foot) includes two syllables (according to the text, 
 but, as remarked, Terentianus' rule calls for one only), and the 
 thesis one ; but when the middle syllable is accented, it must be 
 long, and then, he says, the arsis has one syllable and the thesis 
 two. It is not stated which of the eight trisyllabic feet, ^^^ , 
 
 — vjWj <_- — \j ^ WW — J Wj — w — , Kj ^ J are covered 
 
 by this rule, but some restriction is clearly necessary. The rule 
 does not give satisfactory results on any rhythmical basis. For 
 
 example we cannot suppose the form ^ to be divided into a 
 
 rhythmical arsis of one mora and a thesis of four morae. 
 
 In regard to the Julianus and Pompeius passages the supposi- 
 
 1 exigunt idcirco talem qui sequuiitur musicam (v. 1426). I had at first 
 taken exigunt in tlie sense of ' demand,' but the interpretation given above, 
 ■which I owe to Prof. C. W. E. Miller, must be right. 
 
 ' Servius, arf Piquilinum de finalibus, p. 1803, Putsche : nam quod pertinet 
 ad naturam primae syllabae, longane sit aut brevis, solis confirmamus 
 exemplis ; medias vero in latino sermone accentu discernimus; ultimas 
 arte coUigimus. (G. Paris, Etude sur le rSle de V accent latin dans la laiigue 
 franfatse, p. 30, n. 2.) 
 
74 C. W. L. JOHNSON. 
 
 tion that only feet containing five morae are under consideration 
 is precluded by the examples. Yet it is strange if the analysis 
 into arsis and thesis of feet like dactyls and anapaests was regarded 
 as difficult to effect without the aid of the verbal accent. It is 
 quite possible, however, that the examples need emending. 
 Furthermore to follow the directions literally, we are led to the 
 curious result that the accent sometimes fells on the arsis (as 
 diimi-nus), and sometimes on the thesis (as be-dtus). Nor are we 
 at liberty to shift the position of arsis and thesis, for Julianus 
 expressly announces the doctrine, a very common one, that the 
 arsis invariably precedes the thesis in any foot, and Pompeius 
 would imply as much in his first examples, ego and Rovta. 
 Another difficulty in the way of accepting these passages as 
 dealing purely with the meter of versification lies in the examples 
 beaius and Ca7)iillus, which are amphibrach in form. Pompeius 
 himself says later, p. 125, 4 K, of the amphibrach : nulla divisio 
 est. As in the Servius passage results contrary to all rhythmical 
 theory are reached. 
 
 We are thus led to the conclusion that the arsis and thesis 
 which according to the grammarians can be determined by the 
 verbal accent are not the arsis and thesis of versification. What- 
 ever may be the true conception of the latter, they are certainly 
 not affections of individual words. The arsis and thesis of verse 
 are complementary parts of a foot. But the arsis and thesis under 
 discussion have no apparent relationship with true feet. The 
 accent is a concern of the word, not of the foot. When the 
 grammarians employ integral words as examples to illustrate the 
 various kinds of feet found in verse, we overlook the fault in the 
 method. But when we are asked to believe that the accents of 
 these words played any r61e in verse, where it can only occa- 
 sionally have happened that the words were coterminous with 
 feet, we must decline to follow our preceptors. 
 
 The attitude of the ancient theorists in all this matter is of 
 prime importance. The science of metric covered more than the 
 subject of versification only; it included also the artistic disposi- 
 tion of long and short syllables in prose composition. Consider 
 the doctrine of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. He states that piB^os 
 is necessary in artistic prose as well as in poetry.' Prose ought 
 
 ' Dionysius of Halicarnassus, dc comp. verb., xi : i^ uv ,U ouifiai yn'i/amOni 
 U^iv Tiihlav Kai Kair/u, TETTapd kan rd KujimTaTa mi npariaTa, /liAn,; 
 
ACCENT AND ACCENTUAL ARSIS AND THESIS. 75 
 
 to be EupD^/ior, however, and not eppvBfios,^ ti'/itrpor and not iinurpm. 
 It ought to contain feet or meters (pvB/ioi, pirpa), but they should 
 not be prominent.'' If therefore the same terminology was used 
 for various combinations of quantities in prose diction as was in 
 use for poetic diction, nothing could be more natural ; but the 
 practice does not necessarily imply that the same phenomenon 
 was under discussion. Indeed Dionysius fully recognizes the 
 difference. Both the epptrpos Xe'|ir of poetry and song and the 
 aperpos Xe'Jir of prose include what are called " feet " for want of 
 distinguishing names.' But whereas poetry cannot employ cer- 
 tain feet, prose rejects none.' There is no real rhythm in prose, 
 but only a quasi-rhythm, no real feet, but only quasi-feet. The 
 indiscriminate mingling of heterogeneous feet is not forbidden. 
 
 The feet of prose diction are then a fact in ancient theory, but 
 of rhythmical arsis and thesis properly speaking they can have 
 had no trace. Therefore when we read in the Latin grammarians 
 of an arsis and thesis found in feet which are identical in every- 
 thing with individual words, we must look for some other definition 
 for such a use of these terms than the usual one. Just what 
 meaning the grammarians themselves attached to the terms may 
 not now be discoverable. Perhaps to them the arsis was nothing 
 more than the first part of a foot and the thesis the last, and so 
 when a word filled the form of a foot, the first part of the word 
 was the arsis and the last part the thesis. But if there was in 
 earlier doctrine a verbal arsis and thesis of an accentual character, 
 it is easy to see how, when the accents became converted into 
 stresses, the principles regulating the one phenomenon might be 
 
 Kal pvOpo; KoX perapo^ koX to napaicolor£ovv roif rpial tovtoc; wpenov . . . 
 av pF.v ovv OTOX&CovTai navTEQ oi nwovSy jpa^ovTf.c perpov, 7; pkTMg, ?/ tt/d Xeyupe- 
 vrp> neOji' Tit^iv, ravr' kari. 
 
 ^IHd., fin. 
 
 ''Ibid., XXV : oirf/) ovv efi/v, ov 6i>mTat tpiXf/ U^ig opnia yevecOai. ry ipphpa ml 
 ip/ii:'^el inv pij mpiexV I^ETpa Kal pv8poij( TivaQ iyKaTapepiyphovc dd^wf. oil phroi 
 npoaiiKtL y Ipperpov oiicY eppvOpov avrijv elvai ioKelv ■ nolripa yap ovtuq larac Kal 
 /yiAof , iKp-fiaeral te OTrAuf tov airf/c ;i;n;paKr^pa ■ aW evpvdpov nvrf/v inroxpv Kal 
 fJjanTpov (jiaivnaBai povov ■ mn> } dp av eh/ Trmr/rmij per, ov pyv iroh/pd ye ■ Kal 
 eiips^f/g ph, oi) p£?Mg lU. 
 
 ^Ibid., xvii, fin.: ovroi dadexa pv6poi te Kal irddeg elalv oi wparoi icaTapsTpoivTeg 
 airaaap ipperpov re Kal aperpov Aefiv, ef av jivovrai arixoi. te Kal Kahi. 
 
 ^Ibid., xviii, init.: ovSh yap cnrehivveTai pvBpbg otdJeif ek r^f aphpov Ie^eu;, 
 ioavep CK T^f EppETpov. 
 
7^ C. IV. L. JOHNSON. 
 
 transferred to the other. Thus the feet of prose also would be 
 provided with a subdivision into arsis and thesis. The result 
 would be a simplification on the surface of the doctrine, but a 
 deep-seated confusion in essentials. 
 
 C. W. L. Johnson. 
 
AUGUSTUS PRINCEPS. 
 
 It is a familiar fact that in the poHtical development of the early- 
 Empire the cautious experiments of Octavianus Caesar all tended 
 to preserve, or even restore, the forms and ostensible functions of 
 the Republic, with the added device of successive cumulation on 
 one person. The term Augustus was not particularly civilis^ 
 (to use a Roman term that did not lose its significance from 
 Actium to the era of Trajan). Princeps, on the other hand, was 
 eminently civilis. I was led to undertake a survey of the ancient 
 tradition and theory on the subject, because I was struck by the 
 fact that Mommsen differs not only from the almost unanimous 
 opinion of modern students such as Hoeck, Madvig, Peter, Merivale 
 and Ranke, but also from Die, whom he criticizes severely. 
 
 In attempting to analyze the principles by which the second 
 Caesar was guided in manipulating public affairs and in con- 
 structing the mechanism of the new government, we may safely 
 emphasize these points : in the first place, Octavianus wished to 
 avoid the political blunders of his adoptive father, and, secondly, his 
 aim was to obliterate, as far as possible, the memory of some of his 
 own acts during his triumviral period.' Julius Caesar indeed had 
 truthfully said "nihil esse rem publicam,appellationem modo sine 
 corpore ac specie," but he had underestimated the tenacious life 
 of " appellationes" and of incidental sentiment and association." 
 
 ' Avymwrof wf koX w?£l6v Tt }/ Kar" andpajvovg av kneKl^B?/, Dio 53, 16, 8. — In 
 27 B. c, on January 17, ace. to Censorinus, de die natal. 21, he was so 
 greeted by an acclamation, "sententia L. Munatii Planci," wlio had not 
 been a courtier at Alexandria to no purpose. Madvig, Verfassung u. Ver- 
 waltung des roni. Staates, I, p. 536, follows Orosius, VI 20, who places 
 the event in Jan., 29 B. C. The Greek version Seliaari^ emphasizes the 
 extraordinary character of the appellation ; cf. the reluctance of Tiberius 
 to use this name, Suetonius, Tib. 26. 
 
 ^Cf. the apologetic and pseudo-republican strain of the Monumentum 
 Ancyranum, as well as the spirit in which Velleius, for example, refers to 
 the proscriptions of the second triumvirate. 
 
 "Cf. details of his " spernere patrium morem " in Suetonius, lulius 
 76-77. 
 
78 E. G. SIHLER. 
 
 Octavianus determined upon the role of senatorial mandatary. 
 As all the chief acts of the future administration were to be 
 covered by senatus consulta, the ostensible elevation and purifi- 
 cation of that august body was indeed a task of the first import- 
 ance.' The first lectio occurred in 28 b. c, when Augustus and 
 Agrippa were censors. According to the custom of the ancient 
 Republic before the era of Marius and Sulla, an essential part of 
 the censorial lectio senattcs and an important privilege of the 
 censors was the designation of a princeps senatus. In this lectio 
 Octavianus was so designated. Dio 53, i xar oTToypacfias e'^tTeXeo-e, 
 
 Kat ev avTois TTpoKpiTos Trjs yepovaias in^KKr^Ori, ccajrep iv rrj aKpi^ei drjpiOKpaTLa 
 
 ivivopinTo. It was indeed, as Dio urges, a repristination of an 
 institution peculiar to the aKpifii]s SripoKparia, by which term 
 Dio means the republican era before the rise of the men 
 of personal power. For Dio aptly'' summarizes Roman history 
 down to 29 B. C. as embracing three periods: the kings, the 
 
 republic, the dwacrre'iat. 
 
 The institution of the prificeps senatus as an incidental part 
 of the lectio senatus, and thus of the census, is discussed by 
 Mommsen in his Romische Forschungen, I 92 sqq. The literary 
 tradition enables him to specify twelve,^ beginning with M. 
 Valerius Maximus, dictator of 494 B. c, and concluding with L. 
 Valerius Flaccus, consul 100 B. c. He differs, for example, from 
 Merivale,* whom he does not mention, in excluding Lutatius 
 Catulus, consul of 78 B. C. This view of Merivale's is also put 
 forward in Pauly, Real-Encyclopadie, IV 1248. Mommsen claims 
 that the fact that Catulus was co\\s\dereA princeps senatus is due to 
 misunderstanding. Dio 36, 14 says : on ta . . . npara t^? fiovXrjs ^v. 
 These words, to be sure, are not very explicit, but Cicero, in 
 Pisonem, III 6, says : "me Q. Catulus princeps huius ordinis . . . 
 parentem patriae nominavit." Mommsen argues^ that this/r/w- 
 cipatus differed from the formal one of earlier times, and was so 
 
 ^Cf. Suetonius, Aug. 35. For the degradation of the Senate by Julius 
 Caesar, cf. Dio 43, 47. 
 
 *Dio 52, I. This summary exhibits the superior clearness of Dio's 
 political vision. Cf. the "certamina potentium " in Tacitus, Annals, I 2. 
 
 " He sums up his list as thirteen, but there are only twelve in it. 
 
 * Merivale, p. 454 : " the most celebrated of the list was Lutatius Catulus, 
 whose position at the head of the senatorial oligarchy has been signalized 
 at the beginning of this history." 
 
 ^Staatsrecht, III 868, note 4. 
 
AUGUSTUS PR INC EPS. 7g 
 
 merely "nach der offentlichen Meinung." But by the latter 
 standard no doubt Pompey, although he was absent at the time 
 (63 B. c.) in his Eastern campaigns, was \\\e. princeps. Indeed, it 
 seems probable that Lutatius Catulus was the formal priiiceps 
 senaius. If so, the lectio in which he was designated was that of 
 70 B. C, which was complete and rigorous,' sixty-four names 
 being stricken from the senatorial register. This census of 70 
 B. C. was the last complete and successful one before the census of 
 Octavianus Caesar and Agrippa in 28 B. c. The census of 65 
 B. C.^ was abortive on account of radical political differences 
 between the censors, Catulus and Crassus, which led to their 
 resignation without having reached either the lectio senatus or the 
 recogniiio equitum. Nor did those chosen in theif stead accom- 
 plish anything, because, as Dio'' says, the tribuni plebis blocked 
 their action through fear of losing their seats in the lectio senatus. 
 The latter function stands out as the crucial one in the sphere of 
 the censorial imperiujn. 
 
 Th^ princeps senatus enjoyed not so much a political function 
 as a civil honor.' He had the first place in debate. Regarding 
 his tenure of office Zonaras says, 7,19 npo^xe rov xpovov m npoiKplviTo, 
 
 ov yap 8ia /Si'ou riff (Is tovto npo^xeipi^iTO. It IS true that the 
 
 censors at the next lectio had the abstract right to change the 
 t>rinceps even by substituting one of their own number, but it 
 seems to have been done rarely, if ever. Thus Q. Fabius Max- 
 imus was designated as princeps by the censors of 209 and 204 : 
 he died in 203. P. Scipio Africanus, himself one of the censors, 
 became princeps in 199; the censors of 194 and 189 ratified that 
 choice''; Valerius himse\f, princeps of 184, and one of the censors, 
 
 'Liv. Epit. 98 : Cn. Lentulus et L. Gellius censores asperavi censuram 
 egerunt, quattuor et sexaginta senatu motis. 
 
 ^Cf. Plut. Crassus, u. 13. 
 
 'Uio 37, 9 cjiiTodmdvnJV aij>aq tgiv i^rifiapxi^v irpoc; tov rf/g pnvXijg KaraTiayov fleet 
 Toil firj Tf/c yepovaiat; avTovg efiwecefv. 
 
 *Ci. Madvig, Verf. I, p. 137; Mommsen, Stsr. Ill 969 sq.; C. Peter, 
 Rom. Gesch. Ill, p. 16. 
 
 ' Cf. Livy 34, 44; 38, 28. Livy (39, 52) argues from the continuity of the 
 honor against the date of the death of Scipio as claimed by Polybius and 
 others, 183 B. c. In the lectio of the census of 184 the official records gave 
 the name of I-. Valerius, proof positive, according to Livy, that Scipio had 
 died before that census : quo vivo nisi ut ille senatu moveretur, quam 
 notam nemo memoriae prodidit, alius princeps in locum eius lectus non 
 esset. 
 
80 E. G. SIHLER. 
 
 died before the censors of 179 came in. M. Aemilius Lepidus, 
 himself censor in that year (179), became the next princeps, and 
 remained so in 174, 169, 164, 159' and 154. 
 
 The real conception of the matter held in the republican era is 
 well set forth in Livy 27, 11, where one of the censors claims that 
 senatorial tradition designated the oldest living ccnsorius as the 
 proper candidate for princeps, while the other censor urged that 
 in this case the princeps civitatis Romanae, Q. Fabius Maximus, 
 should be chosen. We may say, I believe, that ordinarily the 
 oldest living censorius was really the foremost citizen, and that 
 conversely the foremost man in the senate was ordinarily the 
 foremost citizen. 
 
 It might happen, of course, as in the case of M. Aemilius 
 Lepidus, that, as the princeps was long-lived and actually main- 
 tained his formal preeminence in the senate, in the course of 
 events he would cease to be princeps civitatis : he might indeed 
 be outranked by the very censor who repeated the judgment of 
 his predecessors in the work of lectio. 
 
 Thus L. Aemilius Paulus in the lectio of the census of 164 had 
 for four years enjoyed the prestige of Pydna, and was undoubtedly 
 the princeps civitatis ; still he merely confirmed the previous 
 lectio in giving the principatus to M. Aemilius Lepidus.^ That 
 the victor of Pydna was then the foremost man in the state would 
 require no special demonstration, but as a matter of evidence we 
 may quote Cicero, Brutus 80: Atque etiam L. Paulus Africani pater 
 personam principis civis facile dicendo tuebatur. Nor did Scipio 
 Aeniilianus (whom Cicero incessantly presented' as the ideal 
 representative of the republic before the decline) attain the formal 
 principatus, although no doubt he was princeps civis. 
 
 The emergencies of the times brought young Pompey into 
 unusual prominence, and subsequently into eminence, when 
 socially he was merely as yet of the equestrian class, for, with 
 the lex Annalis suspended, Pompey, having returned from the 
 Sertorian and Slave war while still an eques, was made consul 
 
 ' The word sex in Liv. Epit. 47 is palpably wrong. Perhaps the V of the 
 original MSS was copied as VI, and so was transferred into the numeral 
 word. 
 
 ^ Pint. Aem. Paul. 38, 6 rr/f & ^ovXf)^ ixpuiypa^ie fiiv Mdpnov Al/iiXtov AiTvidov, 
 tj6r} TETfidKig Kap-Koi)fievov TavTrjv ri/v Trpuedplav. 
 
 "For example, in making him a chief interlocutor in some of the essays. 
 
A UG USTUS PRINCEPS. 8 1 
 
 without even having been elected quaestor, and even as consul, 
 after the recognitio equifiim, he appeared in the iransveciio of the 
 Knights before the censors' of 70 B. c. to "give up his horse." 
 And thus from that time forward Pompey, and not Catulus, came 
 to be " in re publica princeps "^ until Caesar's rise made a plurality 
 o{ principes from "Consul Melellus," 60 b. c, down to Pharsalus, 
 48 B. c. Hence the familiar lines of Horace, Carm. II i, 3 sq.: 
 
 gravisque 
 Frincipum amicitias et arma, etc. 
 
 The term princeps then, in the new or, as Augustus wished to 
 have it seem, the restored, order of things, came to be the most 
 common one in current usage, to designate the head of the state. 
 It was no doubt well received because it suggested neither rex nor 
 dictator, but was a good old republican term, and all its associa- 
 tions were of such a kind as to disarm suspicion and ill will. In 
 a short time the term came to be one of most comprehensive 
 significance. And so the foremost of modern scholars in the field 
 of Roman antiquities, in the index of his Staatsrechi, has chosen 
 this term in preference to the other more specific ones as the 
 general designation for the entire sphere of the emperor. But he 
 has taken especial pains also to emphasize his own conception of 
 the term. To his mind Augustus is called princeps not as prin- 
 ceps senatus, but as princeps omnium, or as princeps civitatis? 
 " Dass der Kaiser Anch princeps senatus ist, ist mit seiner Stellung 
 als princeps nicht zu verwechseln, obwol dies schon Dio tut." 
 And again*: "Aber diese Bezeichnung sagt auch weiter nichts 
 aus als, wie Augustus selber es ausdriickt, dass der princeps der 
 gewichtigste u. angesehenste BUrger ist," and this statement is 
 
 1 Plut. Pomp. 22 t6t£ (F^ irpoixadrivTO /ih ol TifiTfral Vil'kioQ KoX KhrTtcQ iv 
 Kda/iG) Koi TTapoioQ vv Tov InvF.wv i^erat^o/ihuv, iiipliij (U TlofiKf/ln( avuBev in" 
 ayopav Karepxif^evog, to. fiiv ixAAa napaaniia Tijg apxm ix"^i "i'l'of <'^ <^'^ X^vk 
 ay(j>v TOV liriTov, 
 
 ''Cic. Fam. I 9, 11 ; cf. Mommsen, Stsr. II 751, note 4. Momnisen also 
 cites Sail. Hist. Ill, oratio C. Licinii Macri 23: mihi quidem satis spec- 
 tatum est, Pompeium tantae gloriae adulescentem malle principem volen- 
 tibus vobis esse, quam illis dominationis socium. To which add Cic. Att. 
 II 19, 3: huic ita plausum est ut aalva republica Pompeio plaudi solebat 
 (written in July 59). 
 
 ' Stsrecht. II, p. 750, note 4. 
 
 *Stsr. II, p. 751. 
 
82 E. G. SIHLER. 
 
 supplemented by the footnote': "Mon. Ancyr. 6, 22, nach dem 
 griechischen Text erganzt : praestiti omnibus dignitate (dfim^aTt)." 
 Again' : " Wo Dio " das beriihmte Wort des Tiberius wiedergiebt, 
 dass er nicht imperaior sei sondern princeps, braucht er dafiir 
 nicht bloss das ungeschickte vpoKfiiTos, sondern es ist ihm der 
 Begriff des Principals schon so vollig abhanden gekommen, dass 
 er diesen npoKpiToc sogar zum TrpoKpnof t^s yepovaias, zum princeps 
 senatus macht.'' Again*: "Dass Augustus an der Spitze des 
 Verzeichnisses stand, sagt er selbst, aber dass er sich princeps 
 senatus nennen Hess wie Dio will, widerlegen die Urkunden." 
 
 The view of other scholars had generally been that princeps 
 was strictly based on princeps senatus and developed from it. 
 Thus Hoeck°: ^^ Princeps, ohne weitern Beisatz, wurde mitunter 
 schon friiher der erste des Senats genannt, und in keinem andern 
 Sinne liessen sich die Kaiser anfangs so nennen. Die Steigerung 
 des Begriffs vom Ersten des Senats zum Ersten der Nation erfolgte 
 ebenso unvermerkt wie natiirlich." 
 
 Merlvale*: "the popularity which the assumption of this repub- 
 lican title conferred upon the early emperors," etc. 
 
 Carl Peter': "DerTitel schloss ursprijnglich keinen weitern 
 realen Vorzug in sich als dass der Inhaber bei den Berathungen 
 im Senat zuerst um seine Meinung befragt werden musste. Wie 
 aber durch ihn Octavian gehoben wurde, so auch wiederum der 
 Titel durch Octavian und die nachfolgenden Kaiser," etc. 
 
 Madvig' : "den Titel princeps senatus aus dem sich das blosse 
 princeps als Bezeichnung des Regenten entwickelte [erhielt er] im 
 Jahre 28, Dio 53, i." And elsewhere': "Der m^vixe. princeps, der 
 aus der Ernennung des Augustus zum princeps senatus ent- 
 springt." Ranke" has the same view. 
 
 ' Stsr. II, p. 751, note 3. ^ lb., p. 752, note i. 
 
 'Dio 57,8. *Stsrcht. Ill 971, note I. 
 
 *R6ni. Geschichte vom Verfall der Republik, etc., 1841, I i, p. 325. 
 
 ^Merivale, III, p. 455. He aptly cites Pliny, Panegyr. 55 sedcmque 
 o\i\\ti^X principis, ne sit domino locus. 
 
 ' Rom. Gesch. Ill, p. 16. * Verf. u. Verw. I, p. 529, note. 
 
 'lb., p. 534 sq. 
 
 i» Weltgeschichte, III 2, p. 399 : '• Augustus selbst war wie Caesar/rwicf/Sj- 
 senatus," etc. I see now that Ernst Herzog, Geschichte und System der 
 romischen Staatsverfassung, Teubner, 1887, vol. II, does not agree with 
 Mommsen on the question of princeps. He says (p. 133): "Bei der Fest- 
 stellung der neuen Senatsliste sodann liess er sich als princeps senatus 
 
AUGUSTUS PRINCEPS. 83 
 
 In stating my agreement with the scholars just cited I should 
 like to bring forward several considerations that seem to me 
 essential. 
 
 The term princeps iuventuiis occurs frequently in the annals of 
 the Augustan Era. It throws a strong light, as I believe, on 
 the higher title oi princeps to which it is the social or political 
 stepping-stone. 
 
 The equestrian class, particularly the specific centuriae equiium, 
 were indeed, as Livy 42, 61 calls them, seminarium senaius, and 
 the bulk of the centuriae equitum, particularly in the later years 
 of the Republic, were probably sons of senators. It is a matter 
 worthy of note that in the centurial classification there were in the 
 pedites both iuniores and seniores, but of the equiies only iuniores. 
 And in the term princeps iuventutis the latter word would seem 
 to designate, not the entire youth of Rome, or of the empire, but 
 of the alter ordo, particularly of those whose advancement from 
 the equestrian to the senatorial class was merely, or chiefly, a 
 question of time and maturity. 
 
 Socially and politically (apart from police, annona and ludi') 
 the two ordines were the chief objects that Augustus had in view 
 in the regulation of the new government ; cf , for example, the lex 
 lulia de maritandis ordinibus. Forcellini, s. v. princeps, goes as 
 far as to say : " in libera civitate fuit princeps iuventutis cuius 
 nomen primum recitavit censor ordinem equestrem recensens." 
 What warrant (apart from a general postulated analogy with the 
 lectio senatiis) he has for this explanation I do not know. 
 
 Cicero (Fam. Ill 11, 3) calls Pompey (in June, 50 B. c.) 
 "omnium saeclorum et gentium" and Brutus, "iam pridem 
 iuventutis (princeps, scil.), celeriter, ut spero, civitatis" — certainly 
 in a somewhat different sense from the Augustan usage, as Brutus 
 
 erklaren, zunachst in keinem andern Sinne als in dem althergebrachten 
 des ersten Votanten." Herzog has used the analogy of the princeps 
 iuventuiis, as I have independently done, and defends Die against Momm- 
 sen. Die was, of course, not unfitted, by his provincial birth, for a career 
 which was almost entirely spent in the higher walks of provincial adminis- 
 tration in widely distant (and only in a minor degree oriental) parts of the 
 empire. As well might we call Ulpian a Syrian because he was born at 
 Tyre. Prof. Schwartz, of Giessen, who is working on the Greek Historians 
 of Rome for the new Pauly-Wissowa, is clearly influenced by Mommsen's 
 view, when he calls Dio " der brave Bithynier." 
 
84 E. G. SIHLER. 
 
 was then 35 years of age. Cicero's designation of the son of C. 
 Curio as princeps iuventuiis (in Vatin. 10, 24) is merely a piece 
 of political courtesy. 
 
 But in the Augustan era the designation of Gains and Lucius 
 Caesar as principes iuventtitis^ (as noted both in the Mon. Ancy- 
 ranum and in other Inss.) distinctly elevated them to a rank 
 second only to that oi ih.^ princeps himself and made them leaders 
 of those out of whom the senate was recruited. It was probably 
 in this connection, too, that Augustus reestablished the Troiae 
 lusus (actually fostered even by Caesar, cp. Suetonius, Julius 39). 
 Young Ascanius-Iulus in Vergil, Aen. V 545, appears zs, princeps 
 iuventutis, so to speak. Here, too, Augustus is repristinating a 
 priscus mos, as he ostensibly did in all his institutions (Sueton. 
 Aug. 43). 
 
 Madvig (I 530) urges that the character of the principatus 
 as a magistracy with its apparatus of terms and fixed periods of 
 tenure, was also marked by the fact, that " during the entire 
 administration of Augustus, there was no formal indication at any 
 time that it was to pass to others as something permanently 
 established." With all due respect to the memory and authority 
 of the eminent Latinist, I believe that his judgment is too absolute 
 in its negative character. The entire manipulation of Augustus' 
 family affairs was determined by the central idea of establishing 
 the succession. Marcellus, Gains and Lucius, Tiberius were the 
 successive heirs that were designated. We may confidently say 
 that they were the heirs apparent, with Agrippa as a constant 
 contingency during his lifetime. Thus in the very triumph after 
 Actium (Dio 51, 21), Octavianus gave a largess not only to the 
 
 men, but kuI toI? Traitrl hia TOP Map/ceXXov tov dde^f^ifiotyv. 
 
 Regarding Gains, who died in February, in the year 4 A. d., see 
 the Cenotaphium Pisanum, Orelli, No. 643: iam designatum 
 iustissumum ac simillumum parentis sui virtutibus principem. 
 It is true that this was not an official manifestation of the Roman 
 senate, but the exuberant and adulatory resolution of a colony 
 which looked to Gains as pair onus. Still we may take for 
 granted that it was the expression of universal and current public 
 opinion, an accepted item in the governmental policy of Augustus. 
 
 ' The Greek equivalent is ■KpinpiTii^ rijq vedri/Toi;, or, as Madvig, I 552, n. 
 says, irpdKptTO^ r^f lirirddo^. 
 
AUGUSTUS PRINCEPS. ' 85 
 
 Why does Mommsen reject Dio's explanation (53, i ; 57, 8) of 
 princeps as npoxpiTos r^y yepovaias? In the first place, perhaps, 
 because it runs counter to his own theory that princeps is equiva- 
 lent to princeps civitaiis. Furthermore, it does not fit so well with 
 his theory of political balance and "Dyarchie" oi princeps and 
 senate. More weighty perhaps than these considerations is 
 another cited above (Staatsr. Ill 971, n.) : " Dass A. an der Spitze 
 des Verzeichnisses stand, sagt er selbst ; aber dass er sichprinceps 
 senaius nennen Hess, wie Dio will, widerlegen die Urkunden." 
 The inscriptions in Orelli-Henzen, as a matter of fact, give the 
 titles of imperator (as praenomen), poniif. niaximus, cos., iribu- 
 nicia poiesiate with definite years that had elapsed since tenure 
 began, how often the title imperator had been earned in cam- 
 paigns, pater patriae (after 2 B. c), augur and other minor 
 functions. ^^Xn^x princeps not princeps senaius is met with for 
 Augustus. Dio 53, I speaks historically and specifically of the 
 particular event as a part of lectio and census: rat anoypaipae 
 
 e^ereXeo'e, Ka\ iv avrais TrpdKpiros ttjs yepovalas f7r€K\T]Brj . . • ThlS 
 
 aorist needs no emphasis from us. Of Tiberius,^ however, Dio 
 speaks differently ; compare 57, 8 : npoKpiros re t^j yepovatac koto to 
 apxaiov^ Koi v<i)' eavTov oii-o/id f et o. Here, it will be observed, we 
 have an imperfect. Did Mommsen confound these items? 
 
 As a matter of fact, Dio has other equivalents of princeps than 
 rrpoKpiTos ; for example, in the laudatio funebris of Augustus 
 spoken by Tiberius : Dio 56, 39, 5 : 7rpo<TTaala fvos avSp6s = prin- 
 
 cipaiUS ; ib., §6: jrpoKplvavTes T/vayKaiTaTf xpovov yl Tiva ipmv 
 
 TTpotTTTjvai, npoKpCveiv being the formal designation of princeps 
 and the npoa-Tairia the actual administrative power gradually 
 associated with principatus. 
 
 Dio then does not, as far as I am able to see, say that Augustus 
 was regularly called (sich nennen liess) princeps senatus. The 
 occurrence (as in the case of Tiberius) or non-occurrence (as in 
 the case of Augustus) oi princeps in the inscriptions does not 
 
 'Why not? In his earlier years Tiberius affected the appearance of 
 being civilis in every way ; cf. Suetonius, Tiberius 26. Why should he not 
 emphasize, then, the institutional etymology (if I may say so) of frincepsl 
 It was one of the characteristic traits of this Claudian, moreover, to empha- 
 size " consuetttdo antiqua." By merging himself again in the senate, so to 
 speak, he disarmed in a measure that feeling of distrust which he knew 
 that his native hauteur had bred in public opinion. Cf. Suetonius, c. 30. 
 
86 E. G. SIHLER. 
 
 seem to me to offer any argument either way for the original 
 signification oiprinceps. 
 
 Augustus, through his fellow censor and closest political friend 
 Agrippa, had bestowed (virtually) the first place in the senate 
 upon himself. Is it not very probable that the senators and the 
 Roman world in general (in that spirit of deference which antici- 
 pated the ultimate aims of this astute manager) dropped the 
 limiting and modifying senaius from the title at the very begin- 
 ning ? Whether Horace, Carm. I 2, 49, 
 
 hie magnos potius triumpbos 
 hie ames dici pater atqiie princeps 
 
 was prompted by recent action in the senate or by the official 
 designation of princeps senaius, it is difficult to state. The ele- 
 ment of utility in the relations between Horace^ and Augustus is 
 pretty well understood. It is possible, too, that the ode fore- 
 shadowed impending action of the government, and both tested 
 and urged on that public opinion towards which Augustus was 
 as supremely sensitive as he was supremely clever in anticipating, 
 manipulating and conciliating it. 
 
 Nnw York University, Nov. 3, igoo. li. *-»• oIHLER. 
 
 ^Pluss, Horazstudien, 1882, pp. 16-43, argues that 36 B. c. was the date 
 of this ode and that it was elicited by the campaign against Sextus Pom- 
 peius. His arguments seem to be very subjective and his points far- 
 fetched. Special students of Horace such as Lucian MuUer and Teuffel 
 agree that the years 31-30 mark the terminus a quo of all ode-composition 
 by Horace. Mitscherlich, Nauck, Kiessling all refer to the designation of 
 princeps senatus of 28 B. c. 
 
THE ATHENIAN IN HIS RELATIONS TO THE 
 
 STATE. 
 
 The following discussion of certain of the legal and sociological 
 aspects of Athenian life is based largely on the works of the 
 Attic orators, and especially on the orations of Isaeus. Valuable 
 material, it is true, has also been found in the works of authors 
 belonging to other departments of Greek literature; but it is to 
 Isaeus that the writer is particularly indebted, inasmuch as the 
 works of this orator, in themselves, contain so much of the 
 material necessary for reconstructing the life of the Athenians, 
 and for understanding the influences by which that life was dom- 
 inated. The pictures that Isaeus draws are not always complete 
 in detail, it is true, and yet the essential outlines are there. 
 
 It may be noted at the outset that the life of the citizen of 
 Athens was closely associated with the Athenian inheritance 
 system ; to consider the one apart from the other would be 
 impossible. It might, perhaps, be more correct to observe, that 
 the life of the Athenian was, to a large extent, molded and dom- 
 inated by the inheritance laws. Another important factor must 
 be considered in this connection, namely, the strong religious 
 feeling which permeated the life of the individual and the inher- 
 itance institutions, and which found expression in the worship 
 of the ancestors as well as of the gods, and in the solicitude of the 
 Athenian with respect to the heir and with regard to the exten- 
 sion of the family line. Perrot, Droit Publique d' Athfenes, pp. 
 132-133, well says, in this connection: "The sentiment which 
 attaches to one another the individuals in the family the families 
 in the race, the races in the phratria, the phratrias in the tribe, the 
 tribes in the state— is the belief in a common ancestor, the adora- 
 tion of this first father ; ... it is the respect with which that 
 member of each group, to whom comes the honor of succeeding 
 to the deified ancestry, sees himself surrounded. . . . This is 
 the principle which dominates all this hierarchy of associations ; 
 this is the keystone which upholds all these concentric arches." 
 
e8 CHARLES ALBER T SA VA GE. 
 
 This deep religious feeling, that forms perhaps the chief motive 
 for adoption, and strikingly manifests itself in the life of the 
 individual and the state — this feeling constantly finds expression 
 in the Greek writers. Everywhere one sees emphasized the 
 importance of continuing the family worship ; and following the 
 glorification of the ancestors during the individual's life, we read 
 of the homage that is to be paid to the individual himself after 
 death — homage which every Athenian believed to be indispens- 
 able to his future happiness. A striking passage, illustrating the 
 Athenian feeling for the dead, occurs in Isae. 2, 47, where the 
 speaker exclaims: "I entreat you to render aid to us and to 
 him also who is in Hades " — the thought being that, unless the 
 adopted son be permitted to possess the inheritance and honor 
 the dead, the latter will actually suffer in Hades. Similar ideas 
 are expressed in a number of passages found in Isaeus (Cf. 9, 36 ; 
 I, 10). 
 
 If now we leave the sphere of the orators, we find in Homer 
 and in the tragic poets manifestations of the same religious 
 feeling. A most significant passage, showing that the Athenians 
 looked upon the obligations to the dead as sent from Heaven, 
 occurs in Soph. Antig., 450 ff. The king has demanded of Anti- 
 gone whether she knew of his edict forbidding that funeral rites be 
 paid her brother. She replies (to adopt the rendering of Jebb), 
 " Yes, for it was not Zeus that published me that edict ; not such 
 are the laws set among men by the Justice who dwells with 
 the gods below ; nor deemed I that thy decrees were of such 
 force, that a mortal could override the unwritten and unfeiling 
 statutes of Heaven." So, too, Antigone says (line 519) : " Hades 
 demands these rites." 
 
 Prof Jebb remarks in this connection (Soph. Antig., Introd. p. 
 25) that Antigone, the nearest of kin to the dead, " is fulfilling 
 one of the most sacred and the most imperative duties known to 
 Greek religion," in paying the funeral rites to her brother. 
 
 The same authority observes (pp. 32-33) : " It is true that the 
 legends of the heroic age afford some instances in which a dead 
 enemy is left unburied, as a special mark of abhorrence. . . . Yet 
 these same legends show that from a very early period Hellenic 
 feeling was shocked at the thought of carrying enmity beyond 
 the grave, and withholding the rites on which the welfare of the 
 departed spirit was believed to depend. . . . Achilles maltreated 
 
A THENIAN IN HIS RELA TIONS TO THE STA TE. 89 
 
 the dead Hector. Yet, even there, the Iliad expresses the Greek 
 feeling by the beautiful and touching fable that the gods them- 
 selves miraculously preserved the corpse from all defacement and 
 from all corruption, until at last the due obsequies were rendered 
 to it at Troy." (11. 24, 411 ff.) 
 
 It is necessary to realize the depth and power of this religious 
 feeling for the dead, and the dominating influence of ancestor 
 worship among the Greeks, in order to appreciate the immense 
 importance attached to the inheritance laws, and the anxiety of 
 every Athenian with reference to an heir. 
 
 Closely associated with the thought of devotion to the dead 
 was the feeling of dread lest one should die and leave behind a 
 "desolate heritage". To pass away without leaving an heir to 
 continue the family line and the ancestor worship, was, to the 
 Athenian mind, not only a calamity but a disgrace, and many 
 passages in Isaeus, as well as in Greek authors generally, indicate 
 the genuine horror with which the Athenians regarded such a 
 contingency. (Isae. 7, 30 ; 6, 5 ; Eurip. Ale. 655 ff.) 
 
 The adoption of a son, then, to insure the line and continue the 
 worship of the ancestors was, naturally, widely prevalent ; and 
 the undercurrent of religious feeling is again perceived when one 
 notes, still further, the duties of the heir, and the motives for 
 adoption. We read in Isae. 7, 30: "All men who are about 
 to die take forethought for themselves, . . . that there may be 
 some one to offer sacrifices to them and perform all customary 
 rites." We learn from Isae. 9, 30, that the son was associated 
 with the father in the performance of religious ceremonies during 
 life ; and it appears also from many passages that it was the 
 solemn duty and privilege of the heir to visit the family altars 
 and offer sacrifices (Isae. 6, 51 ; 9, 7; Xen. Mem. 2, 2, 13). 
 
 Thus the prominence of the religious feeling in the life of the 
 individual and in the inheritance system is very apparent. But, 
 apart from the point of view of the individual, it is to be remem- 
 bered that the perpetuity of the family, the continuance of the 
 domestic cult, and the maintenance of the ancestral possessions, 
 were matters of great concern also for the state. Perrot, L'Elo- 
 quence Politique et Judiciaire a Athenes, p. 364, remarks : " It 
 was a disastrous thing for the city that one of those altars upon 
 which every year for centuries the hereditary sacrifices had been 
 offered, should suddenly be seen to be neglected, and finally 
 
90 CHARLES ALBER T SA VA GE. 
 
 abandoned. All those legendary heroes, those glorious ancestors, 
 watched constantly over their descendants, and in return for the 
 homage which they received, protected still this Athens, for 
 which they had formerly lived, fought, and suffered. With every 
 family that became extinct, the city was losing a protector, in 
 allowing the family worship to perish with it. If it were often so, 
 the gods of the lower world would finally become enraged against 
 the city which they had so long favored." 
 
 In this connection, it is interesting to note a passage from 
 Isaeus (7, 30), in which the speaker, after alluding to the obliga- 
 tions to the dead, and after remarking that it was customary for 
 childless men to adopt a son, adds : " And not only do men take 
 cognizance of this individually, but the state publicly recognizes 
 these obligations. For by law the supervision of private homes 
 is enjoined upon the archon, who shall see to it that they are not 
 left desolate." 
 
 With this, one may compare a passage from the Antigone of 
 Sophocles (lines 748-749), in which the king reproaches his son 
 because the latter has taken the part of Antigone. Creon says, 
 with reference to Antigone, who has just been caught in the act of 
 paying funeral rites to her brother : "All thy words . . . plead 
 for that girl." Haemon sternly replies, " And for thee, and for 
 me, and for the gods below.' " 
 
 Closely in accord also with Perrot's utterances, above cited, 
 is a passage in the Antigone (988 ff.) in which the aged prophet 
 declares, that " the gods are wroth with Thebes ; they will no 
 longer give their prophet any sign by the voice of birds, or 
 through the omens of sacrifice (lines 1016 ff.). The king himself 
 is the cause, by his edict, forbidding the burial of the dead." 
 Prof Jebb remarks further (Soph. Antig., Introd. pp. 14-15) : 
 "The king's duty to the dead and to the gods below was now a 
 duty toward the polluted state, from which his impiety had alien- 
 ated the gods above." (Cf. lines 1065 ff.) 
 
 Nothing could more strikingly illustrate the Greek feeling for 
 the dead than these passages from the great tragedy. Here we 
 see that the king's refusal to permit a member of the family to 
 bury the dead was actually calling down the wrath of Heaven 
 upon the state. 
 * Apart from religious considerations, the state also had strong 
 
 'The rendering is Jebb's. 
 
A THENIAN IN HIS RELA TIONS TO THE STA TE. 9 1 
 
 political motives for insuring the perpetuity of the family, and the 
 preservation of the ancestral possessions. It is to be remembered 
 that the number of the citizens was limited, and especially the 
 heads of rich families, who could discharge important public 
 services, such as equipping a chorus. If, now, the family became 
 extinct, and the property passed into the hands of some obscure 
 person, he could and generally did find some pretext for contrib- 
 uting less liberally to the expenses of the government, and the 
 glory of the state. This is forcibly brought out in Isae. 6, 38 ; 
 60-61. Here the speaker, having dwelt upon the distinguished 
 public services of members of his house, promises to use his 
 means for the glorification of the state, just as his family had done 
 from time immemorial ; and he calls attention to the fact that if 
 the inheritance passes out of the family, the state can no longer 
 expect to receive any such benefits ; that, in fact, much of the 
 property has already disappeared, to the detriment of the state. 
 
 Thus, the religious and political motives of the state for perpet- 
 uating the inheritance and the family are very apparent. In view 
 of the existence of such motives, it was not strange that Athens 
 watched so faithfully over the ancestral mansion and the family 
 altar. The importance of the r61e played by the laws of succes- 
 sion can hardly be overestimated, and one can readily understand 
 the eagerness of the Athenians to adopt an heir, if ever a break 
 occurred in the family line. 
 
 If now we consider somewhat more in detail certain phases in 
 the life of the Athenian, we shall still observe that the influence 
 of the religious idea was dominant, and that the demands of the 
 state were most uncompromising. For example, there was a cur- 
 tailment of personal liberty in the marriage relation, and in the 
 circumstances surrounding it. Every Athenian was forbidden to 
 marry a foreigner, under pain of the severest penalties [(Dem.) 
 59, 16; 52]; evidently because such a union might tend to 
 diminish patriotic feeling, and because the family cult under 
 such circumstances, might eventually be neglected. Nor could 
 an Athenian always choose his wife; if a father died without sons, 
 leaving a daughter (the heiress) neither married nor betrothed, it 
 became the duty of the next of kin to marry the girl, or otherwise 
 to provide for her. An elderly uncle could thus claim a youthful 
 niece ; this obligation on the part of the next of kin is clearly 
 established. (Isae. i, 39; 3. 67; 10, 5 ; [Dem.J 43, 54; Andoc. 
 
92 CHARLES ALBER T SA VA GE. 
 
 I, 117 ff.) And here again the explanation is obvious; the 
 inheritance must be kept within the family. But the inheritance 
 law went a step further ; and, astonishing as it may seem, we find 
 that too often there was no security even in the marriage relation, 
 and circumstances might arise which would tear the wife from her 
 husband, and give her to another. Isaeus says (3, 64): "And 
 with reference to women who have been given in marriage by 
 their fathers, . . . if their father dies without leaving to them . . . 
 brothers, the law ordains that they be claimed in marriage by the 
 next of kin, and many husbands (in this way) have actually been 
 deprived of their wives." (Cf. Isae. 10, 19.) 
 
 Such was one of the results of the Athenian inheritance system, 
 carried out to its logical conclusion. The property must be kept 
 within the family, or else the state would suffer ; the ancestor 
 worship must be continued by the heir, otherwise the gods might 
 become estranged, and might proceed to afflict not only the 
 family, but the state. The rights and sacred affections of the 
 members of the family are of minor importance; the individual 
 and the family live chiefly to perpetuate religion and serve the 
 state. 
 
 Besides all this, there were likely to be other grounds for 
 unhappiness in the marriage of the heiress with the next of kin, 
 for, even if their life proved to be a tranquil one, there was little 
 satisfaction for either husband or wife in the possession of the 
 estate. As Perrot, L'Eloquence Politique et Judiciaire H Ath&nes, 
 pp. 371 ff., expresses it: "The inheritance was not transmitted 
 to the daughter, but with the daughter. It did not belong to the 
 woman, who, held in a perpetual state of legal incapacity, was dis- 
 qualified to possess it. It belonged still less to the husband, who 
 was a member of another family, and celebrated another domestic 
 cult." He, then, was virtually the trustee, and the estate was 
 held in trust for the son born from this marriage. "When this 
 son had attained his majority," continues Perrot, " he left his 
 father's house, and, although his father and mother were still 
 living, he took possession of the estate of his maternal grand- 
 father." (Cf. Dem. [43], 51 ; [46], 20 ; Isae. 8, 31 ; 3, 50.) 
 
 It was evident, then, that the position of the heiress was a 
 peculiarly hard one, for, apart from her other trials, she was con- 
 stantly confronted by the thought that she and her husband were 
 considered of minor importance as compared with their son, and 
 
A THENIAN IN HIS RELATIONS TO THE STATE. 93 
 
 that this heir might some day sweep them aside and enjoy for 
 himself the rich inheritance that had cost his parents so dear. 
 
 In forming our estimate of the lot of the Athenian woman, we 
 must remember that her position, however distressing from our 
 point of view, was not, after all, at variance with the hard logic 
 of the old institutions. It is necessary to bear in mind that the 
 man's paramount duties were to the religion and the state, accord- 
 ing to the Athenian point of view. Since, then, the woman was 
 disqualified to serve the family and the state by performing the 
 religious duties that devolved upon the heir ; and since she was 
 incapable of discharging the arduous and expensive public ser- 
 vices that fell to the lot of the head of an influential family; 
 therefore, from the point of view of the individual and the state, 
 she was compelled to occupy a wholly subordinate position. It 
 was cruel, and yet it was doubtless inevitable. 
 
 In connection with this general subject, it may perhaps be of 
 interest to note Aristotle's criticism of one phase of the Spartan 
 polity, which is summarized on p. io6 of the Susemihl & Hicks 
 edition of the Politics, as follows: "The permission to give 
 away or bequeath land at pleasure ; the absence of any limit 
 as to the amount of the dower ; the unrestricted right of the 
 father ... to bestow an heiress upon any one he likes ; all 
 this combined has brought two-thirds of the Spartan land 
 into female hands, and occasioned moreover terrible inequality 
 of possessions, with a frightful diminution in the number of 
 the men capable of bearing arms." (Cf. Arist. Pol. 2, 9, 14 ff.) 
 The Athenian antipathy to all things Spartan, and the desire 
 to avoid any such contingencies as those mentioned by 
 Aristotle, may perhaps have influenced the Athenians in 
 certain of their radical legislative enactments. At the same 
 time, it must be acknowledged that they overreached them- 
 selves; and while believing that they were providing for the 
 perpetuity of Athens, by subordinating the family so completely 
 to the state, they were actually hastening their downfall as a 
 nation. 
 
 Other aspects of the life of the Athenian citizen might be 
 discussed, and many passages could be cited to illustrate his 
 peculiar obligations to the state. In particular, one might note 
 the startling dependence of the Athenian father upon the opera- 
 tion of the inheritance laws, and the striking contrast between his 
 
94 CHARLES ALBER T SA VA GE. 
 
 own restricted power and the unlimited authority possessed by 
 the Roman father over the members of his family. But to pursue 
 these topics further would protract the discussion unduly ; and 
 enough has perhaps been said to establish the general principles. 
 
 In conclusion, then, it must be admitted that the family life of 
 the Athenians in the time of the orators was often full of peril. 
 Dominated as the family relations were by the obligations to 
 religion and to the state, neither husband, wife, son nor daughter 
 could tell when life's hope and happiness might not be shattered. 
 There was something radically wrong in a system in which the 
 very bulwarks of society — the sanctity of married life and the 
 integrity of the family — were likely to be ruthlessly attacked at 
 any moment. Far more pleasing is the picture of the old Roman 
 father surrounded by his family ; a father stern and often cruel, 
 if you will, but secure in the possession of his own ; the mighty 
 unit in the massive and long-enduring Roman civilization. 
 
 It is amazing that the Athenians, with all their intellectual 
 power and keenness, should have tolerated such abuses, and 
 ignored the very safeguards of the nation's life. In their 
 superstitious fear lest they should offend some deified an- 
 cestor, they trampled upon the most sacred rights of the 
 individual and the family ; they wronged the living in their 
 frantic efforts to honor the dead. In their endeavors to create 
 a more powerful governmental fabric, they utterly ignored 
 individual liberty ; theirs was the fatal error of destroying the 
 integrity of the component .parts, while striving to create a more 
 perfect whole. In the ultimate analysis of the conditions which 
 confront us, it is impossible to deny that the individual and the 
 family existed for the state. In the age of Isaeus and Demos- 
 thenes, it is true, there seemed to be a tendency to break with 
 old traditions, and men evidently had begun to realize that the 
 institutions of the past were insufficient for the changed condi- 
 tions of the times. But the lack of independent authority on the 
 part of the father, the insecurity of the husband, and the conse- 
 quent weakness of the family, were fatal ; beyond question, this 
 constituted one of the causes which made Greek society less 
 permanent than the powerful and long-enduring civilization of 
 the Romans. 
 
 University of Minnesota. CHARLES AlBERT SaVAGE. 
 
USE OF THE SUFFIXES -ANUS AND -INUS IN 
 
 FORMING POSSESSIVE ADJECTIVES FROM 
 
 NAMES OF PERSONS. 
 
 Latin adjectives in -anus have received such extended treat- 
 ment from Schnorr von Carolsfeld' that some explanation of the 
 discussion of a closely connected subject, viz., the formation and 
 use of possessive adjectives from names of persons, may properly 
 be given at the beginning of the present article. While Schnorr 
 von Carolsfeld has very thoroughly traced the general develop- 
 ment of the Latin suffix -anus, he does not profess to have made 
 his collection a complete one for the classical period, and he has 
 discussed very briefly the differences which exist in classical usage 
 between the secondary formations and the gentile adjective. The 
 personal suffix -inus has not received treatment since Reisig,' and 
 no reference is made either by Reisig or Schnorr von Carolsfeld 
 to the important testimony of Varro and Priscian upon the proper 
 limits of its use. I shall attempt to supplement the article of 
 Schnorr von Carolsfeld under the two heads just indicated and at 
 the same time to show the part which the suffix -tnus has played 
 in this disputed question of the possessive formations. 
 
 The chief uses of these adjectives may first be briefly noted. 
 Adjectives in -dnus formed from the names of persons are in 
 their use commonly possessives, closely paralleled by the genitive, 
 and this is the head to which they are referred in Priscian's 
 detailed treatment {Gr. Lat. K. II, 69-82). A second use, i. e., 
 the patronymic, is conveniently recognized by Priscian (p. 63) in 
 the cognomen Aemilianus, assumed by a person who has passed, 
 through adoption, from the gens Aemilia to another gens. In 
 respect to the range of their use, it is obvious that these posses- 
 sives, which are formed largely from the names of contemporary 
 persons, are much more restricted than the corresponding geni- 
 tives, and that they tend to occur in certain set phrases. Such 
 expressions as we freely employ in English, 'the Smith mortgage,' 
 
 ^Archivf. lat. Lex., I, 177-194. ''VorUsungen, I, 237 f. 
 
96 HOBERT S. RADFORD. 
 
 'the Tichborne trial,' 'the Clayton-Bulwer treaty,' etc., are sug- 
 gestive and often exact parallels. The principle underlying the 
 Latin usage appears to be that the possessives either refer to 
 some act or quality of a person which is assumed to be well-known 
 or notorious, e. g. Clodianiis furor, or they are concise forms 
 which belong to the language of business and commercial life, 
 e. g. PomponiMium nomen (' debt '). The former head which 
 includes the occurrence of these adjectives in well-known political, 
 legal and literary references may be passed over here, and atten- 
 tion directed to the second or strictly commercial use. Cicero's 
 Letters afford the most frequent examples of this use, which in 
 some cases becomes more common even than that of the genitive. 
 Hence in the Letters nearly two-thirds of the occurrences of the 
 possessives (97 out of 156) relate to the purchase and sale of 
 houses and lands, the settlement of property claims, the collection 
 of debts, legacies, promissory notes, and the like. The substan- 
 tives most commonly qualified by possessives are domus, horti, 
 villa, praedium, negotium, res, nomen, also audio, bona, caput, 
 coheredes, controversia, mancipia, praedes, syngrapha, etc. The 
 clearest illustration, however, of the predilection shown for the 
 possessive forms in legal and commercial transactions may per- 
 haps be drawn from the language of the jurisconsults, e. g. Dig. 
 8, 3, 33 essent mihi et tibi fundi duo communes Titianus et 
 Seianus ; ib. 5, 4, 7 verbi gratia . . . sunt Seianae et Sempro- 
 nianae {ja.edes') ; cf. CIL. XIV, 2527 pertineat hoc sepulchrum 
 ad possessionem fundorum Naeviani et Calpurniani.^ 
 
 It is clear that the possessives in this use indicate only external 
 and technical relations, and that the genitive alone can represent 
 the individual in voluntary personal and social relations. For 
 example, the possessive adjective is used with villa or domus in 
 questions of bargain and sale, or of the local position of some 
 hereditary mansion : Cic. Ait. i, 13, 6 Autro?iianam do?num emit; 
 *'^' 4j 3. 3 ^x Anniana [Milonis] dotno eduxit viros. Where the 
 possessor is viewed at the same time as the friend or the host, 
 only the genitive is possible : Cic. Mil. 20, 54 devertit in villam 
 Pompeii. Hence in the higher oratorical style arise certain 
 restrictions upon the use of the possessive in property relations. 
 
 ' 'On the frequency o£ this commercial use in the inscriptions, see the 
 indices to the Corpus under Fundi, Villae; as II, p. 1195; IV, p. 256, etc. 
 
THE SUFFIXES -ANUS AND -InUS. 97 
 
 For the purpose of the present summary a single illustration will 
 suffice, i. e., in referring to his own clients and personal friends, 
 Cicero does not use the possessive in the Orations, but writes 
 always bo7ia (/".) QuincH, bona {Sex.) Rosci, etc. 
 
 Cicero, as a rule, forms possessives with the termination -anus 
 only from the ia-stems of gentile adjectives, e. g., Tullia, Cornelia, 
 or from those of an entirely similar form. The following forma- 
 tions of this kind, occurring in Cicero, may be noted as found 
 neither in Lewis and Short nor in Georges: 
 
 Acuiilianus, Asuvianus (al. Avillianus'), Brinnianus, Caerel- 
 lianus, Calidianus, Canuleianus, Cispianus, Cuspianus,Fufianus, 
 Fulcinianus, Hirtianus, Hosiilianus, Lucinianus (al. Licinianus'), 
 Nanneianus, Paccianus, Pacilianus, Populiam^s, Safinianus, 
 Scandilianus, Selicianus, Sthenianus, Tadianus, Trebonianus, 
 Vedianus, Vennonianus, Veratianus (al. Neraiianus), Vetiianus.* 
 
 A second and much smaller class consists of possessives which 
 are formed without a previously existing gentile adjective. These 
 forms may be due either to the original suffix -nus added to 
 a-stems, or to the developed suffix -anus added to o-stems, but in 
 the present discussion both classes may be conveniently treated 
 together. Of these formations only a few gained general currency 
 or were used by Cicero. Fimbrianus and Lamianus present no 
 difficulty, as the stem is here entirely similar to that of the gentile 
 adjective. Besides these there are found in Cicero only Cinnanus, 
 Sullanus, Scapulanus {Scapula) and Gracchanus. The last 
 occurs but once {Brut.j,/^, 128), and is very evidently avoided by 
 Cicero in the Orations,^ but is used freely later (Val. Max., Sen., 
 Quint., Flor.). As Schnorr von Carolsfeld has shown (p. 186) in 
 the case of Lepidanus, Lucullanus, Augustanus, substantially all 
 the formations which were made near the close of the republican 
 period waver in later usage and offer variant forms with the 
 improper suffix -idnus, while, from the second half of the Augustan 
 period on, new formations are made only in -idnus. The early 
 forms Cinnanus, Sullanus and Gracchanus alone remain abso- 
 
 'The above collection has been made from the text, but the writer has 
 since noted in vol. XI of the Tanchnitz edition of Baiter and Kayser the 
 substantially complete enumeration of all the proper adjectives that are 
 used by Cicero. 
 
 '^Vat. g, 27 Gracchorum ferocitate et cruore Cinnano ; Agr. I, 7, 21. 2, 
 29, 81, Rab. Perd. 4, 13, Brut. 58, 212, Or. 70, 233. 
 7 
 
98 ROBERTS. RADFORD. 
 
 lutely fixed (perhaps also Cleopatranus). To the republican 
 formations of this class, which continued in use to a greater or 
 less extent, should be added Crassanus^ (Plin. 6, 47 Detlef.), 
 Mamurranus (CIL. XIV, 2431), Cleopatranus (Treb. Pol. Tyr. 
 30, 19. 32, 6), Perpennanus (ap. Prise. K. II, 77, 11), and Hercu- 
 lanus (CIL. II, 4064, Gell. i, i, 3). 
 
 Without regard to the manner of formation, we may con- 
 veniently note here the extension of the purely Roman suffix 
 -anus (planus) to other than Roman words. The adjective Her- 
 culaneus, which is found in the popular speech as early as Plautus 
 (later in Plin., Sen., Capitol., [Apul.] Herb?), presupposes a form 
 Herculanus, and we have seen that the latter actually occurs 
 in inscriptions and in Gellius. Cicero permits himself to form 
 Trophonianus (^Att. 6, 2, 3) from a mythological Greek name, and 
 Catullus in a drinking-song makes Thyonianus {c. 27, 7). We 
 meet also with Phrixianus (a popular formation : Plin., Sen.), 
 Annibalianus (as cognomen : Vop. Prob. 22, 3), Hasdrubalianus 
 (Sidon.), and from place-names Phasianus (Plin., Suet., Pall., 
 Lampr.), and Hyperboreanus (Hieron.). From contemporary 
 names presenting Greek stems are formed Tereianus (Plin.), 
 Patroclianus (Mart.), Nicerotianus (Mart.), Hermogenianus 
 (Cod. Theod.)." The Romanizing of Greek town-names in -iVt)? 
 through the addition of the Latin termination -anus, as in Neapo- 
 litanus, Taurominiianus, etc., is well-known (Prise. K. II, 79 ; 
 Schnorr von Carolsfeld, p. 189). 
 
 The Romans of the Republic formed possessives in -anus very 
 freely from ia- and io- stems ; with respect to all other stems, they 
 were not agreed whether they should form the adjective in -anus, 
 in -inus, or in -idnus. The most important testimony in ancient 
 times upon this question is that given by Varro, L. L. 9, 42, 71 
 Sp.' In this passage Varro cites Cascellianus and Aquilianus as 
 
 ^ Crassianus ; Veil., Val. Max., Flor. 
 
 ^ See further P. Meyer, Die cognomina auf -anus grieckischen stammes auf 
 den rom. inschriften, Bern, 1886. 
 
 ^Quae (vocabula) tamen fere non discedunt ab ratione sine iusta causa, 
 ut hi qui gladiatores Faustinos ; nam quod plerique dicuntur, ut tris 
 extremas syllabas habeant easdem Cascelliani, [Caeciliaui], Aquiliani, 
 animadvertunto, unde oriuntur, nomina dissimilia Cascellius, Caecilius 
 i&quilius . . . Faustius, recte dicerent Faustianos ; sic a Scipione quidam 
 male dicunt Scipioninos ; nam est Scipionarios. (L. MllUer supplied the 
 lacuna : Faustus, quod si esset.) 
 
THE SUFFIXES -ANUS AND -INUS. 99 
 
 the adjectives formed from Cascellius and Aquilius respectively, 
 but he denies that any true analogy exists between these names 
 and Faustus. On the contrary, he approves the usage of those 
 who form from Faustus the adjective Faustinus,' and he declares 
 that Faustianus is correctly derived only from Fauslius. At a 
 later period, as we learn from Charisius (Gr. Lat. K. 1, 94), Velius 
 Longus wrote a special book upon the same question, and his 
 treatment was probably in many respects similar to the extended 
 discussion of the adjectival suffixes -anus, -enus and -inus that we 
 now find in Priscian. 
 
 The earliest example of the improper formations in -idnus 
 which are here condemned by Varro, appears to be Cato, R. R. 
 7, 3 cotonea Quiriniana. It is clear that these improper forms 
 were already in general use at the close of the Republic, 
 but they are carefully avoided by Cicero in the orations and 
 philosophical works. Twice only in his letters to Atticus does he 
 allow himself the use of the new adjectives : 12, 25, 2 Drusianis 
 hortis (perhaps also ib. 22, 3, where M has Drusia); 16, 11, 8 
 Lepidianis feriis. If Varro himself uses Caeliani of the followers 
 of Caeles Vibenna (Z. L. 5, 8, 46), the possessive is to be 
 regarded as properly formed from the gentile adjective Caelius, 
 yet even Varro cannot wholly escape the prevailing tendency, as 
 is shown by the assumption of a form Diviana (5, 10, 68) to 
 explain Diana. 
 
 The question how far these possessive adjectives in -inus, which 
 the grammarians pronounced correct, were introduced into actual 
 use may best be considered, after a brief summary has been given 
 of the chief uses of the Latin suffix -inus. With appellatives the 
 most familiar use of the suffix is in forming adjectives from the 
 names of animals, e. g., aquilinus, bovinus, caiulinus, columbinus, 
 equinus, leoninus, etc. Again, the suffix is freely employed in 
 forming adjectives from the names of towns and peoples, e. g., 
 Agrigentinus, Centuripinus, Praenestinus, Sagunlinus, Taren- 
 iinus, cf. Tiberinus, etc. In the case of io- or ia- stems the 
 primary suffix -nus is often employed, e. g. Aricinus, Brundisinus, 
 Canusinus, Latinus, Numantinus, etc. In the formation of such 
 
 'In the same connection Cicero uses the genitive: Sull. ig, ^ Fausit 
 miinui. faustianus is found later : Plin. 14, 62 . 63 ; Front. E-fi. de Fer. 
 Alt. 3, p. 224 Nab. 
 
lOO ROBERTS. RADFORD. 
 
 national and geographical adjectives the suffix -inus performs a 
 function altogether similar to that of the suffix -anus, and occa- 
 sionally from the same place-name we find that both formations 
 have been in use, e.g. from Arpi, Arpattus Varr., Plin., Front., Col., 
 Arpinus Liv.; from Spoletium, Spoletinus Cic, Liv., Plin., Spole- 
 tanus Prise. {Gr. Lat. K. II, 78); from Veietis, Veie7iianus Liv., 
 Hor., Mart., Plin., VeienitJitcs Inscrx .; Horta7iumV\m., Hortinus 
 Verg.; compare ^^^rw/awwi from Asculum in Y\ce.vMm, Asculinus 
 from Asculum in Apulia. Finally, the suffix -tnus forms cog- 
 nomina which commonly indicate the parentage of the person, 
 i. e., the cognomen of the father, which is most often some well- 
 known appellative, is borne by the son with the added suffix -inus. 
 Thus Marcellinus (Cic. Div. in Caecil. 4, 13) denotes the son of 
 Marcellus, Scaurinus (Capitol. Ver. 2, 5) the son of Scaurus, and 
 the like." The following cognomina occur in Cicero : Acidinus, 
 Albinus, Balbinus, Caecina, Caesoninus, Calvinus, Censorinus, 
 Corvinus, Flamininus, Laevimis, Longinus, Luscinus, Mancinus, 
 Marcellinus, Porcina (?), Rubellinus, Saturninus, Viscellinus. 
 Such surnames are formed not only from o- and a- stems, but occa- 
 sionally also from io- stems through the original suffix -nus, e. g. 
 Flamininus (?), Antoninus. Under the empire the use of these 
 patronymics came more and more into vogue,' and often sup- 
 planted an ancient family cognomen, as in the case of the sons of 
 Messala Corvinus, who took the name oi Messalinus (Tib., Veil., 
 Tac). The termination -idnus, among its many other uses, has 
 also at times a patronymic force, but rarely in cases where the 
 appellative origin of the cognomen continued to be easily recog- 
 nized. Sometimes we find both suffixes applied to the same stem 
 in the formation of cognomina, i. e. both Nepotinus and Nepoti- 
 anus occur in inscriptions, both Macrinus and Macrianus in the 
 Scriptt. Hist. Aug. 
 
 ' On the diminutive force of the suffix -Inus, which is doubtless derived 
 from its use in the patronymic formations, see Olcott, Word Fonnation of 
 the Latin Inscriptions, p. 134, and on the employment of the patronymic 
 formations in -Inus as the personal cognomina of women, see Schneider, 
 Beitrdge zur ktnntniss der rom. personennamen, p. 63 f. 
 
 2 See especially the indices of the Corpus, and Friedlander's Index to the 
 , real and fictitious names used by Martial. Martial is fond of these names, 
 which have a certain elegance or imply endearment, c. g. Fabullinus, 
 Faventinus. 
 
THE SUFFIXES -ANUS AND -INUS. lOI 
 
 The formation of patronymic cognomina finally became the 
 sole use of the suffix -inus when applied to the names of persons, 
 and Charisius ' is quite right in denying wholly for his own age 
 the existence of the adjectival use. But in the republican age 
 the question was still an open one, and the adjectival use of the 
 suffix -mus was at least possible. Cicero, it is true, almost 
 invariably avoided all controverted forms through the employ- 
 ment of the genitive," but at times, chiefly in the Letters, he has 
 made a tentative use of the formations in -inus. 
 
 In an enumeration of such of these adjectives as occur in Cicero 
 we may first set apart two which evidently belong to a much earlier 
 period of formation, viz., Sibyllinus (Varr., Cic, Liv., Hor., Quint., 
 Gell., Lact.), Mamertinus (Cic, Liv., Plin., Mart.) ; cf. also 
 maiutinus (from Matuta, cf Prise. K. II, 76, 18). Of the nine 
 remaining forms found in Cicero only three occur more than once, 
 viz., Antiochinus, lugurthinus, Verrinus. Two classes may be 
 conveniently distinguished, according as the termination is applied 
 to purely Roman or to Greek and foreign names. 
 
 I. Roman Names. — Cic. Ep. ad Brut, i, 15, 6 Brutina^ con- 
 silia ; ib. i, 2, 5 Plautinus pater, Varro ap. Quint. 10, i, 99 
 Plautino sermone, also Hor., Front., Gell.; Cic. Verr. 2, i, 46, 121 
 Verrinum ius, 2, 78, 191 Verrina cauda, later Verrinae (orationes') 
 in Priscian (II 201, 5. 357, 3 K.), Victorinus, Mart. Cap., and other 
 grammarians; Cic. Att. i, 13, 5 Metellina^ oratio, also Festus, 
 p. 363, 12 M. aedes lovis Metellina, Treb. Pol. Tyr. 25, 4 Isium 
 Metellinum. This last adjective appears to be an earlier forma- 
 tion, which at one time was admitted into general use. Compare 
 the name of the Spanish city Metellinum (Itin. Ant. p. 416, 2), 
 which perhaps, as Hiibner conjectures (CIL. II, p. 73) was 
 named after Metellus Pius; so also Plin. 4, 117 colonia Metelli- 
 
 ' Gr. Lat. K. 1 , 93, 29 ff. cum sit Agrippa, mulierem Agrippinam dicimus, 
 thermas vero Agrippinianas. . . . thermas Titinas ut pelles lupinas non 
 dicimus, sed Titianas. 
 
 i^The language long remained contented with the genitive even in some 
 cases vfhere the adjective lay apparently close at hand, c. g. Appi Forum. 
 Except in strictly official language lex Caepionis is always an alternate 
 form for hx Servilia, see Orelli's Index Legum, VIII, 268; cf. Cic. Dom. 
 16, 41 M. Drtisi leges, etc. Gracchana lex occurs first in Florus (2, i sqq.), 
 Leoniana or Zenoniana lex first in the jurisconsults. 
 
 ^ Brutianus, Veil., Val. Max., Lact. 
 
 *■ Metellianus, Schol. Gronov. ad Cic. Cat. 4, 5, 10. 
 
102 ROBERT S. KADFORD. 
 
 nensis, Ptol. 2, 5, 6 KauiXia MfTaAij-a (Miill). Several Spanish 
 place-names of a similar formation show that the suffix -mus in 
 this use was at one time widely current in Spain. See the 
 examples cited below under Caesarinus, and compare Ptol. 2, 6, 
 ay'YSoTa Kouimra (a Spanish locality).' 
 
 II. Foreign Names.— The suffix -inus was felt to be especially 
 applicable to personal names which were not purely Roman, but 
 Greek or barbarian, and it apparently impressed on such forma- 
 tions something of an exotic character. Thus from Aeacides is 
 formed in Plaut. As. 405 Aeacidinae minae; Cic. Brut. 33, 127, 
 N. D. 3, 30, 74 lugurthina coniuratio, — lugurthinus first in 
 Lucil. II, 19 M., then Sail., Hor., Ov., Veil., ap. Quint. 8, 3, 29, 
 Plin., Gall.; Cic. Att. 13, 45, i Diocharinae epistolae (i. e., 
 addressed to Caesar's freedman, Diochares); Fam. 9, 8, i Anli- 
 ochinae partes (i. e., of Antiochus of Ascalon), but elsewhere, 
 notably in the philosophical works, only the Greek adjective 
 Antiochius, or -eus, e. g. Att. 13, 12, 3. 25, 3, Ac. 2, 31, 98. 36, 
 115, etc.; Phil. 11, 7, 17 Antiochinuvi bellum (i. e., with Antiochus 
 Magnus; wrongly referred by Orelli, Onomast. Ttdl., and Georges 
 to the city Antiochea), then Veil. 2, 39, 2, Gell. 4, 18, 7. 6, 19, 8 
 (Hertz). — Except in the case of Diochares and that of Antiochus 
 of Ascalon, Cicero employs the Greek adjectives in the Letters, 
 when he refers to the business relations of contemporary Greeks, 
 e. g. Att. 6, 2, 12 Pammenius ; 4, 10, 2 Cyreus. 
 
 From purely Roman names only the adjectives Platitinus and 
 Verrinus remained fully current in the later language, and to each 
 of these belongs a special history. Plautinus occurs first in two 
 passages of the prologues of Plautus, which are the addition of a 
 later hand, but belong to the second century B. C: Pseud, pr. 2 ; 
 Cas.pr. 12 Plautinas fabulas. In Varro's time, however, as is 
 evident from Gell. 3, 3, 10, usage wavered between the forms 
 Plautinus and Plautianus. Hence Cicero apparently avoided 
 this adjective ; for he uses Plautinus only once, while Caecilianus 
 and Terentianus occur frequently. Varro, however, in his quae- 
 stiones Plautinae and in his treatise de conioediis Plautinis 
 declared in favor of the form Plautinus, and, as we may see from 
 Gellius' account, he adduced in its support the same arguments 
 
 ' Benseler, Worterbtich der griech. eigennamen, also cites MapKcAXtva, the 
 name of a fort in Dardania, from Proc. Aedd. 4, 4 (281, 56); cf. Map/tZi'a, 
 Strab. 5, 251. 
 
THE SUFFIXES -ANUS AND -INUS. 103 
 
 which have been quoted above from the de lingua Latina. 
 Hence it is to Varro alone that we owe the retention of the older 
 form Plautinus. In like manner Cicero's puns upon the name of 
 Verres attracted an altogether disproportionate amount of notice 
 from Quintilian and later Roman critics, and thus fixed in the 
 usage of the grammarians the phrase • orationes Verrinae.' The 
 possessive is, however, here formed less from the proper name 
 than from the appellative.' 
 
 With two exceptions ( Verrinus and Diocharinus), the adjec- 
 tives cited above are formed from o- and a- stems. From consonant 
 stems of the third declension formations in -inus are mentioned 
 both by Varro and Priscian,^ though distinctly rejected by the 
 former. Cicero has twice used this formation in the Letters: 
 Fam. 7, 25, I vereor ne in catonium Catoninos" (' I am afraid he 
 will send us Catonians to join our hero below ');' Alt. 16, 10, i 
 Caesarina celeritas. The same form of the adjective is also 
 preserved in the names of two Spanish colonies: Plin. 4, 117 
 colonia Norbensis Caesarina cognomine(Detlef.),and cf. Hiibner 
 CIL. II, p. 81 ; CIL. II, 694 colipnia) Norb(ensis) Caesarin{a); 
 Plin. 3, II Asido (colonia), quae Caesarina dicitur; CIL. II, 1315 
 municipes Caesarini. — Of the competing formations those in 
 -idnus from -on-stems are admitted by Cicero, although very 
 rarely, in the orations and philosophical works: Har. Resp. 
 I, 2 Pisonianus ; de Or. 2, 61, 248 Neronianus ; Or. 49, 165 
 Milonianus. 
 
 Schnorr von Carolsfeld is mistaken (p. 184) in denying alto- 
 
 >The same view is expressed by Wolfflin, ALL. I, 279. — There is no 
 Roman gentile adjective Verrlus corresponding to Verres, as Lewis and 
 Siiort and Georges imply (De Vit only Verreas or -lus). The Greek 
 adjective Verrius or -eus is found : Verr. 2, 2, 63, 154 Verria . . . Marcellia 
 ('the Verres festival'); 3, 49, 117 lege Hieronica . . . le^e Verria. In both 
 cases alike the inferior codices show the form Verrea. 
 
 2 Cr. Lat.K. II, 78, 13 fl. ' Piso Pisonis Pisonianus' quamvis quidam et 
 'Pisoninus' et < Miloninus " dici putaverunt. . . . possumus tamen dicere, 
 quod a 'Caesarius ' et 'Milonius' et 'Pisonius' derivatasint 'Caesarianus,' 
 'Milonianus,' 'Pisonianus.' Priscian's argument for Milonianus rests on 
 cogent grounds, e. g. Plautus forms from Ballio the adjective Ballionius 
 (Pseud. 1064), the poets have lunonius and similar forms, Catonius occurs 
 as a cognomen Cic. Ef. ad Brut. \, i, 3 (M), Sen., Tac; Milonius, Hor. 
 Sat. i., r, 24, etc. 
 
 ' Catonianus, Kacilius ap. Cic. ad Q. Fr. 2, 6, 5, Sen., Mart., Dig. 
 
 <Here belongs also Hor. Ep. i, 18, 82 dente Theonino. 
 
1 04 Ji OBER T S. RA DFORD. 
 
 gether the use of Caesarianus in Cicero, for it is found Ait. 
 6, 8, 2 meros terrores Caesarianos? Elsewhere, notably in 
 the Philippics, the careful avoidance of this adjective is most 
 evident." In prescribing the formation ' Scipionarius' from 
 Scipio in the passage already cited (Z.. L. 9, 71), Varro shows 
 little discrimination, and seems rather to have in mind the 
 formation from the appellative, e. g. scipionarius, ' a dealer in 
 staffs,' as carbonarius, ' a dealer in charcoal." Yet the possessive 
 signification of the suffix -ariiis is distinctly recognized among 
 its other uses by Priscian {Gr. Lai. K. II, 74 f.). lanuarius 
 and Februarius fall under this head. Cf. also Plin. 3, 121 Car- 
 bonaria ostia (Padi) (a popular formation). Olcott cites from 
 the inscriptions lunonariwn, 'shrine of Juno' (CIL. XIV, 2867); 
 cf Afrarius (VI, 1620), Graecarius (XII, 3349), Hierosolymarius 
 (Cic. Ait. 2, 9, i). The adjective Catilinarius, as Wolfflin has 
 shown at length {ALL. I, 277 ff.), is avoided by all classical 
 writers, and occurs first in Priscian. 
 
 The formations in -inus cited above are confirmed by external 
 evidence, and are subject to little doubt. A very different ques- 
 tion may next be considered. In addition to the regular adjective 
 with the suffix -amis, was it also possible in the republican period 
 to form from io- stems a less usual adjective with the suffix -7ius ? 
 Such formations would naturally belong to a more archaic style, 
 and could hardly be expected to occur outside of the Leiters. 
 Four such forms are actually transmitted in M : Asin. Poll, ad 
 Fam. 10, 33, 4 Hiriinus^ {Hirtianus Cic. Fam. 9, 18, 3, Ait. 10, 
 4, 11); Cass, ad Fam. 15, 19, i Caiinus {Caiianus Cic. Fatn. 15, 
 16, i) ; Cic. Ait. I, 16, 10 Marinus (with a punning reference to 
 
 ' By the side of Caesarianus is found the adjective Caesareanus, formed 
 from Caesareus : Sen. Ep. 95, 70, Scriptt. Hist. Aug. (the invariable form, 
 except Spart. vit. Sev. 6, 9), and ace. to the best codd., Nep. Att.-], i, Flor. 
 2. 13 (4. 2)- 
 
 '^Att. 5,6, 2. 10,4 Caesaris nomen (with notnen, 'debt,' the adjective is 
 the rule); 14, i-i,'^2 'Caesaris bello ; E p. ad. Brut. 2, 6, 2 aiiimi partium 
 Caesaris, cf. Asin. Poll, ad Fam. 10, 33, i ; Fhil. i, 7, 16. 42, 109, etc. acla 
 Caesaris. 
 
 3 On the commercial use of the suffix -arius, see Olcott, Word Formation, 
 p. 138 ff. 
 
 * Of these forms only Hirtinus and marinus are placed in the text by 
 Wesenberg and Mendelssohn. 
 
THE SUFFIXES -ANUS AND -INUS. 105 
 
 marinus) {Marianus Cic. Agr. 3, 2, 7, de Or. 2, 66, 266, etc.); i^- 
 10, 18, I Horiensinus {Horiensianus ib. 4, 6, 3). The possibility 
 of such secondary formations on the analogy of place-names and 
 of surnames cannot be absolutely denied, but in the absence of 
 external evidence it seems perhaps more reasonable to regard 
 these cases as due simply to mistakes of the copyist. 
 
 After the first part of the Augustan period possessive adjectives 
 were formed, in general, only with the suffix -idnus, and without 
 any limitations upon its use, except that, in the case of o- and 
 a- stems, Sallust, Livy and Quintilian appear to have avoided the 
 use of the improper formations. The popular forms, on the other 
 hand, occur in the greatest abundance in Martial, Tacitus and 
 Florus. The adjectival suffix -inus had now become practically 
 obsolete, and only the following examples of its use can be cited : 
 Barcinus, Liv., Sidon., cf. the name of the Spanish city Barcino ; 
 Sen." Suas. 4, 5 Fuscinae explicaiiones (i. e., of Arellius Fuscus) ; 
 Mart. 5, 37, 2 Phalantinus Galaesus (of the legendary founder of 
 Tarentum); cf. Plin. 3, 121 Philistina fossa (where, however, it 
 is not clear that the adjective is personal rather than ethnic) ; 
 Mart. Cap. 6, 577 sapis Midinum (= asininum) ; cf. orcinus 
 Suet. Aiig. 35, Dig. 26, 4, 3, 3 ; Nerinus Nemes., Aus.; CIL. Ill, 
 3228 legionum \G'\erinaniciana\r{jtini)'\ \e\t Britannicin{ar%iin).^ 
 From the name of Alexander Severus we find in Lampridius both 
 forms of the adjective, Alexandrinus as well as Alexandrianus 
 (the former apparently adopted by the emperor himself for the 
 sake of the possible reference to Alexander the Great); e. g. 
 'La.mpr. Sev, 2b, "J Alexandrtna basilica; 2^.25,7; Tteb.VoX.Tyr. 
 32, 3: 'La.mpr.Sev. 25, 3 aqua, quae Alexandriana' nunc dicitur; 
 lb. 40, 6, etc.; CIL. Ill, 797. 798 legio Alexandriana.* 
 
 The preceding examples represent a very rare and exceptional 
 use, and show clearly how little the scruples of the grammarians 
 
 'But elsewhere Montanianus, Seianianus. 
 
 'The cases do not belong here, in which a cognomen terminating in 
 -inus is employed as an adjective without change o£ form, e. g. Capitol. 
 Ant. P. 10, I menses Antoninus atque Fauslinus. 
 
 3 Parallel to Agrifpianus, Antoninianus, Severianus, etc. in the Scriptt. 
 Hist. Aug., and in inscriptions. 
 
 * The manuscripts of Columella have Cestina mala (5, 10, 19) according to 
 Schneider. It may be doubted whether this form is correct, or is due to a 
 corruption of the Sestiana mala, which is read in Col. 12, 47, 5. 
 
I06 ROBERT S. RADFORD. 
 
 availed in the end to check the popular development of the 
 language. A few of the cases cited above are later than the second 
 century of our era, but the history of the personal suffix may 
 properly conclude with the curious attempt by which Suetonius, 
 in his character of grammarian and disciple of Varro, sought for 
 the last time to revive its use on an extended scale. The popular 
 formations in -ianus were, in Suetonius' time, in universal use, 
 and it was clearly impossible for the historian to change the 
 familiar phrases which were everywhere current in the city and the 
 camp, e. g. Marcellianum theatrum, Variana clades, Augusiiani 
 {equites), Germaniciani exercUus, Christiani (Jwmines).^ Sueto- 
 nius did not, however, scruple to change all less usual forms, and 
 hence he shows us the following new formations: Claud, ii 
 Augustinus" currus ; de Gramm. 17 Catulina' domus ; Cal. 55 
 Columbinum venenum ; Claud. 1 Drusinae'' fossae ; Galb. 3 
 Viriathinum bellum. 
 
 The differences in classical usage between the gentile adjective 
 and the possessive admit of somewhat fuller statement than they 
 have hitherto received. The essential distinction is clearly 
 implied by Cornelius Fronto ° {Gr. Lat. K. VII, 520) : the gentile 
 adjective is used of buildings which become public property, the 
 possessive in -arms is used only of property which passes from 
 one private owner to another. This usage shows clearly the 
 importance of the ancient gens and the character of the Roman 
 system, in which the individual was subordinated to the ge7is, and 
 the gens subordinated to the state. Hence all public works and 
 buildings completed by its single members are viewed as the 
 
 'Cf. also from consonant stems Caesarianus, Gelotiatms, Maeceiiatiatius, 
 l^eronianuSf Pisoniamcs. 
 
 ^Augusiiani Tac, Suet.; Aiigustanus Plin., Ulp., Dig., Inscrr. 
 
 ^ Catuliantis Plin. 34, 77 Detlefsen; Cicero has only the genitive, as Alt. 
 4, 5, 2 villam, quae Cahili fuerat ; Q. Fr. 3, i, 4, Alt. 4, 2, 4. 5, Dom. 44, 116 
 Catuli porticus. 
 
 * Drtisianiis Cic, Flor., Inscrr., Dio Cass.; Drusiana fossa Tac. A. 2, 8. 
 
 ' Pompei porticus et Pompeia et Pompeiana. Pompei, si possidet ; 
 Pompeia, si publicavit; Pompeiana, si in alterius dominationem venit. If 
 the Anonymus in J. W. Beck, de differeiUiarum scriptoribus Latinis, p. 73, 
 states ; Octavia porticus est, si privata fuerit ; Octaviana porticus dicitur, 
 si publica facta fuerit, the text is clearly corrupt and the correction 
 obvious. The distinction which Fronto seeks to make between the genitive 
 and the use of the adjective is of much less value. 
 
THE SUFFIXES -ANUS AND -INUS. 107 
 
 monumenta of the gens '; they bear officially no distinctive per- 
 sonal designation, but only the common gentile name, and this 
 usage is continued long after the introduction of the cognomen 
 as a more distinctive name, and after the formation of possessive 
 adjectives referring to single individuals within the gens. Apart 
 from the commercial use, only that kind of possession which 
 belongs to the military or the party leader, the jurisconsult, or the 
 author is expressed in the classical language by the adjective in 
 -anus, e. g. milUes Sertoriani (Cic. Verr. 2, 5, 28, 72), homines 
 Sullani{ad Q. Fr. i, 1, 21), iudicium hmianum {^Clu. 1,1), ilk 
 Tereniiamis Phormio ( Caec. 8, 27). 
 
 The use of the gentile adjective may be classified under three 
 leading heads, viz., referring to the gens itself, to laws and public 
 works, to place-names and natural objects. The use with gens 
 and its synonyms {domus, stirps, familia, nomen, etc.), with lex 
 and rogaiio, and with the names of the public roads is too well 
 known to require illustration. In relation to the public works 
 and buildings, the most familiar examples are afforded by the 
 various basilicas, porticoes, senate-houses, fora, aqueducts, gates, 
 bridges, colonies, etc., e. g. the basilicae Aemilia, Aemilia et 
 Fiilvia, Asinia, lulia, Opimia, Porcia, Sempronia, etc.; porlicus 
 Claudia, Flaininia, Minucia, Ociavia, Pompeia, Vipsania, etc.; 
 curiae Acculeia, Hoslilia, lulia, Pompeia, etc.; fora Aiigusium, 
 lulium, Ulpiuvi, etc.; aquae Appia, Augusta, Claudia, lulia, 
 Marcia; portae Minucia, Naevia, etc.; ponies Aemilius, Fabricius, 
 Minucius, Mulvius, etc.; coloniae Augusta, lulia, Flavia, Pom- 
 peia, etc.° Examples in Cicero of public buildings and monuments 
 in addition to those already named are as follows : Quinct. 3, 12. 
 6, 25 atria Licinia ; Cael. 25,61. 62 balneae Seniae ; Att. i, 14, i, 
 Sest. 14, 33, etc., circus Flaminius ; Div. in Caec. 16, 50, Sest. 
 58, 124 columna Maenia ; Clu. 34, 93, Flac. 28, 66 gradus 
 Aurelii ; Plane. 7, 17 fornix Fabius ; Quinct. 6, 25 tabula 
 Sextia ; Favi. 14, 2, 2, Vat. g, 21 tabula Valeria; Sest. 15, 34, 
 
 ' Cf. Tac. A. 3, 72 basilica Fault, Aemilia monumenta ; Val, Max. 4, 4, 8 
 Maria vtonummtn (where Kempf appears to follow the inferior codd. in 
 reading Mariana). 
 
 'In the forms which have no corresponding gentile adjective in use, the 
 genitive is always employed by Cicero, and often by later writers, c. g. 
 <;ic. Dom. 44, 116, Att. 4, i, 4. 5- 3, 2 porticus Catuli ; Dom. 38, loi, Liv. 
 8, 19, i, prata Vacci ; Tac. A. 3, 72, Plin. 36, 102 basilica Pauli. 
 
Io8 ROBERT S. RADFORD. 
 
 Pis. 5, II tribunal Aurelium. Similar examples from other 
 authors are the following: Liv. 39, 44, 7 atria Maenium et 
 Titium ; Vop. Aur. j, 7.8, i bibliolheca Ulpia ; Plin. 36, 122 
 fans Curtius; Liv. i, 23, 3. 2, 39, s^ fossa Cluilia ; Plin. 3, 121 
 fossa Clodia; Hor. C 4, 12, 18 horrea Sulpicia ; Fast. p. 290 
 M. horrea Sempronia ; Suet. Aug. 16 partus lulius ; Fest. p. 363 
 M. scalae Tarquitiae ; Mart. 9, 3, 12 templa Flavia ; Tac. H.^,11 
 turris Antonia ; Paul. exc. Fest. p. 131 M. iurris Mamilia, 
 
 The popular language early disregarded the distinction between 
 public and private ownership, and introduced the possessive 
 adjectives into the names of many of the public monuments. 
 This use is carefully avoided by Cicero, but from the Augustan 
 period on becomes more frequent in literature, and is especially 
 characteristic of writers who represent the popular speech (Vitruv., 
 Scriptt. Hist. Aug., Inscrr.) It is especially noteworthy that in 
 several cases where the j"(f«5was comparatively obscure and some 
 single member universally known, the gentile adjective goes 
 almost entirely out of use (^Marius, Pompeius). Cicero shows 
 but a single case of wavering usage : Verr. i, 7, 19 fornix Fabi- 
 anus. This was undoubtedly the name of popular speech : Sen. 
 Dial. 2, I, 3, Treb. Pol. Gall. 19, 4 arcics Fabianus ; cf. Front. 
 Aq. I, 20 arcus Neronianus. The ancient and more correct 
 form, Fabius fornix, is found Cic. Plane. 7, 17, Quintil. 6, 3, 67.' 
 A real exception is scarcely to be recognized in the iullianuvi, the 
 " well-house " associated by popular etymology with the name of 
 Servius Tullius ; for here it was obviously not possible to use the 
 neuter of the gentile adjective alone as a substantive. An 
 undoubted departure, however, from earlier usage is afforded at 
 the close of the Republic by 'theatruni Pompeianu7n' (Plin., 
 Mart., Tac, Suet.), a use which stands in marked contrast to 
 ' circus Flaminius.' The reason for this innovation plainly lies 
 in the fact that the adjective of the political faction and of the 
 camp {Pompeianus) was at this time far more in evidence than 
 the ancient gentile formation {Pompeius). Hence the ancient 
 form has disappeared wholly from the literature, and is preserved 
 only in the official language of Augustus : Mon. Anc. 20 Pompeiu77i 
 theatrum refeci. Upon the analogy of ' Pompeianuni tJieairum ' 
 
 'In a quotation from Cic. de Or. 2, 66, 267, where the manuscripts and 
 editors are divided between/. Fabianus and/. Fabii (Sorof, after L, Fabii). 
 
THE SUFFIXES -ANUS AND -INUS. IO9 
 
 later writers allow themselves to employ also Pompeiana curia ' 
 (Suet. Caes. 81), Pompeiana poriicus (Vitruv. 5, 9, i), in place of 
 the classical and well attested Pompeia curia (Cic. Div. 2, 9, 23, 
 Gell. 14, 7, 7), Pompeia poriicus (Prop. 3, 30, i, Plin. 35, 114)- 
 Other examples of this use of the possessives are as follows : 
 Vitruv. 5, I, 4 basilica Mia et Aquiliana ;'' CIL. XIV, 140 
 poriicus Placidiana ; Wo^i. Aur. ^1, t, curia Pompiliana ; Vitruv. 
 3. I. 5> Val. Max. i, 7, 5 Mariana aedis Honoris, lovis ; Mel. 2, 
 78 Mariana fossa ; id. 2, 122, Plin. 3, 80, Ptol. 3, 2, 5 Mariana 
 colonia; Val. Max. 2, 5, 6 Mariana monumenia, but id. i„ 48 
 Maria monumenia, according to the best codd. Under the empire 
 possessive adjectives were also freely formed from praenomina 
 and cognomina, and in these cases were necessarily the only 
 adjectival forms in use, e. g. theatrum Marcellianum ' (Mart., 
 Suet.), fossae Drusianae (Tac), thermae Neronianae (Mart.), 
 Tiiianae" (Capitol. Max. i, 4), Severianae (Spart.), legiones 
 Antoninianae , Maximinianae (as purely honorary titles and 
 parallel with legio Claudia, Flavia : Scriptt. Hist. Aug., Inscrr.). 
 It is perhaps in opposition to ' thermae Titianae ' that Gellius 
 writes balneae Tiiiae (3, i, i Hertz)." In any case, the effect of 
 these formations was necessarily felt in obscuring the sharp dis- 
 tinction between the possessive and the gentile adjective. 
 
 In the classical language the gentile adjective is the rule also 
 with localities and natural objects which bear historical or com- 
 memorative names. Instances occur most frequently with Forum, 
 vions, silva, etc., e.g. Fora Aurelitim, Cornelium, Julium, lunium, 
 etc.; viontes Augustus, Caelius, Cassius, Cispius, Claudius, Coe- 
 li7is, Herminius, Oppius, Pincius, Tarpeius, etc., cf. clivus 
 Publicius ; silvae Caesia, Maesia, Naevia, Scantia, etc. Other 
 examples of this use are as follows: Varr. L. L. 5, 154 campus 
 Flaminius; Plin. 29, 12 compitttm Acilium; Varr. L. Z,. 5, 148, 
 Liv. 7, 6, 5 lacus Curiius ; Hor. A. P. 32 ludus Aemilius ; Varr. 
 L. L. 5, 163 nemora Naevia; Liv. i, 26, 10, Prop. 4 (3), 3, 7 pila 
 
 ' Also the genitive, /<»r<»«M or curia Pompei: Cic. Fat, 4, 8, Suet. Caes. 
 80. 84, Plin. 35, 126. 
 
 ' Compare Vitruvius' use o£ medianus for medius (Schnorr von Carols- 
 feld, /. /. p. 188). 
 
 'Mon. Anc. app. -z. Marcelli, and often later. 
 
 * Martial has only the genitive Titi, as 3, 20, 15, etc. 
 
 5 But both form and reference are uncertain [codd., stiiias or slicias). 
 
no R OBER T S. RA DFORD. 
 
 Horatia; Liv. 3, 54, 15. 63, j praia Flaminia ; id. 2, 13, ^prata 
 Mucia; id. 3, 26, 8, Plin. 18, 20, Paul. exc. Fest. p. 256 M. 
 prata Quindia; hiv. 6, 20,12 saxum Tarpeium ; Lampr. He iio£'. 
 17 vicus Sulpicius. Here also the popular language early intro- 
 duced the use of the possessives, and such expressions often 
 became the names in actual use in the provinces ; hence they are 
 frequently found in the literature, chiefly from the Augustan 
 period. Thus the site on the African coast where the elder Scipio 
 had made his camp was regularly designated as casira Cornelia 
 (Plin. 5, 24. 29, Mel. i, 34 P., Caes. B. C. 2, 30, 3. 37, 3; cf. 
 Plin. 4, 117 c. Servilia, c. Caecilid), but the sermo castrensis, not 
 distinguishing in this case between historical and contemporary 
 . names, preferred the possessive foim, casira Corneliana (Caes. 
 B. C. 2, 24, 2. 25, 6),' castra Claudiana (Liv. 23, 31, 3. 39, 8, etc.); 
 cf. Ptol. 2, 5, 6 sq. AiKici'ava, MavXiava, etc. (names of Spanish towns 
 with which castra is to be supplied). Similarly Servilius lacus 
 (Cic. Rose. Am. 32, 89, Fest. p. 290 M.) is the ancient name of the 
 locahty at Rome, but we find later also Servilianus lacus (Sen. 
 Dial. 1, 3, 7); so also Mel. 2, 89 P. Clodianum flumen, cf. Ptol. 
 2, 6, 19. Livy has saltus Marcius (39, 20, 10), but salhcs Manli- 
 anus (40, 39, 2). We find as place-names aquae Sextiae (Veil., 
 Plin.), a. Sca?iiiae (Plin. 2, 240), but a. Posidianae (Plin. 31, 5), 
 a. Persianae (Apul. Flor. 3, 16, p. 353, 5 H.) ; arae Muciae (Phn. 
 2, 211), but arae Sestianae (id. 4, iii). 
 
 Finally, in the personal names given to varieties of cultivated 
 plants and fruit-trees, the usage appears to have never become 
 absolutely fixed. In such cases the possessive is much more 
 usual, as is to be expected in the popular language, but Pliny and 
 Columella employ the older form also very freely. Cato uses 
 only the possessives, e. g. oleae Sergiana, Colminiana, Liciniana 
 (P. P. 6, I sq.); Varro has the same forms, with the exception of 
 Colminia for Colminiana (P. P. i, 24, i); cf. Plin. 15, 13 olivae 
 Licinia, Cominia, Coniia, Sergia, and ib. 20 olivae Sergiana, 
 Cominiana. A typical passage is Col. 5, 8, 3 oleae Algiana, 
 Liciniana, Sergia, Naevia, Culminia. The manufactured product 
 is almost always the possessive, as Plin. 15, 8 oleum, Licinianum ; 
 so always the names of condiments and perfumes in Martial 
 {Cosmianum, Capellianum, etc.). 
 
 ' ' Hence there is no need, with Meusel and Hofmann, to correct to casira 
 Cornelia. 
 
THE SUFFIXES -ANUS AND -INUS. 1 1 1 
 
 These results lend probability to the conclusion that the pos- 
 sessive adjectives in -anus are later' formations of the language, 
 and that the gentile adjectives originally possessed a much 
 broader, perhaps a wholly unrestricted use. This older usage 
 was always retained in the ritualistic language, in the poets and 
 in the authors of archaic tendencies (Varr. L. L. 5, 85, Tac. A. 
 I, 54 sodales Titii ; Ov. Pont. 4, 5, 9 domus Pompeia ; CIL. 
 XIV, 391 1 (carmen) Aelia villa; Gell. 9, 13, 20 H. imperia 
 Manila'). 
 
 BuYN Mawr College. RoBERT S. RADFORD. 
 
 ' For examples of the extension of the suffix -anus in adjectives, see 
 Schnorr von Carolsfeld, /. /., p. 188. To these may be added Lucanus, 
 Venafranus, Africanus, Veientanus, Praetutianus, etc. as the later forms of 
 Lucus (Naev., Enn., Lucr., Varr.), Venafer (Cito, Van.), A/ricus (Enn., 
 Scip. Afr. ap. Gell. 4, 18, 3, etc.), Veiens, Praetutius. Compare also 
 Picentinus (Sail., Mart.) for Picens, Literninus (Cic, Liv,, Plin.) for 
 Lit emus. 
 
THE FALL OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. 
 
 On the death, in 626 B. C, of Ashurbanipal (Sardanapallus), 
 king of Assyria, his son Ashur-etil-ilani succeeded to a troubled 
 inheritance. A Htde more than twenty years before, Shamash- 
 shum-ukin, king of Babylon, the brother of Ashurbanipal, had 
 endeavored to free himself from Assyrian control, to unite 
 Babylonia under his sway, and thus to establish an independent 
 kingdom with Babylon as its capital. To this end he incited to 
 revolt the dependencies of Assyria and sought the aid of her 
 enemies, his main reliance being placed in the neighboring king- 
 dom of Elam. This formidable danger was overcome by the 
 policy of Ashurbanipal and the ability of his generals. The 
 rebellion was crushed, the allies defeated, and Shamash-shum- 
 ukln, besieged in Babylon and driven to the last extremity, cast 
 himself into the flames rather than fall into the hands of his 
 brother. It is doubtless this tragic circumstance, well vouched 
 for by the annals of Ashurbanipal (col. IV, 11. 50 ff.), that has 
 given rise to the well-known story of the fate of the last king of 
 Assyria. In 647, the year following the death of Shamash-shum- 
 uktn, Ashurbanipal had himself crowned king of Babylon under 
 the name of Kandal^nu,' a measure intended to soothe the some- 
 what susceptible feelings of the Babylonians who could ill brook 
 the degradation of the holy city to the position of a mere appanage 
 of a foreign power. In this the king followed the example of his 
 predecessors Tiglathpileser III and Shalmaneser IV. The kingdom 
 of Elam was now destroyed ; its capital, Susa, was sacked ; its 
 remaining cities were ravaged, and the whole country left defence- 
 less. But although Assyria came out of the contest with success, her 
 success was a costly one. The struggle had taxed the resources of 
 the empire to the utmost, and the destruction of Elam removed 
 a strong bulwark against the growing power of the Aryan Medes 
 whose scattered communities were rapidly consolidating into a 
 
 1 The Kineladan of the Ptolemaic canon. See Schrader, Kindadan und 
 Asurbanipal, in Zeits.fiir Ktils., II, 222 fi. 
 
1 14 CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON. 
 
 united and aggressive state.^ At the end of Ashurbanipal's reign 
 they constituted a formidable menace to the security of the Assy- 
 rian empire. Nor were the Medes, whose migration into Asia 
 was at least as early as the ninth century B. c, the only Aryan 
 people who now came in contact with the Semitic rulers of 
 Western Asia. In the reign of Sargon (722-705 b. c.) new swarms 
 of barbarians appear in the North. Chief among these were the 
 Gimirra or Kimmerians, at that time seated in the neighborhood 
 of Lake Van to the north of the Armenian kingdom of Urartu, 
 and, further east, around Lake Urumiah and along the northern 
 borders of Media, the Ashguzi or Ishkuzi who, as Winckler has 
 shown, must be identified with the people called Scythians by 
 the classical writers.'' 
 
 In the reign of Esarhaddon (680-668 b. c), the Kimmerians 
 driven from their settlements by the Scythians, moved westward 
 overrunning Phrygia and the north-western provinces of Assyria, 
 though Esarhaddon was able to divert their attack from Meso- 
 potamia and Syria. In the reign of Ashurbanipal (668-626 b. c), 
 they invaded Lydia and took its capital Sardes, but here their 
 course was checked, and soon after they were expelled from Asia 
 Minor by the Scythians who pursued them, ravaging the country 
 on all sides, as far as Palestine and the frontier of Egypt. The 
 hostility between the Kimmerians and the Scythians was un- 
 doubtedly fomented by Assyria, whose obvious policy it was to 
 play off one against the other. Esarhaddon, one of the shrewdest 
 statesmen that ever sat upon the throne of Assyria, seems to have 
 formed an alliance with the Scythian king Bartatua, the Proto- 
 thyes of Herodotus,' and to have cemented it by giving him his 
 daughter in marriage. At all events, it is certain that Esarhaddon 
 formally consulted the oracle of the Sun god as to whether, in 
 case this marriage should take place, Bartatua would prove a 
 loyal friend of Assyria (Knudtzon, Gebete aii den Sonnengott, 
 No. 29), and, from this time to the fall of Nineveh, friendly rela- 
 tions appear to have been maintained between Assyria and her 
 Scythian neighbors. 
 
 1 Winckler, Zur medischen und altfersischen Gescliichte, Untersuchuugen 
 109 ff.; Billeibeck-Jeremias, Dcr Uitteri^ang Niuevc/is, Beitr. zur Assyr., 
 Ill, 141. 
 
 '• Winckler, Khnmerier, Asgiizder, Scythcn, in Forschungen VI, 484 ff. 
 
 " Winckler, Forschungen VI, 488. 
 
rniZ FALL OF THE ASSYK LAN EMPIRE. II5 
 
 In Syria, where Ashurbanipal had been obliged to put down 
 some sporadic revolts, the great Kimmerian and Scythian invasion, 
 occurring towards the end of his reign, must have thoroughly 
 disorganized the country. Egypt, which for a brief period under 
 Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal had been reduced to the condition 
 of an Assyrian province, gained her independence about 645 B, c, 
 and her energetic ruler, Psamtik I, cherished the ambition of 
 regaining the long lost Asiatic possessions of his remote predeces- 
 sors. Such then, at the death of Ashurbanipal and the accession 
 of his son Ashur-etil-il^ni, was the situation of affairs. The 
 Assyrian empire still extended from the Persian Gulf to the 
 Mediterranean, but to the West, Syria disorganized by recent 
 events was ready to fall a prey to Egypt at the first favorable 
 opportunity. To the North, the Scythians held full sway and, 
 though for the time being friendly to Assyria, they were too 
 powerful to be altogether comfortable neighbors. To the East, 
 the Medes, enemies both of Assyria and of the Scythians, were 
 pushing westward to the frontier of Assyria and southward into 
 the defenceless land of Elam. 
 
 Of the reign of Ashur-etil-il&ni little is known. A brief inscrip- 
 tion found in the south-east palace of Nimrfld (Kelach) gives 
 his genealogy and states that he caused bricks to be made for 
 building the temple of Ezida in Kelach (Schrader's Keilinschr. 
 Bibliothek, ii, 268). Another inscription (ibid, iv, 156) is badly 
 mutilated and gives no additional information. Contract tablets, 
 found by the American expedition, are dated at Nippur in the 
 second and fourth years of the reign of this king' so that he 
 must have ruled both in Assyria and Babylonia until at least the 
 year 622 b. C. It is probable that he died soon after this date. 
 He had a daughter, Sheru'a-eterat, whose letter to the lady 
 Asshur-sharrat, in regard to a point of etiquette''' affords an 
 interesting glimpse of Assyrian court life, but there is no evidence 
 that he had a son. One event, however, of the utmost importance 
 is known to have occurred in his reign, and this was the accession 
 of the Chaldean Nabopolassar as king of Babylon. According 
 to the Ptolemaic canon, Nabopolassar succeeded Kandal^nu 
 
 1 Hilprecht, Keilinsehriftliche Funde in Niffcr, Zeits. fiir Assyr., iv, 
 164 ff. 
 
 2 Johns Hopkins University Circulars, June, 1896, pp. 91 £E.; Journ. Am. 
 Or. Soc, XX, 244 ff. 
 
1 16 CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON. 
 
 (=:Ashurbanipal) in 626 B. c. and reigned for twenty-one years, 
 and this is amply confirmed by a series of Babylonian contract 
 tablets dated up to the twenty-first year of his reign. To which 
 of the Chaldean tribes he belonged is unknown, as also the cir- 
 cumstances attending his accession. Abydenus has preserved a 
 tradition that Saracus, who succeeded Sardanapallus as king of 
 Assyria, learning that an army numerous as locusts was coming 
 from the sea to attack his dominions, sent his general, Busalos- 
 sorus, to Babylon. Whereupon - the latter, throwing off his 
 allegiance, and securing an alliance by marrying his son 
 Nebuchadnezzar to Amuhea, daughter of Ashdahak, Prince 
 of the Medes, forthwith marched upon Nineveh. Saracus, 
 informed of this, burnt himself in his royal palace (Miiller- 
 Didot, Fragmenta Hist. Grace, iv, p. 282). The ultimate 
 source of this story seems to have been Ktesias"- and it is 
 therefore suspicious, yet it may embody a genuine tradition.'' 
 As the brief rule of Ashur-etil-il^ni was apparently unknown to 
 classical writers, it is not remarkable that events should be referred 
 to the reign of Saracus (Sin-shar-ishkun) which really occurred 
 in that of his predecessor. The account of the army coming 
 against Babylon from the sea may well refer to a movement on 
 the part of the Chaldeans, who saw in the death of Ashurbanipal 
 (Sardanapallus) a favorable opportunity for reasserting their 
 ancient claims. That Nabopolassar may have held a position of 
 authority and made use of it to place himself at the head and reap 
 the fruits of such a movement, is by no means improbable. And 
 although he did not take part directly in the destruction of 
 Nineveh, it is certain that the monarchy he established was 
 essentially Chaldean in character, and that he subsequently acted 
 with the Medes against Assyria. The marriage of his son 
 Nebuchadnezzar with a Median princess, while not impossible, is 
 at least open to doubt. 
 
 Ashur-etil-ilcLni was succeeded by his brother Sin-shar-ishkun 
 the Saracus of classical writers. Sin-shar-ishkun's descent from 
 Esarhaddon is set forth in a fragment ingeniously restored by 
 Winckler {Revue d'Assjr., vol. II, 1889, p. 67), and in a mutilated 
 tablet, apparently containing a grant of land, published by Father 
 Scheil in 1896 {Zeits.fur Assyr., xi, 47), he is called the son of Ash- 
 
 ' Winckler, Forschungtn II, 172 ff. 2 cf_ Schrader in ZlCn, 228. 
 
THE FALL OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. WJ 
 
 urbanipal. Portions of several inscriptions of Sin-shar-ishkun have 
 been found, but all are either badly mutilated or merely fragmen- 
 tary. The longest of these inscriptions, of which a transliteration 
 and translation are given by Winckler in Schrader's Keilin- 
 schriftliche Bibliothek (ii, 270-273), refers to the building of a tem- 
 ple, and is dated in the eponymy of a certain Daddi the vizier, 
 but as the eponym canon is incomplete there is no means of 
 determining the precise date. In this inscription, as also in a 
 fragment published by Winckler in Revue d'Assyriologie (ii, 67), 
 the king refers to wars in which he claims that the Assyrian 
 arms were successful. The gods, he says, " subdued his foes, 
 overthrew his adversaries " {KB, ii, 270, 1. 7) ; and again, " I 
 revered the great gods, I frequented their temples, I prayed to 
 their majesty. They stood by my side, rendered me gracious 
 help, championed my cause, and subdued my foes. They bound 
 fast my adversaries, and laid low the foes of Assyria who obeyed 
 not my royal will " {_Rev. d'Assyr., ii, 67). Winckler is inclined to 
 restore Ma-da]-d, ' the Medes' in line 2, but it is evident that iddj-d 
 ' at my side,' must be read here. However, as Mount Demavend 
 (sad Bikni) is mentioned in another fragment (K, 1654), it is 
 possible that Sin-shar-ishkun actually refers to a war with the 
 Medes and that, as Winckler suggests, Herodotus' account (1, 102) 
 of Phraortes' unsuccessful attack upon Nineveh may rest upon a 
 historic basis. Two contract tablets are dated at Sippara in the 
 second year of " Sin-shar-ishkun King of Assyria", and another 
 is dated at Erech in the seventh year of his reign,^ so that in 615 
 B. C, or later, he still ruled in Babylonia. 
 
 Prof. R. F. Harper's Assyrian Letters contains (No. 469) a 
 communication from the people of Erech to the king, in which 
 they state that a dispute about certain lands had been decided in 
 their favor by "thy father Ashurbanipal " (rev. i; cf obv. 12). 
 This must, of course, have been addressed either to Ashur-etil- 
 iiani or to his brother Sin-shar-ishkun. As late therefore as the 
 year 615 B. C, and probably somewhat later, since the precise 
 duration of Ashur-etil-ilini's reign is not known, there is no evi- 
 dence that Nabopolassar held dominion anywhere except in the 
 city of Babylon and the district immediately adjoining, while 
 there is positive evidence that parts, if not the whole, of Babylonia 
 
 1 Keil. Bibliothek, iv, 174-176. 
 
Il8 CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON. 
 
 were still held by Assyria. At some time before the year6ii 
 B. C, the situation must have changed, since a contract tablet 
 dated at Sippara, in the fifteenth year of Nabopolassar, king of 
 Babylon, indicates that he then had possession of northern Baby- 
 lonia. He seems about the same time to have gone further and 
 to have made a successful invasion into the Mesopotamian 
 possessions of Assyria. Three inscriptions of Nabopolassar are 
 known, all belonging to the latter part of his reign. In one of these 
 {Keil. Bibl. iii^ 6) he states that he connected Sippara with the 
 Euphrates by means of a canal, and this could only have been 
 done at a time when the city was actually under his authority. 
 The fact that, in this brief inscription, he styles himself simply 
 Sar Babili " King of Babylon " and not king of Sumer and 
 Akkad should not be pressed too far, since his son Nebuchad- 
 nezzar, who undoubtedly ruled over all Babylonia, employs the 
 same title in several of his shorter inscriptions. Another inscrip- 
 tion of Nabopolassar (^Keil. Bibl. \v?, 8 ; Beitr. ziir Assyr. iii, 
 528) relates to his restoration of the temple of Belit at Sippara, 
 and contains a distinct reference to his military operations : 
 "When Shamash, the great lord, marched by my side, subdued 
 my enemies, and turned the country of my adversaries to pasture 
 land and heaps of ruins, then for Belit of Sippara, the exalted 
 lady, my queen, I built anew E-edina, her abode, and made it 
 shine like the day" (col. I, 20 — col. II, 10). In another inscription 
 QKeil. Bibl. iii", 2 ; Beitr. zur Assyr. iii, 525) the reference is 
 more definite : " When, at command of Nabli and Marduk, who 
 love my sovereignty, and through the mighty weapon of the 
 terrible god Girra who smites down my enemies with the thunder- 
 bolt, I subdued Subaru and reduced that land to pasture field and 
 ruin," (col. I, 21-29) — the king then goes on to describe the 
 building of the great temple tower of Babylon and its dedication 
 with imposing ceremonies in which his sons Nebuchadnezzar and 
 Nabd-shum-lishir took part. In the last two inscriptions Nabo- 
 polassar calls himself King of Sumer and Akkad, and therefore 
 claims sovereignty over all Babylonia. Subaru, of whose conquest 
 Nabopolassar boasts, was a district of northern Mesopotamia,^ and 
 in this connection it is significant that a contract tablet exists 
 dated at Babylon in the seventeenth year of Nabopolassar Sar 
 
 1 Winckler, Forsckiingin II, 153 f£. 
 
THE FALL OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. 1 19 
 
 Kissaii ' King of the world '/ so that in 609 b. c. he bore the title 
 which, according to Winckler, pertained specially to the ancient 
 Mesopotaniian kingdom whose capital was Harran. This rapid 
 extension of the dominions of Nabopolassar argues at least a 
 temporary helplessness on the part of Assyria, and would seem to 
 have coincided with the events described in Herodotus 1, 103-106. 
 The Greek historian states that the Median King Cyaxares, 
 after thoroughly organizing his army, invaded Assyria and, 
 defeating the Assyrians in the field, had actually invested 
 Nineveh when the siege was raised by an army under command 
 of Madyes, son of Protothyes, King of the Scythians. By means 
 of a stratagem Cyaxares and his Medes got the better of these 
 fresh opponents, after which they captured Nineveh and subdued 
 Assyria with the exception of Babylonia. The story of Cyaxares' 
 stratagem is not very probable, but the essential features of 
 Herodotus' account are borne out by all the known facts in the 
 case." Protothyes (Bartatua) was in all probability the son-in-law 
 of Esarhaddon, and therefore it is not unlikely that his son Madyes 
 was the nephew of Ashurbanipal and the cousin of Sin-shar-ishkun, 
 and from the time of Esarhaddon there is no evidence that other 
 than friendly relations existed between Assyria and the Scythians. 
 In any event Madyes could hardly have viewed with complacency 
 the aggrandizement of his Median enemies and their absorption 
 of the fairest portions of Western Asia. The intervention of the 
 Scythian king at this juncture was, in fact, a political necessity. 
 At first he was successful and the Medes were forced to raise the 
 siege and retire to their own territory. The relief of Nineveh, 
 which probably occurred in the year 610, and the diversion of the 
 Median attack afforded Sin-shar-ishkun an opportunity which he 
 was prompt to utilize, and he seems to have made a vigorous 
 effort to drive Nabopolassar out of Mesopotamia and to recover 
 the territory he had occupied in that quarter. Such, even then, 
 was the prestige of the Assyrian arms that many cities of 
 Babylonia either were lukewarm to the cause of Nabopolassar, or 
 openly sided with Assyria. The Babylonian monarch, deprived 
 of the Median support he had hitherto enjoyed, hard pressed in 
 Mesopotamia by the Assyrians, and attacked at home by the 
 
 1 Published by Strassmaier, Zeits.fUr Assyr. iv, i43-'44- 
 ^ Cf. Winckler, Forschungen VI, 490. 
 
I20 CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON. 
 
 disaffected Babylonian cities aided doubtless by Assyrian troops, 
 now found himself in a situation all but desperate. Had Sin-shar- 
 ishkun at this crisis been left unhindered in other directions, there 
 can be little doubt that he would have crushed his Chaldean 
 opponent and restored, in some measure at least, the ancient 
 glories of Assyria. But fate was against him, and his success was 
 of brief duration. The Medes, having signally defeated the 
 Scythian forces, now returned to the attack. They swept over 
 Assyria ravaging and burning in every direction, and Nineveh 
 was once more besieged. 
 
 The stele of Nabonidus* found by the German expedition at 
 Babylon, which contains the only cuneiform account of the fall of 
 Assyria at present known, thus depicts the scene (col. II) : " He 
 (the god Marduk) gave him (Nabopolassar) a helper, granted 
 him an ally. The king of the Ummanmanda, whom none could 
 withstand, he made submissive to his (divine) command and 
 brought him to his aid. Above and below, right and left, like a 
 storm he overwhelmed the land, taking vengeance for Babylon 
 in full measure. The king of the Ummanmanda, knowing no 
 fear, destroyed all the temples of the gods of Assyria, while, as 
 for those cities of Babylonia which were hostile to the king of 
 Babylon or came not to his aid, he destroyed their sanctuaries, 
 leaving not one ; like a storm he utterly laid waste their cities. 
 The king of Babylon, at the command of Marduk to whom sacri- 
 lege is an abomination, laid no hand on the shrines of the gods.'' 
 According to Nabonidus, therefore, Nabopolassar left the work 
 of destruction to the Medes and took no part in it himself. 
 
 In the same inscription (col. X, 13 ff.) Nabonidus states that he 
 restored the temple of Sin in Harran which had been destroyed 
 by the Ummanmanda and lay in ruins for fifty-four years. In the 
 Abu-Habba inscription {Keil. Bibl. iii", 96 ff.) he states that the 
 restoration of this temple was undertaken at the beginning of his 
 third year. In 608, therefore, or 607 — the former being the more 
 probable date — Mesopotamia was invaded and Harran was de- 
 stroyed by the Medes." The rehef of Nabopolassar from his 
 
 1 Messerschmidt, Die Inschrijt der Stele Nalimia'ids Koiii^s von Babylon, 
 Mittheilungen der Vorderasiatischeu Gesellschaft, i8y6, i. 
 
 2 Here, as elsewhere, Nabonidus uses Ummanmanda in the general 
 sense of Northern barbarians. See Winckler's note, Messerschmidt, u. c. 
 P- 71. 
 
THE FALL OF THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE. 121 
 
 perilous predicament and the chastisement of the disaffected 
 Babylonian cities were doubtless effected at the same time. It is 
 possible, as Messerschmidt suggests {p. c, p. 14), that Nabopo- 
 lassar was in the neighborhood of Harran and that this movement 
 of the Medes was undertaken in his behalf, but it may be ex- 
 plained on other grounds. Nineveh, the objective point of the 
 Median attack, lay close upon the Tigris, and from the western 
 bank of the river ran the highways communicating with the fertile 
 plains of Mesopotamia whence both troops and supplies could be 
 drawn. It is not necessary to suppose that, from the first, the whole 
 military strength of the Assyrian empire was massed within the 
 walls of Nineveh. It is more than probable that strong bodies of 
 Assyrian troops controlled the country beyond the Tigris, of whose 
 strategical importance Sin-shar-ishkun was well aware. Indeed, 
 it is hardly likely that the troops which had been operating in this 
 quarter against Nabopolassar had as yet been withdrawn. The 
 Babylonian cities on the Assyrian frontier could also render 
 effective aid if so disposed, and their recent antagonism to Nabo- 
 polassar gave them little choice as to how they should side. So 
 long as the country beyond the Tigris held out for Assyria, the 
 reduction of Nineveh was a well nigh hopeless task. It was 
 necessary, therefore, that this district should be rendered useless 
 both as a source of supplies and as a base of military operations. 
 This seems to have been effected by dispatching strong detach- 
 ments to thoroughly ravage the country, destroy all opposing 
 forces, and render harmless the frontier cities of Babylonia. 
 Their object accomplished, the Median detachments could rejoin 
 their main body before Nineveh, leaving to Nabopolassar the easy 
 task of holding the devastated district in subjection. 
 
 When the Medes, after reducing Assyria east of the Tigris, 
 proceeded to dispossess their Scythian neighbors and to extend 
 their dominions in Asia Minor,' Mesopotamia was left to Nabo- 
 polassar and the wily Chaldean thus enjoyed the fruits of a 
 vicarious victory. 
 
 Nineveh was now cut off from outside aid, but behind her 
 strong fortifications her garrison could still offer a stubborn 
 resistance. When at length the Medes prevailed and the city 
 fell, all was not yet lost. A strong line of defences connected 
 
 ^ W\nzV\Kr, Forschungen VI, 49; Herodotus, I, 103. 
 
122 CHRISTOPHER JOHNSTON. 
 
 Nineveh with Kelach, a fortress little inferior to the fallen capital in 
 strength, and thither Sin-shar-ishkun fell back to make a new 
 stand. But fate was against him once more. An unusual rise of 
 the Tigris undermined the wall, and the city, now at the mercy 
 of the besiegers, was sacked and burnt.' 
 
 Thus, shorn of her wide possessions and reduced to her last 
 stronghold, fell the great Assyrian empire, and it is characteristic 
 of her whole history that she fell with her face to the foe, fighting 
 to the last. According to tradition, the siege of Nineveh lasted 
 for two years, and this, if it be taken to include the whole course 
 of events down to the fall of Kelach, is doubtless correct. It was 
 therefore in the year 606 B. c. that the reign of Sin-shar-ishkun 
 came to an end together with the last remnants of the monarchy 
 he represented. 
 
 Johns Hopkins University, 
 
 Christopher Johnston. 
 
 1 For a detailed account of the siege of Nineveh see Der Untergang 
 Nincvehs u>td die Weissagungsschrift des Nahum von Elkosch, by Col. Adolf 
 Billerbeck and Dr. Alfred Jeremias, Beiir. zur. Assyr. Ill, 87-188. For 
 the fall of Kelach cf. especially Col. Billerbeck's remarks, ibid. p. 131. 
 
NE EMISSES, NE POPOSCISSES, AND SIMILAR 
 EXPRESSIONS. 
 
 The expressions ne emisses (Cic. in Verr. II, 3, 84, 1(^5) and 
 ne poposcisses (Cic. ad Att. II, i, 3), etc., are commonly regarded 
 as volitive subjunctives, representing ne emeris, ne poposceris, 
 etc., projected into the past. This theory makes it necessary to 
 explain the pluperfect tense as due to analogy with the behavior 
 of the perfect subjunctive in certain subordinate clauses, when pro- 
 jected into the past, e. g. si emeris, nisi poposceris, which become 
 si emisses, nisi poposcisses. Until recently I have myself accepted 
 this view,' because no other possible explanation of these strange 
 expressions occurred to me. However, I have never been able 
 to accept a similar theory for the origin of such uses of the 
 pluperfect subjunctive as that illustrated by restitisses in Cic. 
 pro Sestio 20, 45. To be sure there was a strong temptation 
 to associate the affirmative with the negative expression, as 
 restitisses apparently means "you should have resisted", just as 
 ne emisses apparently means "you should not have bought". 
 But the tense of restitisses seemed to me a serious difficulty in 
 the way of the theory that it represents a volitive use of the sub- 
 junctive. It was, I thought, conceivable that ne emisses should 
 be ne emeris projected into the past,^ but restitisses could not 
 similarly be traced back to a restiieris, for no such use of the 
 perfect subjunctive as restiteris, in the sense of "resist thou", is 
 known in Latin ; and a present tense would, when thrown into 
 the past, become resisteres, instead of restitisses. On the other 
 hand, the pluperfect tense in affirmative expressions could not 
 
 ' See my Studies in Latin Moods and Tenses, p. 226, and the Latin Pro- 
 hibitive in American Journal of Philology, Vol. XV, pp. 315-316, note. 
 
 ^ This, however, involved the necessity of assuming that Cicero (strangely 
 enough) projected into the past in his most dignified styles a type of ex- 
 pression {ne emeris') which is itself carefully excluded from such styles. 
 See American Journal of Philology, XV, p. 134-135. The necessity of 
 making such an unreasonable assumption is in itself enough to bring the 
 validity of that theory into serious doubt. 
 
124 H. C. ELMER. 
 
 well be explained after the analogy of the pluperfect in negative 
 expressions like ne emisses, since that would necessitate the 
 assumption that the type ne emisses had become firmly estab- 
 lished before the type restitisses arose, while all the evidence is 
 against any such assumption. It was on account of these 
 considerations that I ventured in my Studies (p. 226) to 
 dissociate the two uses and to explain affirmative expressions 
 like restitisses as having originally meant " you would have 
 resisted ", with some such ellipsis as " if you had done your 
 duty", and as having from this original use developed the 
 meaning "you should have resisted". Something like a 
 parallel seemed to me to exist in the development of meaning 
 undergone by certain other expressions. For instance, nee 
 putaueris, when used in the sense of "nor would you suppose ", 
 distinctly and prominently implies the manifest impropriety 
 of supposing the thing referred to and probably came at 
 times to be felt as amounting practically to " nor ought ' 
 you (under the circumstances) to suppose". Similarly cur gau- 
 deasf, starting with the idea " why would you rejoice (under the 
 circumstances)?", "what reason is there for rejoicing?" (i. e. it 
 would be absurd to rejoice) came to mean " why should you re- 
 
 1 In his discussion of my theory regarding a Subjunctive of Obligation 
 or Propriety in Latin (see his Critique of Some Recent Subjunctive Theo- 
 ries), Professor Bennett forgets that the idea of " propriety ", as well as 
 that of "obligation ", is involved in my theory. By clinging to the word 
 " ought" in applying the theory to concrete cases, he makes the interpre- 
 tation sometimes seem forced and unnatural. For instance, in Trin. 627, 
 noli auorsari neqtie te occultassis mihi, he translates " don't turn away and 
 you oughtn't to hide ". This is, I believe, the only passage in which a 
 prohibition immediately precedes this use of titc and is therefore the pas- 
 sage in which my interpretation seems least natural. Still even here it 
 makes perfectly good sense to interpret "don't turn away — nor had you 
 better hide ". If " ought " is to be the one word by which my theory is to 
 be tested, the word must be understood as used with the various shades of 
 meaning recognized by lexicographers, viz., as meaning not merely "to be 
 bound in duty by moral obligation", but also, and quite as often, as mean- 
 ing " to be necessary, fit, becoming or expedient, to behoove " (Webster). 
 "You ought" in English frequently means "you'd better", "you need 
 to ", etc. The fact that the word " ought " has taken on all these meanings 
 proves that an expression of obligation may easily become one of mere 
 propriety, and forms therefore a sufficient justification for associating the 
 two conceptions as I have done. 
 
NE EMISSES, NE POPOSCISSES, ETC. 1 25 
 
 joice?"' But I must confess that such a development of meaning 
 does not seem so natural in a contrary-to-fact expression like 
 resfiiisses as in expressions like nee puiaveris and cur gaudeas ?. 
 Further consideration has convinced me not merely that the two 
 types of expression represented by restUisses and ne emisses must 
 be associated as being affirmative and negative forms of the same 
 modal use, but that both the common view regarding the mood, 
 and the one previously held by myself, are fundamentally wrong. 
 
 The best and clearest statement of the common view with which 
 I am acquainted is that found in the Appendix (§362) to Bennett's 
 Latin Grammar, from which I quote the following, enclosing in 
 brackets a sentence added by Professor Bennett in his Critique, 
 p. 27: 
 
 " Corresponding to the jussive loquatur, ' let him speak ', ' he's 
 to speak', there developed an imperfect use, loqueretur, 'he was 
 to speak ', ' he should have spoken '. This use is manifestly a 
 derived one, since one cannot now will a person to have done in 
 the past what he obviously has failed to do. An expression like 
 loquereiur, therefore, must have been formed after the analogy 
 of loquahir. The pluperfect subjunctive also occurs in this sense 
 
 ' Bennett (Critique, p. 22 f.) regards such a development of meaning as 
 impossible. But a similar development has actually taken place and can 
 be historically traced, in the meaning of the English word "should", 
 which sometimes indicates obligation, sometimes (in the first person) mere 
 contingent futurity. This development of meaning was due wholly to a 
 confusion in the popular mind, somewhere in the history of the language, 
 between the two conceptions. Bennett remarks: "what a person would 
 do . . . bears no necessary or natural relation to what he ought to do. 
 Sometimes one would do what one ought. Oftener, I fear, one would do 
 what one ought not". This last assertion may be true. But the fact 
 remains that the ideas "ought to do" and "destined to do" have very 
 frequently, both in ancient and modern languages, come to be expressed 
 by one and the same mechanism, and that this has been due to the inti- 
 mate association, at times, of the two conceptions involved. For instance, 
 the words " shall " in English, " sollen " in German, " devoir " in French, 
 all start with the idea of " ought ", but " I shall go " has come to mean that 
 the act will certainly take place, and " er soil" and" il doit " are often used 
 in the sense of " he is destined to"; "faciendum est" means " ought to be 
 done ", but it also means " must be done " ; again in id faciendum curauit 
 the idea of obligation is entirely lacking; "oportet", "rfEJ", "xpfl" are all 
 used both of what "ought to be" and of what " must be" ; "obliged" 
 means " under obligation ", but " he is obliged to go " refers to an act that 
 is of necessity going to happen. 
 
126 //. C. ELMER. 
 
 [evidently an attempt to bring out more distinctly the reference 
 to the past], as eum imitaius esses, ' you ought to have imitated 
 him '. The volitive character of these expressions is shown by 
 the fact that the negative is regularly ne." 
 
 This explanation recognizes as involved in the expressions fte 
 emisses and ne poposcisses two ideas, viz., the volitive idea, in the 
 form of a prohibition, and the idea of obligation or propriety, 
 in the form of a mere assertion that an obligation, as a matter of 
 fact, existed (equivalent therefore to some form of oporiet with 
 the infinitive). These two ideas are wholly different and distinct. 
 A prohibition cannot at the same time be an assertion that merely 
 states something. If therefore both of these ideas are suggested 
 by ne emisses, as is assumed by the interpretation we are con- 
 sidering, it follows that one of them must be the idea primarily 
 expressed and the other must be merely an implication involved. 
 That is, the expression ne emisses must be primarily a prohibition 
 (the idea of obligation being merely implied), or else primarily 
 a mere assertion that an obligation existed in the past. Let us 
 consider the possibility of each of these two alternatives. 
 
 The first alternative is absolutely impossible, a fact fully recog- 
 nized by Bennett in the passage above quoted. His own language 
 is sufficient comment on this point, viz., " one cannot now will a 
 person to have done in the past what he obviously has failed to 
 do," or will him not to do what he obviously has done. 
 
 But it is practically certain that the other alternative is equally 
 impossible. To suppose that the Romans themselves felt these 
 expressions as mere assertions of any sort would involve us in 
 insurmountable difificulties. For instance if these expressions 
 were mere assertions that an obligation existed in the past (and 
 were therefore equivalent to some form of oporiet with the infini- 
 tive), the ne could then be accounted for only by supposing that 
 the expression originated in some volitive use of the subjunctive 
 and that, in the developed use, the ne was simply retained from 
 the earlier volitive. But before ne, the negative of the volitive, 
 could be used to negative a mere assertion that an obligation 
 existed in the past, it must necessarily have been used with 
 expressions which were identical inform with direct independent 
 expressions of the will, but which nevertheless so prominently 
 implied the idea of an obligation that they, after a time, came to 
 be regarded as sometimes amounting to mere statements that an 
 
NE EMISSES, NE POPOSCISSES, ETC. 12/ 
 
 obligation existed. Otherwise there would be no starting point 
 from which the development might proceed. But it has been 
 seen that ne emisses does not have the form of any possible 
 expression of the speaker's will. Therefore this use of ne in an 
 expression which, we are for the moment assuming, has already 
 come to be felt as a mere assertion of the existence of an obliga- 
 tion, cannot have originated in such an expression as ne emisses, 
 or any similar expression referring to the past. If then, ne has 
 come to be used in mere assertions, it must first have been so 
 used in assertions referring to the present. In other words, we 
 must assume that such expressions as ne emeris, ne etnas, first 
 began to be felt as mere assertions that the act ought not to be 
 performed. After ne had begun to be frequently associated with 
 assertions of this form, it might then have easily drifted away from 
 this original use and come to be used in assertions that the act 
 ought not to have been performed in the past, i. e. in assertions 
 that did not even retain the/<7r;» of an expression of the speaker's 
 will.' But no syntactician, so far as I know, ever claimed that ne 
 emeris, ne emas, etc., are ever mere assertions that the act ought 
 not to be performed, i. e. that they mean merely " it is not proper 
 for you to buy ", " you ought not to buy ". Such expressions are 
 universally regarded as prohibitions, involving no more idea of 
 obligation or propriety than the imperative ne erne, ne emito 
 itself. If ne emeris means nothing more or less than " do not 
 buy ", then it is inconceivable that, in an expression like ne emisses, 
 ne is suddenly felt as the negative of a mere assertion that an 
 obligation existed. This forces us back upon the other alternative 
 again and we must assume to be true what we have already 
 agreed cannot be true, namely, that ne is used only because ne 
 emisses is still felt distinctly as an expression of the speaker's will 
 (a prohibition) and one requiring therefore the negative associated 
 with the volitive. For, be it remembered, the Subjunctive of 
 Obligation or Propriety, from first to last, early and late, persist- 
 ently clings to non as its negative— or rather, non clings to it.' 
 There is absolutely no exception to this statement, unless ne 
 
 1 Even then the pluperfect tense would have been inappropriate. 
 
 2 See my Studies on this point. If the explanation of ne emisses etc. 
 offered in the present paper is correct, the chief support for the theory that 
 the subjunctive of obligation ever arose from a volitive subjunctive is gone. 
 
128 H. C. ELMER. 
 
 emisses, ne poposcisses, etc., which we are discussing, form such 
 exceptions. 
 
 A still further obstacle, and a very serious one, in the way of 
 the theory I am combating is formed by the use of the pluperfect 
 tense — a tense probably unknown to the volitive subjunctive. If 
 loquereiuris formed after the analogy oiloquaiur, after the analogy 
 of what is the pluperfect tense used? It does not seem satisfac- 
 tory to say merely that the pluperfect is due to a desire to bring 
 out more distinctly the reference to the past. How does the 
 pluperfect in such cases refer any more distinctly to the speaker's 
 past than the imperfect? The imperfect tense refers as distinctly 
 to the past as anything possibly can, and there is, in such a 
 context as that in which these expressions occur, never any danger 
 of the slightest ambiguity. Is it then conceivable that a Roman 
 would ever hesitate to use the imperfect tense for fear that some 
 one would think he was referring to the present ? The question 
 seems answered with the asking. 
 
 It follows from the considerations above advanced that ne 
 etnisses, ne poposcisses, etc. cannot be either prohibitions or nega- 
 tive assertions. The theory we have been discussing does not 
 satisfactorily account either for the negative, or for the pluperfect 
 tense. Apparently then we have from the very outset been 
 traveling in the wrong direction. I am now convinced that these 
 expressions are developed from the optative. If we proceed 
 upon this assumption, the explanation of all the phenomena is at 
 once greatly simplified. The pluperfect tense, which is wholly 
 inexplicable and without parallel if the expressions be regarded as 
 volitive in origin, now becomes perfectly regular and exactly what 
 would be expected. The ne, too, now seems perfectly normal 
 since some idea of an unfulfilled wish, i. e. of regret that something 
 happened which ought not to have happened, still remains promi- 
 nent enough in the expressions to justify the retention of the 
 negative 7te. Such expressions of regret used of the past might 
 easily lean toward the idea of obligation or propriety. On the 
 other hand, one can hardly conceive of anything which he feels 
 ought not to have happened, about which it would seem very 
 unnatural for him to wish that it had not happened. Such expres- 
 sions might well have been used now with the one idea upper- 
 most, now with the other. 
 
 The use of the imperfect subjunctive in 7ie co??tesses and ne 
 
NE EMISSES, NE POPOSCISSES, ETC. 1 29 
 
 /aceres,citeA by Bennett from Plautus(Men. 61 1, Pseud. 437), forms 
 no obstacle to the explanation I am advocating, as the imperfect 
 subjunctive is occasionally used in early Latin (and rarely in later 
 times) to express an unfulfilled wish in the past (see, for instance, 
 Gildersleeve-Lodge §261, note 2), and the developed use might 
 have retained this peculiarity of tense-usage. The occasional use 
 of non ^ will then be on the same footing as the occasional use of 
 non with other optative subjunctives. It is true that uiinam 
 might have been expected with the pluperfect tense, but as 
 utinam is very frequently omitted with the present and perfect 
 tenses of the optative subjunctive and sometimes with the imper- 
 fect, it is not unreasonable to suppose that it might occasionally 
 be omitted also with the pluperfect. Indeed many scholars recog- 
 nize its occasional omission with the pluperfect." The omission 
 would seem especially natural as soon as the meaning of the 
 expression began to drift away from the idea of mere wishing. 
 At any rate it seems far less difficult to suppose that these curious 
 expressions have their origin in the optative subjunctive than to 
 regard them as representing a development from the volitive. 
 
 Cornell University. 
 
 H. C. Elmer. 
 
 1 See Clement's Prohibitives in Silver Latin (Amer. Jour, of Phil., Vol. 
 XXI, 2). 
 
 2 See Allen and Greenough §267, D, note 2; Harkness §558, 2 ; see also 
 the comments of editors and Gildersleeve-Lodge §261, note 2, on TibuU. 
 
 I, 10, 11-12. 
 
NOTES ON THE LATIN VERBS OF RATING. 
 
 I. 
 
 The Stylistic Use of Pro. 
 
 With a number of verbs of rating pro with the ablative is used 
 instead of the genitive of value. This is, ultimately, a development 
 of the use oi pro with the force of 'in the place of,' 'instead of,' 
 'for,' seen in such examples as Cat. p. 37, 16 (Jordan) numquam 
 ego argentum pro vino congiario . . . disdidi. Of the inter- 
 mediate stages in the development one is to be found in the 
 occurrence oi pro in expressions of price. Cp. Plaut. Most. 823 
 tris minas pro istis duobus . . . dedi. Another is its use with 
 verbs of viewing, judging, considering, etc. Cp. Plaut. Stich. 571 
 sese ducit pro adulescentulo ; Ter. Ad. 48 hunc . . . habui, amavi 
 pro meo; Cic. Verr. 2, 4, 33; and the frequent occurrence oi pro 
 certo habere and similar expressions, as in Cic. Att. 10, 6, 3 Pom- 
 peium pro certo habemus per Illyricum proficisci in Galliam ; 
 Sail. C. 52, 17 ; Liv. 23, 6, 8 ; id. 25, 10, i. Many examples of 
 this usage might be given. It emerges at an early period and 
 maintains itself throughout the history of the language. 
 
 It is from this subjective use oipro that the construction ol pro 
 with the ablative as a substitute for the genitive of value is 
 immediately developed; I mean the use oi pro with the ablative 
 of some word, which, with a verb of rating, is usually put in the 
 genitive. Pro nihilo is the phrase that occurs most frequently ; 
 pro magna turns up occasionally, and possibly other combinations 
 might be found. Examples are pro nihilo esse instead of nihili 
 esse, pro nihilo habere instead of nihili habere, pro nihilo putare 
 instead oi nihili putare. 
 
 Neither Plautus nor Terence seem to have used pro nihilo, 
 although many instances of nihili are found. The only example 
 that I have noticed in early Latin is Caecil. ap. Varr. L. L. 7, 103 
 (Spengel) tantum rem dibalare ut pro nilo habuerit. It is first 
 fully developed by Cicero who clearly prefers it to nihili, as being 
 more formal, as making a rounder phrase, in those of his works in 
 which special attention is paid to style. Of nihili there seem to 
 
132 GORDON J. LA INC. 
 
 be only five examples in all his works ; oipro nihilo, on the other 
 hand, some thirty have been noted, seventeen of which occur in 
 the philosophical writings, eleven in the speeches, two in the 
 letters. The statistics are significant. The phrase, well adapted 
 to the fuller style of the philosophical works, is not in keeping 
 with the conciseness and brevity of the letters. 
 
 In almost every case it occurs in the cadence of the sentence, 
 and in a large number of examples it stands as the last member 
 of a climax. In this, which is perhaps its most characteristic 
 position, the stylistic effect is most clearly seen. Cp. Fin. 
 I, 32, 61 quam contemnet, quam despiciet, quam pro nihilo 
 putabit; Tusc. 3, 17, 36 ut omnia . . . contemnas et pro nihilo 
 putes; Off. I, 9, 28 contemnant et pro nihilo putent; ib. i, 21, 71 
 quod gloriam contemnant et pro nihilo putent ; de Or. 2, 84, 344 
 magnitudo animi, qua omnes res humanae tenues ac pro nihilo 
 putantur ; Mil. 24, 64 ut . . . contempsit ac pro nihilo putavit ! 
 Div. in Caecil. 7, 24 contempsit semper ac pro nihilo putavit ; 
 Fin. 3, 8, 29 despicere ac pro nihilo putare; ib. 3, 11, 37 non 
 requirat et pro nihilo putet ; Caecin. 19, 56 respuat . . . et pro 
 nihilo putavit ; Vatin. 9, 23 solus conculcaris ac pro nihilo putaris; 
 Fin. 4, 14, 37 relinquat et pro nihilo habeat herbam ; Off. 5, 24 
 contemnere et pro nihilo ducere ; Tusc. 5, 10, 30 opes contemnere 
 eaque . . . pro nihilo ducere. 
 
 Elsewhere it is used alone: cp. Phil. 2, 23, 56 quoniam con- 
 demnatum esse pro nihilo sit; Att. 14, 9, i di immortales, quam 
 mihi ista pro nihilo ! Fin. 2, 13, 43 quae . . . visa sunt pro nihilo ; 
 Phil. I, 6, 14 ut . . . rempublicam pro nihilo haberemus; Dom. 
 14, 38; Tusc. 5, 26, 73 quam pro nihilo puto! Fin. 5, 24, 72; 
 Lael. 23, 86; Phil. 10, 3, 6; Fam. 10, 26, 3; Tusc. 5, 32, 90 pro 
 nihilo pecuniam ducere ; Verr. 2, 16, 40. 
 
 Other examples oi pro nihilo occur here and there in classical 
 and silver Latin. Cp. Sail. J. 31, 25 quae . . . pro nihilo haben- 
 tur; Liv. 2, 61, 5 tribunes . . . pro nihilo habebat; id. 33, 46, 3; 
 Sen. Dial. 11, 10, 3 habuisse eadem pro nihilo ducit; id. N. Q. 4, 
 13, 10 pro nihilo est familiaris rigor; Pers. 1,30 ten cirratorum 
 centum dictata fuisse pro nihilo pendes? Sil. Ital. 2, 494 pro nihilo 
 esse; Plin. N. H. 18, 31, 319. 
 
 In later Latin we find it taken up by some of the church fathers. 
 Cp. Lactant. i, 725, 12' philosophiam . . . pro nihilo conputent; 
 
 ' The reference is to volume, page and line o£ the Vienna edition. 
 
NOTES ON THE LATIN VERBS OF RATING. 1 33 
 
 Sulp. Sev. 226, 12. Lucifer uses it in several passages : 108, 7 ; 178, 
 25 dignaris pro nihilo habere persequi servos unici filii dei ; 291,6; 
 44, 9 haec omnia ducens pro nihilo ; 52, 25 ; 134, 8 ; 245, 4 ; 291, 
 16; 291, 31. Cp. Paul. Nol. 2, 438, 22 qui autem pro nihilo me 
 habent, ad nihilum redigentur ; id. 2, 438, 9 ; 2, 439, 10. Gregory 
 of Tours 2, 707, I (Arndt) has oblectamenta pro nihilo reputata; 
 id. 2, 715, 13 contumelias pro nihilo habuerunt; and, what is of 
 special interest, examples of the combination oi pro nihilo with 
 verbs other than those of rating, namely respuere and deducere. 
 The same thing occurs in Orosius 352, 12 with contemnere : et 
 ipsi pro nihilo contempti sunt. ' This development is in direct line 
 with the Ciceronian phraseology already pointed out, e. g. Tusc. 
 3, 17, 36 contemnas et pro nihilo putes ; Fin. 3, 11, 37 respuat 
 . . . et pro nihilo putet. 
 
 II. 
 
 A Grotcp of Partitive Genitives. 
 
 In the expressions boni consulere, aequi bonique facere, nihil 
 pensi esse, the genitives are partitive. Aliquid boni consulere 
 means to consider something as forming part of that which is 
 good ; aliquid aequi bonique facere, to count something as part of 
 that which is fair and good ; while in nihil pensi we have the same 
 partitive genitive as in nihil mali, nihil novi. These genitives 
 should, therefore, be differentiated from the genitives of value 
 magni,parvi etc., which go back to an original genitive of quality 
 7nagni pretii, parvi pretii. Their classification under the head of 
 the Genitive of Value, adopted by almost all our grammars, is in 
 some cases perhaps simply a matter of convenience, yet in one of 
 the more recent productions of this now prolific field identity of 
 origin seems to be implied. The fact that the expressions had 
 become stereotyped, and that the Romans in their everyday use 
 of them did not feel their partitive origin, does not affect the 
 question. Neither did they feel the genitives magni, parvi m\.h 
 verbs of rating as genitives of quality. Roby's explanation 
 (§1191) that boni, aequi, andpensi are locatives may now be fairly 
 regarded as exploded, at any rate, wherever Latin grammar is 
 studied seriously. His theory seems to survive, for the most 
 part, only in some of the smaller editions of Latin authors, and it 
 is accordingly somewhat surprising to find it cropping up in so 
 pretentious a work as Spooner's edition of Tacitus' Histories. 
 
134 GORDON J. LAING. 
 
 At least some such idea is apparently involved in his note at i, 46 
 neque genus quaestus pensi habebat : "pensi is a genitive of price, 
 literally 'at any value.'" 
 
 Boni constdere. 
 
 That this was an old formula we know from Quintilian Inst. 
 Orat. I, 6, 32 sit enim 'Consul' a consulendo vel a iudicando, 
 nam et hoc 'consulere' veteres vocaverunt, unde adhuc remanet 
 illud 'rogat boni consulas,' id est bonuni iudices. Cp. also Paul, 
 ex Fast. (p. 29 de Ponor) ' consulas ' antiqui ponebant non tan- 
 tum pro 'consilium petas' et 'perconteris,' sed etiam pro 'iudices' 
 et 'statuas.' It survived as an archaism, occurring sporadically 
 in all periods of the language. An old fashioned homely phrase, 
 it is found most frequently in writings in which there is a tendency 
 to use colloquial Latin, or where at least there is no effort made 
 in the direction of an elevated style. 
 
 We find it first of all in Plaut. True. 429 boni consulas. Cp. 
 Cist. 468 ut illud quod tuam in rem conducat, aequi consulam. 
 Cato uses it Orat. Reliq. (p. 41 Jordan) eane fieri bonis, bono 
 genera gnatis, boni consulitis? and Varro L. L. 7, 4 M. potius 
 boni consulandum quani . . . reprehendendum. It occurs in Priap. 
 53, 6 consula poma boni, in familiar address to the least dignified 
 of Italian deities, and in Ovid's pleading line, Trist. 4, i, 106 car- 
 men, interdicta mihi, consule, Roma, boni. Cp. Ep. ex Pont, i, 
 3, 94 and 3, 8, 24. Augustus, a man of plain speech, makes use 01 
 it in his letter to Horace, Suet, de poetis (p. 47, 8 Reifferscheid) 
 libellum tuum, quem ago . . . boni consulo. Columella 10, 
 praaf. 5 has boni consulat, si non sit dedecori. It is a mannerism 
 of Seneca's; cp. Ep. 17, 7 id boni consulet; ib. 123, i hanc coqui 
 ac pistoris moram boni consulo ; Ben. 1,8, i ; ib. 5, 17, 5 ; 7,1,1; 
 Dial. I, 2, 4 quicquid accidit boni consulant ; 11, 10,6. In all 
 these instances it has a direct object. Somewhat less definite is 
 Ben. 2, 28, I hoc initium est : boni consulamus. With si clause 
 Ep. 75. 4 sed si ita conpetit, ut . . . , boni consulet; ib. 88, 14 
 si quid remittitur, boni consulo; ib. 108, 10. Other examples 
 are Plin. N. H. 33 prooam. 2, 4; ib. 8, 16, 44; Quintil. 6 
 prooem. 16 boni autem consulere nostrum laborem ; Plin. Ep. 
 7. 12, 3 quod si feceris, boni consulam. Apuleius, true to his 
 archaizing tendency, shows some examples: Flor. i, 7 fin. 
 Apol. 16 mad., with accusative and infinitive, ego non mirer, si 
 
NOTES ON THE LATIN VERBS OF RATING. 135 
 
 boni consulis me de isto distortissimo vultu tuo dicere ; ib. 99 
 init. In Met. 8, 9 we have a development in the addition of the 
 superlative: boni ergo et optimi consules, si. . . . Met. 6, 3 is 
 probably another example of the use of optimi, although in this 
 case many of the MSS have optime. We find it again in its 
 simple form in Dig. 4, 4 fin.; ib. 23, 3, 12, i ; Auson. Ep. 16, i 
 (p. 175 Sch.) quod tu etsi lectum non probes, scriptum boni con- 
 sules ; and in a number of places in the letters of Symmachus, 
 with accusative i, 20 (15), 3 ut ... has adlegationes boni con- 
 sulas; I, 30 (24); 4, 58, i; 8, 49 ; with accusative and infinitive 
 3, II, I deesse huic epistulae Atticam sanitatem boni consule. 
 
 Aequi bonique facer e. 
 
 This phrase is more distinctly colloquial. It occurs in Ter. Heaut. 
 788 ceterum equidem istuc, Chremes, aequi bonique facio. Cp. 
 Plant. Mil. 784 aequi istuc facio, 'that's all the same to me.' 
 Cicero Att. 7, 7, 4 has qui totum istuc aequi boni facit ; Liv. 34, 
 22, 13 in a speech ceterum si . . . nos aequi bonique facimus ; 
 Apul. Met. I, 5 init. istud quidem quod poUiceris aequi bonique 
 facio ; ib. 11, 18 oblationes honestas aequi bonique facio ; Symm. 
 I, 50 (44), I. 
 
 Nihil pensi esse, habere, etc. 
 
 Of the expressions in which pensi occurs, the earliest type is 
 exemplified in Plant. True. 765 nee mi adeost tantillum pensi iam 
 quo capiani calceos. Of the same kind is Sail. C. 52, 34 quibus 
 si quicquam umquam pensi fuisset . . . ; cp. also Liv. 26, 15, 4 
 quis neque quid dicerent neque quid facerent quicquam unquam 
 pensi fuisset; id. 34, 49, 7; 42, 22, 3 illi cui nihil pensi sit ; 43,7,11 
 quibus nihil neque dicere pensi sit neque facere ; Sidon. Apoll. 
 Ep. 3, 13; Greg. Tur. i, 149, 26 (Arndt) in Cantino autem nihil 
 sancti, nihil pensi fuit. 
 
 In all these examples esse is the verb used. Nihil {nee quic- 
 quani) pensi habere is probably not much later in origin, although 
 its first appearance in extant literature seems to be in one of the 
 sententiae ascribed to Caecilius Balbus (p. 127 in Friedrich's 
 edition of Publilius Syrus) nil pensi habere insanientem est vivere. 
 Sallust uses it C. 23, 2 neque dicere neque facere quicquam pensi 
 habebat; ib. 5,6; 12, 2 linked with moderati : pudorem pudici- 
 tiam . . . nihil pensi neque moderati habere ; id. J. 41, 9 nihil 
 
136 GORDON J. LAING. 
 
 pensi neque sancti habere ; Sen. Ben. i, 9, 5 ; Suet. Ner. 34 ; id. 
 Dom. 12. In Gell. 13, 12, 2 we find a variation of the phrase in 
 ratum pensumque nihil haberet, where the form of pensum is 
 probably due to that of ratum. Lactantius i, 481, i has nihil 
 denique moderati aut pensi habent, dummodo . . . , where the 
 phraseology is very similar to that of Sallust C. 12, 2 cited above ; 
 Sulp. Sev. 103, 8 certe Ithacium nihil pensi, nihil sancti habuisse. 
 So far, it will be observed, the genitive invariably depends upon 
 some negative word or phrase such as nihil or nee quicquam. 
 Just when the freer type was developed, in which the negative is 
 no longer used, and the genitive depends directly upon the verb, 
 cannot be definitely ascertained. The first evidence of this 
 emancipation is perhaps found in Liv. 34, 31, 3 in me quoque vobis 
 quid faceretis, minus pensi esse, but the first positive example is 
 Val. Max. 2, 9, 3 nee pensi duxerat isdem imaginibus ascribi. 
 This precedent is followed by Tacitus, Ann. 13, 15 neque fas 
 neque fidem pensi haberet ; Dial. 29 nee quisquam . . . pensi 
 habet quid . . . Cp. also Symm. Ep. i, 73 (67); ib. i, 75 (69) 
 hunc ut pensi habeas; 3, 17, i ut in reliquum pensi habeas 
 amicitiae diligentiam. It is in this last stage of its development 
 that pensi comes closest to the Genitive of Value. 
 
 University op Chicago. GoRDON J. LaING. 
 
THE PENTAPODY IN GREEK POETRY. 
 
 There is nothing more striking in the history of Greek metres 
 than the fact that at the beginning of the literature we find so 
 highly developed a form of verse as the dactylic hexameter, a 
 tetraseme hexapody, evidently not representing the people nor 
 coming from them. The solemn, majestic dactylico-spondaic 
 verse, so well adapted to song in service of the gods, had naturally 
 been employed by those early leaders of the people, the priests ; 
 it was used in the course of time, in the form of the hexameter, to 
 the exclusion of all other measures ; we find it so used by the 
 great poet himself in the two works which mark for us the begin- 
 ning of the literature. How long the process of evolution and 
 firm establishment of this composite verse lasted we may never 
 know ; certainly long enough to make its use a fixed law which 
 no one might easily transgress. The first change is seen in the 
 introduction of the elegiac distich ; but this is still dactylic, and 
 the hexameter is still a component part. All admiration is there- 
 fore due the man who could completely break away from the 
 thraldom of binding custom and introduce new verse forms,, 
 especially those which were dear to the people : we have in this 
 at least one reason why Archilochus should be placed next to the 
 immortal Homer. Archilochus it was that gave to Greek litera- 
 ture the triseme, the iambic and trochaic forms of verse; it 
 was he that brought forth the tetrapody and the tripody; in 
 Archilochus, too, we find the first possibilities of a pentapody. It 
 is true, the second member of the elegiac distich — the broken hex- 
 ameter—was called a pentameter by the ancient writers on metrics, 
 and it still keeps the name; but in cases like this even those who 
 insist most earnestly on the necessity of paying due honor to the 
 theories of the ancients must recognize that their methods were 
 not always right. 
 
 To the student of metres the pentapody has always been an 
 interesting combination of verse feet. Not naturally a verse 
 which appeals to the people it has yet become one of the most 
 familiar in modern literature, although every where its first appear- 
 
138 E. H. SPIEKER. 
 
 ance calls for explanation, and that explanation is not always 
 forthcoming. Abstractly considered as a combination of units the 
 number five might seem to be symmetrical enough, but in verse 
 it is the Tcrpas that has held its own for the poetry of nations, and 
 for Greek poetry it is besides this the ever-insistent duodecimal 
 element which wins the victory over the decimal. In modern 
 song and hymn for the people it is certainly the tetrapody and 
 the tripody that reign supreme; wherever a pentapody shows 
 itself it is felt to be at least unusual. In some cases such pen- 
 tapodies are easily resolved into the component dipody and 
 tripody, as in the hymns 'Abide with me, fast falls the eventide'; 
 'Jerusalem, du hochgebaute Stadt'; 'Ich habe gnug, mein Jesus 
 lebet noch'; in other cases this is not so readily done, as in 
 Luther's 'Jesaia dem Propheten das geschah.' In all, however, 
 the music will be found to have taken up an even number instead 
 of the number five, and this change is brought about by lengthen- 
 ing the note on a syllable either at the beginning or at the end of 
 the line, or by pause. It is of considerable importance in the 
 study of the pentapody on Greek ground to bear in mind that in 
 the best period it is altogether restricted to lyric poetry, never 
 used in continuous stichic arrangement, and by no means largely 
 used in lyric poetry. 
 
 Like the hexapody it is apparently a composite verse, but that 
 it in all cases so originated is not so certain. Of the several 
 kinds of pentapody which we meet in Greek poetry the dactylic 
 and the iambic-trochaic seem to be not so much a composition 
 as rather a new creation, a conscious enlargement of a series 
 which already included tetrapody and hexapody. In the 
 dactylo-epitrite (Doric) group we have to deal with an 
 evident union of different elements; not only was the com- 
 position felt at first, but it must also have been felt, more or 
 less, throughout. The ease with which the component parts 
 are separated is one of the striking features of its use. The 
 logaoedic group includes especially the Sapphic and the Alcaic 
 pentapodies, and the pentapody of the skolia, the Phalaecean ; 
 all of these are very familiar verses which might easily produce 
 on the mind of the reader the impression that the pentapody 
 is an ordinary phenomenon in Greek poetry. They are part 
 of a series of lines which mark the simplest and earliest union 
 between the trochaic and the dactylic elements, and which are 
 
THE PENTAPOD V IN GREEK POETR V. 1 39 
 
 of all logaoedic combinations the most popular. The series 
 includes the Adonic, the Pherecratean, the Glyconic, and the 
 lines named above, that is, nionodactylic' logaoedic dipodies, 
 tripodies, tetrapodies, and pentapodies. In the case of the pen- 
 tapody we have different names if the dactyl occurs in different 
 feet, but the lines are all only different manifestations of the same 
 general type, just as the Glyconic remains a Glyconic, no matter 
 in which foot the dactyl is found. In the formation of these 
 pentapodies the tendency to make use of monodactylic logaoedic 
 lines was no doubt fundamental, but it seems not unlikely that 
 they were in part based on lines like those of which Archilochus 
 has left us three: these are the fragments loi^; 102, vcj)' 17801/^? 
 (raXevne'vr] KopavTj ; 116. We are here Standing on the border-land 
 between pentapody and hexapody ; there may have been synco- 
 pation of the last foot (as is generally supposed), the single long 
 syllable being extended to occupy the time of the entire foot, or 
 the last two syllables may form a trochee, the last being short in 
 the syllaba anceps, just as we not infrequently find a long syllable 
 similarly shortened in the final dactyl of an Aeolic dactylic 
 pentapody.' For Archilochus it was perhaps the former feeling 
 that was uppermost : with him it may have meant a syncopation 
 of the trimeter which he himself introduced ; but the other scansion 
 could easily, and soon, arise. The line becomes fairly familiar 
 after Archilochus, and, with the tendency to form monodactylic 
 logaoedic lines, it is not difficult to conceive how the use of a 
 tribrach in the third foot (the metre being regarded as trochaic with 
 anacrusis) could have led to the formation of both the Sapphic 
 (with, and without, anacrusis) and Alcaic verses. Such a tribrach 
 we have in Alcman 75 ^Si; jrapc^ei nviwiov re ttoXtov, in which, it is 
 true, there is a possibility of synizesis in the third foot, but the 
 tribrach is more likely. It is most interesting and suggestive to 
 note that the strophe of Bacchylides I (3),' of the recently dis- 
 
 'In three of the skolia (9, 11, 12), two dactyls are employed, but this is 
 due to the exigency of the use of the names Harmodius and Aristogiton. 
 
 ' In citations of the melic and the iambic poets the numbering of Bergk 
 (fourth edition) is given. 
 
 ^ Cf. Alcaeus 25, avrpifu r&xa rav ndXiv a S ixtrai pSna^; Sappho 32; 
 loi, 2; Theocritus 29, passim. 
 
 ■•The numbering of these odes is that given in Smyth's edition of the 
 melic poets; numerals in parentheses give Kenyon's arrangement. 
 
I40 E. H. SPIEKER. 
 
 covered odes, consists of a line like that from Alcman just cited, 
 two tetrapodies,' and a Sapphic pentapody. This certainly 
 proves that Bacchylides felt the line as a pentapody (if he felt 
 the Sapphic line as a pentapody); but it also proves no less 
 that the iambic line in question was closely associated in his 
 mind with the Sapphic. When we find on line 85 of the 
 same ode the tribrach in the second foot, where the dactyl 
 is found in the Phalaecean, there is even more suggestion, all 
 culminating in the use of the simple iambic line of Archil - 
 ochus in the corresponding line of the antistrophe, line 89. 
 There are no pentapodies that are more familiar and none deserve 
 to be called popular to the same extent. Other logaoedic pen- 
 tapodies are essentially different : none of them occur more than 
 a few times in the literature, not a few only once, and all are 
 creations for the time being, their formation rendered possible by 
 the existence of the monodactylic types and of the dactylic pen- 
 tapody. In many it is difficult to avoid the feeling of composi- 
 tion, so much so that at times it is not easy to decide whether we 
 have dipody + tripody, or pentapody. It is only the eurhythmic 
 structure of the whole that can finally decide the question, and 
 where the material is not full enough we may never know the 
 answer. 
 
 Before taking up a rapid survey of the use of the pentapody in 
 Greek poetry it may be well to bear in mind that here as else- 
 where, if not more than elsewhere, one looks in vain for agree- 
 ment among the editors, either as to the reading or as to the 
 proper division of the lines, with the result that pentapodies 
 appear and disappear according to the editor one follows. Again, 
 where there is agreement as to what constitutes a line, the decision 
 as to whether we have a pentapody or not is often fraught with 
 more than ordinary difficulty : what at first sight seems to be a 
 five-foot line is often shown by a study of the whole ode to be a 
 case of dipody + tripody ; or, and this is a possibility always to 
 be borne in mind, we may have to deal with syncopation, either 
 at the beginning or at the end of the line, so that what seems to 
 be a pentapody is really an hexapody. In the following the 
 
 'In these telrapodies we have the addition of anacrusis to the fourth 
 line of the Alcaic stanza. 
 
THE PENTAPOD Y IN GREEK POETR V. 14I 
 
 guidance of Schmidt ' will be followed in the main throughout. 
 It may be that for Germany Gleditsch' is right in the conclusion 
 of his statement that "infolge der Unwissenschaftlichkeit und 
 Willkiirlichkeit seines Verfahrens hat er unter den Philologen 
 nur einen beschrankten Anhangerkreis gefunden," but we must 
 resent the protasis. If any are arbitrary it is those who preceded 
 Schmidt, including the ancients ; and surely if his method is not 
 truly scientific, one must despair of ever reaching a definition of 
 the term. 
 
 We have seen that Archilochus gives us three examples of a 
 possible pentapody, although in him these lines are perhaps to be 
 scanned as syncopated iambic trimeters. In Alcman * we find the 
 
 first dactylic pentapody: 51,06 yap tyatpya, f<ipaa-a-a, Ai6s Biyarep. 
 
 We also find the Aeolic" dactylic pentapody in 17. In 71, oIkKov 
 'AXx/uawi/ ipfio^aro, we have a trochaic ° pentapody, if the line is 
 complete in the fragment quoted by Athenaeus, IV 140 C. Of 
 lines like those cited from Archilochus Alcman gives several: 
 I. 3; 4; 6; 7; 36; 74 A; 74B ; 75; 81. They are probably to 
 be taken as pentapodies. Fragment 62, Evco/imr re xal iieiOSis 
 a8€K(pd, gives us the first example in Greek literature of the mono- 
 dactylic logaoedic pentapody, if Plutarch (de fort. Rom. c. 4) has 
 not omitted any words in his quotation ; as it stands we have in 
 this first example the rare use of the single dactyl in the first foot. 
 
 In fragment 39, xpiatov Sp/iov tx"'" poS'""" ir«TuXot<rt (caXp^av, if we put 
 
 the last word on the second line, we have another dactylic penta- 
 pody, although Bergk's reading, TrcraXoir 'laa KoKxav, making the 
 
 'Schmidt has shown in §31 of his Antike Compositionslehre that the 
 pentapody occurs as the principal member o£ the period only in commatic 
 songs, and he adduces a representative collection of examples from the 
 tragic poets and from Pindar to prove his point. Other writers on metrics 
 generally content themselves with the statement that the pentapody occurs 
 rarely and give a few examples of the more familiar types. 
 
 ' Metrik der Griechen und Romer, §3 of the introduction. 
 
 •■' From Alcman to Simonides inclusive all pentapodies are given. 
 
 ■• See Hephaestion, p. 24, Westphal's edition. 
 
 5 It has also been taken as iambic, but cf. 70, ktittI rq iivhf ipviprJTai k^ttI 
 Talc: avvamMaic. Both the trochaic and the iambic pentapodies are very rare 
 and occur later in the dramatic poets. The trochaic occurs in Aesch. 
 Agam. 765 = 775; Soph. Aj. 405 = 424; Eurip. Troad. 290: the iambic in 
 Aesch. 408 = 425; generally there is doubt as to the arrangement, as in 
 Aesch. Suppl. 136= 146; Eur. Iph. Aul. 1523. 
 
142 E. H. SPIEKER. 
 
 line an hexameter, is probably correct.' Besides these pentapo- 
 dies there are several lines which might seem to be of the same 
 class, but are to be scanned otherwise. Such are 60, 5, xai KvaAai^ 
 Iv ^evOiai irop(t>vpeas &X6s (where we have dipody + tetrapody, the 
 scheme of the whole being 33433 242 333); 83^; 87,2. 
 In Alcman, then, we find only a few examples of the dactylic 
 pentapody and possibly one each of the trochaic and of the 
 monodactylic logaoedic type, while the iambic line of Archilochus 
 is well represented by nine examples. 
 
 In the poem attributed to Arion several pentapodies occur, 
 dactylic and logaoedic, but the poem represents a later period, 
 and so does not count for that which we are now considering. 
 
 In Alcaeus we find above all the monodactylic line which goes 
 by his name: i; 9; 13 B (incomplete); 14; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22 
 (incomplete); 23 (Hiller-Crusius (35) gives a different reading); 
 26 ; 34 ; 35 ; 65 ; 68 ; 74. The Sapphic line occurs in 5 ; 36 ; 77. 
 Aeolic pentapodies are found in 25 and 93. 89, oiSe n ixwiifievos 
 aWvi TO voTjixa (quoted by the scholiast to Horn, Od. XXI 7 1), as 
 it stands might seem to be a dactylic pentapody, but it is of a 
 kind such as is found nowhere else. Either iavTa is to be added, 
 
 'Bergk at first read the line without change or addition, thus giving us 
 an early specimen of dactylo-epitrite verse, but one of a kind that does 
 not occur in the later poets who use the metre. The reading would be 
 interesting as recalling Pindar's unusual line, Pyth. Ill 4, Ovpavida ydvov 
 evf)Vfii<SovTa Kpdvov, jiaaaami r' apx^iv UaXiov rjir/p' ayporspov, where the 
 division is different, the scheme being either 54 z or 3 2 2 2 2. Nowhere 
 else does Pindar give us in the dactylo-epitrite metre a pentapody con- 
 taining four dactyls, or a tripody consisting of three. It is interesting, too, 
 to note that the tendency to make use of epitrite combinations, so natural 
 to the language, and showing itself constantly in iambic and trochaic 
 lines, appears after a dactyl in Alcman 62, cited above. 
 
 ''These two lines : 
 
 Tvepiaaov. al yap 'Ait6?i^uv 6 XuKr/oc;. 
 
 'Ifw caXaaaopsdoLO^ ai> airb /inut^uv 
 are quoted by Hephaestion (p. 46), in the chapter in which he gives his 
 explanation of the Sapphic and the Alcaic verses, and of the Sapphic and 
 the Phalaecean with anacrusis. It is not surprising that the presence of 
 two ionics in the lines quoted, or of a choriamb in the Sapphic, and also in 
 the Alcaic, should have appealed to Hephaestion ; when, however, he finds 
 an ionic (in anaclastic form) as the central element of the Phalaecean with 
 anacrusis (Sappho 58 and 59) we can only wonder at the ingenious results 
 of his search. 
 
THE PENTAPODY IN GREEK POETRY. 143 
 
 making the line an hexameter, or ^iwa^uvot should be changed 
 to livi/a/ievos (cf. iiivjitri Hom. Od. XXI III), the line then being 
 ionic. 94 gives us (possibly) the first example of the Doric 
 pentapody, which later became so familiar a type : 
 
 T&p/iEva TiA/iirpa Keavr' iv Jivpai7i.i/<i> ; 
 
 Hephaestion distinctly says, (p. 51,) that these are examples of 
 the so-called eyKaiito\oytK6v, that is, of the Doric pentapody. As 
 we lack the setting it is impossible to speak with certainty : it is 
 not unlikely that to Alcaeus the lines were logaoedic and that 
 there was syncopation at the end of the line. 
 
 Bergk's troublesome dual fragment, 55, is interesting as giving 
 us a Sapphic line with anacrusis: IottXok ayva fi.fXIi.ixop.fiSe sdn-^oi; 
 this line is given by Hephaestion himself as an example of the 
 'AXxaiKox SoideKaaiiWa^ov. Bergk assumed that the other line, fle'Xw 
 Ti f ciTrr,!/, axXci IXC Ka\i(i aiSwr is One of the Same kind, but this is 
 manifestly wrong, as the assumption compels us to admit either 
 an impossible use of two dactyls, or else a violent synizesis 
 between the last two words. Whoever wrote the second frag- 
 ment, it was undoubtedly written in the Alcaic metre, and aUas is 
 to be separated from the rest (see Smyth's note to Sappho viii). 
 As to the Sapphic line with anacrusis, it seems to have been a 
 recognized type ; witness its use by Stesichorus (49), and the fact 
 that the ancients gave it a name. 
 
 102, eya> nev ov Sfto ravra fiapTvpeivras, might be taken as an asyn- 
 artete hexapody ; it seems rather to be an example of the Archi- 
 lochian line discussed above, now unquestionably a pentapody. 
 
 Sappho gives us first her own line ini; 2;3;4;5;6;7; 
 9; 10; 11; 12; 13 (incomplete); 14; 15 (incomplete) ; 16; 17; 
 18 ; 19 ; 20 (incomplete) ; 22 ; 26 ; and in the ode to her brother 
 Charaxus : a comparatively small number when we bear in mind 
 that antiquity had an entire book of odes composed by Sappho 
 in this metre. There are more Aeolic dactylic pentapodies of hers 
 preserved than of either Alcman or Alcaeus : 32 ; 33 ; 34 ; 35 ; 37 
 (H.-Cr. change so as to produce a different verse) ; 38 ; 39 ; loi 
 104. Hephaestion quotes 33 as an example of the acatalectic 
 pentameter, 104 for the catalectic type. Of these, too, antiquity 
 possessed an entire book. In 103 we have the Archilochian line, 
 which Hephaestion cites (p. 14) as his example of a catalectic 
 
144 •^'- ^^- SPIEKER. 
 
 line, and he plainly states that the last syllable takes the place of 
 an entire foot : it is more than likely that for Sappho the line was 
 a pentapody. The Alcaic line occurs in the famous fragment 28, 
 supposed to be her answer to Alcaeus 55, and in 29. The Phal- 
 kecean with anacrusis is found in 58 and 59 : part of the ordinary 
 Phalaecean is probably in 21 and 105. 57 A, xpv''<"t>"l Sepdnaivav 
 'A<j>po8iTas, might be regarded as a Doric pentapody, but is un- 
 doubtedly, as Bergk says, logaoedic. In 51, k^ 8' an^poalas fih 
 
 KpaTTip cKfKpaTO, and 54,' Kpfi<r<rai pv ttot £fi' ippiKims ■nobeaaiv, we have 
 
 a type of line such as occurs not infrequently in the later poets; 
 lines of this kind contain a logaoedic tripody (especially a Phere- 
 cratean), together with a cretic or a choriamb, either of which may 
 be at the beginning or at the end of the line. Such lines may be 
 pentapodies, but the division into dipody and tripody is always a 
 possibility, or we may have an hexapody by syncopation at the 
 €nd of the line. 
 
 Coming to Stesichorus we find the dactylic pentapody used 
 in 8 and 50, 3; the latter after one of the dactylo-epitrite 
 kind, an unusual combination. Dactylo-epitrite pentapodies 
 are now an assured metrical condition. The looseness of the 
 tie between the parts is shown in 35, 37 and 42, where the 
 epitrite occurs between two dactylic tripodies, an arrangement 
 which is met with not infrequently in Pindar. In 29, i an epitrite 
 precedes a series of dactylic tripodies : the dipody is pro-odic and 
 there is no pentapody. In 51 a dactylic tripody precedes a 
 ditrochee : according to Hephaestion (p. 25) such a line (without 
 anacrusis) was called a Praxillean verse and he speaks of it as 
 logaoedic. If this combination was ever felt as dactylo-epitrite, 
 the feeling soon was lost, for in the large number of Pindaric odes 
 written in that metre three dactyls are not found in pentapodies, 
 although they do occur in tetrapodies. If 46 is complete, we 
 have a rare iambic pentapody with resolution in the second foot. 
 36 is hardly complete ; as it stands it would be a cretic + synco- 
 pated Glyconic, that is, an hexapody. The second line of the 
 famous palinode (32),oiS' ejSat iv vava-h tvaeKpiois is not a pentapody 
 but an hexapody by syncopation of feet at the end. Such heap- 
 ing of long syllables, each constituting a foot, is not at all usual 
 in Doric poetry ; in logaoedic verse it is somewhat more frequent, 
 
 ' Hephaestion cites this as an example of ionic verse. 
 
THE PENTAPOD V IN GREEK POETR Y. 1 45 
 
 beginning with Simonides. 17 is probably a tetrapody like 
 Ibycus I, 4. 
 
 Ibycus presents only a few instances of the use of pentapody. 
 An apparent example is found in Bergk's reading of i, 10; here 
 the reading TreSnflfi/ for TtaihoBtv brings the line into harmony with 
 the dactylic character of all that precedes, and it removes the 
 pentapody. 21 is a Praxillean verse with anacrusis. 6, 2 and 
 22, 2, which might be taken as dactylo-epitrite, especially the 
 former, are to be taken as logaoedic. 
 
 Anacreon also has but few pentapodies. Hephaestion cites 70, 
 opo-oXoTTor ^eV'Apijs t^iXcei lievalxiiav, as an example of the encomio- 
 logicum : this line as well as 72 and 72 B might easily be con- 
 sidered Praxillean verses, especially the latter. On the other 
 hand 71, 73 and 74 are possible examples of the first-named line. 
 All are probably logaoedic with syncopation at the end. 31, 32, 
 33 and 37 are all lines which might be taken as pentapodies, but 
 are not. In view of Anacreon's fondness for the use of ionics 
 they might be referred to that class ; as logaoedics they would be 
 hexapodies. 36, alvmradrj Trarpt'S' eVo'i/co/iai, as it Stands looks like a 
 pentapody; it may have belonged to some ionic system. All 
 the changes suggested remove it from the list of pentapodies. 79, 
 KotfjLia-ov 8', S ZfS, croXoiKov (j>66yyov, looks like part of a trochaic 
 tetrameter; it may have been an epitrite line; if so, we have 
 syncopation of the last two feet. 
 
 In Simonides we see the dactylo-epitrite pentapody firmly 
 established. It is found in : 7; 8; 57; 70; 71, the last two per- 
 haps logaoedic. 23 might seem to contain in the second line a 
 catalectic pentapody added to an epitrite, but the line is better 
 taken as 232. Three dactyls precede a dipody in the logaoedic 
 lines 53 ; 68 ; 69 ; 80 (in two cases there is lack of agreement as 
 to the reading) : these lines are all variants of the Praxillean line. 
 In fragment 10, 2 we find a dactylic pentapody after an epitrite ; 
 the first line has also been scanned as a pentapody by syncopation 
 of feet at the beginning ; it is, however, altogether uncertain. 
 57> 3 might be considered a rare form of the dactylic pentapody; 
 the rest of the fragment shows it to be tripody -1- dipody. An 
 Alcaic line without anacrusis is found in 37, 13 (Danae and 
 Perseus), and in line 15 a Phalaecean with anacrusis of two short 
 syllables. The Alcaic line without anacrusis occurs also in 73 
 and the Phalaecean in 74. In 4, 4 ; 32, 3 and 36, 4 we find after 
 10 
 
146 E. H. SPIEKER. 
 
 a tripody three long syllables which are to be scanned, by synco- 
 pation, as three feet, making the lines hexapodies. 12, 4 (ending 
 in a cretic) is tripody + dipody ; in the same way the division 
 is to be made in 36, 39 and 46. 
 
 Lamprocles, Pratinas, Diagoras, Cydias and Praxilla give us 
 each a few examples of the types of the pentapody which have 
 been seen in the poets preceding. From Praxilla we have only 
 two specimens of the line which bore her name, and these are the 
 two quoted by Hephaestion (p. 25). It is also interesting to 
 observe that we have in Pratinas 5 (as in Bacchylides 28) a 
 trochaic pentameter. 
 
 In Bacchylides and Pindar, in the latter of whom especially 
 there is more of pentapody material than in any of the poets that 
 precede, the Doric pentapody reaches its largest use. In Bacchyl- 
 ides most are of this type. His logaoedic lines are all simple. 
 In 31 we have a cretic pentapody such as Aristophanes makes use 
 of in the Acharnians and the Knights. In Pindar we find much 
 greater freedom in the treatment of the logaoedic pentapodies : a 
 single dactyl is found in the fourth foot ; tribrachs and syncopated 
 feet are freely used, and, in general, combinations are employed 
 such as we do not find before. The proportion of Doric to loga- 
 oedic lines in Pindar is about 3 : i. The large use of the two 
 forms of the Doric pentapody in Pindar and Bacchylides served 
 to make them the most extensively used of all pentapodies in 
 the literature as we have it, and, as has been seen, they are 
 the least certain of all. But these two poets are not the 
 only ones to make use of the Doric form : others show how 
 familiar a verse it had become. Its use in folk-song, in the 
 Chalcidian love-song, is interesting. Of the tragic poets Euripides 
 is especially fond of it, using it in the Alcestis, Andromache, 
 Hecuba, Electra, Medea, Rhesus and Troades. Sophocles has 
 it in the Trachiniae, and Aeschylus in the Prometheus. The 
 same combination of feet is sometimes employed in logaoedic 
 verse: Euripides has this form in the Bacchae, Helena and 
 Hippolytus ; Sophocles in the Ajax ; Aristophanes in the 
 Knights, Clouds and Ecclesiazusae. In Aristophanes these pen- 
 tapodies are, of course, comic reminiscences of the higher lyric 
 
 style; thus Eqq. 1265, r\ 6oav Imniv eXar^pas adSnv litjSev tr Avcri- 
 
 arparov, recalls the epinikian strain. 
 
 In the later lyric poets the pentapody is not avoided, nor on 
 
THE PENTAPODY IN GREEK POETRY. 147 
 
 the other hand is it much used. The lines found are altogether 
 those simpler forms which we see in the earlier period. Espe- 
 cially interesting is the use of the Aeolic dactylic pentapody in 
 Theocritus, 29. The tendency to play with metres in the effort 
 to produce something which might appeal to the eye shows 
 very clearly that the poetry of the Alexandrine period was no 
 longer truly lyric, that it was intended to be read, not sung. In 
 the attempt to produce verses which in the written form might 
 resemble some concrete object, as an ax, or an egg, or an altar, or 
 a shepherd's pipe, or the wings of love, series of lines of gradu- 
 ally diminishing length were employed, and so the pentapody 
 was naturally made to do duty in its turn, or else a line of the 
 same general length, as a syncopated hexapody. Theocritus, 
 Simmias, Dosiadas, Besantinus, all show examples. In these 
 artificial attempts the writers made use of the most familiar 
 forms, the dactylic, the iambic (such as were cited from Archil- 
 ochus) and the Phalaecean. 
 
 Of the tragic poets we find in Aeschylus a preference for the 
 early types, the dactylic being the only form used in the Eumen- 
 ides. In his logaoedic pentapodies he rarely uses tribrachs (in 
 most cases there is a difference of opinion as to the arrangement 
 of the lines); still less two dactyls, Sept. c. Theb. 321 being the 
 only example that is generally admitted; syncopation at the 
 beginning of the line is found in four of the plays. The Doric 
 pentapody does not show itself except in the Prometheus. In 
 Sophocles we find in the main the same conditions except that he 
 uses more than one dactyl in logaoedic lines with some freedom ; 
 pentapodies containing tribrachs seem certain only' in Oed. Col. 
 216, 218, 220, 222, where the lines are probably to be taken each 
 as tripody + dipody. In Sophocles, too, there is but little of the 
 Doric pentapody. In Euripides, on the other hand, there is much 
 more of this form of verse, the number of lines in the Medea and 
 the Andromache being especially large. In the treatment of 
 logaoedic lines there is more freedom in his plays : tribrachs are 
 used without hesitation, even three occurring on one line, Bacch. 
 598 and Phoen. 1548 (here again editors are by no means agreed 
 as to the arrangement). The largest number of pentapodies is 
 found in the Medea, the smallest (i) in the Cyclops. Aeschylus 
 
 'Schmidt adds in his scheme of the choral odes Oed. Col. 1449 = 1464 
 and Trach. 885. 
 
148 E. H. SPIEKER. 
 
 has the largest number in the Agamemnon, Sophocles in the Ajax. 
 The Antigone and the Oedipus Tyrannus, the best of the latter's 
 plays, show no certain examples : this is all the more striking as 
 they are the only extant tragedies of which this may be said. 
 Aristophanes has examples in the Acharnians (largely paeonic). 
 Knights, Clouds, Birds, Thesmophoriazusae, Frogs and Ecclesi- 
 azusae. The total number of occurrences in each of the dramatic 
 poets is as follows: Aeschylus 119; Sophocles 52; Euripides 
 183; Aristophanes 43. Compare with this a total of 833 for 
 Pindar, 616 of which are dactylo-epitrite. 
 
 Ordinarily pentapodies do not occur in immediate sequence in 
 the choral odes : two together are found in Bacchylides (11 times) ; 
 Pindar (84); Aeschylus (20); Sophocles (11); Euripides (22); 
 Aristophanes (5) : three together in Bacchylides (i) ; Pindar (8) ; 
 Aeschylus (6); Euripides (10) ; Aristophanes (2) : four together 
 in Pindar (26) : five together in Euripides (2). The two examples 
 of five in immediate sequence are found in the Medea 410-416 = 
 421-427. Some editors allow only three pentapodies here, read- 
 ing the last two differently. While it is true that this large use 
 stands alone, it is hard to believe that Schmidt is not right in 
 his division of the lines and his scansion : certainly the lines make 
 five perfect Doric pentapodies. The cases of four consecutive 
 pentapodies in Pindar all occur in the fourth Pythian ode, one at 
 the beginning of each strophe and antistrophe, and they are 
 generally admitted ; they make the unusual instances of heaping 
 in the Medea all the more likely. 
 
 The pentapody associates itself not infrequently with dochmiac 
 verses ; it is then generally pro-odic, although other positions 
 also occur. Of the three tragic poets Euripides shows this 
 tendency most. 
 
 In popular song we have first of all the monodactylic pentapody 
 of the skolia found in the first fourteen of our collection. The use 
 of two dactyls in 9, 11 and 12 has been referred to. 15 is an 
 Alcaic stanza. 28 is written in monodactylic hexapodies and a 
 tetrapody, closing with a pentapody which in the first strophe is 
 a Sapphic line, in the second a Phalaecean. The Sapphic line 
 occurs, too, at the end of 30. The Phalaecean is also found in the 
 first of the carmina popularia if we accept, with Bergk, the reading 
 B-XeioTov ovkov Ui, laukov let, in Athenaeus XIV 618 E, but the other 
 reading which repeats the word ouXov has good authority for it. 
 
THE PENTAPOD Y IN GREEK POETR V. 149 
 
 This popular use is reflected in Aristophanes Eccl. 938-9 = 942-3. 
 Two instances of the Phalaecean among iambic trimeters are met 
 with in Aristophanes, Wasps, 1226-7, verse 1226 being a quotation 
 of the first line of a skolion, and verse 1227 a comic continuation 
 in the same metre. 
 
 To sum up : the pentapody is used most frequently in those 
 forms which most easily admit a separation into dipody and 
 tripody (this includes all Doric pentapodies and a considerable 
 number of logaoedics as well, especially those which begin or 
 end in a cretic or a choriamb) ; most of the certain pentapodies 
 which remain are of the logaoedic type, the familiar monodactylic 
 lines being most important, although many other forms are used, 
 especially in Pindar and Euripides ; the dactylic group is fairly 
 represented in all periods, while least frequent of all are the 
 iambic, the trochaic and the cretic. 
 
 Johns Hopkins Univrrsitv, ^' ri. OPIEKER. 
 
HORACE AND LUCILIUS: A STUDY OF HORACE 
 SERM. I, lo. 
 
 The fourth satire of the first book of Horace deals with the 
 legacy of literary theory which the practice of Lucilius had be- 
 queathed to Roman literature, rather than with the great satirist 
 himself. But the somewhat subtle repudiation of the spirit of 
 Lucilius, which was the main argument of that composition, had 
 provoked the jealous champions of the founder of Roman satire 
 less than the brief words of censure directed against his slovenly 
 form. The result was to bring the personality of Lucilius promi- 
 nently into the quarrel with the theory of satire which Horace 
 had inaugurated. Returning now to the censure of form, which 
 he had made before, Horace adds direct and emphatic criticism 
 of the spirit of Lucilius, but his vehemence is evoked rather by 
 the hostility of living enemies than by antipathy to the dead poet. 
 Horace, in the progress of his own development, had come to 
 feel that satire in the spirit of Lucilius was illiberal, or at all events 
 alien to his own nature, and in the fourth poem of this book had 
 set forth his protest in an impersonal way.' But no writer so 
 young and with so brief a career behind him could challenge the 
 position of a national figure like Lucilius with impunity. His 
 protest had been met with hot counter-protest, and under the 
 fresh smart of hostile criticism this composition is written. In its 
 present form it is apparently the last of all in the first book, but 
 in its conception and first execution it must have followed quickly 
 upon the hostile reception accorded to the fourth. 
 
 Nempe incomposito dixi pede currere versus 
 Lucili. Quis tam Lucili fautor inepte est, 
 ut non hoc fateatur ? at idem, quod sale multo 
 urbem defricuit, charta laudatur eadem. 
 5 nee tamen hoc tribuens dederim quoque cetera : nam sic 
 et Laberi mimos ut pulchra poemata mirer. 
 
 > Cf. the writer's article in A.J. P., vol. xxi, pp. I2i fi., Horace, Serm. I 4: 
 A Protest and a Programme. 
 
152 GEORGE LINCOLN HENDRICKSON. 
 
 The poet points out that the praise which he had awarded to 
 Lucilius has its sharp Hmitations and is far from being general. 
 
 Ergo non satis est risu diducere rictum 
 
 auditoris ; ' et est quaedam tamen hie quoque virtus: 
 
 If these words are to apply to Lucilius as well as to Laberius (as 
 must of course be the case), it is not the laughter of mere clown- 
 ishness which is meant, but the bitter laughter provoked by 
 harsh and abusive jest^ such as Horace describes (in I 4, 35 and 
 78 ff.) as the characteristic aim of satire as usually conceived. 
 But in admitting that mere ability to provoke a laugh is a merit, 
 and in implying that this is the only ground of recognition which 
 he is willing to concede to Lucilius, Horace shows that he had 
 meant to limit the praise which he had formerly bestowed upon 
 his predecessor. And so in the following verses, while he does 
 not deny that Lucilius had developed some features of the style 
 and spirit of satire, he sets over against these qualities certain 
 ideal demands which he misses in the earlier poet. 
 
 est brevitate opus, ut currat sententia neu se 
 10 impediat verbis lassas onerantibus auris, 
 
 et sermone opus est modo tristi, saepe iocoso, 
 defendente vicem modo rhetoris atque poetae, 
 interdum urbani, parcentis viribus atque 
 extenuantis eas consulto. 
 
 The wide divergence of commentators in the detailed interpre- 
 tation of these words seems to demand a careful effort to arrive 
 at the poet's exact meaning. Concerning brevitate there is of 
 course no room for dispute, but with the second precept the 
 difficulties begin. In the phrase sermone tristi the editors and 
 critics are apparently unanimous in giving a false interpretation 
 
 ' Auditoris : ' Man erwartet vielmehr entweder lectoris, oder im Anschluss 
 an die Exemplification au£ Laberius spectatoris : aber der Witz setzt 
 eigentlich HSrer voraus' (Kiessling). The word is drawn rather from the 
 theoretical discussions of the proper limits of jest, which talie account not 
 only of that which it is right to say, but also of that which it is fitting to 
 hear (hence aKmieiv and b amvav, Arist. Eth. Nic, IV 14, passim). 
 
 " Sale multo urbem defricuit (cf. Plutarch, Comp. Arist. et Men. 4 : oi rfc 
 
 ' ApiaTO(pdvovg aXcf, ncKpol Kol Tpax^h ovTtg^ EhiUTini/iJ dpt/xvTJ/ra Kal 6i]KTiKT/v 
 
 Ixovaiv), with which cf. Persius' reminiscence : secuit Lucilius urbem. For 
 
 .Laberius cf. Macrobius' characterization. Sat, II 7,2: asperae libertatis 
 
 equitem Romanum. 
 
HORACE AND LUCILIUS. 153 
 
 to tristi. But it does not here mean 'serious' or 'earnest'. It 
 defines accurately the harsh means by which Lucilius provoked 
 the laughter of his reader with the language of abuse or invec- 
 tive. It designates the cutting jest which aims to hurt and not 
 to please, as in Serni. II i, 21 : quanto rectius hoc quam tristi 
 laedere versu.' It is the quality of satire in Lucilius which 
 Horace has above praised, but praised with reserve. And so 
 here, against a quality to which he does not deny occasional 
 merit (modo), he places the frequent {saepe) or constant require- 
 ment of a tone of playful humor (iocoso). As elsewhere, the 
 theory of satire which Horace presents is identical with the post- 
 Aristotelian theory of comedy, which demanded a union of to 
 ■niKpov (o-^oSpdj') with rh xapUv.* In the succeeding lines — defen- 
 dente vicem modo rhetoris atque poetae, interdum' urbani — there 
 is present the same relation of balance or antithesis between a 
 characteristic which Horace recognizes in Lucilius, and a quality 
 which he demands but fails to find in him. While it is clear that 
 the latter quality, the subtle dpavda of the urbanus, is the requisite 
 which Horace misses in Lucilius, unfortunately we are scarcely 
 in a position to determine how far there was reason to censure 
 him for excess of poetical or oratorical qualities of style. But 
 Juvenal may afford an illustration of the dangers in this direction 
 to which the satirical spirit, untempered by a kindly humor, 
 is exposed.* Furthermore, the portion of the fourth satire, in 
 which Horace denies poetical character to his own work (and 
 to Lucilius), is scarcely intelligible except on the assumption 
 
 ' Similarly the criminosi iambi o£ Carm. I 16, 2 are the tristia o£ vs. 26 
 ib., and cf. Lucil. 963 (Lach.): idque tuis saevis factis et tristibu' dictis. 
 
 'Cf. Platonius ir. kw/z. (UUbner II), in characterization of Aristophanes, 
 and the writer's Excursus on the Theory of Satire in Persius, A. J. P., vol. 
 XXI (1900), p. 140, to which add Hermogenes' definition cited below 
 
 (P- iSS)- 
 
 ^ Interdum merely gives variety to the enumeration, and is not to be 
 taken strictly in the meaning of 'sometimes' (zuweilen), as L. MuUer 
 understands it, making this objectionable meaning a ground for changing 
 urbani to urbane. The usage is well shown by Propertius I 3, 41, who 
 has modo . . . rursus . . . interdum, and II 15, 5 (III 7. S Mlil.) modo . . . 
 interdum. 
 
 ■> Cf. Juvenal's lines VI 634 ff. : fingimus haec altum satura sumenU 
 cothurnum || scilicet, etc.— which are perhaps a truer characterization than 
 the poet meant to give of himself. 
 
1 54 GEORGE LINCOLN HENDRICKSON. 
 
 that literary criticism had attributed to Lucilius poetical qualities 
 which were alien to the spirit and purpose of satire, and which 
 may have been derived from Greek criticism of the old comedy 
 when once the dogma of Lucilian imitation had been established : 
 
 )j hi rraXaia (fX<') ''" 8e«''o>' {rhetoris) koi v-^tjKov (^poetae) rot Xdyou 
 (tt. K6)^. V vs. 7). 
 
 From the time of Lambinus it has been recognized that the 
 words icrbani puree nits viribus aique \\ extenuantis eas constdto 
 are an endeavor to interpret the Greek t'pav, a type of refinement 
 and subtlety which Horace, among Roman writers, is one of the 
 first to attempt to characterize.' And more effective than the 
 scathing wit of Lucilius is the playful humor of the v.pav: 
 
 Kidiculum acri 
 
 15 fortius et melius magnas plerumque secat res. 
 
 It is a precept of Gorgias which had become the common property 
 
 of rhetorical theory : Sciv t^i\ Topyias rqv fikv anovSqn Siafftdelpeiv Tmv 
 
 cvavrmv yeXart (Arist. Rhet. Ill 18). The forms of jest, Aristotle 
 continues, have been named in the Poetics and the gentleman 
 must select a form appropriate to himself, ecri 8' ^ dpavfta (cor- 
 responding to ridiculuni, as defined in the preceding urbani 
 parcentis, etc.) r^r 0<opo\oxias (corresponding to acrt, as defined 
 by the preceding description risu diducere ricium and sermone 
 irisit) fXev6ipta>T(pov (ib. extr.). But as the doctrine had become 
 common property we need not suppose that Horace had the 
 words of Aristotle in mind." 
 
 16 Illi, scripta quibus comoedia prisca viris est, 
 
 hoc stabant, hoc sunt imitandi : quos neque pulcher 
 Hermogenes umquam legit, neque simius iste 
 nil praeter Calvum et doctus cantare Catullum. 
 
 It has been observed that in many respects, not only in this 
 satire but also in the fourth, the attitude of Horace toward 
 Lucilius is analogous to Aristotle's relation to the old comedy. 
 But an important difference should be noted, due to the fact that 
 
 'C£. Ribbeck, Ober den Begrirf des elpuv, Rh. Mus. vol. XXXI (1876), 
 p. 389' In den vergrObernden Nachbildungen [der attischen Komodie] der 
 R6mer ist der Zug so gut wie verloren gegangeu '. 
 
 ■ ' Similarly the author of the Rhet. ad Alex. ch. 35: XP'I iSe h rale KaKoXoyiaig 
 (to which satire as a carmen maUdicum is related) eipuvEveaffai. 
 
HORACE AND LUCILIUS. 155 
 
 Horace does not wholly share Aristotle's point of view.' The 
 latter had repudiated the spirit and style of the old comedy 
 without any reservations. But this sweeping condemnation did 
 not prevail among later critics. Plutarch, to be sure, is animated 
 by the same spirit of hostility in his Comparison of Aristophanes 
 and Menander, but for the most part subsequent literary theory, 
 while recognizing in the old comedy the scurrilous wit which 
 Aristotle condemned, found in it also a liberal spirit of jest, and 
 justified the presence of both (et est quaedam hie quoque virtus). 
 From such criticism was developed the general formulation of 
 comic theory (Hermogenes, n-. ik66&ov SetcoTi/Tor, ch. 36, Sp. II, p. 
 
 455i 18) : Kajxahlat 8e ttXok^ iriKpa {acri) Ka\ yeXoIo (ridtculum). A 
 
 striking illustration of this estimate of old comedy, so different 
 from Aristotle's, is found in Cicero, in an ethical passage on the 
 limits of appropriate jest, which is otherwise thoroughly Aristote- 
 lian. For, in illustration of the liberal jest, he names Atticorum 
 antiqua comoedia (De offic. I 104). Similarly Persius, although 
 like Cicero reproducing the Aristotelian theory of the legitimate 
 forms of humor, nevertheless names the three canonical writers 
 of old comedy as ideal representatives of the appropriate spirit 
 in satire (Sat. I 123 ff., with which cf V 16). 
 
 It is this point of view which Horace also represents in the 
 verses above. Hoc stabant cannot grammatically, and does not 
 logically refer to the whole description preceding (as many edi- 
 tors interpret), except in so far as the sum of the preceding is 
 contained in ridiculum acri^ etc. At all events ridiculum takes 
 up the essence of the description of the urbanus in verse 13. 
 Thus, like Cicero and Persius, Horace praises the writers of the 
 old comedy for their command of an appropriate and becoming 
 form of jest. Hoc sunt imitandi—\n their command of this 
 quality (ridiculum), rather than in their use of the acre, are the 
 writers of the old comedy to be imitated, as they were not imi- 
 tated by Lucilius. For though he is proclaimed as an emulator 
 of them, it is only in their license of speech and their harsh wit 
 that he has reproduced them. But Hermogenes and Demetrius 
 
 'It has seemed necessary for the interpretation of vss. 16 ff. to repeat 
 here in summary, matter which the author has presented more fully in the 
 A. J. P., vol. XXI (1900), pp. 140 ff- 
 
 5 Cf. Porphyrio ad loc. : ad id autem pertinet hoc stabant, quod dixerit 
 ridiculum acri, etc. 
 
156 GEORGE LINCOLN HENDRICKSON. 
 
 {simius istel), with their affected admiration for Lucilius and 
 their resentment of all criticism of him, have never read a play 
 of the old comedy, and in prating of him as a Roman Aristo- 
 phanes or Cratinus, they do not know that he failed to take from 
 those writers that in which their chief strength lay. 
 
 This passage yields incidentally an important result for the 
 history of Roman satire, for it shows that the dogma of Lucilius' 
 relation to the old comedy was not an invention of Horace (as 
 Kiessling, ad Serm. I 4, 6, held), but was a current formulation 
 of the genesis of Roman satire in Horace's day. It is perhaps 
 somewhat surprising to find the friends of Lucilius and the critics 
 of Horace among the quondam vtwrtpoi, a school of poetry which 
 we are not wont to associate with the patriotic and national 
 tendencies which kept fresh the fame of Lucilius. But in lieu 
 of fuller information concerning the literary tastes and affinities 
 of this school, it will suffice to point out that Valerius Cato, the 
 friend of Catullus and the professional representative of the 
 group — qui solus legit et facit poetas — is the open champion of 
 Lucilius.' 
 
 An interpretation of the whole satire is not now contemplated, 
 but only a treatment of the parts bearing upon Horace's estimate 
 of Lucilius, in which current interpretations seemed to require 
 correction or more accurate definition. Therefore the criticism 
 of Lucilius for interspersing Greek with Latin words may be 
 passed over, as well as Horace's justification of his choice of satire 
 as a medium of literary expression. At verse 50 he returns to 
 his indictment of the form of Lucilius, and defends himself against 
 the imputation of affecting superiority to his predecessor because 
 he claims the right of criticism, which Lucilius himself had freely 
 used. 
 
 53 nil comis tragici mutat Lucilius Acci ? 
 
 The words are uttered in a tone of ironical interrogation, as 
 Porphyrio points out," and the irony is contained not only in 
 
 ' Defensore tuo, in the doubtful verses prefaced to this satire in MSS 
 of the III class, 
 
 ' Et hoc interrogativa figura cum ironia quadam pronuntiandum, quia 
 ex contrario intellegendum est. comis autem Lucilius propter urbanitatem 
 "dicitur, et mutat pro eo quod est emendat positum est. Porphyrio com- 
 ments on the two words in which the irony lies. What he means by 
 
HORACE AND LUCILIUS. 157 
 
 muiat, but also in comis. Besides ironical reference to the usual 
 meaning 'kindly', comis perhaps contains suggestion of an 
 etymological word play upon Koiu^bos (fcffl^mSfix), evoked by jux- 
 taposition of comis with tragici, and by the analogous relation 
 of the poets of the old comedy to their tragic contemporaries.* 
 
 56 Quid vetat et nosmet Lucili scripta legentis 
 
 quaerere, num illius, nam rerum dura negarit 
 
 versiculos natura magis factos et euntis 
 
 mollius ac siqais pedibus quid claudere senis, 
 60 hoc tantum contentus, amet scripsisse ducentos 
 
 ante cibum versus, totidem cenatus ? Etrusci 
 
 quale fuit Cassi rapido ferventius amni 
 
 ingenium, capsis quem fama est esse librisque 
 
 ambustum propriis. 
 
 Horace selects two possible explanations for the harshness of 
 Lucilius' verse. They are not alternative, but parallel, for both 
 are true. As for the first, it presents no difficulties ; as the spirit 
 of the man was harsh, so the form of his verse was the expression 
 of it, and lacked that smoothness of movement which a kindlier 
 nature would have found as the vehicle of its thought. It is a 
 type of criticism which is not uncommon.* Concerning rerum 
 natura some have thought that it designates the general crude- 
 ness of the time, but there is no reason for deserting the natural 
 significance of the words — the harsh nature of the subject-matter 
 (res == Trpaynara). But why should Horace suggest an excuse for 
 Lucilius which he does not invoke for himself? Or why should 
 Lucilius find the matter of satire a more difficult material to 
 handle than the Greek satirists, Archilochus and the comic poets? 
 It is not only that the matter was in itself difficult," but chiefly 
 the form chosen by Lucilius which made it so. For while the 
 Greek iambic and comic poets had employed the natural conver- 
 sational metres, the trochaic and iambic, Lucilius had endeavored 
 
 urtanitas may be seen by his comment on vs. 3 o£ this satire : salem pro 
 urbanitate posuit, and especially ad Serm. I 3, 40 : Luciliana urbanitate 
 usus in transitu amaritudinem aspersit. 
 
 • C£. Ddderleir, Kiessling, and Orelli-Mewes ad loc. 
 
 ' Cf. Cicero, Brutus loi : C. Fannius . . . et moribus et ipso genere 
 dicendi durior. ib. 117: Q. Aelius Tubero . . . ut vita sic oratione durus 
 incultus horridus. 
 
 ' Cf. Epp. II 1, 168 on the difficulty of comedy — ex medio quia res arcessit. 
 
158 GEORGE LINCOLN HENDRICKSON. 
 
 to cast the familiar matter of social and personal satire into a 
 form which had only been employed in Latin for the epic* And 
 it can scarcely be denied that the hexameters of Lucilius reveal 
 a certain uncouth, plunging movement, even in more finished 
 specimens of his work, such as the lines on virtus, the metrical 
 eflfect of which Mommsen compares to and renders by German 
 ' Knittelverse' (doggerel)." On the other hand " the fragments 
 of his trochaics and iambics are much simpler, much less depart 
 from the natural order of the words, than those of his hexameters; 
 a fact which reminds us of the great advance made by Horace in 
 adapting the heroic measure to the familiar experience of life 
 (Sellar, p. 348)." The subject-matter therefore is harsh in rela- 
 tion to the form chosen for its expression. 
 
 Thus, for either or both of the reasons named, the verses of 
 Lucilius are so ill-made and have so rough a movement, that his 
 aim would seem to have been only to put together, somehow or 
 other, hexameters in quantity, with the result that the bulk of his 
 writing is so great that it would have furnished fuel for his funeral 
 pyre, as is the story of Cassius Etruscus. Here, as in the fourth 
 satire (vs. 14), Horace turns the edge of his attack by the use of 
 an illustration. As there Crispinus is the foil, so here Cassius 
 Etruscus, but in both cases, of course, the underlying criticism is 
 directed against Lucilius. 
 
 Fuerit Lucilius inquam 
 65 comis et urbanus, fuerit limatior idem 
 
 quam rudis et Graecis intacti carminis auctor 
 quamque poetarum seniorum turba: sad ille, 
 si foret hoc nostrum fato delapsus in aevum, 
 detereret sibi multa, etc. 
 
 It is commonly held that the poet here turns from criticism of 
 Lucilius to recognition of his good qualities, and that accordingly 
 inquam harks back to the praise bestowed in verses 3 and 53 ; 
 but quite incorrectly. The passage grows immediately out of the 
 preceding inquiry into the reasons for the harshness of Lucilius' 
 verse. Horace has named as explanations of it the harsh nature 
 of the poet himself, and the harshness of his subject-matter in 
 
 ' That Horace only takes account of the hexameters of Lucilius in his 
 criticisms appears from Ser. I 4, 6 and vs. 59 above. Cf. Luc. MuUer, 
 ■ Quaest. Lucil. p. XIII (brief and results inconclusive). 
 ' History of Rome (6th German ed.), vol. II p. 446. 
 
HORA CE AND L UCILIUS. I S 9 
 
 relation to the form chosen. Now he turns the same thought 
 about in the form of two hypothetical concessions : ' Grant that 
 his nature was kindly and urbane, grant that he was more 
 finished than was to have been expected of a pioneer in a form 
 of poetry as yet unhewn (jtidis) and unshaped by the hands of 
 Greek predecessors.' It will be seen that illius dura natura is 
 balanced in the concessive form by comis et urbanus, while reruni 
 dura natura, as an explanation of the crude form of Lucihus, is 
 offset by limatior quam rudis et Graecis iniadi carminis auctor. 
 Together the two concessive clauses introduced by fuerit, com- 
 prehend the spirit and the form of Lucilius. 
 
 Horace has already pointed out that, in contrast to the vehe- 
 mence of Lucilius, there was place in satire for the more subtle 
 wit of the urbanus. He has said in verse 7 that Lucilius' con- 
 ception of wit was coarse, and in verses 14-17 he has contrasted 
 the means by which his eiTects were produced with the more 
 successful humor and banter of the old comedy, which he was 
 supposed to have imitated. Finally in the passage just preceding 
 he has designated the nature of Lucilius as harsh. Does Horace 
 then in fact mean to yield any one of these hypothetical conces- 
 sions which he makes with the iterated fuerit ? Certainly not. 
 It is a familiar manner of giving cumulative force to an argument 
 by conceding for argument's sake that which it is well understood 
 is not conceded in fact. ' Even if I granted all this concerning 
 Lucilius, I should still hold that he must have written very differ- 
 ently if he were to satisfy the demands of the present. How 
 much more so, since he was not kindly nor urbane, since he did 
 not even satisfy the demands we may justly make of a pioneer, 
 and since he is not more finished than many of the older poets.' 
 As a matter of grammatical usage it is probably superfluous to 
 point out that this form of concessive expression may or may 
 not contain the writer's real thought or the objective fact.' The 
 characteristic feature of the construction is that the admission is 
 made for argument's sake. Consequently the number of instances 
 
 ' On the construction cf. Madvig 353 (English transl. 352) : Eine An- 
 nahme oder Einraumung von etwas das sick nicht so verhdlt oder das man 
 unentschieden lasst und nicht bestreiten will u. 9. w. Examples in Koby 
 1622. Cases where the concession is clearly not in accordance with the 
 writer's feeling or the fact, Liv. 44, 38 (quarta pars . . . relicta erat. sed 
 fuerimus omnes), Cic. De fin. II 61. 
 
l6o GEORGE LINCOLN HENDRICKSON. 
 
 is large where it is plain that the concession does not represent 
 the real thought of the writer or the fact, and indeed, even where 
 it does, there is frequently a reservation of feeling which implies 
 its untruth. Therefore in designating Lucilius as comis et ur- 
 banus^ Horace makes a concession contrary to his own belief and 
 feeling for the sake of adding cumulative force to his argument. 
 That the words do not represent Horace's own thought may 
 be seen finally from limatior . . . quamque poetarum senioruni 
 turba. For though it is true that Horace is not friendly to any 
 of the earlier Roman poets, we cannot readily believe that he 
 failed to recognize, for example, the immense inferiority of 
 Lucilius to Terence in elegance and finish.'' 
 
 There remain but one or two points which we may regard as 
 criticism of Lucilius. If he were alive to-day 
 
 detereret sibi multa, recideret omiie quod ultra 
 70 perfectum traherelur, et iu versu faciendo 
 saepe caput scaberet, vivos et roderet unguis. 
 
 Porphyrio comments : non cessat autem Lucilium tangere quasi 
 incuriose scripserit, nor need we hesitate to refer the words which 
 follow to criticism of Lucilius, although such reference is appar- 
 ently not entertained by many editors and is expressly repudiated 
 by some. 
 
 Saepe stilum vertas, iterum quae digna legi sint 
 scripturus, neque te ut miretur turba labores, 
 contentus paucis lectoribus. an tua demens 
 75 vilibus in ludis dictari carmina malis ? 
 
 non ego: nam satis est equitem mihi plaudere, ut audax, 
 contemptis aliis, explosa Arbuscula dixit. 
 
 'The epithets, although chosen to offset Horace's own words above 
 (illius dura nahira, vs. 57) may well represent a current characterization 
 of Lucilius by his admirers. Cf. Cic. De orat. I 72 (homo perurbanus) 
 and De fin. I 7 (tirbaiiitas suinmd). In Serm. I 4, 90 Horace criticises the 
 indulgent habit of giving complimentary names to indiscriminating license 
 of speech ; hie tibi comis et urbanus liberque videtur. 
 
 2 See Sellar, p. 248, who refers to Munro's criticism in the Journal of 
 Phil. VH 294 q. V. It will be remembered that Horace has reproduced 
 almost verbatim a considerable passage of the Eunuchus (46 ff.rrSerm. II 
 3, 259 ff.), and that in the Epistle to Augustus and the Ars Poetica 
 Terence escapes the censure which is so generously apportioned to Plautus 
 Ennius and Accius. 
 
MORA CE AND L UCILIUS. 1 6 1 
 
 men moveat cimex Pantilius, aut cruciet quod 
 vellicet absentem Demetrius, aut quod ineptus 
 
 80 Fannius Hermogenis laedat conviva Tigelli ? 
 I'lotius et Varius, Maecenas Vergiliusque, 
 Valgius et probet liaec Octavius optimus atque 
 Fuscus et haec utinam Viscorum laudet uterque. 
 ambitione relegata te dicere possum, 
 
 85 PoUio, te, Messalla, tuo cum fratre, simulque 
 
 vos, Bibule et Servi, simu! his te, candide Furni, 
 coinpluris alios, doctos ego quos et amicos 
 prudens praetereo : quibus haec, sint qualiacumque, 
 adridere velim, doliturus, si placeant spe 
 
 90 deterius nostra. 
 
 But one who has followed the strong personal feeling of this 
 satire through from its initial words will not readily believe that 
 criticism of Lucilius subsides so suddenly at this point, and passes 
 over into merely general precept on the demands of finished exe- 
 cution. Horace has said above rather extravagantly (vs. 51) that 
 there was more in Lucilius that deserved to be eliminated than to 
 be left ; but as in verse 61 he dulls the point of his keenest shaft by 
 the insertion of a comparison, so here (vs. 72) he puts in the form 
 of an universal rule a statement which his audience (and certainly 
 the hostile critics to whom he is addressing himself) cannot well 
 have understood otherwise than as a judgment that Lucilius was 
 scarcely worth a second reading. Again in the words following 
 (neque te ut miretur), in the form of a general injunction, the 
 poet declares the audience for whom he writes, and not without 
 contrast to what he esteems the vulgar popularity of Lucilius, or 
 perhaps even in contrast to a well-known utterance of the latter 
 concerning the audience to which he made his appeal (in book 
 XXVI). At all events one cannot fail to recall in this connection 
 thepublica erudiiorum reieciio (Pliny, N. H. praef. 7) of Lucilius, 
 which was expressed in words which Munro^ reconstructs thus: 
 
 Nee doctissimis scribuntur haec neque indoctissimis: 
 Persium non euro legere, Laelium Decumum volo. 
 
 The passage is brief and the reconstruction of actual words is not 
 certain, but the use made of it by Cicero and Pliny leaves no 
 doubt about the general meaning.'' Certainly it is an interesting 
 
 'Journal of Philology, vol. VIII {1879), p. 210. 
 
 2 Cf. De orat. II 25: Lucilius . . . dicere solebat ea quae scriberet neque 
 ab indoctissimis se neque ab doctissimis legi velle, etc. Madvig, ad De 
 11 
 
l62 GEORGE LINCOLN HENDRICKSON. 
 
 commentary on the great popularity of Lucilius if he did in fact 
 (as seems to have been the case^ make open profession that he 
 wrote for the average man, and not for a select literary circle. 
 Horace on the other hand is content with few readers, men of 
 whose judgment {docti vs. 87) and friendship (amici ib.) he is 
 assured. He will not read to any but his friends and even to them 
 only under compulsion (I 4, 73), nor does he care to see his books 
 thumbed by the sweaty fingers of the rabble (ib. 72). The whole 
 passage breathes the arrogance of an exclusive literary coterie, 
 conscious of ideals beyond those which had hitherto satisfied a 
 democratic taste ; in its conscious contrast to the professed aim 
 of Lucilius, it forms a fitting and triumphant conclusion to the 
 warfare of protest which the poet had raised against undiscrim- 
 inating admiration of elements of harshness in the spirit and form 
 of satire, to which the force of an almost binding tradition had 
 been given. 
 
 The purpose of this analysis has been to ascertain as carefully 
 as possible, and without reference to utterances of a later time, 
 the attitude of Horace toward Lucilius as expressed in this com- 
 position.' It will be seen that only in the general recognition of 
 his predecessor as the originator of the poetical form, and in 
 acknowledgment of his skill in the employment of the harshest 
 weapons of satire, does he treat Lucilius with consideration. His 
 condemnation extends not only to the form but also to the spirit 
 of the earlier satirist. In contrast with this severe arraignment 
 is the first satire of the second book, with its frank and generous 
 recognition of some admirable qualities in Lucilius and an avowal 
 of discipleship, which neither this poem nor the fourth of this 
 book contains. It belongs to a later time and sounds a note of 
 assured position and success, which is no longer disturbed by the 
 hostility of carping critics. But the generous treatment which 
 it accords to Lucilius has done not a little to obscure the fact 
 
 fin. I 7, suspects that different utterances of Lucilius are in Cicero's mind 
 in the two allusions : altero non doctissimis nee tanien rudibus se scribere 
 significabat, Laelii exemplo utens, altero indoctis et vulgo. 
 
 ' The writer regrets that, in spite of diligent search, the dissertation of 
 Herwig, Horatius quatenus recte dc Lucilio iudicaverit, Halle, 1873, has 
 remained inaccessible. 
 
HORACE AND LUCILIUS. 163 
 
 that in this satire Horace's criticism of Lucilius is sweeping and 
 uncompromising.' 
 
 excursus: graecis intacti carminis auctor. 
 The interpretation of this line has been given in the paraphrase 
 above : ' More finished than was to have been expected of the 
 pioneer in a form of poetry as yet unhewn and unshaped by 
 the hands of Greek predecessors'. This is the conception of the 
 passage which is implied in the comments of the scholiasts, it 
 was held by the earliest modern editors, and since Hermann's'' 
 defense of it has been entertained by many modern editors. It is 
 criticised as grammatically impossible because Lucilius is appar- 
 ently compared with himself. It must be acknowledged that the 
 phrase is brief and open to the charge of obscurity, but there is 
 no sphere of language so subject to short-cuts of expression as 
 that of comparison. Nor is Lucilius here, strictly speaking, 
 compared with himself. He is compared rather with an imag- 
 inary auctor in circumstances like his own. A parallel which 
 admits of no ambiguity is cited by Hermann from Tacitus, Hist. 
 Ill 53: Litteras ad Vespasianum composuit iactantius quam ad 
 principem." The simplest and most natural confirmation of this 
 view is afforded by verse 48, in which Horace alludes to Lucilius 
 as the inventor of satire.* 
 
 ' The general attitude of interpretation toward this poem is expressed 
 by K. F. Hermann's (Disput. de sat. Rom. auct. Marburg 1841) comment 
 on vs. 54 : quum hoc Horatio per totam satiram propositum sit, ut quantum 
 possit Lucilio concedat.modo ne curam et diligentiam in eomaiorem agno- 
 scere cogatur, quam quae re vera in eius carminibus appaieat, vel hac de 
 causa ea interpretatio praeferenda erit, quae plus laudis in ilium conferai. 
 The favorable interpretation began in antiquity, so that against the obvious 
 meaning of the language and the context, saepe ferentem \\ plura quidem 
 tollenda relinquendis (vs. 50) was distorted into praise, and tollenda, as if 
 excerpenda (v. Porph. ad I 4, 11), is interpreted by laudanda and imitanda. 
 Ps.-Acro ad loc. C£. also Porphyrio on vs. 1. The comment of Ps.-Acro 
 is probably drawn from Porphyrio (cf. Porphy. on I 4, 11), whose note is 
 lost. It is probable that the distortion of Horace's meaning is due to 
 archaistic affinities, which Porphyrio elsewhere reveals. 
 
 ' K. F. Hermann, Disputatio de satirae Rom. auctore ex sententia 
 Horatii Serm. I 10, 66 (Marburg, 1841). 
 
 3 See other examples ap. Hermann pp. 13-15' 
 
 * But a zealous advocate of Ennius has faced the difficulty— with what 
 success the reader may judge. On vs. 48 L. MUller says: Lucilius heisst 
 
l64 GEORGE LINCOLN HENDRICKSON. 
 
 The criticism which has done most to displace this interpre- 
 tation, and to cause preference to be given very widely to the 
 reference of the words to Ennius as the carminis auctor, is the 
 fact that in Serm. I 4 Horace has already said that Lucilius is a 
 close follower of the old comedy, and therefore can here scarcely 
 afifinn with consistency that Lucilius in taking up satire found 
 it Graecis intadam. This objection has already been met by 
 pointing out that the harshness of Lucilius' subject-matter did 
 not so much lie in the subject-matter itself, as in the treatment of 
 it in a metrical form not appropriate to its nature. In relation to 
 the hexameter the res were as yet rough and unhewn, for the 
 practice of Greek predecessors had not pointed the way to the 
 successful employment of this verse for the familiar matter of 
 satire. The reference, it will be seen, is to form and not to con- 
 tent, and the passage therefore in no way comes into conflict with 
 the affirmation of Lucilius' dependence on the old comedy, a 
 dependence which is expressly stated to have been one of spirit 
 and not of form {mutatis tantum pedibus numerisque). And what 
 else than allusion to form can limaiior contain ? Obviously the 
 labor limae by which the raw material is wrought into a work of 
 art is a question primarily of form, and the more naturally so in 
 view of the sharper distinction between form and content which 
 belongs to all ancient literary theory. This is furthermore the 
 interpretation of Porphyrio, who says against the lemma Graecis 
 intacti carminis auctor: hoc ideo dictum, quia nulli Graecorum 
 hexametris versibus hoc genus operis scripserunt. (That Horace 
 has in mind only the hexameter verse of Lucilius has been 
 indicated). The status then in Horace's time of the inquiry into 
 the relation of Lucilius to predecessors was, that in matter and 
 spirit he drew from the old comedy, but that in form he was 
 independent of Greek models. It is probably this conclusion 
 which, with patriotic exaggeration, Quintilian represents in the 
 famous words satura quidem, tota nostra est} 
 
 dem Horaz inventor weil er die urspriingliche Satura erst in die gute 
 Gesellschaft eingeftihrt hat. Compare with this the same editor's note 
 on vs. 66: Gemeint ist Ennius der durch seine sechs Oder mehr Biicher 
 Satiren zuerst die altromische Satura in die Literatur einfuhrte. 
 
 ' Quintilian groups the non-dramatic Greek poets with reference to 
 metrical form, viz., the writers of hexameter, elegiac, iambic, and lyric 
 verse. The Roman poets are arranged in the same order, except that, 
 
HORACE AND LUCILIUS. 165 
 
 Supplementary, but by no means contradictory, to this conclu- 
 sion, is the account of Roman satire which is presented by the 
 Byzantine writer Johannes Lydus in his treatise De magistratibus 
 reip. Rom. Although of doubtful absolute value for the history 
 of satire, yet it affords an interesting illustration of the philo- 
 logical methods which constructed many of the ancient data of 
 literary history, and casts some light on the particular question 
 in hand. In a literary digression on the beginnings of the drama 
 at Rome, Lydus enumerates the various forms of comedy, and 
 among them the 'VwdwviKi], which is the occasion for a further 
 digression concerning Rhinthon, 6? e^afi«Vpo»s typa'^t np&Tos Ka/upbiav. 
 
 f| ov npSiTos XaBwv ras a(j>op)ias Aou/o'Xior & 'PcD/xaio; i)p<oiKoh entaiv 
 (Kapcodtjoe. pf6 ov xa) rour pir avTov, our KoXovat 'Papatoi (rarvpiKovs, 
 01 v^wTfpoi Tov Kparivov Kal EiurdXiSof x°P°''''^'iP'' ii^aja-avres toIs pcv 
 Ptv8a>voT pfTpoK, Toii be T&v pvrjpovevdivTav btaavppoU pfpijo-d/xtvoi T171/ 
 
 a-arvpiK^v ixpaTwav Kapablav (I 41). 'Stuff and nonsehse ' (tolles 
 Zeug) is L. MUller's comment, and indeed this seems to be the 
 general verdict, with the exception of Kiessling (ad Serm. I 4, 6), 
 who believes that we have in this an authentic account of the 
 genesis of Lucilian satire going back to Varro.' 
 
 The text is not perhaps free from corruption. At all events 
 there is a difficulty of grammatical interpretation here which has 
 not received attention, although the meaning of the whole pas- 
 sage depends upon it. For if, as Leo and Marx point out, p(6' m 
 
 following the elegy, a place is given to satire, for which there is no 
 corresponding Greek category. The allotment of position would seem to 
 have been determined by metrical considerations, in order to place here 
 the remaining writers of hexameter; because the humorous and critical 
 tone of satire differentiated them sharply from the serious writers of 
 the same verse, and made it inappropriate to group them simply with 
 those who employed the heroic measure. Satire therefore is given an 
 independent position, and because there were no canonical Greek writers 
 of satirical or comic matter in hexameters (for neither the pseudo-Homeric 
 poems of parody nor the cynic ciXkoi received attention in the gramma- 
 rians' canon), this department is claimed for the Romans as exclusively 
 theirs, 
 
 ' Cf. Leo, Hermes, vol. XXIV (1889), pp. 81 ff., and F. Marx, Int. Hexas, 
 p. II, Prog. Rostock 1888. The error which is common to all discussions 
 of this passage is the failure to note that the source which Lydus repro- 
 duces had no other purpose than to explain the origin of the hexameter 
 verse in Lucilius and subsequent Roman satire. 
 
l66 GEORGE LINCOLN HENDRICKSON. 
 
 excludes Lucilius from the class of the imitators of old comedy, 
 by the same argument the remainder of the phrase — {_\ieta) rois 
 fj-er' avTov, ouf KaXovm 'Pcoiiaioi crarvpiKovs — excludes the Other Roman 
 satirists from this class, and leaves no place for the existence 
 of any vearepoi, if such imitation did not begin until a/ier 
 Lucilius and a/ier his successors. But in view of the uniform 
 doctrine of Lucilius' dependence on the old comedy, it cannot 
 be doubted that the source of Lydus, at all events, gave the cur- 
 rent version of the relation of satire and its founder to comedy. 
 The meaning, which it would seem that the account must have 
 contained, may be given therefore somewhat as follows : ' From 
 whose time (and including whom) on, the younger group of 
 those whom the Romans call satirists, emulating the manner of 
 Cratinus and Eupolis, making use of the metrical form of Rhin- 
 thon and of the jesting criticism (Siao-up/jolr) of the comic poets 
 mentioned, produced satire ' (tijv o-arupKcijc KaiiaSiav). The younger 
 group, the viarepoi, to whom Lydus' Greek has assigned so un- 
 certain a place, are the representatives of the developed form of 
 gatire, Lucilius, Horace, Persius, Juvenal, in contrast to an older 
 group, Ennius and Pacuvius, who used the name without devel- 
 oping a fixed type in respect either to form or spirit. It is the 
 same contrast which is given in Diomedes' account of satire by 
 the words sed olim carmen, etc., descriptive of the form before 
 Lucilius, and in Quintilian by alterum illud etiam prius saturae 
 genus} 
 
 The essential point for our purpose is that the satire of Lucil- 
 
 ' Although it would seem not improbable that Lydus has obscured his 
 source, perhaps from ignorance of the separation of the satirists into two 
 groups, yet it is perhaps worth while to suggest that an intelligible meaning 
 can be restored to his words by a very slight change, thus : fit(f hv mal oi 
 [MSS. ro{)f] fier' avrSv, oiig naXovai. 'Vufialoi aarvptnov^, oi veuTcpoi, rbv Kparivov 
 ktX. ' After whom, those likewise {imi) after him, whom the Romans call 
 satirists, viz., the younger group, emulating, etc.' ol vt^-vepoL is added as 
 a corrective to the general designation aarvpiKovf, as explained in the text. 
 It is important to keep in mind that the purpose of the account is to set 
 forth the relation of Lucilius and subsequent satire (hence the appropri- 
 ateness of mi 'likewise') to Rhinthon in the matter of metrical form. 
 The relation to old comedy is only incidental to the presentation of this 
 discovery of the aetiological author of this account. Therefore the current 
 • doctrine of Lucilius' indebtedness could be taken for granted as compre- 
 hended in the general statement of the relation of the younger group of 
 
HORACE AND LUCILIUS. 1 67 
 
 ius, and hence subsequent Roman satire, here receives a twofold 
 explanation. Its form, that is the hexameter, was derived from 
 Rhinthon, its matter and spirit from the old comedy. Whether 
 there is any truth in the statement of Lucilius' relation to Rhin- 
 thon* is a matter of indifference for our present inquiry, but at 
 all events it casts some light on the questions in hand. We have 
 seen that in Horace Lucilius is represented as having derived the 
 spirit, but not the form, of his work from the old comedy; that 
 in the matter of form, the employment of the hexameter, he was 
 a pioneer. Thereupon some later philologian pointed out that 
 the use of the heroic verse for the treatment of comic and satirical 
 matter was not Graecis intactum, but had already been employed 
 before Lucilius by Rhinthon, and in accordance with the hasty 
 inductions of ancient philological science, affirmed that Lucilius 
 had taken his metrical form from this source. The manner is well 
 known. For every observed custom or phenomenon whether of 
 national life or literature, the Greek or Roman antiquarian inves- 
 tigator, yielding to a natural, but naive fondness for the objective 
 and concrete in the explanation of origins, raised the question 
 ' quis inveniV ; and in accordance with the ingenuity and learn- 
 ing of his answers earned the applause of his time and of posterity. 
 It is thus that Cicero praises Aelius Stilo, antiquitatis nostrae et 
 in inventis rebus et in actis scriptorumque veterum litterate peritus 
 (Brutus 205), and the sum of Bibaculus' praise of the philologian 
 Valerius Cato is omnes solvere posse quaestiones (Suet. De 
 grammaticis 11). Many examples of such explanations of cus- 
 toms by reference to a specific inventor as well as discussion of 
 rival claimants, are to be found in the Quaestiones Romanae 
 of Plutarch. In the field of literary history the habit is best 
 characterized by the familiar lines of Horace : quis tamen ex- 
 iguos elegos emiserit auctor |{ grammatici certant, etc. The 
 satire of Lucilius presented to the Roman philologian a question 
 
 Roman satirists to Cratinus and Eupolis. It is curious that Aristophanes 
 is not named. The reason may be that the essence of old comedy is given 
 by these two names, Cratinus for to irmpdv, Eupolis for ij X'^P'i- Aristo- 
 phanes' pre-eminence consisted only in a combination of their character- 
 istics (rdv fikaov iTJiXant rav avSpav xapaicT^pa. Flatonius tt. xafi. II extr.). 
 
 ' Whether Rhinthon composed works, whether of <t dramatic or non- 
 dramatic character, in hexameters is not clear. Cf. Leo, 1. c, p. 83, and 
 Kaibel, Comic. Gr. frag., vol. I p. 184. 
 
l68 GEORGE LINCOLN HENDRICKSON. 
 
 to be approached in this spirit. In Roman literature he was the 
 first to employ unchallenged the satire of personal attack and 
 invective. Was he the inventor, or not? Doubtless there were 
 those who championed his primacy in this field ; but at an early 
 time Roman philology had named as the source of his spirit the 
 nappiiala of the old Attic comedy. The question of form presented 
 a more baffling problem ; but at some time in the history of 
 Roman philology, perhaps even as late as a period subsequent 
 to Juvenal, the question was solved, and the form and content 
 of Roman satire were thus explained with reference to Greek 
 sources. It is such a solution that this account presents. The 
 method in both cases was the same, but the solution offered for 
 the problem of form has no more claim to our consideration than 
 the earlier effort to name a single source for the spirit of Roman 
 satire. We now recognize that it is no more possible to name 
 a single source of influence in the development of an individual 
 genius of prolific vigor, than it is to trace the origin of a national 
 or religious custom to a specific author or occasion. The one, 
 like the other, is the product of a multitude of influences which 
 in large part, must elude any effort of investigation. 
 
 Uhiveksity of Chicago. GeORGE LINCOLN HeNDRICKSON. 
 
THE AIM AND RESULTS OF PLATO'S 
 THEAETETUS. 
 
 In one of his essays Matthew Arnold speaks of " the barren 
 logomachies of Plato's Theaetetus ", and therein voices the im- 
 pression which this dialogue leaves on the minds of many readers, 
 to whom it seems a mere exhibition of dialectic, — capricious, ill- 
 planned, accomplishing nothing and leading nowhither. Even 
 such a scholar as Professor Kennedy in his edition (pp. 234-5), 
 while admitting that there are certain miscellaneous positive 
 results in the first thirty chapters, regards the subsequent elenchi 
 as " little more than gladiatorial word-fights, intended by Plato to 
 exercise and display the dialectic skill which he had acquired at 
 Megara, and at the same time to amuse and pdzzle the minds of 
 his readers by the parables or myths of the waxen tablets and the 
 dove-cage." Grote thought that Plato here "intends to qualify 
 the mind for a life of philosophical research," "to bestow a 
 systematic training on the ratiocinative power " (p. 391) ; again, 
 " To form in men's minds this testing or verifying power, is one 
 of the main purposes of Plato's dialogues of search, and in some 
 of them the predominant purpose, as he himself announces it to 
 be in the Theaetetus'" (p. 338). Professor Jowett finds more in 
 the dialogue than this: " Like Theaetetus we have attained no 
 definite result. But an interesting phase of ancient philosophy 
 has passed before us. And the negative result is not to be 
 despised. For on certain subjects, and in certain states of 
 knowledge, the work of negation or clearing out the foundations 
 must go on, perhaps for a generation, before the new structure 
 can begin to rise. Plato saw the necessity of combating the 
 illogical logic of the Megareans and Eristics. For the completion 
 of the edifice, he makes preparations in the Theaetetus, and 
 crowns the work in the Sophist" (IV, p. 264). Zeller goes 
 
 ' He refers probably to the concluding words of Socrates in the dialogue ; 
 but this is an observation of a character in the drama, and can no more be 
 ascribed to Plato, than the utterances of Hamlet, to Shakespeare. 
 
I/O W. J. ALEXANDER. 
 
 farther and includes the Theaetetus among the dialogues which 
 " point unmistakably to a time when Plato had already laid the 
 corner stone of his system in the theory of ideas" (Plato, Eng. 
 trans, p. 126), and in his brief analysis (pp. 17 1-3) shows a cer- 
 tain nexus of thought in the successive arguments. 
 
 It is the object of the present paper to combat such a view of 
 the dialogue as is voiced in the phrase of Arnold or the quota- 
 tions from Grote; to exemplify and expand the view hinted 
 at by Zeller; to show in detail the purpose and results of 
 the Theaetetus. It is, upon the face of it, improbable that at 
 the period of life and development at which Plato had arrived 
 when this dialogue was written, his object should have been 
 merely to represent the character and method of Socrates, or to 
 give an exercise in intellectual gymnastics, — aims which were 
 doubtless predominant in some of the earlier dialogues.' 
 
 An attempt will be made, in this paper, to show the presence 
 of a plan in this dialogue : that the definitions follow one another 
 in logical sequence ; that in each a closer approximation is 
 reached to a satisfactory (from Plato's point of view) definition of 
 knowledge ; that in the examination of each definition results are 
 attained, which are employed in the subsequent stages of the 
 inquiry; that in the process an analysis and definition of various 
 mental processes is made — a psychology indicated; and, finally, 
 that there is an unspoken, but not, probably, an unconscious, 
 trend of the thought to Plato's characteristic solution of the 
 problem of knowledge. Plato, the eclectic philosopher is here 
 examining the theories of his predecessors and contemporaries as 
 to knowledge ; he submits them to the test of his dialectic 
 battery; certain positions are shattered, others are left standing — 
 sound foundations, as our author thinks, upon which to erect the 
 superstructure of his own theory of knowledge. It is true the 
 superstructure is not erected, no satisfactory definition of knowl- 
 edge is adduced ; but the discussion is brought to such a point 
 that the hypotheses by which Plato did meet the difficulty of the 
 existence of knowledge — the hypothesis of " ideas " and of 
 "reminiscence'' — are made natural or even inevitable. In show- 
 
 ' Without attempting to fix very accurately the date of the Theaetetus, 
 one may safely conclude from the historical indications of the prologue, 
 general style, and philosophical content that this dialogue belongs to the 
 middle period of the author's literary activity. 
 
AIM AND RESULTS OF PLATO' S THEAETETUS. 171 
 
 ing this, it will be needful to follow the thread of the dialogue, to 
 emphasize the main points established, and to neglect many 
 details and digressions. We must be careful, too, to take the 
 standpoint of Plato and of his age; we must not, as Grote does, 
 argue from the modern position, and suppose that whatever may 
 be inept or illogical to us, must have seemed inept or illogical to 
 Plato. A slight change in point of view or in expression will 
 often serve to show that what seems at first sight absurd to 
 a hasty modern reader is really a plausible, or even accepted, 
 notion of our own day. In this connection we must not fail to 
 bear in mind that to Plato to a\r^6r) and to 3i/ra are interchangeable 
 terms; that the Greeks of that time had not separated the con- 
 ceptions of truth and of reality. The axiom that, if a thing is true, 
 it really exists lies at the basis of Plato's theory of knowledge. 
 
 I. 
 
 The inquiry which is the subject of this dialogue is — What is 
 knowledge? To this question Theaetetus, after a false start, 
 answers that knowledge is sense-perception (niadijo-ir) — a defini- 
 tion which has been credited to Aristippus, and which was 
 at least current. This theory is at once identified with the 
 doctrine of Protagoras, that man is the measure of all things, 
 and with the Heraclitean principle that all things are in a state 
 of flux. Grote takes exception to this identification as unfair 
 to each of the three theories, and considers this portion of the 
 dialogue as, in consequence, nugatory. But Plato's main object 
 here is not to present and combat philosophical systems. 
 This might be guessed even from the fact that the youthful 
 Theaetetus is the person here submitted to Socrates' dialectic, 
 and not some competent protagonist of philosophy. There is 
 a dramatic fitness in Plato's selection of characters for his 
 dialogues. When the' subject is courage, Nicias and Laches 
 are the fitting interlocutors; if temperance, the temperate 
 Charmides; if it is the defects of the Sophists, Protagoras, 
 Prodicus, and others are introduced upon the stage ; when the 
 ethics of the rhetoricians is discussed, Gorgias is present to 
 see fair play, as it were, although a more manageable character 
 than Gorgias maintains the discussion. But Theaetetus and 
 Theodoras are not characters who could be supposed adequate 
 to the defence of philosophical theories; nor is Plato intent 
 
1/2 iV. /. ALEXANDER. 
 
 on overthrowing philosophical opponents. Theaetetus is the 
 impersonation of candour and common sense, and Plato is seeking 
 for some account of knowledge which may commend itself to a 
 fair and rational way of thinking. Now, from Plato's point of 
 view, if knowledge be sense-perception, man is the measure of 
 all things. For, as the discussion proceeds to show, sensations 
 vary with different men; hence if sense-perceptions be true, not 
 only is man the measure, but the things themselves (ra oWa) must 
 also vary, and all things be in a state of flux. Plato, in short, 
 accepts in regard to setisatiojis, and also in regard to certain 
 notions, such as "greater" and "less," the principle of relativity ; 
 that man is here the measure, and that these things are in a state 
 of flux, i. e. have no permanence. 
 
 Next (chapters XVI-XXVI) the doctrine of Protagoras is 
 examined upon its own basis. Is the definition of Theaetetus for- 
 gotten in a side issue ? By no means ; if Plato can overthrow the 
 doctrine of Protagoras, and show that there are some things of 
 which man is not the measure, some things in regard to which 
 the opinion of one man is better than another, these things must 
 lie outside the sphere of sensations ; of them sense-perception will 
 not be knowledge. The definition of knowledge as sense-per- 
 ception will be overthrown as defective ; for even if sense-percep- 
 tion be knowledge, there will be some knowledge which is not 
 sense-perception. 
 
 Such is the connection of this part with the main line of the 
 dialogue ; let us follow the discussion itself If sense-perception 
 be knowledge, it is argued that animals, as possessing sensations, 
 are as much the measure of truth as men — a reductio ad absurdum. 
 Again, the world regards the opinions of certain men as having, 
 in certain matters, greater validity than those of the ordinary 
 man ; hence, in the opinion of the world in general, man is not 
 equally the measure of all things. Such considerations, however, 
 only furnish presumptions against the principle; accordingly, 
 there follow (chaps. XXII-XXIII) what are intended to be the 
 conclusive arguments. The first of these is, as Grote points out, 
 fallacious. It may be briefly stated thus : Protagoras maintains 
 that whatever a man thinks is true to that man; but the vast 
 majority of mankind think that Protagoras' opinion is Jiot true ; 
 hence it is not true. The proper conclusion is that it is not true 
 to them. But though this reasoning is fallacious in form, it seems 
 
AIM AND RESULTS OF PLATO'S THEAETETUS. 173 
 
 to be substantially sound; the dictum of Protag^oras as interpreted 
 by Plato is self-contradictory ; if each man's opinion be equally 
 valid with that of every other man, there is no absolute truth. 
 For among the large variety of opinions possible upon a subject 
 some one must (even by mere chance) more closely approximate 
 to the existing reality than another ; hence if one opinion be 
 equally valid with the others there can be no reality cor- 
 responding to any opinion. It is probable that Plato did not 
 notice that Socrates' argument is fallacious. In his time, 
 whether through lack of a formulated logic, or through the 
 difficulty of distinguishing words from things, fallacies were 
 less easy of detection; and never is a sophistical argument more 
 likely to escape notice than when it leads to a conclusion mani- 
 festly, upon other grounds, true. In any case a more effective 
 refutation follows : in regard to future events, the opinion of one 
 man is found to accord more closely with the event than that of 
 another ; hence in this case, one man is more a measure of truth 
 than another. Besides, the opinions of experts are found to be 
 more likely to approximate to the facts in their own particular 
 sphere, than those of other men ; yet one man's sense-perception 
 is as true as another's. Hence there is knowledge that is not 
 sense-perception. 
 
 But not only is this definition thus shown to be inadequate, it 
 is also false. The principle of Heraclitus is true in regard to 
 sensations ; these have no permanence of any kind ; they are not 
 among tA ovra. Now, neither truth nor untruth can be predicated 
 of what does not exist ; hence there can be no knowledge (in 
 Plato's sense) of sensations. Theaetetus' first definition of 
 knowledge is completely overthrown. 
 
 Further, an important corollary is deduced (chap. XXX), 
 which offers no difficulties in the original, and may therefore be 
 briefly stated. Sensations are not apprehended by the senses 
 themselves but by a central organ, the intelligence (^ i/'wx'y); this 
 organ has the power of comparing sensations and of arriving at 
 notions which are not apprehended by the senses themselves. It 
 is through this intelligence that we arrive at the notion of exist- 
 ence, and as existence is always implicated in truth, we must hence- 
 forth seek for knowledge in the operations of the intelligence. 
 
174 W. J. ALEXANDER. 
 
 II. 
 
 Sensation is the lowest of mental states ; and it was fitting that 
 Plato in his pursuit of knowledge should begin at the foot of the 
 mental scale ; but having succeeded in excluding sense-perception 
 from the domain of knowledge, he now considers the next higher 
 mental process,thatof £i/z"«iV»' (So|a, bo^u^uv). In this investigation 
 (chaps. XXXI-XXXVIII), it is worthy of note that the argument 
 finally employed to refute the definition of knowledge as right 
 opinion, might have been used at the outset, and would, doubtless, 
 have then been used, had Plato's only object been to overthrow the 
 definition. But, in truth, he wishes, as in the first stage of the 
 discussion, to sift what is called opinion, in search of clues to the 
 realm of knowledge. Before proceeding to this second stage, we 
 should note something which underlies the whole of this portion 
 •of the dialogue, — the assumption, which Plato (whether or not it 
 commends itselt to the modern mind) evidently regards as 
 axiomatic, that false knowledge is not knowledge at all: one may 
 have a true or a false opinion ; but false knowledge is a contra- 
 diction in terms ; one either knows or does not know a thing. 
 
 Socrates, accepting for the nonce Theaetetus' second definition 
 of knowledge as true opinion, points to a difficulty in regard to 
 false opinion. If two things, A and B, are both known, it is evident 
 that they cannot be confused ; hence false opinion is in this case 
 impossible; so also, if one is known and the other not known; in 
 short, false opinion is impossible within the domain of knowledge. 
 Still false opinion does undoubtedly exist; and a second attempt 
 is made to find how and where this is possible. At this point is 
 introduced the comparison of the soul to a wax tablet which 
 receives impressions through perceptions. After an elaborate 
 enumeration, by the help of this symbol, of all possible cases of 
 judgment in regard to two things present in the mind, it is found 
 that false (as well as true) opinion is possible, not as between two 
 things known, or as between two things perceived, but as between 
 a thing known and a thing perceived ; in other words, false opinion 
 is possible in referring perceptions or other products of sensation 
 
 '"Opinion," in Plato's mind, seems to correspond to what we call 
 empirical knowledge, — knowledge for which we cannot assign the grounds, 
 which is unreasoned and accidental, and whose truth, in consequence, we 
 cannot ascertain. 
 
AIM AND RESULTS OF PLATO' S THEAETETUS. 175 
 
 to general notions (which are attained, as we saw above, through 
 the intelligence). As Socrates says, " False opinion arises not in 
 the comparison of perceptions with one another, or of thoughts 
 with one another, but in the bringing of a perception and thought 
 together/" This does not contradict the conclusion formerly 
 arrived at, that false opinion cannot exist ; for we were then con- 
 sidering the sphere of knowledge ; but perception, which is 
 outside the sphere of knowledge (chap. XXX), is involved in all 
 cases investigated by means of the figure of the wax tablets. 
 Suddenly, however, at this point (§196), an example is brought 
 forward to show that, even in the case of the known, false opinion 
 may actually exist, although this has been shown a priori to be 
 impossible. Here we are in a quandary. It does not seem that 
 Plato, in this paradox, is merely amusing himself with dialectic 
 subtleties, but that he was profoundly puzzled by this possibility 
 of error in the realm of the known. His seriousness is attested by 
 the minuteness and care of the psychological analysis in this part 
 of the discussion. In the search for some explanation of this 
 dilemma, Socrates (i. e., I believe, Plato) falls upon the use of the 
 verb 'know' {em<TTa<r6ai), which has not yet been defined. Now, 
 Plato was perfectly cognizant of the fact that 'to know ' cannot be 
 defined without defining ' knowledge,' which is the point at issue ; 
 what he seeks is to define the relation of 'knowing' to 'knowl- 
 edge.' He reduces the two unknown terms to one, by defining 
 'knowing' in terms of 'knowledge': to know is to possess 
 knowledge {inwTrfims (cr^o-ir). He further shows by the com- 
 parison with doves in a cage that ' to possess ' («« KT^o-flai) is different 
 from 'to have' (ex""^- Knowledge which is 'possessed' is latent 
 or potential; in order that we may have knowledge, i. e. in the 
 fullest sense know, the potential must be made actual. In this 
 process mistakes seem possible ; and this, in turn, may serve to 
 explain how false opinion is possible in the sphere of knowledge, 
 i. e. as regards general notions. Thus a further step is made 
 towards the solution, yet Plato is not satisfied ; how can a man 
 not know what he knows? The further solution of this difficulty 
 is not found in the dialogue, but we shall have occasion to recur 
 to it later. 
 
 ' evprimi S^ fcvS^ dS^av, on ovte h ral^ aiaBf/aeaiv eart irpbg aXMila^ ovt' 
 h ToZf Stavoiatg, bXK h ry avvaipei alad^acai npbc Sidvoiav (§195 C-D). 
 
176 W. J. ALEXANDER. 
 
 Plato, having thus investigated the process of 'opinion', as at 
 an earlier stage he investigated ' perception ', and having cleared 
 it up in some degree and attained some results by the way, 
 quickly dismisses Theaetetus' second definition (as he might 
 have done at the outset) by showing in a special case that true 
 opinion may exist without knowledge, and, therefore, cannot be 
 knowledge (§201). 
 
 III. 
 
 We now reach the third stage of the discussion and Theae- 
 tetus' third definition : Knowledge is true opinion combined with 
 definition (Xdyor).' This as it might seem, somewhat peculiar 
 definition of knowledge evidently springs from the desire of 
 excluding that element of mere empiricism, of chance, which we 
 noted as pertaining to Plato's conception of opinion. The clause 
 added to the former definition is intended to limit its application 
 to such opinion as is based upon reason, or is clearly appre- 
 hended and understood ; to exclude mere empirical guess-work, 
 and include what we might call scientific or reasoned knowledge. 
 Again, as in the previous stages, the dialogue turns forthwith to 
 what seems to be a side issue, but, again, this apparent digression 
 results in a reduciio ad absurdum of the definition. 
 
 The point upon which the argument which results in this 
 redudio ad absurdum hinges, is the fact, admitted in our day 
 as well as accepted in this dialogue, that no definition or descrip- 
 tion can be given of what is elementary. We define one thing 
 in terms of another; the latter, perhaps in terms of a third; but 
 sooner or later we must come to the ultimate constituents of 
 thought. A triangle maybe defined in terms of lines; a line, 
 in terms of points; but we can go no further. So with other 
 elementary notions; to a man born blind we cannot define or 
 describe ' redness'. 
 
 With this explanation let us return to our text. The definition 
 is taken for granted ; it implies, since elements cannot be defined, 
 that they cannot be known. Only complexes then can be known. 
 Now, a complex must either be the sum of its elements and equal 
 to them all taken together, or else a whole which springs from 
 and is different from its elements. But, in the first case, the 
 
 ' t;)v juv jizra Myov aXTfiy (Mfav iniBTrijinv elvac, rf/v de aTiuyup ckto; iiriari/iiri^ 
 (§-'oi C-D). 
 
AIM AND RESULTS OF PLATO' S THEAETETUS. 177 
 
 knowing of the complex would imply the knowing of the ele- 
 ments, which, as we have seen, cannot be known ; in the second 
 case, the complex is a new unit; is therefore elementary, and 
 cannot be known.' Thus the acceptance of Theaetetus' third 
 definition results in demonstrating the impossibility of knowledge. 
 As objection might be taken, however, to the meaning as- 
 signed to definition (Xrfyos), or to the assumption that elements 
 are unknowable, this third definition is now attacked in a more 
 systematic way (Chaps. XLII-XLIII). 'Definition' may have 
 any one of these meanings: (ist) expression in language; but 
 this cannot be the meaning here, for all right opinion may be 
 expressed in language, and we have already shown that all right 
 opinion is not knowledge. (2nd) 'Definition' may mean enu- 
 meration of the ultimate elements ; this is the sense in which we 
 employed the word in the reductio ad absurdum above; but 
 we now proceed in a way less open to cavil. A thing is known 
 (according to Theaetetus' third definition) when we have a right 
 opinion of it with an enumeration of elements added ; but 
 elements have no elements to be enumerated, therefore cannot 
 be known.^ Our third definition would thus absurdly read : 
 Knowledge is right opinion accompanied by an enumeration of 
 things not known. (3rd.) ' Definition ' may mean the statement 
 of the characteristic difference.' But this will not help us ; for 
 in order to have a right opinion about anything, we must be able 
 to distinguish one thing or notion from another ; so the definition 
 which bids us add the characteristic difference to right opinion, 
 bids us add what we have already, in order that we may learn 
 
 • What Plato means may be made clearer by a modern illustration. 
 The elements, in the first alternative, are lilce the various colours in the 
 spectrum ; if we are acquainted with the spectrum, we are also acquainted 
 with all the primary colours, red, yellow, etc., since the whole spectrum is 
 merely the sum of these. The elements in the other alternative resemble 
 these same primary colours in relation to white light; they combine to 
 form a new unit which arises out of them, but is not equal to the sum of 
 them ; white light, although it is produced by a complex of colours, is an 
 elementary sensation, and cannot be described in terms of red, yellow, 
 etc., as can the spectrum. 
 
 ' This is of course in harmony with the results of the first stage of the 
 dialogue ; for the elements enumerated in a definition are sense-percep- 
 tions, and these cannot be known. 
 
 3 r5 Ix^^'^ ■'"' o^fJ-^tov ctTrsiv, ^ Tdv airdvruv dm^kpF.t rb epuTTjdkv. Again tt/v 
 Sta<j>opav bmarov, 1} tCiv oKTmv dia^epu. 
 13 
 
178 IV. /. ALEXANDER. 
 
 what we know already. In fine, the addition by means of which 
 Theaetetus has attempted to improve his second definition turns 
 out upon analysis to be no addition at all ; the third definition is, 
 therefore, nothing more than the second, which has already been 
 exploded. 
 
 Theaetetus has no further definitions to suggest, and Socrates 
 closes the dialogue without indicating that any results, other than 
 the purely negative one of showing the inadequacy of the defini- 
 tions proposed, have been attained. That, however, need not 
 have been the opinion of the writer of the dialogue; in truth, 
 it is sufficiently manifest that various positive results have been 
 attained, such as an insight into the nature of sense-perception, 
 the establishment of a central mental organ, the intelligence, etc. 
 We need not enumerate these ; but rather let us ask the question, 
 are these results of a miscellaneous character, or do they lead in 
 a given direction ? is there a philosophic unity in the dialogue ? 
 In the first stage of the discussion sense-perception and the whole 
 world of sensations of the concrete is excluded from the domain 
 of knowledge; knowledge must be sought in the operations of the 
 intelligence, — in the results that it seems to attain by comparing 
 sense-perceptions with one another. In short, we establish the 
 sphere of knowledge to be general notions or concepts. In 
 the second stage, however, we discover that all even of the suc- 
 cessful operations of the intelligence are not productive of knowl- 
 edge; all true opinion is not knowledge. More important still, 
 for the general purposes of the dialogue, are the results attained 
 with regard to knowledge itself; that it exists in two forms, 
 latent ^.ViA. actual; and that the possibility of error in the sphere 
 of knowledge must, in some at present inexplicable manner, lie 
 in the process of making the latent actual. In the third stage 
 we learn that if a complex is known, the elements also must be 
 known ; but the elements, or sense-perceptions, cannot be known. 
 Hence our knowledge cannot arise from sense-experience. 
 
 Such results as these might well lead to the scepticism professed 
 by some of Plato's opponents, or by such a philosopher as Hume. 
 But throughout the Theaetetus, we feel that the author tacitly 
 assumes the possibility of knowledge, nor was the disposition of 
 Plato's mind such as to rest in scepticism. Accept the pos- 
 sibility of knowledge, and consider where the dialogue leaves us. 
 The sphere of knowledge must be in concepts ; but if these are 
 
AIM AND RESULTS OF PLATO' S THEAETETUS. 179 
 
 known, they cannot arise from sensations or experience. They 
 must therefore be intuitive or transcendental. But if thus given, 
 they must be perfect, free from error ; they must, accordingly, be 
 knowledge in the latent form. Errors which actually are found 
 in concepts must, then, arise in the process of transmuting latent, 
 into actual knowledge. We see everything prepared for the hy- 
 potheses by which Plato cut the Gordian knot of the possibility 
 of knowledge. As concepts cannot arise from experience, and 
 since we have no experience of real existence, general notions 
 are the result of the contemplation of real existences in a previous 
 phase of the life of the soul; but through the limitations of body 
 and matter, this knowledge of real existence is rendered latent. 
 The process of making this knowledge actual is that of anam- 
 nesis or reminiscence; imperfect revival is the source of errors 
 in the sphere of knowledge. 
 
 This dialogue is, therefore, a demonstration, as far as demon- 
 stration is possible, of Plato's positive theory of knowledge. 
 The whole subject is investigated as far as reasoning can go. 
 The final step is not made — the explanations afforded by the 
 doctrine of ideas and anamnesis — because this final step is a pure 
 hypothesis. Like other hypotheses — like the modern scientific 
 hypotheses of the existence of atoms or of a luminiferous ether — 
 it is not susceptible of proof; but like them it justifies itself by 
 affording a solution of the problem. It seems scarcely credible, 
 when one notes how the dialogue leads up to this solution, 
 that the writer did not have the hypothesis more or less definitely 
 conceived. Especially does the somewhat unmotived and, for 
 the argument, purposeless introduction of the distinction between 
 " possessing knowledge " and " having knowledge ", seem to 
 indicate that the writer must have had the theory of anamnesis 
 already in mind. 
 
 Why, it may be asked, should Plato have left unexpressed in 
 the Theaetetus, the main outcome of the discussion. To answer 
 this, one must look at certain peculiarities of his work and devel- 
 opment. Plato was both a philosopher and a literary artist ; it was 
 under the artistic impulse and through the desire to represent and 
 defend the character and teachings of his master that the earliest 
 dialogues were written. But, as years went on, the literary bias 
 was gradually subordinated to the philosophic. In his latest 
 works literary charm is wanting not merely in the dramatic set- 
 
l80 W. J. ALEXANDER. 
 
 ting but in the very style. This is markedly true of the Laws ; 
 and here too Socrates is absent, no doubt because the positive 
 and dogmatic character of the teachings was inconsistent with his 
 character and method. Between these two poles of Plato's work 
 we trace an easy transition. The dialogue, originally employed 
 for artistic purposes would naturally be later employed by 
 the active philosophic mind of Plato, as an instrument for clari- 
 fying his own ideas. The earliest dialogues would doubtless 
 represent actual discussions which had been maintained by 
 the living Socrates. But what more natural than that his pupil, 
 in pursuit of truth, should imaginatively represent the keen 
 intellect of his master, applying his dialeptic to topics which the 
 latter had never actually treated. The dialectic method would 
 be, in Plato's earlier years at least, the natural method for the 
 attainment of philosophic results ; but as his views grew more 
 positive, the dialogue with Socrates as its central figure would 
 become inadequate for the expression of the writer's mind. 
 There would be a point in Plato's development where he would be 
 hampered by his form ; and this point seems to be represented in 
 the Theaetetus, where we find, on the one hand, the dramatic 
 framework, literary skill and charm in some of the digressions, 
 and the original Socrates of the earlier dialogues ; on the other 
 hand, passages of strenuous and dry dialectic, criticism of con- 
 temporary theories, and numerous positive results. It is notable 
 that in the Sophist, so closely linked by its framework with the 
 Theaetetus, the chief place in the discussion is transferred from 
 Socrates to the Eleatic stranger, who may more appropriately 
 give utterance to the positive teachings of this dialogue. " In the 
 Timaeus, Sophist, and Politicus," as Jowett notes, "Socrates' 
 function as chief speaker is handed over to the Pythagorean 
 philosopher Timaeus and the Eleatic stranger, at whose feet he 
 sits and is silent." And so in the Republic, to quote Jowett 
 again, "the Socratic method is nominally retained . . . but any one 
 can see that this is a mere form, the affectation of which grows 
 wearisome as the work advances." The artistic plan of the 
 Theaetetus hampers Plato in the expression of his views, and this 
 taken with the fact alluded to above, that the keystone of Plato's 
 theory of knowledge was pure hypothesis, incapable of demon- 
 stration, would serve to account for the a/^arfw/inconclusiveness 
 of the TheaetetiLs. 
 
 Universitv College, Toronto. W.J. ALEXANDER. 
 
ON THE USES OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN HOMER. 
 
 The Homeric poems furnish the best field for the study of 
 the Greek prepositions, because they are there employed with 
 greater freedom and variety than elsewhere and the origin and 
 development of their uses may more easily be traced. In the 
 Iliad and Odyssey prepositions not only enter into composition 
 with verbs or govern cases — to which uses they are for the most 
 part confined in prose — but they are also used independently of 
 verbs or cases in tmesis or as adverbs. Further freedom in their 
 use is seen in the fact that they are not unfrequently doubled and 
 postponed. 
 
 Hitherto complete statistics on these various phenomena have 
 been wanting. This article is an attempt to supply this want and 
 embraces a tabulation of the frequency of the various preposi- 
 tions, the numerical relation of the cases, doubling of prepositions, 
 postposition, tmesis, and the adverbial use. 
 
 Frequency. In point of frequency Homer has an average 
 of one preposition in every 3.4 lines, that for the Iliad (3.3) 
 being slightly higher than that for the Odyssey (3.5).' Tycho 
 Mommsen (in his Beitrage zu der Lehre von den griechischen 
 Praepositionen, Berlin, 1895) has shown that there are well 
 marked differences in the aggregate frequency of prepositions 
 according to period, department, author, etc. Poetry, as we 
 might expect, has fewer prepositions than prose. Epic and lyric 
 poetry in general excel tragic and comic, though variations occur 
 both in different poets and in the works of the same poet. In 
 prose the historians excel the philosophers and the orators. 
 
 Numerical relation of the cases. Mommsen has also shown 
 that the numerical relation of the cases with which prepo- 
 sitions are used is an important element in style and may serve 
 to differentiate the periods and departments of Greek litera- 
 ture. As slated by him (Beitrage, p. 19) "the preponderance 
 of the dative with prepositions belongs to the older and poetic 
 
 ' Mommsen's average for the Iliad is 3.14, for the Odyssey 3.95. 
 
I82 A. S. HAGGETT. 
 
 language, that of the accusative to the younger language and 
 prose, that of the genitive to the rhetorical and philosophical 
 elements in poetry and prose." The marked preponderance of 
 the dative in epic poetry is seen from the fact that 42.07^ of the 
 prepositions in Homer are used with this case. We naturally 
 expect this from the great number of concrete locative situations 
 afforded by the subject matter of epic poetry. Hence iv and eVi 
 are the favorite prepositions. There is an element of pictur- 
 esqueness in this phenomenon. The dative, more strictly defining 
 the locality or limiting it to a narrower sphere, gives color and 
 emphasis (cf. Forman, The Difference between the Gen. and 
 Dat. used with cVi to denote Superposition, Balto., 1894, p. 43). 
 The numerical relation of the cases in Homer is as follows : 
 22.23^ are used with the genitive, 42.07^ with the dative, 35.70^ 
 with the accusative. The Iliad and Odyssey show about the 
 same preponderance of the dative, while in the Odyssey the 
 genitive has lost and the accusative gained, each in about the 
 same degree. 
 
 Doubling of prepositions. The doubling of prepositions gives 
 a picturesque fulness to the expression. It makes the preposition 
 doubly deictic. Homer has 80 examples, the most frequent double 
 prepositions being hianpo (21), Trapeze (19), uTTt't (18), 8i/k (12). The 
 Iliad shows much greater freedom in doubling prepositions than 
 the Odyssey, having 50 of the above 80 examples. In this 
 respect the Odyssey is in accord with its general tendency to 
 use the more distinctively poetic licenses less freely than the 
 older Iliad. 
 
 Postposition. The normal position of the preposition is im- 
 mediately before its case. In poetry, however, it is found not 
 unfrequently after the word which it governs, i. e., it is post- 
 poned. In Homer where the transition from local adverbs to 
 prepositions proper was not yet complete and the position of the 
 preposition had not yet become rigidly fixed, postposition is to 
 be regarded as a freedom of the language. In succeeding poets 
 it became more and more a conscious means of poetic effect. 
 The 6thos of postposition may be seen from the fact that it is 
 found largely in the higher spheres of poetry, while in prose 
 it is rare and confined mostly to the earlier period (cf. Kiihner, 
 ' §452, 2). 
 
 Homer postpones 7.85^ of his prepositions (Iliad 8.135^, Od. 
 
THE USES OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN HOMER. 1 83 
 
 7.50^) or nearly one in every 13. Of the 645 examples of post- 
 position in the Homeric poems, 255, or about 3.1^ of the whole 
 number of prepositions, are cases of pure anastrophe, 390, or 4.7^ 
 of the whole number of the prepositions, are cases of interpo- 
 sition between the noun and adjective or dependent genitive. 
 The latter cases are here included in postposition, though the 
 feeling is somewhat different from that which prevails when 
 the preposition follows the simple substantive or both the 
 substantive and its qualifying adjective. Instances of inter- 
 position without anastrophe, i. e., interposition between the 
 adjective or dependent genitive and the substantive may 
 be mentioned here, though they are not to be included under 
 the head of postposition. Homer shows a marked fondness for 
 this kind of interposition, using it almost twice as freely as inter- 
 position between the substantive and adjective and almost as 
 often as postposition in general. He has 600 examples of this 
 phenomenon, so that 7.3^ of all his prepositions are thus used. 
 
 As might be expected, the great majority of the cases of post- 
 position occur with the dative, which in this use predominates 
 even more strongly than in the general ratio of the cases given 
 above. The ratio for postposition is as follows : gen. 22.2^, 
 dat. 45.4^, ace. 32.3^. 
 
 The scansion of all the lines in which postposition occurs reveals 
 the fact that there are preferences for it at particular points in the 
 verse. Prepositions are most frequently postponed in the first 
 (191 examples) and the fourth (165 examples) foot. 
 
 Adverbial use of prepositions. The fact that Homer has over 
 one-fifth as many instances of prepositions used adverbially as 
 with cases furnishes abundant evidence that prepositions were 
 originally adverbs. Here the Iliad is slightly less free than the 
 Odyssey, the average for the former being one in 17.3 lines, for 
 the latter one in 15.7 lines. 
 
 The above figures are based on the aggregate independent 
 use of the prepositions (i. e., without a case), and hence includes 
 both tmesis and the adverbial use proper. It is impossible to 
 determine with exactness what uses in Homer fall under the head 
 of each of these subdivisions. Strictly speaking, whenever a 
 preposition is so used that it cannot be said to govern a case, it is 
 adverbial, and the term tmesis has no place in the Homeric 
 poems. Still, as it seemed desirable to make some distinction 
 
1 84 
 
 A. S. HAGGETT. 
 
 between tmesis and the adverbial use pure and simple, the plan 
 that has here been followed has been to classify as adverbial only 
 those instances in which the preposition does not in Homer enter 
 into composition with the verb and so cannot be said to be 
 separated from it by tmesis. It appears that the stricdy 
 adverbial use is a little less than one-fourth as frequent as tmesis. 
 The adverbial use is considerably more common in the Iliad 
 than in the Odyssey (II. once in 83 lines, Od. once in 98.4 
 lines), while tmesis is slightly less common in the former than 
 in the latter (II. once in 21.9 lines, Od. once in 18.8 lines). 
 
 The 6thos of tmesis — as well as that of the adverbial use — is 
 seen from the fact that it belongs predominantly to the higher 
 spheres of poetry. It lays stress on the preposition by giving it 
 an independent place in the sentence. This stress is sometimes 
 further emphasized by anastrophe. The effect in epic poetry is 
 different from that in lyric and tragic. In the former tmesis is 
 used less consciously and more for picturesqueness, while in lyric 
 and tragic it is used more for emphasis (cf. Pierson, Rhein. Mus., 
 XI, p. 90 AT.). 
 
 The prepositions most freely used as adverbs are n-tpi, d/ti0i, 
 and fV; those most frequently used in tmesis Kara, U, eVi. 
 
 The results of this investigation show that prepositions, both in 
 their frequency and their case relation are an important element 
 of style in the Homeric poems, and that the marked prepon- 
 derance of the dative case, the doubling of the prepositions, 
 and their free adverbial use contribute in no small degree to 
 picturesqueness. Of the two poems the Odyssey has in general 
 employed the more distinctively poetic features of prepositional 
 usage less freely, thereby showing an advance toward the later 
 and more formal principles which were to govern the uses of the 
 prepositions. 
 
 PREPOSITIONS WITH ONE CASE. 
 
 Prep. 
 
 dvTi 
 
 aix6 
 
 «f 
 
 EK 
 
 h 
 
 Trpd 
 
 cvv 
 
 Sick 
 
 V1T£li 
 
 a-nonpS 
 
 Sianpd 
 
 11. . . 
 
 Od. . 
 
 7 
 3 
 
 273 
 
 99 
 
 374 
 449 
 
 406 
 
 284 
 
 989 
 904 
 
 28 
 
 6 
 
 "3 
 
 75 
 
 I 
 II 
 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 Total . 
 
 10 
 
 372 
 
 823 
 
 690 
 
 1893 
 
 34 
 
 188 
 
 12 
 
 15 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
THE USES OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN HOMER. 1 85 
 PREPOSITIONS WITH TWO CASES. 
 
 Prep. 
 
 dia 
 
 Kara 
 
 VTrkp 
 
 naptK 
 
 
 gen. 
 
 ace. 
 
 total 
 
 gen. 
 
 ace. 
 
 total 
 
 gen. 
 
 ace. 
 
 total 
 
 gen. 
 
 ace. 
 
 total 
 
 11. . 
 Od. . 
 
 76 
 21 
 
 42 
 35 
 
 118 
 56 
 
 50 
 18 
 
 333 
 
 253 
 
 383 
 271 
 
 30 
 19 
 
 23 
 
 8 
 
 53 
 27 
 
 I 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 Total 
 
 97 
 
 77 
 
 174 
 
 68 
 
 586 
 
 654 
 
 49 
 
 31 
 
 80 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 10 
 
 PREPOSITIONS WITH THREE CASES. 
 
 
 a/£<pl 
 
 avd 
 
 ETTJ 
 
 fbera 
 
 Prep. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 s 
 
 ^ 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 •l~» 
 
 
 
 
 c 
 
 4J 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 a 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 
 
 bo 
 
 •a 
 
 ti 
 
 
 tn 
 
 13 
 
 
 " 
 
 
 
 
 ii 
 
 3 
 
 123 
 
 107 
 
 
 11. . 
 
 I 
 
 59 
 
 98 
 
 158 
 
 
 
 6 
 
 84 
 
 90 
 
 60 
 
 358 
 
 224 
 
 642 
 
 233 
 
 Od.. 
 
 I 
 
 29 
 
 37 
 
 67 
 
 0' 
 
 3 
 
 59 
 
 62 
 
 104 
 
 186 
 
 189 
 
 479 
 
 2 
 
 92 
 
 57 
 
 151 
 
 Total 
 
 2 
 
 88 
 
 135 
 
 225 
 
 
 
 9 
 
 143 
 
 152 
 
 164 
 
 544 
 
 413 
 
 1121 
 
 5 
 
 215 
 
 164 
 
 384 
 
 PREPOSITIONS WITH THREE CASES, CONTINUED. 
 
 
 Trap a * 
 
 TTEpi 
 
 irp6( 
 
 vTr6 
 
 Prep. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 u 
 
 rt 
 
 
 
 4~l 
 
 
 
 U 
 
 
 
 V 
 
 ■0 
 
 u 
 
 u 
 
 rt 
 
 "rt 
 
 
 bo 
 
 rt 
 T3 
 
 
 
 
 15 
 
 
 11. . 
 
 40 
 
 134 
 
 90 
 
 264 
 
 51 
 
 58 
 
 48 
 
 157 
 
 17 
 
 7 
 
 144 
 
 168 
 
 99 
 
 132 
 
 35 
 
 266 
 
 Od.. 
 
 27 
 
 85 
 
 43 
 
 155 
 
 28 
 
 27 
 
 24 
 
 79 
 
 10 
 
 14 
 
 135 
 
 159 
 
 27 
 
 55 
 
 27 
 
 109 
 
 Total 
 
 67 
 
 219 
 
 133 
 
 419 
 
 79 
 
 85 
 
 72 
 
 236 
 
 27 
 
 21 
 
 279 
 
 327 
 
 126 
 
 187 
 
 62 
 
 375 
 
 »In three places (Od. 2, 416; 9, 177; 15, 284) ovd is followed by the 
 genitive of going on board ship. These, however, are best regarded as 
 cases of tmesis. 
 
1 86 
 
 A. S. HAGGETT. 
 
 S 
 o 
 
 ■" Total number of prepositions with cases in Homer, 8ig8 
 
 Average frequency, one in 3.403 lines. 
 
 Total number of occurrences with gen., 1823; 22.23 f, 
 " " " " " dat., 3449; 42.07^ 
 
 " " '■ " " ace, 2926; 35.70^ 
 
 n! 
 
 Total number of prepositions with cases in the Iliad, 4746 
 Average frequency, one in 3.306 lines. 
 Total number of occurrences with gen., 1160; 24.46 ^ 
 " " " " dat., 1979; 41.70 ^ 
 
 " " " " " ace, 1607 ; 33.84 ^ 
 
 •a 
 O 
 
 ' Total number of prepositions with cases in the Odyssey, 3452 
 Average frequency, one in 3.508 lines. 
 
 S Total number of occurrences with gen., 663; 19.21^ 
 
 " dat., 1470; 42.58 fc 
 " ace, 1319; 38.21 fo 
 
 TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF EXAMPLES OF POSTPOSITION 
 OF EACH PREPOSITION AND THE PER CENT. OF ITS TOTAL 
 NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES. 
 
 Prep. 
 
 Iliad 
 
 Od. 
 
 Total 
 
 fo 
 
 Prep. 
 
 Iliad 
 
 Od. 
 
 Total 
 
 ^ 
 
 avTt 
 
 5 
 
 
 
 5 
 
 50- 
 
 did 
 
 10 
 
 5 
 
 15 
 
 8.6 
 
 aiTo 
 
 28 
 
 16 
 
 44 
 
 II.8 
 
 Kara 
 
 10 
 
 24 
 
 34 
 
 5-2 
 
 els 
 
 20 
 
 28 
 
 48 
 
 5-8 
 
 virtp 
 
 6 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 12.5 
 
 €K 
 
 20 
 
 18 
 
 38 
 
 5-5 
 
 afitfii 
 
 9 
 
 7 
 
 16 
 
 7-1 
 
 fV 
 
 71 
 
 67 
 
 138 
 
 7-3 
 
 dvd 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 14 
 
 9.2 
 
 JTpO 
 
 4 
 
 
 
 4 
 
 1.2 
 
 eVt 
 
 108 
 
 34 
 
 142 
 
 12.6 
 
 avv 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 4.2 
 
 fierd 
 
 II 
 
 8 
 
 19 
 
 4-9 
 
 dteK 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 irapa 
 
 13 
 
 8 
 
 21 
 
 4.9 
 
 V7T€K 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 6.6 
 
 TTepl 
 
 II 
 
 9 
 
 20 
 
 8.5 
 
 anorrpo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 npos 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 •91 
 
 diairpo 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 66.6 
 
 VTTO 
 
 45 
 
 18 
 
 63 
 
 16.8 
 
 Total number in all Homer, 645 ; 7.85 ^ 
 
 " Iliad, 386; 8.13^ 
 
 " " " Odyssey, 259 ; 7.50 ^ 
 
THE USES OF THE PREPOSITIONS IN HOMER. 1 8/ 
 
 TABLE SHOWING THE NUMBER OF EXAMPLES OF TMESIS AND 
 THE ADVERBIAL USE OF EACH PREPOSITION. 
 
 T 
 
 mesis 
 
 
 
 Adverbial 
 
 Prep. 
 
 11. 
 
 Od. 
 
 Total 
 
 Freq. 
 
 Iliad 
 
 Od. 
 
 Total 
 
 Freq. 
 
 avri 
 
 O 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 (ijro 
 
 
 74 
 
 41 
 
 115 
 
 241.7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 th 
 
 
 H 
 
 12 
 
 26 
 
 1069.3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 CK , 
 
 
 107 
 
 lOI 
 
 208 
 
 133-6 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 iv . 
 
 
 72 
 
 54 
 
 126 
 
 220.6 
 
 27 
 
 32 
 
 59 
 
 471.2 
 
 Trpd 
 
 
 6 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 3475-3 
 
 7 
 
 3 
 
 10 
 
 2780.3 
 
 (TVV 
 
 
 19 
 
 18 
 
 37 
 
 751-4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 hia 
 
 
 10 
 
 9 
 
 19 
 
 1463-3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Kara 
 
 
 109 
 
 lOI 
 
 210 
 
 132.4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 virep 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 d/i0i 
 
 
 30 
 
 37 
 
 67 
 
 414.9 
 
 41 
 
 23 
 
 64 
 
 434-4 
 
 ava 
 
 
 35 
 
 36 
 
 71 
 
 391.6 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 2 
 
 13901.5 
 
 €7ri 
 
 
 104 
 
 103 
 
 207 
 
 134-3 
 
 17 
 
 4 
 
 21 
 
 1323-8 
 
 liera 
 
 
 12 
 
 8 
 
 20 
 
 1 390. 1 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 4633-8 
 
 napd 
 
 
 21 
 
 »34 
 
 55 
 
 5055-5 
 
 II 
 
 6 
 
 17 
 
 1635-4 
 
 nepl 
 
 
 34 
 
 34 
 
 68 
 
 408.8 
 
 43 
 
 37 
 
 80 
 
 347-5 
 
 npos 
 
 
 19 
 
 17 
 
 36 
 
 772-3 
 
 7 
 
 5 
 
 12 
 
 2316.9 
 
 ijTO 
 
 
 49 
 
 33 
 
 82 
 
 339-1 
 
 7 
 
 2 
 
 9 
 
 3089-3 
 
 airnnpA 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 13901.5 
 
 ttfirfinrepl . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 13901.5 
 
 Sianpo 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 16 
 
 2 
 
 18 
 
 1544.6 
 
 SUk . . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 irapcK . 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 27803.0 
 
 2 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 3475-3 
 
 irepmpo . 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 13901-5 
 
 VTTeK 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 9267.7 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Total 
 
 715 
 
 644 
 
 1359 
 
 11. 21.9 
 Od.i8.8 
 
 189 
 
 123 
 
 312 
 
 11. 83.0 
 Od. 98.4 
 
 
 
 20.4 
 
 89.1 
 
 A. S. Haggett. 
 
AN ERRONEOUS PHONETIC SEQUENCE. 
 
 The 'law' of Thurneysen and Havet, that av is the normal 
 Latin representation of Aryan ow, further defined and dated by 
 Lindsay,' Horton-Smith' and Buecheler,' has been much in 
 evidence for the last four or five years. In a short review, 
 originally written for 'Brief Mention ' in the American Journal of 
 Philology,* I pointed out that ovis (and boves) had not been 
 satisfactorily accounted for by the defenders of the law, and 
 avowed for myself a negative attitude. Recently Solmsen,' and 
 before him Kretschmer' and Hirt,' have modified the law by 
 exempting from its operation the ov group when tonic by Latin 
 accentual laws. 
 
 I need not here call the roll of all the distinguished scholars 
 that have already accepted this phonetic change as proved in 
 some sort, but I trust that the expression of a negative opinion on 
 my part may nevertheless meet with a fair hearing. 
 
 It is inevitable that the proofs of phonetic change shall differ in 
 completeness and certainty, nor will perplexing exceptions always 
 down. Thus the first expounders of this change might derive 
 fovet, movet, vovet from the nearly gratuitous construct-forms 
 *feve{ etc., while for ovis (and boves) they could offer nothing 
 better than the pleas of ' dialect admixture ' and ' borrowed from 
 the Greek,' pleas especially lacking in cogency in this case, par- 
 ticularly when the phonetic change was specifically dated in the 
 third century B. c.'-' 
 
 The later delimitation of the law not only accounts for ovis, but 
 takes fovei etc. as they stand, — 2d conjugation forms of the monet 
 type. But the new restriction brings with it fresh exceptions that 
 must in turn be submitted to the analysis that sublimates and 
 refines away. 
 
 For fovet etc. paradigms like the following are presented : 2d 
 sg.foves, 2d plur. */avMs; out of this wAtlaXion fovea znA faveo 
 were both engendered, while only caveo survived (not *coveo), 
 and moveo (not *77iaveo). Such levelHng within a paradigm is 
 capable of illustration, as a comparison of German war : wareft 
 
190 EDWIN W. FAY. 
 
 with English was : were will remind us. We may even admire 
 how, in the pick and choose of these construct Latin paradigms, 
 first the pres. sg. and 3d plural have predominated over the rest 
 of the plural and all the imperfect and future, and vice versa; and 
 again, how from the interplay twain verbs have come, of different 
 case construction, but not alien significance, viz., favet SiVid/ovet. 
 
 The words cdvus and cdvea offer a further difficulty in the new 
 statement of the law, though it is claimed that Spanish cueva, 
 Portuguese cova vindicate a Latin covos, borrowed about the time 
 of the Roman occupation of the Iberian peninsula, say 201 B. c} 
 To explain these exceptions Solmsen does not plead the influence 
 of cavSrna and trisyllabic forms of cavdre, which are not registered 
 in Plautus, but rather pleads that, when *coves and cavHis were 
 alternating in the verb-paradigm, the vocally similar adjective 
 stem *cdvo was caught up along with * coves. Possibly, yes ; but, 
 this is very far from convincing. As to the illustration from the 
 survival of vcz\v^\c foedus ' ugly ' along with the retention, 
 in legal language, of the archaic spelling oi foedus 'treaty,' there 
 being for both words a period when both spellings must have 
 been in vogue, that is an independent proposition a scholar may 
 be doing well to maintain, if he likes. That a new caves was 
 growing up beside old *coves sheds no light on the new creation 
 of cavos from *covos. Regarding this verb, a Plautine scholar 
 might wonder why the imv. cave did not dictate the vocalization, 
 as this form alone is used by Plautus over 60 times, while the 
 forms with accented a are at least four times as numerous as with 
 unaccented a. 
 
 To be able to explain away exceptions to a theory furnishes no 
 really corroborative evidence for it. Really convincing evidence 
 for a phonetic law can be furnished by nothing short of the strong 
 positive testimony of etymologies quite beyond reasonable ques- 
 tion. It is to be feared that scholars sometimes fall into the 
 almost unavoidable psychological error of proving their etymol- 
 ogies by their laws. The following are the etymologies on which 
 Solmsen more especially bases the particular modification of the 
 law we are now discussing. 
 
 i) favissae 'cellars' : fovea 'pit.' For him who has no ety- 
 mological theory to defend, a candid examination of the passage' 
 on which all our knowledge of this word depends will leave a 
 doubt whether favissae or flavissae is its original form, even 
 
AN ERRONEOUS PHONETIC SEQUENCE. I9I 
 
 though Varro provides for the latter a specious derivation from 
 flare ' to coin.' The gloss" seems to be not flavtssae hut flavissae 
 specus, where, for all we Vno-v , flavissae may be adjectival, like 
 Tullianum, and derived from some forgotten builder, a Flavins. 
 Or we may connect flavissae as an adjective with Gr. ^piap 
 'weir, — Homeric ^^pfj^P^ara, nom. plur. to the ti (or «/) stem, 
 with / in Latin by dissimilation, as in Armenian albiur. This 
 enables us to derive flavissae {a from p) from ^flava'n-vent-id- 
 'rich in wells' (cf. Skr. udan-vdnt- 'rich in water'), — a colum- 
 barium^" sort oi specus, to wit. The same derivation will account 
 iox favissae which might, in the r-flexion of the stem, have lost 
 its first r by dissimilative process. 
 
 But even rejecting the form flavissae altogether, we may inter- 
 pret these caverns of many compartments as 'honey-combed,' 
 and connect with favus. Inasmuch as favus has been derived 
 from *fovos, we may ask why it may not be better explained 
 from Gr. p^au-por 'porous' ( : fau-ces 'jaws'). 
 
 2) favilla 'glowing cinder'; Favonius 'West V^'wA' : fovet 
 ' warms.' 
 
 So far as mere definition goes the above words might have a 
 common origin, and I confess to a teacher's partiality for keeping 
 together as many Latin words as possible, because it simplifies 
 classification. Still I can see no sound reason for denying the 
 cognation oi favilla [from *faves-sld, cf. Gr. <j)aevv6r from *(fiaFtcr- 
 v6-s 'shining' (of fire)] with ^aF os 'light' (once in the Odyssey 
 connoting ' torch '), while the wind Favonius was the ' clearing ' 
 wind par excellence, as the passages from Plautus* show. 
 Favonius forms a striking counterpart of the German adjective 
 heiter as applied to the wind. With this group zSso faustus 
 ' bright, auspicious ' belongs. 
 
 3) cavilla 'jeer, taunt' : (co/3aXor 'impudent knave, pert rogue.' 
 This comparison might be allowed to pass, if the avjov change 
 
 were already well authenticated. But at best it would be only 
 one of those cognations not demonstrably inconsistent with the 
 phonetic laws ; v and /3 may both be the product of a labialized 
 guttural media, but nothing short of the discovery of a iertium 
 comparaiionis could demonstrate this ; for v may just as well be a 
 true y^, or a labialized guttural aspirate, while /3 may be a true B. 
 Nor do these words correspond so nearly in sense and structure 
 as to demand their identification. Similarly, only the discovery 
 
192 EDWIN W. FAY. 
 
 of a tertium comparationis can cogently demand the equation of 
 Lat. combretum and Lith. szvendrai}^ 
 
 [I may note in passing that a recent synopsis" has reported 
 me as admitting that my comparison'^ of the structure of Lat. 
 ferend-ae and Skr. bhdradh-ydi was unphonetic, though I was 
 contending expressly for the normal phonetic identity of prim. 
 Italic -end- and Skr. -adh-, with the cautious admission that, 
 inasmuch as Gr. <^c>e<j5a., the tertium comparationis, diverges in 
 its E<r from both the other terms, no one could prove for this 
 specific formation that Lat. en and Skr. a actually did represent 
 a primitive nasal vowel, nor that dh and d varied, whether in the 
 primitive speech, or in prim. Italic, in this particular nasal environ- 
 ment. Yet either of these propositions is in complete accord with 
 recognized phonetic changes.] 
 
 To return to cavilla : I see no good reason to reject the oldtime 
 explanation by dissimilation from *calvilla ( : calumnia ' abuse,' 
 calvitur 'deceives '). We may even give that up for the sake of 
 argument, and still explain cavilla as a cognate of Lettic kaiins 
 ' shame, disgrace, insult ; ' cf. Hesychian KoC-por' (caxoy, and xauaXos 
 'silly talker,' a signification seen in Plautus, AtU. 638 aufer 
 cavillam ; non ego nunc nugas ago. This group of words we 
 may connect with Gr. KaUi 'burns,' as we speak of 'burning 
 shame, insult,' a metaphor renewed in the slang of to-day, in 
 'scorches,' 'roasts,' both in the sense of 'jeers at.' 
 
 I may be permitted to note in passing that xo^aXoi, used by 
 Aristophanes of certain kobold creatures invoked by thieves, 
 may be cognate to Skr. ^(ZiJaz/rf-s 'disease-demon' (in theAtharvan, 
 the folklore Veda). Had the Sanskrit word a usage in the fable 
 literature, we might even advance the theory that kdbavd-s is a 
 folklore name from India that has wandered via Greece all the 
 way to the kobold of German fable.'" 
 
 4) avillus (with a variant in the glosses", abellus) 'agnus recens 
 partus' (Anglice, 'lambkin') : ovis 'sheep.' 
 
 When Solmsen, to dispute the derivation of avillus from agnus 
 'lamb,' declares for ^agnellus or *agniculus as the only possible 
 Latin diminutives of agnus, I wonder if I have read him aright. 
 Unless in the group g'^^n the guttural lost its rounding completely 
 before the close of the primitive Italic period, I see no way to 
 .deny the cognation of agnus and avillus that would not make us 
 question scammim : scabelluvt, signum, : sigillum, asinus : asellus. 
 
AN ERR ONE O US PHONE TIC SEQ UENCE. 1 93 
 
 geminus : gemellus. The very definition of avillus, to say noth- 
 ing of its gender, seems to me to proclaim its cognation with 
 agnus rather than with ovis. 
 
 5) aububulcus. 
 
 The glosses" define this word by ' pastor bovum ' {vel ' bovium '), 
 I-oewe's correction of this definition to pastor avium yields a 
 material all too uncertain for etymological purposes, at least as 
 evidence for setting up a phonetic law. It takes a great deal for 
 granted to assume that a compound *ovi-6u6iilcus, with secondary 
 accent on ov, would suffer the same change as pretonic ov-^, — in 
 the terms of Solmsen's theory. We may safely leave aububulcus 
 to the textual critics," who have already corrected to bubulcus and 
 aui bubulcus, as well as to aubulcus. 
 
 6) favet : fovet. 
 
 The cognation assumed in this formula is, all things considered, 
 the one most favored by the upholders of the law. It may as 
 well be admitted at the outset that these words are, after a 
 fashion, synonymous ; but how are they synonymous, and when ? 
 The answer is, in their most general and pale significance, and 
 rather late in the language. Their meanings converge. In 
 differentiated etymological cognates the senses should diverge. 
 For converging words of great phonetic similarity we might 
 expect manuscript confusion. We might even expect syn- 
 tactical confusion. For this pair such a case has been pointed 
 out. But Buecheler," after a thoroughly satisfying justifica- 
 tion of the rather unusual phraseology coeptantem—fove, subse- 
 quently seems inclined,' if I read between the lines aright, to 
 interpret fove as an archaism iorfave. He further points out a 
 case oi fovea archaic iox faveo in Charisius,'* where the words 
 faveo tibi foveo te stand at the end of a paragraph rubricated 
 ' Dativi et accusativi casus.' But I object that in the entire 
 paragraph of 18 examples we have but three structural types : la, 
 adsideo praelori et praetorem (15 times); ib, accedo tibi, id est 
 eadem tibi sentio, ette{\); 2, timeo tibi, id est ne eveniat tibi, et 
 timeo te (i) ; and 3, the phrase under discussion. If the same verb 
 were intended to be repeated we should accordingly expect /az/et^ 
 (^foveo) tibi et te, or by bare possibility, /. tibi et f. te. There is 
 no objection, so far as I can see, to supposing that the gram- 
 marian—in what is, after all, nothing but a practical teacher's list 
 of memorabilia and discernenda—has inserted, as a final member, 
 
 13 
 
194 EDWIN W. FAY. 
 
 a pair of verbs almost identical in sound, but taking different 
 case constructions. He has nearly done this again in the middle 
 of the next rubric but one: adnitor \id est adiuvo] ha7ic rem, 
 nitor hac re. 
 
 But though we may dismiss these cases as devoid of any inde- 
 pendent significance, a more serious case for the identification of 
 fovet with favet is offered by Buecheler's interpretation' of the 
 following inscription found on the base of a tiny golden image, 
 supposed to be that of a weasel, viz.: FOVE L. Corneliai l. f., the 
 date of which he assigns, because the praenomen of the woman is 
 given, to a period before Hannibal, let us say somewhere about 
 225 B. c. — a date in beautiful harmony with the surmise already 
 mentioned.'' ' Buecheler's interpretation is fave Corneliae, a 
 request to a deity'" to show regard unto Cornelia. A prayer on 
 a votive offering without mention of the deity addressed may, for 
 all I know, be a normal type of inscription, but it cannot be 
 denied that, so long as the deity's name is withheld, the way is 
 open for a different interpretation. The interpretation I have 
 advanced* for this inscription \s fui Corneliai ' I was Cornelia's.' 
 This may be expounded under several aspects: i) as a mark of 
 ownership on an heirloom, perhaps a pendant to necklace"; 2) as 
 the utterance of a dead pet* imaged in gold; 3) as a warning that 
 the image was out of the hands of the rightful owner, a sort of 
 "stolen from J — n Sm — h " dog-collar inscription.') 
 
 The explanation of fove (e = fi) as the accented form of 
 /ui, or as a true perfect beside the possibly aoristic /uit, is 
 linguistically beyond cavil. But unfortunately no other certain 
 o-perfect has yet been found for the Italic languages, though the 
 handbooks venture on their reconstruction, and would doubtless 
 welcome the real thing. That fove is a unique form need not 
 
 1) I cannot better state the objection to this interpretation than by 
 quoting from a personal note in description of the little object written at 
 my request by Prof. Dressel : "Ihre deutung der inschrift wurde ich ohne 
 weiteres acceptieren, wenn der schriftcharakter auf eine altere zeit hiii- 
 wiese; ich glaube aber kaum, dass der gegenstand alter ist als etwa 
 150-100 V. Chr." I see nothing to hinder us from accepting this dale for 
 the object, while regarding the inscription as representing an older type. 
 Besides the use of the praenomen, already mentioned, Dressel"" notes 
 that the dative (I say, gen.) ending -ai speaks for an early date. Further, 
 the form of the L is semiaichaic, and we might note in comparison how our 
 jewellers often use black letter or German text. 
 
AN ERRONEOUS PHONETIC SEQUENCE. 195 
 
 rule out my explanation ; is not pover a unique form for puer" 
 and possibly, I can but think, even a false archaistic orthography ? 
 For still other explanations of fove I shall presently ask a 
 moment's patience. 
 
 I have challenged above the synonymity oi favet and fovet, 
 on the ground that it is late and confined to their vaguer, 
 figurative uses. The etymologist must try to fix the earlier 
 and more specific senses. If we note that fovet means 'warms,' 
 and specifically 'foments'; that /bw^w/ww, already metaphorical 
 in Cicero's time, means a 'poultice' (generally hot) for medicinal 
 application ; that focula (Plautus) means ' warming-pan '; and 
 that fames means 'kindling-wood,' we are not doing violence 
 to unite all these significations, and define the root by 'applies 
 to the fire, applies fire to.' Of the cognations hitherto advanced 
 for fovet, that with Skr. bhavayaii — actually rendered fovet by 
 the Petersburg Lexicon — is, pace dixerim certorum doctissi- 
 morum, hardly to be considered; for bhdvayati means fovet 
 only in its palest general sense. The cognation with Gr. 
 6o6i 'quick,' in the sense of 'gives rapidity,' has even less to 
 recommend it. The connection with Skr. ddhayati 'hMX'os,, makes 
 burn' is more nearly satisfactory. But decidedly the most satis- 
 factory, as it seems to me, is the one I now propose. I note Gr. 
 Xv-Tpa 'pot, potful of sacrificial pulse,' x^pot 'hot baths' (at Ther- 
 mopylae), x°^ 'drink-offering, libation,' xoa""? 'hollow pit for 
 casting molten metal' (cf. Skr. havanl, defined by native lexica, 
 but not yet verified in the literature, by ' sacrificial fire-pit ') ; and 
 further I note Sikr. juhdti ' poms into the sacrificial fire, offers,' 
 havi-s ' oflfering,' — usually of boiled porridge. The common root 
 to all these words means ' pours into the fire, offers.' Now com- 
 paring for their signification focula with x^''P'^'' f omentum on the 
 one hand with x^rpoe, and on the other with x^'^P'^ ^nd havi-s ; and 
 noting for fomes ' kindling ' that the fat offerings (in the Vedic 
 ritual, g-hee) did in fact serve as fuel to nourish the flames 
 withal; — it seems to me that we cannot separate the group of 
 Latin words above from the Sanskrit and Greek words grouped 
 after it. There is no phonetic let or hindrance, as x"« ' hole ': 
 hsit. fovea ' pit' shows. 
 
 Besides the merit of bringing fovea and fovet together, this 
 etymology would enable us also to connect fove (i. e. foves ?) 
 on the weasel inscription with Skr. havi-s, supposing the little 
 
196 EDWIN W. FAY. 
 
 object to be either a votive offering, or, a trifle pompously, the 
 " offering of friendship ". 
 
 [I may add in passing, supposing FOVE to be the name of the 
 Uttie quadruped represented, further etymologies. The weasel 
 is often named for its beauty,'" and gave its name to a cap of 
 skin, and nf^xt (?) to one of metal (cf. Lat. galea and Gk. yaXt'ij 
 'weasel'), — though independent origin of these terms from the 
 signification of 'shining, bright', is not impossible. Thus fove 
 might be made out a cognate of Skr. f^aw 'skin, beauty', from 
 a primitive base, s)KHaVirYE. Or the weasel, particularly the 
 ferret and ermine varieties, may have been named from its white, 
 bright color, — and even the common weasel is while-bellied, with 
 back of reddish brown. So we might compare with FOVE Skr. 
 dhavald-s ' white'. Inasmuch as Gr. ai!A.oupof means both weasel 
 and cat, it would then be possible to explain together fove 
 (sc. animal}) a.nd/eles, — from prim. Italic *feveles, with e from tve 
 in quick speech : I note for the structure the Sankrit pair chagas, 
 ckigalds 'goat', and for the vocalism Gr. w^-c'-Xt;. The spelling 
 faeles in manuscripts of Varro and Cicero is absolutely incapable 
 of proving the priority of ae to e in this word." Other names of 
 the weasel possibly present this same signification : thus beside 
 yiiKir\ we may note yaXi^vrj 'calm' (with the epithet 'white' in the 
 Odyssey). Does yaXa 'milk' also belong with these words? In 
 German slang I have heard milk called weissheit. Might not 
 Cymric ^i?/f 'weasel ' be referred to the Celtic group belonging 
 to the root be 'shines'?" Still other names of the weasel seem to 
 mean 'nimble, quick','" and hence fove might be connected with 
 Gr. floor 'quick', 6ms (note the plural 6u,avT(i) 'jackal'. Those 
 Avestan scholars who render gabwa by 'cat'" might find its 
 etymon in fove, and connect both with Skr. gandhd-s ' perfume', 
 with the bad sense of 'stink' in modern Persian derivatives. 
 
 Inasmuch, however, as the proof has not been rendered that 
 fove does mean weasel, I recommend none of these etymologies.] 
 
 If the current etymologies iox fovei fail to bring conviction on 
 the semantic side, they but fail the more for favet, as a secondary 
 form of fovet. There is a separate etymology for favet, con- 
 necting with O. Bulg. goveti 'religiose vereri', Lith. gausus 
 'abundant', V^&iixc gmisa 'abundance, prosperity'." But these 
 Tialto Slavic words seem to me rather to be cognate with Skr. juhdii 
 'offers sacrifice', especially gausus, which corresponds in sense 
 to the Greek advb. ^i-Srjv (Ldt./use) 'copiously'. To reconcile 
 
AN ERRONEOUS PHONETIC SEQUENCE. I97 
 
 Avestan zaoBra 'offering' with this group we must assume 
 variation between palatal and unlabialized guttural." 
 
 ¥ot favet I have two explanations to offer, either of which 
 seems to me to account for the signification and case con- 
 struction of the word. If we render it by 'regards, looks upon', 
 German 'sieht an, achtei {aufy, we may make it a cognate of 
 Homeric 6t)io\i.ai 'I gaze at with interest, marvel at, admire'; 
 6av\ia ' wondrous sight'. But if we make a study of the earlier 
 usage of the word we shall reach a different definition. 
 
 Naevius, 56:" dubii fauentem per fretum introcurrimus, 
 "doubtful we dart through the gaping strait" — the Symple- 
 gades, I conjecture. 
 
 Ennius, Trag. 250:" fauent faucibus russis | canlu plausuque 
 premunt alas, "they (the cocks) gape with jaws wide open 
 (russis from revorsus, or from russus ' red ' ?) etc." 
 
 Ennius, Ann. 376:" matronae moeros complent spectare 
 fauentes, "and the dames fill the walls, gaping to behold.'") 
 
 Accius, 510:" cives oitiinibus faustis auguslam adhibeant | 
 fauentiam, ore obscena dicta segregent, "let the folk accord the 
 omens blest a soleinn wide-mouthed attention, and from their 
 lips' ill-omened speech remove." 
 
 Ennius, Annates, 414 :" hie insidiantes vigilant, partim requi- 
 escunt I contecti gladiis sub scutis ore fauentes, "here they set an 
 ambush; some watch, some begin to nap, covering themselves, 
 swords (handy), beneath their shields, with mouths ayawn." 
 
 With these passages before us, we can hardly avoid the con- 
 clusion that the specific sense ol favet in the early period was 
 'gapes at, admires'. By this etymology yaz/matf and favus may 
 both be explained as cognates q{ favet. The phrase favete Unguis 
 lends itself to explanation as a substitute for orefaventes, connoting 
 the wide-mouthed hush of astonishment, though at Naevius 1 1 1-2 
 (cf. Enn. TV. 250 V. cited above), regum filiis | linguis faueant atque 
 adnutent seems to mean 'at kings' sons marvel with tongue and 
 nod'; while the pale sense ' marvel at' is all I can find in Ennius, 
 Annates 289:" Romanis luno coepit placata fauere. 
 
 I note that the word is solemn, and not used by Plautus, save in 
 the Amphitruo prologue, in the form favitores ' claqueurs '. 
 
 ') Here compare Shakespeare's King John, ii, i, 375 : 
 And stand securely on their battlements, 
 As in a theatre, whence they gape and point 
 At your industrious scenes and acts of death. 
 
198 EDWIN W. FAY. 
 
 We have now passed in review the evidence on which Solm- 
 sen chiefly relies to establish the change of ov to av in Latin. 
 We have seen that aububulcus and f(J)avissae are not of a 
 philological certainty to invite confidence in their etymological 
 explanation, though favissae may be explained as a derivative 
 oi favus 'honeycomb' (: Gr. x'^^^"^ ' porous'), or /(/^wzwae as 
 cognate — with dissimilation — to Gr. *(f>pri(^f)aTa 'wells'. There is 
 no convincing reason for separating favilla ' glowing cinder' and 
 y^a!^/^«^Mi ' clearing wind' from Gr. i^dFos 'light, glow — torch'. 
 The old explanation of cavilla from *calvilla {calumnia), or its 
 derivation from the root of Gk. KaUi 'burns' (cf Lettic kauns 
 'shame, insult'; Hesychian Kav-pos' Kanos, xauaXdf' /iojpoXoyos) are 
 more plausible than the comparison with Gr. KipaXos 'demon'. 
 The diminutive avillus (with variant abellus) 'lambkin' must 
 not be separated from «_§•««« 'lamb'. ¥ or fovei the definition 
 'applies to the fire, applies fire to' suits the more specific usage 
 of the word and its derivatives, whence follows cognation with 
 Gk. ;(€«' pours ', Skr. ywAi//? 'pours into the fire, offers'. Thus 
 fovea '(sacrificial) pit' [and fove 'sacrificial offering'?] meet a 
 common explanation With/ovet. Further, fove may be a unique 
 form oi fui, or, if it means 'weasel', be explained in sundry other 
 ways. Yox favet an apt definition is 'regards, looks upon', 
 German 'sieht an, achtet (auf)', whence might follow its cogna- 
 tion with Gr. 5a«'o/iat ' I gaze at with wonder'; Qavpa 'wonder'. 
 But the early and more specific usage of the word demands 
 the definition 'gapes (at), admires'; — whence we must infer, for 
 the structure oi favet, derivation from the base of Gr. xaSvoy 
 'porous', xaof 'yawning, void', while the sense corresponds to 
 xatTKci 'yawns, gapes', metaphorically extended to 'gapes at, 
 marvels at, admires'. 
 
 That arguments still remain in favor of the older statement of 
 the law, I do not gainsay. One of these is furnished by cavus 
 'hollow', beside which is a rustic cohum, which modern scholars, 
 correcting Varro, have defined by 'hollow in a plough'. Further, 
 Spanish cueva, Portuguese cova proceed from an earlier *cova. I 
 may spare myself the trouble of proving the originality of the a 
 in cavus by noting that, without exception, so far as I can learn, 
 scholars connect Gr. KavXis 'stalk', Lith. kdulas 'bone', and 
 Lat. caulae 'passages', deriving all these senses from 'hollow'."" 
 As to Gr. (toiXos- ' hollow ', xmoy ■ den ', xdoi ' caves ' there is 
 nothing to prove a lost F, rather than a lost y or o-, until a 
 
AN ERRONEOUS PHONETIC SEQUENCE. I99 
 
 yet undiscovered inscription or manuscript, with /, or ,>, etc., 
 comes to light. Meantime we may define xS-or by ' lair ', and 
 derive from khtoi 'lies'. I note to xma, 'the indented sides 
 of the dice', where the best authorities seem to warrant the 
 subscript iota. Should this term be connected with the island 
 of Cos, as the name of the opposite side of the dice, ra xia, 
 seems to show, then we might ask ourselves, with an atlas 
 before us, how Cos got its name ? Thus the equation of Lat. 
 cohum with k&o^ need not involve cavus at all. If it did, 
 Kooi with o may show a specific dialectal shortening of vowel in 
 Greek," For the Iberian words cited we m ight advance the notion 
 of a Greek source (Massilia), which would be to admit the F in 
 the Greek word (cf. KuCKai. in Alcaeus, 15, 14, but Pomtow reads 
 Ko'iCKai). The Iberian words may just as well, however, be of 
 Germanic origin from, or in some way aflfected by, an early Low 
 German cognate of English cove. I note in passing, but without 
 stopping here for further explanation, that a connection is pos- 
 sible between cavea'cAv& ' and Gr, koUi ' burns ' (cf aedes 'honse' , 
 but originally only ' hearth '), — the ' fire ', to wit, of the primitive 
 cave dweller, of a Robinson Crusoe, reduced to primitive condi- 
 tions. And the primitive man,''' Robinson Crusoe's man Friday, 
 uses fire as his chisel, his tool of excavation ; cavat, ' he hollows 
 out with fire'. 
 
 If FOVE be not certainly iox fave, and I think the affirmative of 
 this proposition incapable, with our present material, of proof; 
 if the originality of the a in cavus be not put in question by Gr, 
 Koo«; \i cohum and Iberian *cova be susceptible of explanation 
 without assuming Italic *cova; — I see no material left for dating 
 our supposed law. 
 
 In Latin lavit ' bathes ' beside Gr. Xdfi ' washes ', we have a 
 really strong case for the law, as Armenian loganam ' 1 bathe 
 myself may be taken to warrant d for the primitive period. Since 
 no clear case of a form in e belonging to this group has been 
 pointed out, some scholars are ready to explain the ajo variation 
 as a primitive gradation. It is possible that a wider survey of 
 this group may discover a cognate in Gr dn-oXaii« 'enjoys'. An 
 analogous correlation of senses is found in Latin madet ' is wet, 
 drenched, full of: Skr, mddati 'rejoices'; further repeated in 
 Skr, mddate ' rejoices, is merry ' : Gr. livSi ' is wet ' ; and we can 
 scarcely doubt that madet and fivha are ultimately cognate, if we 
 note the diphthongal Lithuanian maudyti ' to bathe '. The Ger- 
 
200 EDWIN W. FAY. 
 
 man verb laben means 'to wash, quicken, refresh', with some 
 question as to which signification is primary. The primitive bath 
 involves some form of rubbing, scrubbing or scraping (stripping), 
 and nothing prevents our connecting German waschen with O. IR. 
 faiscim 'I squeeze'." Similarly Lith. mduju 'I strip' ('remove 
 by cutting or scraping'), »iaM>6?^ 'I strip smooth (Lat. mucus 
 'snivel') are cognate with O. Bulg. myti 'to bathe'- A similar 
 semantic series is found in paivu 'sprinkles', paUi 'strikes', p«i 
 'flows', if these be correctly grouped together." 
 
 Now by bringing Skr. lavas 'cutting' into the group with lavat 
 'scrubs', we may set up a root law"' 'cut, scrape, scour',— and 
 in the trade of the tanner scraping and scouring are one and the 
 same operation. In Latin, moreover, we might expound Uv-it by 
 'has rubbed',— cf. particularly delet (from *delev-etT) and delev-it 
 ' has rubbed out ', iev-is ' smooth ', Gr. Xtios from *\riFj/os(i') — so 
 as to fit into a long-vowel series with lavii, from a root lew. 
 The root LAW may be identified with lew by regarding the 5 in 
 the Greek words as in some way secondary, like the problematic 
 a of nXados." Then Xd£i" belongs to low, the deflected form of 
 
 LEW. 
 
 Still another possibility : the reduced grade to a root lew — and 
 all the long-vowel forms may be long-grades in a short-vowel series 
 — would be either lu- or Tw. In Latin we might derive from Iw not 
 only lavai, — shortened from *lavat by the rule of vowel before 
 vowel," V between similar vowels not preventing this ; or originally 
 short, if Osthoff 's claim for la- from / be right—" but also alveus 
 'tub' and, with secondary meaning along the lines of well-known 
 vulgar phrases, alvus 'belly'. As lavat has all the look of a 
 denominative, we need not scruple to define it by 'tubs', in the 
 dialect of Old England. The word alumen 'alum', a scouring 
 substance used by the dyer, may also belong to this group. 
 
 I do not feel it advisable, however, to make lavit (3d conjug.) 
 a form structurally different to Xd«, especially in view of Lucilius' 
 elovies, though a consideration of the corresponding citations 
 makes me raise the question whether elovies is not cognate to 
 elevit."' That lavat is the product of *lovat, with assimilation of 
 o to the following a, and more particularly in forms accented like 
 lavdtis, seems to me a proposition we may not refuse to grant, 
 , even though we cannot prove it directly. The Latin glossaries" 
 gives us lacatio for locatio, clabaca (i. e. clavacd) and claucus for 
 cloaca.^^ 
 
AN ERRONEOUS PHONETIC SEQUENCE. 20I 
 
 Summing up here the discussion of lavat: semantic parallels 
 can be adduced to support a cognation between lavat and Gr. 
 airoKavu, 'enjoys', deriving both from lew, low in a long- vowel 
 series (with problematic a in the Greek forms). Whatever the 
 vocalism of its root be, a reduced grade 7w is possible, whence 
 in Latin a/w-, or lav- (? lav-'). Or, inferring from elovies: Xotc 
 original *lovit, the change in lavit may have come about by a 
 specific Latin vowel assimilation in lavdmus, lavdtis, etc, 
 
 A sound etymology cited for the law seems to me to be Lat. 
 pavei 'is fear struck, trembles': Gr, tttocZ 'frightens', cf. Trrryaaei 
 i) ' frightens ', 2) ' cowers, is frightened ', Tniaaati ' crouches ', 
 v(irTj]ms 'crouching'. But beside /af«/ is ^az/?/ 'strikes', with the 
 same correlation to pavet 'is frightened' ('is fear-struck') that we 
 see in tacit 'strikes': iacet 'lies, is struck'. In Gr, uTaUt i) 'trips', 
 2) 'stumbles' we have a specialization of the meaning of nrotl 
 and TTT^o-o-ti on the one hand, and of jrat« 'strikes' on the other 
 [cf. Tr(j)oKtixos, 7r(T)dXir]. The whole secret of the vocalism of this 
 group we need not examine here, but merely justify the a in 
 pavet, pavit by the a of the Greek forms. 
 
 Apparently strong evidence for the law is yielded by cavei ' is 
 wary, bewares'; Koei 'hears, heeds'. If the specific sense of Kotl 
 is 'hears', as it may well be, why need we separate it from oK-ov-ti 
 (cf. oKo^ ' hearing ') ? Hesy chius furnishes the further forms koo" oKoiei, 
 and (Koa/its' tiKoiaaiitv. Accepting Kretschmer's" explanation of 
 dK-ou-(i: Gothic h-aus-jan 'to have sharp ears', k-o-H corres- 
 ponds in its reduced grade with h-aus-jan. The accord between 
 the vocalism of /too and of nxpoaojiai constitutes a further argument 
 for their cognation with h-aus-jan. 
 
 If we follow the current definitions, 6voa-Kooi means the 'sacri- 
 ficing priest ', and Hesychian BvoaKtl means ' make burnt offerings '. 
 These and Hesychian itoii;r 'priest' we might connect with icatet 
 'burns'," deriving koIus from *Ka>Fyt]s and 6voa-Kaos from °-(caos, 
 with assimilation of a to the neighboring o's. To the same root 
 we may safely allot O. Bulg, kovati, Lith. ,^fl«/z 'to forge'. In 
 English hews the sense of 'hammers metal' has yielded to 'ham- 
 mers with metal, cuts'. In S^r. kdvac a- s 'cosit of mail, bodice, 
 jacket ', Gr. KavvaK<)s ' cloak ', " — said to be of Persian manufacture — , 
 [kuWi; 'helmet' (?)], Kav<ria 'felt hat', (cSai •Rtece'yUth. kai<ras 
 'carpet' we have further cognates. Nearly the entire shift of 
 meaning of these words is exhibited by English corselet, corset, 
 if we start with ' coat of mail ' as the primary signification. How- 
 
202 EDWIN IV. FAY. 
 
 ever, felt-making, with its beating and heating, is not unlike 
 forging in its mechanical processes. 
 
 We may see in the Balto-Slavic words how naturally the sense 
 of 'forges' develops from 'burns,' and we need not be told how 
 easily technical terms shift from a special art to artistry in general, 
 e. g., in TiKtaiv, Skr. idksati" and their cognates ; so also in Latin, 
 in faber ' smith,' fabre ' skilfully, ingeniously.' Thus with O. 
 Bulg. kovati ' to forge ' we may connect Skr. kavi-s ' wise, shrewd ' 
 and, with a bad sense, kavatnil-s, kavari-s, ' selfish, stingy.' Cer- 
 tain Slavic cognates'" develop the sense of 'treacherous' and so 
 do other words of the same meaning, e. g. English forges, Gr. 
 TrXao-ofi, Lat. fabrefecit (see e. g. Plautus, Most, 892). I see no 
 reason why we may not explain Lat. cavet 'is wary' as a denom- 
 inative to an adjectival *cavo- ' cunning, wary,' a slightly oppro- 
 brious counterpart of Skr. kavi-s 'wise.' For the vocalism of 
 the root it will be well to note Hesychian Kaa- ivix^pa ' sureties,' 
 with the same legal sense as cautio in Latin. 
 
 I briefly sum up the meanings found in the above group : A., 
 verbal : i) burn, (s)melt, 2) forge, — 2a) counterfeit, deceive — , 3) 
 hew, cut, etc. with a transfer from metal working to wood working; 
 B., adjectival : workmanlike, skilful, wise, cunning, wary. 
 
 We are now prepared to add certain other words to this group, — 
 Lat. ciidtC forges,' Skr. ku-dayati, M-layaiz 'hums '; Lat. cau-tes, 
 Skr. ku-lam ' cliff,' from the sense of ' cut,' cf. English scar 
 'scaur' : shear. With this pair we can join the explanation 
 already advanced for Lat. cavus (v. on cavea, p. 199), though cavus 
 perhaps means literally 'cleft,' as cau-dex ms.yvae^.'o. 'cleft wood.' 
 Greek is prolific of forms in kC-, e. g., Kvhain. 'abuses' (: cavilla, v. 
 supra, p. 192), Ku-StoToy 'most skilful, reputed for skill,' Ku-pti 
 'strikes, hits upon, gets,' Kv-plaaci 'strikes (with horns).' 
 
 In all the forms already adduced the initial k- seems to be a 
 pure guttural, but Gothic hawi 'hay ' and Gr. irolrj ' fodder' bear 
 association with this group if we construct a base qow-ya. It is 
 a fact of some importance that the four labializing languages all 
 fail to labialize before u, and I see no reason why this phenomenon 
 may not be dated in the Aryan period, whence beside QOW we 
 might expect Ku ; or, even dating the phenomenon in the derived 
 languages, we may look for confusion of g and k. Thus we may 
 not only reconcile Gr. nolrj with this group, but also compare Skr. 
 kavyd-s 'wise, seer, poet,' kdvya-m 'poem ' with Gr. Trotijr^jr 'poet.' 
 I note that Homer uses rroiel of the acts of the smith and the car- 
 
AN ERRONEOUS PHONETIC SEQUENCE. 203 
 
 penter, and after him it is used of the sculptor and poet. We 
 may illustrate by O. Eng. lar-smi^, 'lore-smith,' wundorsmi^, 
 'miracle doer,' wrdht-smi^, ' cr\m&-doer,' gryn-smi^, 'grief-causer' 
 etc., which show a similar generalization of meaning. It is hardly 
 necessary to add that rroiPeu may be legitimately deduced from 
 ^nhPyei, and no Sanskrit scholar, I take it, will be particularly 
 drawn to its equation with cindti 'heaps, gathers,'" — even with 
 Lat. struit 'heaps, builds ' before his eyes.' 
 
 We have now passed in review the evidence for Latin av 
 from ov, and I have oflfered for all alleged cases explanations, 
 phonetically normal, and semantically plausible, not involving the 
 equation of Lat. av with the ov of any other language, — save for 
 the single group lavit : Xo«, and here, besides other possibilities, 
 we cannot disprove the suggestion that in lavare vowel assimila- 
 tion has taken place. 
 
 University of Texas. EDWIN W. FaY. 
 
 'Lindsay, Lat. Lang., p. 235. ' Horton-Smith, Am. Jr. Phil., 16,457 
 ' Buecheler, Rhein. Mus., 52, 392. *Vol.2o,90. ^K. Z., 37, i seq. * Woch 
 Klass. Phil., 1895, 923 [and again in the current volume of K. Z.]. ' Indog 
 Ablaut, §35, a. * Varro, ap. Gellium, z, 10. 'Goetz, Thesaurus Glossarum 
 Emettdatariim, s. v. '"v., e.g., Guhl und Koner, Leben d. Griech. u 
 Roemer, fig. 413. " Transac. Am. Phil. Assoc, 29, 18'. "Indog. Korsch. 
 Anz., II, 173. "v. the essay cited at 11. "^[but v. Andresen, deutsche 
 Volksetymologie", 9]. "Rhein. Mus., 51, 326. "Keil, Gram. Lnt. 1, 296 
 i« V. also 4. "v. Schreiber's Atlas, xviii, 5. "^C. I. L. xv, 7065. "v 
 Buecheler, Carm. Epigr. Selec, no. 34. "v. Hehn's Kulturt flanzen n 
 Hausthiere', 588. "^ pace Schrader, B. B., 15, 129. " Fick-Stoke's Woert. 
 p. 164. "v. Brugmann, Grundriss, i', 600 and Bezzenberger, (in title no, 
 21), p. 163. "v. Hirt, B. B., 24, 218 seq., 290. ^4 Kibbeck's Scaen. Rovi 
 Poesis Frag.^ «« Vahlen's Ennii Frag, "v., c g., Hoffmann, Gr. Dial., z 
 437. "v. Brugmann, Gr. Gram.' §39. ''v. Mason, Woman's Share in 
 Primitive Culture, 32 et al. ^9 y. Kluge, Etym. Woert., s. v. ™ v. Prellwitz, 
 Etym. Woert., s. v. "v. Hirt, cited in no. 7, §115. ''v. G. Mever's Gr, 
 Gram.,' §35, Hirt, I.e., §283. s'Solmsen, I.e., 2'. ^^ but v. Brugmann 
 Grundriss, i,' §514, anm. 2. "^ap. Nonium, p. 103, lines 27, 24. '« Schu 
 chardt, Vokalismus, i, 179. "K. Z., 33, 5^3 seq. ''so Prellwitz, 1. 1., s. v. 
 KOLaoiiai, virith a query. ^^ pace Schrader, 1. c, p. 131. *" v. the etymological 
 lexica of Prellwitz and Uhlenbeck, s. vv. "v. Miklosich, Woert., p. 153. 
 "pace Brugmann, 1. c, p. 589; Gr. Gram.' §178. 
 
THE CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND 
 
 POETRY IN EARLY GREEK 
 
 LITERATURE. 
 
 On dj Trpof Ti)i> iiovbik^v olKudrara iiixuvTO ol apxaloi S^\ov 
 Kol ff '0/4pov • (Athenaeus, xiv, 632 c.) 
 
 It is a familiar fact that in some of the most highly developed 
 forms of Greek literature, the sister arts of poetry, music and 
 dance were combined and produced a homogeneous effect. Thus 
 an ode of Pindar's was not merely a poetical but also a musical 
 composition, which was composed not to be read, but to be sung 
 to instrumental accompaniment, and not only sung, but danced 
 with appropriate and expressive gestures. It is, in fact, this union 
 of the arts that accounts for the marvelous elaboration of form 
 which the greatest of Pindar's odes exhibit. 
 
 In most of the forms of melic poetry, of which the Pindaric ode 
 is an example, poetry, music and dance are inseparable. No one 
 art is employed to the exclusion of the other two. In the drama, 
 however, while all three arts are utilized at one time or another, 
 they are employed in combination only in the lyrical parts, and 
 even here there are exceptions. 
 
 This union of the arts in the most complex of Greek literary 
 forms is due, not to any artificial process of combination, but 
 to the survival of earlier and even primitive ideas. Aristotle, 
 " master of those who know," looking back as an historian over 
 almost the whole field of Greek classical literature, realizes that 
 the arts of poetry, music and dancing stand in essential unity and 
 rest upon a common basis. They are all imitative arts, imitating 
 by means of language, melody or rhythm the characters, pas- 
 sions and actions of men.^ Rhythm, indeed, may be said to be 
 common to all three, for poetry is rhythm expressed in words, 
 music is rhythm expressed in sounds, and the dance is rhythm 
 expressed in bodily movements.'' Greek literary history furnishes 
 
 ' Aristotle, Patties, i. 4 and 1. 5 . 
 
 ' Butcher, Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art* (Macmillan, 1898), 
 p. 138. 
 
2o6 H. RUSHTON FAIRCLOUGH. 
 
 abundant illustrations of this union of the rhythmic arts. The 
 lyric or dramatic poet was necessarily a musician, and not only 
 wrote the verses to be sung, but gave them their musical setting.' 
 More than this, he possessed a practical knowledge of orchestic, 
 and, as x<'po8'S"<r'«'^of. originally taught the chorus the various 
 gestures, postures and attitudes, which, under the name dancing, 
 aided in the expression of emotion and the interpretation of his 
 verse. 
 
 In these days most of us would probably be slow to admit that 
 our complex art of music is in any sense imitative of human life, 
 while dancing has been vulgarized, and as a fine art has almost 
 disappeared from our midst. But though each of these sister 
 arts now moves along independent lines, still there can be no 
 doubt that the Greek view of their essential unity — based upon 
 the common rhythmic element — is in strict accord with primitive 
 conceptions, and may even to-day be illustrated in the customs 
 of many aboriginal peoples. 
 
 The union, for example, of song and dance, is almost universal 
 among the primitive peoples of the world. The aborigines of 
 America, Africa and Australasia almost invariably combine 
 dancing with vocal and instrumental music." Dance and song, 
 indeed, are "so unified, that it is neither possible to treat of the 
 subject of primitive dance without primitive music, nor to make 
 it even probable by means of ethnological examples that they 
 ever were separated." ° 
 
 The third member in the triad, poetry, can hardly claim a 
 status as ancient as that of dance or music. Among primitive 
 races vocal music often exists without language of any sort, the 
 expressions used being mere aids to vocalization. In many cases 
 though definite words are used, these are practically meaningless. 
 Poetry, indeed, however simple, has an intellectual basis and 
 implies a certain amount of mental cultivation. It is, however, 
 not infrequently developed by races that are still in a primitive 
 stage of culture, in which case it is invariably set forth in the 
 
 ' Cf. Emil lieich, Nnngarian Lilerature (V,ondon, 1898), p. 30 : "Music 
 in Hungary is the vocal and instrumental folk-lore of the people, and no 
 lyrical poet of the Magyars could help' writing without having in view the 
 •musical adaptation of his poem." 
 
 ' WallascheU, Primitive Music (London, l893),/iw«>«. 
 
 ^ Ibid., p. 187. 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETR V. 20/ 
 
 form of song. The Maoris, Australians and Tahitians have song- 
 poetry of a comparatively artistic value. 
 
 An important feature of all primitive music is its preference for 
 rhythm as compared with melody. The Iroquois Indians, for 
 example, have a highly developed sense of rhythm in their music 
 and dances, but their melodies are very poor.' The Samoans, a 
 highly musical race, always keep time well, though they care 
 little for distinct melodies; while among the Siamese, a people 
 devoted to song, "modulation and expression," we are told, 
 "were sacrificed to power and rhythmic effect."' In fact, in 
 the music of primitive races, melody is always a matter of slight 
 consideration. " We do not meet with a single instance among 
 savages of melody, fixed according to musical principles."' 
 
 Among savages, dancing and singing directly reflect pleasur- 
 able and painful states of mind. The native Australian sings, when 
 hungry or sated, when angry or glad. The songs of Indians vary 
 distinctly in character, according as the occasion is a mournful or 
 merry one. The Greenland Eskimos can express various passions 
 in their dances and drum music. Similarly, nearly all aboriginal 
 people recognize the great emotional power of music and use 
 it both to cure disease and to banish evil spirits. Under the 
 influence of his native rhythms, the Australian rushes to the 
 hunt and the fray, or is soothed into tranquillity and submission.* 
 Even among the most civilized nations of to-day, no art takes 
 such a direct hold upon the emotions as music. You will see 
 more emotion in a concert-room than in an art-gallery, and this 
 is especially true when the music is of the simpler, more tangible 
 kind. 
 
 In the light of these facts, the testimony of Greek philosophers 
 as to both the ethical and the imitative character of music is 
 more intelligible, inasmuch as Greek music, though far removed 
 in point of development from that of primitive races, was much 
 simpler than the modern art. Just as in China music has 
 been under state supervision, and edicts have been issued 
 against effeminate airs, so Plato, in the firm conviction that 
 melodies and rhythms are expressive of character and react upon 
 it, would have the whole musical art controlled by authority.' 
 "A musical training," he tells us, "is of supreme importance, 
 
 1 /i5/rf., p. 51 . "^ Ibid., f. 21. 2 /iJjrf., p. 230. */i52rf., pp. 39, 44 £f. 
 » Plato, Republic, iii, 398 C £f. 
 
208 H. RUSHTON FAIRCLOUGH. 
 
 because rhythm and melody sink into our inmost soul, and take 
 hold of it most powerfully." ' Hence the importance of admitting 
 into education only the right kind of rhythms and melodies — 
 those, namely, which will contribute to the upbuilding of a manly, 
 noble and beautiful character. Unwholesome music, through its 
 pernicious effect upon the citizens, may ultimately disturb the 
 most important institutions of the state." It is in a similar spirit 
 that Aristotle recognizes in musical forms the very image and 
 reflection of human passions and character.' The various modes 
 of Greek music have their own peculiar character, imitating 
 various states of feeling and affecting the hearers in distinctly 
 different ways. Even the curative properties of music are recog- 
 nized by Aristotle, who speaks of sacred melodies, in which men 
 laboring under religious frenzy have found healing and cleansing 
 for their souls.* 
 
 Thus we see how, even in the late days of Plato and Aristotle, 
 Greek music preserved some of the striking features of the prim- 
 itive art. It was still in a comparatively rudimentary stage and 
 maintained a close hold upon human life, exerting with its marked 
 rhythm a strong psychical and even physical influence. It 
 was simple and direct, a vehicle for emotional expression, and 
 appealing direcdy to the feelings of the hearer. As with Chinese 
 music, its modes were believed to be full of significance and moral 
 import. The connection between words and tune was close and 
 vital, the time of the music coinciding perfectly with the metre 
 of the verse. The unified art was, however, in such a stage, that 
 poetry was the dominant element, the music being subsidiary and 
 serving not to obscure, but to emphasize and illustrate the force 
 of the words. To Plato, indeed, music without words is a mean- 
 ingless anomaly.* Further, though the Greeks were familiar with 
 harmony," of which even savage nations have some knowledge,' 
 they never employed it in vocal music, their choruses being sung 
 in unison, so that the poetry did not become indistinct amid a 
 variety of melodies. 
 
 '/i!'/rf.,40i D. ^ Ibid.,\v, i,i\C. ' Aristotle, /><)/. v (viii) 5. 1340 a i8. 
 
 * Ibid., 7. 1342 a 10 : « 6i ran hpav fielov dpiifiev ToiiTov;, brav xt'^N^vrat 
 roif i^opyi&t^ovcsL rtjv fvxf/v fiiUai, icadiaTa/nhovc, aamp laTpeiai Tvx6vTa( icai 
 iffiBdpaeas. 6 pjato, Laws ii, 669 E. 
 
 ' Westphal, Die Mtisik des griechischen Alterthumes (Leipzig, 1883), p. 24. 
 
 ' Wallaschek, Frimitive Afusic, pp. 139 ff. 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETRY. 209 
 
 In view, then, of the intimate relations maintained between 
 music and poetry even in the late days of Greek literature, let 
 us endeavor to ascertain how close a connection existed between 
 them in the age portrayed for us in the earliest of our extant 
 literature, the epic. 
 
 It must, of course, be assumed that the Iliad and Odyssey are 
 the resultant of a long process of antecedent development. The 
 epic, indeed, presupposes lyric sources, which in their turn, if we 
 may draw conclusions from the customs of various aboriginal races, 
 go back to a primitive drama of a pantomimic character.' Of 
 such a drama we learn very little from Homer.' In one passage 
 from the Iliad" we have a reminiscence in a dance of youths and 
 maidens, headed by two /tu^iorijr^pe or professional players, who 
 perform in dumb show.* A similar scene in the Odyssey repre- 
 sents a minstrel singing to the lyre, while the Kv^itrTijTripi perform." 
 
 Of the lyrical forerunners of Homeric epic, we have much 
 more knowledge. Thus Homer mentions several forms of both 
 choral and solo lyric. The paean, for example, was sung by the 
 Achaeans after a sacrificial feast to propitiate Apollo.' It was 
 also sung as a song of victory after the death of Hector.' Of the 
 threnus, or lament for the dead, we have an instance near the 
 close of the Iliad,' where Hector is bewailed. 
 
 7ra/yd (J' s'luav aotSovg 
 dp-^vu)V e^dfjx(yvg, ol re aTov6e<raav dotdijv 
 ol fiEV 67J Bpfyveov, CTTt 6e (jTevdxovTo ywalKeg. 
 
 Here follow solos, sung by Andromache, Hecabe and Helen, 
 respectively (of 21, 12 and 14 verses in length), with whom 
 the mourning women wail in accord. Similarly, over the body 
 of Achilles a threnus is chanted by the Muses themselves respon- 
 sively, while the Nereids and the Achaeans join in the lamen- 
 tation.' The hymenaeus is described in connection with the Shield 
 
 ' Wallaschek, Primitive Music, p. 271. 
 
 ^ Unless otherwise indicated, I use this name to embrace only the Iliad 
 anA Odyssey. '2590-605. 
 
 ■• In Hector's boast, olSa 6' tvl cradlij Sti'iu iikXiztaOai ' kprji (H 241), there 
 is doubtless a reference to an ancient war-dance, in which a battle-scene 
 would be acted in pantomime. To such a scene there is also an allusion 
 in n 617, where the Cretan Meriones is called a good dancer {bpxncT^i). 
 
 "(5 17. 'A 473. 'X39iff. 'S272off. ' a 60 B. 
 
 14 
 
2IO H. RUSHTON FAIRCLOUGH. 
 
 of Achilles.' Pipes and strings (aiXol <ji6pniyyh t«) with dancing 
 accompany the bridal song. 
 
 The Itnus was one of the early Volkslieder of Greece, being a 
 plaintive nature-song on the death of a beautiful youth who 
 typified the passing of summer. As described by Homer, it was 
 a solo sung by a boy to his own string accompaniment, while 
 youths and maidens danced, shouted and gesticulated in concert.'' 
 In the Odyssey, Calypso and Circe are represented as singing 
 (aoiSidouo-' on-i Ka\fj) as they ply the loom.' Nothing is said as to 
 the burden of their songs. Here the noise of the shuttle would be 
 a substitute for the music of strings. In the I/zad, Achilles occu- 
 pies his leisure time in singing the glories of heroes (kKcu anSpai/^ 
 to the accompaniment of a clear-toned harp {^opjuyyi Xtyelji).* 
 
 Doubtless, other varieties of song, religious and secular, were 
 familiar to Homer, but we must confine our attention to those 
 actually mentioned in the epics, of which the most important are 
 the lays setting forth the K\ea ap8pS>v. In these we must recognize 
 the immediate predecessors of the epic poems, which — whatever 
 be our theory of epic composition — must be regarded as embrac- 
 ing a number of epyllia or songs of an epic character. Such an 
 epyllion was the song of Phemius,'' dealing with the return of the 
 Achaeans from Troy, "the newest song to float about men's 
 ears,"° or that of Demodocus,' setting forth Odysseus' quarrel 
 with Achilles, or again the same bard's song on Odysseus and the 
 wooden horse.' A song of this sort is described by Alcinous' 
 as aoihr]i vpvos OX ' linked song ', u/iKoy having its early meaning as 
 derived from the root found in Latin suere, English 'sew'.'° Thus 
 ifivos, as used of song, and the once disputed pa^abia have pre- 
 cisely the same original force, a fact well illustrated by the phrase 
 which Hesiod" applies to himself and Homer in the words iya, km 
 
 Ofirfpos aoifioi pfKnopev iv viapoXs vpvois pd^avT€s uoiSiji/.'^ 
 
 The numerous legends of early Greek bards, such as Orpheus, 
 Musaeus, Eumolpus and Olympus, point to a wide diffusion of 
 
 ' 2 491 ff. S£s69ff. iiEei, K22I. ''IT89. 
 
 '"326. -0352. '073ff- ««499ff. 
 
 'e 429. J°Cf. Smyth, Greei Mtlic Poets, p. xxvii. " Fr. 244 Rz. 
 
 '^ C£. Sittl, Geschichte der griechischeti Litteratur, I, p. 119, who compares 
 pdvTeiv with singen and siuwan (Eng. 'sew'). Koegel, Geschichte der 
 deutschen Litteratur, p. 143, connects singen with seq- (insece, Ivvme, and 
 therefore sagen), but not so Kluge. 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETR Y. 211 
 
 minstrelsy throughout Greece in prehistoric days. In the cata- 
 logue of the ships' is told the story of such a traditional bard, the 
 Thracian Thamyris, who is evidently regarded by the author as 
 a wandering minstrel, ready to enter into contests of song. These 
 bards, to be sure, figure nowhere else in the Iliad. Achilles, as 
 we have seen, was his own minstrel, and the doidot, who in Q 720 
 chant the threnus over Hector, were professional mourners who 
 led the dirge. In the Odyssey, however, the aoifioi have a recog- 
 nized position at court, and here, prompted by the Muse* or 
 " stirred by the god ",' they sing (d«8«i') to their own string- 
 accompaniment both Kkia avhpav and tales of the gods,* making a 
 selection from their repertoire of their own accord' or, on request, 
 taking up a narrative at some particular point" in the story. In 
 the palace of Alcinous, Demodocus, on one day, besides accom- 
 panying with his lyre the dance of the Phaeacian boys,' sang 
 three lays, two about Odysseus, and one on the love of Ares 
 and Aphrodite.' Other subjects for the minstrel's song (doi8^) 
 recorded in Homer are Orestes,' Penelope," and Clytaemnestra." 
 The minstrel" is skilled in lyre and song" and his art is de- 
 scribed" by the expression itidapis koX doifi^. He accompanies the 
 dancing,'" and opxrjVTvs and doi8^ are mentioned as closely associ- 
 ated pleasures." Evidently the art of the Homeric minstrel is 
 in that primitive stage, when singing, playing and dancing are 
 intimately connected and almost form a single interest, such as is 
 well illustrated by the description of the linos in s 569 flf." The 
 dance, however, does not usually accompany the minstrel's song, 
 and in his performance (a combination of vocal and instrumental 
 
 ' B 594 ff. ^0 73. ' ip/irfiek Seov, fl 499. 
 
 ■• Cf. Theocritus, xvi, 1, 2. 
 
 alel TovTO A(()f Koiipai^ /ii2.et, alev aoirhlc 
 ifive'tv adavarovi, i/ivclv ayaBCiv Ma avdfjav. 
 
 6 45. ' ^ 5°°' ^^^^^ ^^^"^ ' ^ ^^^- ' ^ ^^^ ^^ 
 
 ' y Z04. '" " 197- " " 200. 
 
 " In connection with this whole subject, compare Koehler, " Uier den 
 Stand Berufsntdssiger Sanger im Nationalen Epos Germanischer Volker," 
 in Germania, XV (1870), pp. 27 ff. 
 
 13 fSpfuyyo; iniOTa/ievog Kal aoidiJQ, ip 406. 
 
 » a 159 ; cf. N 731 ; B 599, 600. 
 
 '5 Cf. f 145. " "■ 421. ^ 253. P 605. " 304- 
 
 " See above, p. 210, also Prickard, Aristotle on the Art of Poetry, p. 21. 
 
212 H. RUSHTON FAIRCLOUGH. 
 
 music) it is the story — the words used — which affords the main 
 charm for the hearer.* This story, however, is set forth in song, 
 and if divested of its musical garb would no longer be a tale 
 of minstrelsy, such as appealed so powerfully to the Greeks of 
 Homer's day." 
 
 This musical dress for epic narrative is regularly defined by 
 the verb atihuv. Though an instrumental accompaniment was 
 as regular a feature of the minstrel's art as vocal song, yet dci'Sciy, 
 embracing as it did the narrative, was much more representative 
 of the entire performance than such a verb as Ki6api((iv, which in 
 fact is found in Homer only once,^ or ipopiiiCeiv, which occurs only 
 three times.* On the other hand, deiSeti/, as applied to Phemius, 
 Demodocus and bards in general, is used no less than twenty- 
 eight times. It is also used twice of Achilles, as he sings the 
 (tXf'a dj-Spoii/,' and twice of the Muses themselves, once as they sing 
 in Olympus while Apollo plays the lyre,' and once of their contest 
 with the boastful Thamyris.' This, then, is the prevailing appli- 
 cation of the verb, for of actual singing in other connections 
 (presumably in combination with words), aeiSeiv or the allied 
 doiSideti' is used only eight times. It is also found once in con- 
 nection with the nightingale's song,' and once is used figuratively 
 of the bow-string, which, when touched by Odysseus, sang "like 
 a swallow."' 
 
 There still remains one instance of the word in Homer, and 
 that is in the opening line of the //tad. Here, in the invocation 
 to the Muse, the poet calls upon the goddess to do that which he 
 himself does under her inspiration. The epic poet, who, like 
 his own Achilles or Demodocus, sings the kXeo dvS/aSc is himself a 
 minstrel guided by the Muse, and as his first word (mvii') intro- 
 duces the theme of his story, so the second (aeiSe) expresses the 
 mode by which it is to be presented to his hearers." 
 
 ' Cf. p 519, itte^ IfiepdevTa ^poTolaiv. 
 
 ' Cf. p 518-521. (if 6' 8t' aoL6bv avf/p iroTidcpKETai, bg te daciv ff 
 asiS-ij, Aedai>( lire' l/iepdevra fiporoiatv. 
 Toil S' afioTov /icfidaaiv OKOveficv, dKvdr' aeidy 
 £if kfLE KElvog IdekyE irapT/fxevog ev peydpotaiv. 
 
 ° 2 570. * In the Odyssey only, the instance in 2 605 being spurious. 
 
 '1189,191. «A6o4. 'B598. "rsig- '^411. 
 
 • ""In the corresponding line of the Odyssey, ivvewe is used, as elsewhere 
 lancTc (cf. B 484), from the root found in insece, sagen, say. The two terms 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETR V. 213 
 
 We are all, of course, familiar with a common use of the verb 
 'sing', and its equivalents in various languages, according to 
 which the poet is represented as a si?/ger, whose productions are 
 veritable son^s. This use, it is needless to say, is more or less 
 artificial, and for the most part is a mere imitation of the language 
 of early poets, who actually did sing their compositions. How 
 often, for instance, has this use of atlSeiv in Homer suggested a 
 word for the more learned, less naive poetry of later times? In 
 arma virumque cano Vergil imitates the opening of the Odyssey, 
 but his verb he takes from that of the Iliad. Milton's " sing, 
 heavenly Muse ! " comes directly from /uiji/tv ,t«8e 6ia. But Homer, 
 living as he did in the very hey-day of Greek minstrelsy, and 
 being himself the greatest of all the dotSm',' is little likely to have 
 used the verb in these opening words of the Iliad in a purely 
 artificial sense — a sense in which he employs it nowhere else, and 
 which is at all times rare in Greek literature." Thus in his great 
 epic the word retains its primary and natural meaning. The poet 
 was indeed a singer, and Homeric poetry preserves this notable 
 feature of the primitive poetic art. It was intended to be actually 
 sung. 
 
 As we have said, an instrumental accompaniment was a 
 regular though less essential feature of the art of the noiSds.' 
 As Odysseus and the swineherd drew near to the palace, 
 "the sound of the hollow lyre rang around them,"' ava, yup 
 ff</)t(rt ^dWer' atiSeiv *ij/:ttor. Similarly, when Telemachus and 
 the disguised Athene came among the suitors, an attendant 
 placed a lyre in the hands of Phemius, and ^ toi o tpop/ilCav 
 
 are in no sense contrasted, yet they are not synonymous. The one, aeiSeiv, 
 involves the other, kvioirelv, and expresses not only the fact of telling a 
 story, but also the manner of doing so. Compare what is said below on 
 Xeyew re Kal fdew in Plato. 
 
 ' Cf. Hesiod, Fr. 244 Rz., eya koI 'O/i^jpoi aoiSol /ikXwo/iev n. t, A. 
 
 ' The verb applicable to our ' the poet sings ' or ' writes ' is ttoieIv or 
 simply Xeyeiv, not gSeiv. Plato nowhere uses ^deiv of the poet from whom 
 he quotes. See p. 217 below. 
 
 ' It is hardly necessary to call attention to the prominence of the harp or 
 similar stringed instrument among the early Germanic and various other 
 peoples. (Cf. Koegel, Geschichte der deutschen Litteratur, p. 142; "the non- 
 strophic epic song was regularly delivered with harp accompaniment." 
 For its importance among the Old English, see Padelford, Old English 
 Musical Terms, (Bonn, 1899) pp. 2, 6 ff. *p 261-3. 
 
214 H. RUSHTON FAIRCLOUGH. 
 
 aye^aWero KoKov dt/Setv.' It is a question whether in these passages 
 avaSdWiadat is used of the instrumental prelude, " sounded the 
 prelude to his sweet singing", or of the opening of the song 
 itself, "lifted up his voice in sweet song". The latter inter- 
 pretation is supported by a passage in the Hymn to Hermes' 
 
 yripvfT d^^oXdSjjVj eparri fie ol ecnrero (jioipjjf 
 
 where dfi^oXdSifv " by way of prelude " certainly modifies yr^pviro. 
 However, even if Phemius " touched the chords in prelude to his 
 sweet singing", it does not follow that the lyre was confined to 
 the prelude and that the rest of the song was purely vocal. If 
 such an interpretation were applied to the opening of Pindar's 
 First Pythian, we might infer from the beautiful apostrophe of the 
 Xpvaia (popiiiy^, which " with quivering strings gives the prelude 
 to choir-leading overtures ",' that only the prelude, but not the 
 ode itself was accompanied by the strings. No one has ever 
 imagined this. 
 
 Tradition indicates that in reference to the lyre accompaniment 
 there may have been some distinction between Homeric and 
 Hesiodic epic. Hesiod is said to have been excluded from a 
 Pythian musical contest, because he did not accompany himself 
 on the lyre,* and Pausanias finds fault with a sculptor for repre- 
 senting Hesiod with a KtBdpa on his knees, when the poems them- 
 selves show that, as he sang, he held in his hand a laurel staff,* 
 viz. that which the Muses gave him when they consecrated him 
 to their service. In Homer, the staff is held as a sign of authority 
 by heralds, judges and speakers in the assembly, but is never 
 mentioned as a symbol of minstrelsy. Pindar, however, himself a 
 Boeotian, and therefore probably more familiar with Hesiodic 
 than Homeric symbolism, assigns the pa|38or to Homer, for "by 
 the staff of his divine heroics he set forth the excellence (of Ajax) 
 for others to sing".° 
 
 However, the very fact that Hesiod presented himself at a dis- 
 tinctly musical contest would show that whether he employed 
 
 ' a 155; so 8 266, of Demodocus. 2 1. 426. 
 
 * ityriai.x^P'^v tmorav irpooi/iiav 
 
 a/ifioMf reiixriC i^rh^ofiiva. * Pausanias, 10. 7. 3. 
 
 ^/6id.,i). 30. 3; Hesiod, Theog, 30. 
 " (card j)dp6ov Ifpaaev deaiveaiav iivluv Aojvroif dSvpciv, Pindar, IsiA, 3, 56. 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETR Y. 2 1 5 
 
 the lyre or not he regarded his work as belonging to the musical 
 art. Moreover, we must remember the striking difference in tone 
 and intrinsic worth between Homeric and Hesiodic verse, much 
 of the latter being mere prose in contents, though verse in form, 
 so that Hesiod may not have found much favor at a' Pythian 
 contest. And finally, we must not forget that in thus'gossiping 
 about the old epic poets, Pausanias " seems to repeat the stories 
 of the time when the richer and more elaborate lyric poetry came 
 to look upon the old epic recitation as bald and poor."* 
 
 The successors to the Homeric aoCboi are the so-called rhapso- 
 dists. The term pa\j/aS6t is of late origin, occurring first in 
 Herodotus," who tells us that Clisthenes, tyrant of Sicyon {circa 
 596-565 B. C.) stopped the rhapsodists from contending for prizes 
 in Homeric verse, because Argos and the Argives are celebrated 
 throughout. The verb pa^^Seiv first appears in the Ecclesiazusae 
 of Aristophanes,' and in Plato,* who applies it to Homer and 
 Hesiod themselves. Hesiod's own expression pa^avrtr aoihi^v, and 
 Pindar's designation of the Homeridae,' panrav iiriav aoihoi, illus- 
 trate the meaning of the first element" in the compound, — a com- 
 pound which could hardly have been formed before it was 
 necessary to distinguish between varieties of 001817. Thus the 
 term pa^ahla, 'stitched, i. e. linked or continuous song,' did not 
 originate until other forms of ao'iSij came into prominence, and 
 chiefly such as are associated with melic, a name which is prob- 
 ably due to the grouping of words and music in members (xaro 
 (xe\ij),' as contrasted with the unbroken continuous flow of epic 
 and certain other forms of verse. Similarly, rhapsodists were 
 sometimes called crnxaSoi," because the poetry they rendered con- 
 sisted of single lines, which were not grouped in melic systems. 
 
 Closely connected with the rhapsodists is that body of verse 
 which has come down to us known as the Homeric Hymns. 
 These Hymns, showing as they do much diversity of language 
 and tone, evidently belong to different times and places, and 
 
 • Mahaffy, Gretk Literature, vol. I. p. 117, note 2. 
 
 5 t 67. ' !• 678. The play was produced in 393 B. c. 
 
 • Rep. X, 600 D. ' -^"n- 2- 2- 
 
 ' See above, p. 210. For another explanation, see Croiset, Zffj^oiVe de la 
 Littifrature Grecque, Vol. I, p. 412, note 3. 
 ' Cf. Smyth, Greek Melic Poets, pp. xviii ff. 
 
 • Schol. ad Find. Nem. 2. I. 
 
2 1 6 H. R US ETON FA IR CL O UGH. 
 
 testify to the wide-spread and long-continued custom of rhap- 
 sodizing. We learn from Pindar' and Plutarch" that rhapsodists 
 composed hymns as preludes to their rendering of Homeric and 
 other poetry. Hence, besides vyLvoi, we also find the word rrpooifiia 
 frequently used of these compositions, — a term appropriate 
 enough to the smaller Hymns, though less so to the larger ones, 
 some of which are long enough to be of independent interest. 
 
 The Homeric Hym7is were composed by rhapsodists in con- 
 nection with various religious festivals, at which there were 
 contests of song. Of such contests we have frequent notices 
 from the close of the seventh century B. C. on, while tradition 
 carries us back to the time of Homer himself. The most notable 
 contest was connected with the Panathenaea, where by a law of 
 Solon's it was ordained that rhapsodists should render Homer in 
 consecutive, not hap-hazard order. 
 
 The most complete description which we possess of the rhapso- 
 dist's art is that given by Plato in his Ion. It is not necessary to 
 give the details of this familiar picture, but we may note one 
 important fact. Even in Plato's day the rhapsodist's rendition of 
 Homer was regarded as a kind of musical performance. Thus 
 pailraSta is not only a branch of iiovaiKrj," but it is grouped ' with 
 auXi)CT(f, KtOdptcris and KidapaSia as a kindred art, and as each of the 
 other terms designates a form of vocal or instrumental music, it 
 seems clear that paip-aSla is regarded in a similar way. Moreover, 
 the verb aduv is used of Ion's rendition of the Odyssey" and of the 
 performance of rhapsodists in general,' and further, a portion of 
 Homer as presented by a rhapsodist is even called by Plato a 
 /lAof," a word which certainly implies a distinctly musical element. 
 
 Notwithstanding Plato's language. Professor Jebb claims' that 
 "the rhapsode of Plato's time clearly did not stn^" Homer to 
 music," for though Sdeiv is used of Ion's performances, " that word 
 was applicable to any solemn recitation: thus Thucydides applies 
 it to the reciting of an oracular verse.'" Jebb seems to forget 
 that " singing and recitation— as the very word recitative should 
 be enough to remind any one — pass into each other by degrees 
 imperceptible to any but a technical ear." " Moreover, the use of 
 
 • A^em. 2. I. ' De Musica, 6. » Ion, 530 A. < Ibid., 533 B. 
 
 ' Hid., 535 B. • Ibid., 532 D. ' Ibid., 536 B. 8 Jebb, Homer, p. 80. 
 
 'Thucydides, i. 54. 
 
 "Saintsbury, The Flourishing of Romance and the Risi of Allegory (Scrib- 
 ner's 1897), p. 48. 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETRY. 21/ 
 
 98«i/ in Thucydides affords weak support for Jebb's contention. 
 It is found only in the second book, four times in all. In chapter 
 
 8 we read ; nai iroXXa fiiv X<iyio AeyoiTO, TToXXo hi ;^p))(r/ioXo'yoi pSoK 
 
 ^. T. X., where there is a distinct contrast between ordinary speak- 
 ing and a professional mode of rendition, quite possibly singing.' 
 In chapter 21 Ahuv is similarly used of the chanting of oracles by 
 professional ;(pi)(rfioXdyot, and in chapter 54 it is employed thus 
 twice, for with &aovrai we must doubtless supply o! xp^ff/^oXdyot and 
 in the case of SSeaOai the agency would be expressed by ino r&v 
 XpyiTjioKoyav. If the laws in certain states were " conveyed to the 
 people in forms of music and poetry," why not oracles as well?" 
 Again, a study of Plato's use of aStiv in other dialogues will 
 confirm the view that in the Ion the word does imply musical 
 presentation. Thus the phrase X«y«i> rr koI ^Sav,' which is used 
 several times, shows that ^ficiv means more than Xeyeo-. In sub- 
 stantive form the words become Xdyoi « Km tiSal.* In fact, X/ycii/ is 
 used of plain speech, and ^Sfiv of the same speech, when it 
 becomes song, such as a lover sings.' In one case, afieii/ is com- 
 bined with Troieiv, the latter being used of poetical composition, 
 the former of the rendering of the poem.' Of the fifty-four cases 
 of cfSeiv given in Ast's Lexicon Plaionicum there are probably 
 very few where the word is not used literally of singing.' In two, 
 it is said to be equivalent to celebrare.' In only two is it supposed 
 to equal pronimiiare, but an examination of the passages ° shows 
 
 ' We must supply Uyia with the second ■KoKka and " der Unterschied liegt 
 in 'O\ifovro und ydov" (Classen). 
 
 2 See Butcher, Some Aspects of the Greek Genius (Macmillan, 1893), p. 185 : 
 " we read of laws arranged as catches and sung after dinner." 
 
 ' Cf. Lachmann's article (1833) ijher Singen und Sagen, in Kleinere 
 Schriften, ed. by MUllenhoff (Berlin, 1876), pp. 461 ff. 
 
 ■i Plato, Lysis, 206 B. 
 
 5 Ibid., zos U. ; 205, E; 206 C. Cf. Sympos. 214 B. (al. iixifSuv); Gorg. 502 B. 
 
 « Lysis, 205 D. 
 
 'This may include the singing of birds (Phaedr. 85 A) and even the 
 crowing of cocUs (Svmpos. 223 C). 
 
 8 Lysis, 205 C : 5 jj TrdAif o\ti ^&u, and 205 D, atrep al ypalai gSovat. 
 
 9 Laws, ix, 854 C and D. Lucian, Herod. 833. i, uses qiuv of the mode 
 in which Herodotus presented his histories at Olympia, but we may note 
 that (i) the historian was supposed to enter a contest, which was presum- 
 ably musical (oi Ozarrfv aXV ayuviarip) vapclxcv iamdv) and therefore gdeiv is 
 probably used by analogy; (2) his books were called after the Muses in 
 
2l8 H. RUSHTON FAIRCLOUGH. 
 
 that there it is used metaphorically, the laws proclaimed being 
 treated as hymns and preludes (jrpooi/iia).' 
 
 In an enumeration of the early Greek musicians, beginning 
 with Amphion, the fabled inventor of the citharoedic art, Plutarch 
 includes Thamyris, Demodocus and Phemius, whose tales, he 
 assures us, were similar to the poems of Stesichorus and the old 
 lyric writers, who composed hexameters and set them to music 
 (fiAri).' Terpander, too, "set airs, according to his nomes, to the 
 verses of Homer as well as his own, and sang them at public 
 contests".' Terpander, in fact, was an Homeric pai/^wSdj,* whose 
 own compositions, called later npooiina KiBapaSiKii,'' are very possibly 
 represented in the extant Homeric Hymns' 
 
 From this passage in Plutarch we may draw two important 
 inferences. In the first place, we have positive testimony that 
 Homeric hexameters (non-strophic) were sung by Terpander, even 
 as hexameters were sung afterwards by Stesichorus, the latter's, 
 however, being in strophic form. In the second place, the citha- 
 roedic art existed long before Terpander, who, by his musical 
 improvements, merely enriched and enlarged its scope. Thus 
 the innovation here attributed to Terpander consisted not in the 
 singing of Homeric verse, but in singing it according to definite 
 musical styles, represented by his so-called nomes. If the more 
 elaborate music of Terpander could be applied to Homeric verse, 
 
 consequence of the recitation, and (3) he belongs to the infancy of prose, 
 and his style has many traces of its poetical origin. Cf. Dionys. Halic. 
 de Thucyd. ch. 23, p. 865. , 
 
 ' See above p. 215 f. In Plato, Rep. ii, 364 C, o\ fiiv KUKiac nipt eimtTeta^ 
 SMurec, Muretus suggested prfovrcf for 6t66vTe(, but the change would not 
 accord with Plato's use of gdeiv. 
 
 ^ De Musica 3 : 01 TvotovvTe^ Inij tovtoi^ fieXj^ irspisTidsoav. 
 
 ^ Ibid., Toig SKEOi roi^ kavTov naX Tolg 'Ofif^pov fis?iy ■KEptTidkvTa gdeiv ev Tolq 
 ajLiatv. 
 
 ■*" Every ancient doiddf is a rhapsodist, not because he sews songs to- 
 gether, but because he is a composer and reciter of epic songs (pairra ewr/). 
 He recites his own and can also recite those of others". (Comparetti, TAe 
 Traditional Poetry of the Finns, translated by Anderton,— Longmans, 
 1898-p. 357.) 
 
 ' Plutarch, De Mus. 4 : ■KeTroiT/rai. 6k tu Ttpndvdp(^ Kot irpooifita luBapadtm kv 
 iireaLV. 
 
 _ • Cf. Wolf, Prolegomena ad Homerum §§ 106-7 (pp. 64-5, Bekker); Muller, 
 Greek Literature, I, p. 206; Sittl, Geschichte der griech. Lilt. I, p. 122. 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETR Y. 219 
 
 there could certainly have been little trouble in combining with 
 it the simpler music of earlier days. 
 
 According to Timomachus, as quoted by Athenaeus,' Stesander 
 the Samian was the first citharoedus to present Homeric poetry 
 at Delphi, his selections being taken from both the Iliad and the 
 Odyssey. Here the innovation consists not in singing Homer 
 to a lyre accompaniment, but in competing in the Pythian citha- 
 roedic contests with Homeric verse, instead of poetry composed 
 by the citharoedus himself. The original contest at Delphi, 
 according to Pausanias, consisted in the singing of hymns to the 
 god Apollo,' and Eleuther is mentioned as the first who com- 
 peted with a song which was not his own.' It was a tradition 
 recognized by Athenaeus* that Homer himself had given all his 
 poetry a musical garb, and Chamaeleon is quoted as saying, in 
 a work on Stesichorus, that not only the verses of Homer, but 
 also those of Hesiod, Archilochus, Mimnermus and Phocylides 
 were sung (/ifXi»8i)fl5»'oi).' 
 
 This important statement of Chamaeleon's is in complete ac- 
 cord with the inherent probabilities of the case. The poetry of 
 the Greeks, as of all other nations," was originally song- poetry, 
 and the changes from sung to merely spoken poetry (■f iX^ jroiijait) 
 came not before, but long after Homer. It will not do to claim 
 that Homeric verse was not sung, because it is not strophic' If 
 a strophic arrangement were a necessary prerequisite for song. 
 Homer's verse would have been strophic, like the songs of the 
 Edda or the Vedic hymns. But in the Kalevala, or epic poetry 
 of the Finns, there is an "absolute want, at all times, of strophic 
 division",' and yet the epic runes (called laulu 'song', in distinc- 
 tion from luku 'reading', or magic rune which is merely recited) 
 were actually sung to the accompaniment of the kaniele, or instru- 
 
 ' Athenaeus, xiv, 638 a. 
 
 ' Pausanias, x, 7. 2, (faai vftvov if Ttiv 6e6v. 
 
 3/i/rf.,x, 7. 3. 
 
 ■• Athenaeus, xiv, 632 d, /lE/ie^cTzooiahai naaav eavTov Trjvttolriaiv. 
 
 ' Ibid., xiv, 620 c. 
 
 ' "The Japanese name for • poem ' is allied to the word ' to sing,' and it is 
 the opinion of the native literati that in olden days all poems were sung " 
 (Chamberlain, The Classical Poetry of the Japanese— Boston, 1880, p. 22). 
 
 ' Westphal, Griechische Rhythmik (Leipzig, 1885), pp. 211 £E. 
 
 > Comparetti, The Traditional Poetry of the Finns, translated by Anderton 
 (Longmans, 1898), p. 299. 
 
220 H. RUSHTON FAIRCLOUGH. 
 
 merit of five strings, corresponding to the Greek <f>6pniy^. " In 
 Finland there is no difference in form between ettoj and fiAor.'" 
 
 In Greece, the continuous, unbroken hexameter verse is alone 
 in evidence long before we meet any other. Not only so, but 
 the earliest form of historical lyric is the same. The early lyric 
 hymns were dactylic, as were also the nome, prosodia, paean, 
 hymenaeus and threnus." How strong a hold hexameter verse 
 had in lyric poetry may be inferred from the fact that four 
 hundred years after Terpander it was still used by Timotheus of 
 Miletus, in his yo^oi KtBapa&tKot, which are defined as eVij.' 
 
 The first deviation from epic verse-form is the elegiac couplet, 
 which is derived from the hexametric series by a slight modifica- 
 tion of every alternate line, so that a continuous metrical para- 
 graph is broken into small sentence-groups. This couplet, which 
 first comes into view in the seventh century b. C, proved a fitting 
 vehicle for personal reflection of all kinds, and though so closely 
 allied to the stately verse of the epic, was soon found to be 
 applicable to the most heterogeneous subjects. Elegy (a word of 
 Asiatic, non- Greek origin) is closely linked with the music of the 
 flute, and in its earlier days, whether associated with a funeral 
 or a banquet, a call to arms or sentimental moralizing, was 
 undoubtedly sung. 
 
 On this point the testimony of Plutarch is very explicit : e'v apxj, 
 yap fXeyeia pipiKonoirjpiva oi avXuSoi ji&ov* Mimnermus, the elegiac 
 poet, was a noted flute-player, and his name was associated with 
 a particular tune for the flute, known as the Kpahias vojuoj.'' How 
 the elegies of Theognis were rendered may be inferred from the 
 poet's words on his beloved Cyrnus : 
 
 Kal ae avv avXiaKOiGL 2,t'yv<pd6y'yoi^ vioc avdpeg 
 
 evKdafiu; sparoi Koha Te aal T^iyia 
 (jlBovrai.^ 
 
 — they were sung to a flute-accompaniment. As for Solon, we 
 all remember the story of how he recovered Salamis for the 
 Athenians. " Mounting the herald's stone, he sang through the 
 elegy, which thus begins: 'I am come myself as a herald from 
 lovely Salamis,' using song-embellished words, in lieu of simple 
 
 1 Uid., p. 31. 2 See Smyth, Greek Melic Poets, Introduction. 
 * ' Steph. Byz, MUj^rof. 
 
 * Be Musica,%, '^ Ibid. 'Theognis, 241-3. 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETRY. 221 
 
 speech." ' Solon's language reminds one of the fact that Japanese 
 envoys once sang important speeches at foreign courts. After 
 Solon's day the children of Athens were taught to sing {^huv) his 
 poems," and Chamaeleon's statement, already quoted, that the 
 works of certain of the non-melic poets were once sung, includes 
 Mimnermus, Phocylides and Archilochus.' 
 
 The poet last mentioned, Archilochus, is the reputed inventor 
 of the iambic trimeter,* and since the iambic, as Aristotle clearly 
 shows," is of all verse-forms the least removed from prose, it is 
 here, if anywhere in Greek poetry, that we should expect the 
 element of music to disappear. And yet, as we have seen, the 
 verses of Archilochus, (including, no doubt, his iambics), were 
 once sung, even as in later times they were presented in the 
 theatre by rhapsodists, as were also the iambics of Simonides.' 
 
 It is here, however, in iambic verse, that we may detect the 
 first indications of a tendency to divorce music and poetry in 
 Greece. Plutarch states that "Archilochus, according to tradi- 
 tion, first showed how iambics could be partly spoken' to the 
 stroke of the lyre, and partly sung (thereto); afterwards, the 
 tragedians followed this custom ; then Crexus, taking it from 
 them, applied it to dithyrambs." Thus it was Archilochus who 
 first substituted speech for song in the least elevated type of 
 poetry, though even here he still retained the instrumental music. 
 This mode of delivery was adopted in tragedy, and in time made 
 its way even into one form of melic poetry, the dithyramb. 
 
 The innovations in metres and poetical delivery attributed to 
 Archilochus are coincident with the great advance in the musical 
 art with which the name of Terpander is associated. Archilochus 
 and Terpander flourished in the first half of the seventh century 
 B. C, and among the ancients it was a disputed question, which 
 was the older of the two.' Be that as it may, Terpander and 
 
 ' Plutarch, Solon, 8 : iv i^^ iSie^v^e t^v eXcyelav, ^f kariv apxfl ' 
 airdf /t^pwf ^^ov if IftcpTijg ^aXa/ilvo(, 
 Kdafiov kirluv (^Sijv t' avr' ayop^c Bi/iEPog. 
 ' Plato, Timaeus, 21 B. 
 
 3 See p. 219 * Plutarch, De Musica, 28. 
 
 5 Aristotle, Rhtt. 3. i. 9; Poetics, 4. 14. 
 ' Athenaeus, xiv, 620 C. 
 
 I Plutarch, De Musica, 28; in 6i rav lafipdm', fS'Vfi'T^v UytaBm vapa t^v 
 Kpovaiv, TO (!' gdeadat, 'Apx'i^oxAv ^aat KaraStl^ai. 
 8/Wrf.,4.— Glaucusof Rhegium supposed that Terpander was the earlier. 
 
222 H. RUSHTON FAIRCLOUGH. 
 
 Archilochus take part in the same forward movement in art. 
 Terpander, the poet-musician, and Archilochus, the musician-poet, 
 are the founders of that more musical and elaborate form of lyric, 
 which is known as melic poetry. 
 
 Besides being famous as a writer of iambic, trochaic, and elegiac 
 verse, Archilochus was a love poet, who possessed the strong 
 personal feeling and fiery passion characterizing the Lesbian 
 singers, Alcaeus and Sappho. He also composed dithyrambic 
 and epinikian hymns, of which the latter at least were choral. 
 These poetical forms belong to melic verse. Yet it is the same 
 Archilochus who was apparently the first to weaken the hold of 
 music upon poetry by allowing iambic verse to be sung only in 
 part, and who invented the mode of verse-delivery known as 
 jrapa/caTaXoy^. In no case, however, did he give up an instru- 
 mental accompaniment, for we are told that he determined the 
 accompaniments appropriate to his various rhythms, and also to 
 
 his TrapaKaraXoyij. 
 
 The term TrapaKoTaXoyi; has been the subject of much discussion. 
 Westphal" supposes that it is a melodramatic delivery, mere 
 declamation with instrumental accompaniment, while Gottfried 
 Hermann and Christ take it to mean musical recitative. Certainly 
 the term, taken literally, seems to imply plain or prose speech 
 (KaraXoydSiji/ tXpr\\iiva) but it is evident from Zielinski's study' of 
 the question, that in actual practice it was as often recitative as 
 melodrama. The instrumental accompaniment would constantly 
 tempt the voice into musical utterance,' and recitative was cer- 
 tainly employed very largely on the Greek stage.' 
 
 Before Archilochus, the presentation of poetry had been con- 
 trolled by the limitations of the musical art. Now that the latter 
 
 ^ Ibid., 28. 
 
 2 Griechische Metrik, (Leipzig, 1887), pp. 53 ff. 
 
 2 Zielinski, Z>!> Gliederung der altattischen Ji'omddit,(\.t\'pz\g, 1885), pp. 
 288-314. 
 
 ■i "The general temptation is, to let it (the voice) glide, insensibly, into 
 some note sounded by the orchestra ; in which case, the effect produced 
 resembles that of a Kecitative." (From the article on Melodrama in 
 A Dictionary of Music and Musicians, ed. by Sir George Grove, — Macmillan, 
 189c.) 
 
 ' Zielinski, he. cit.; Haigh, Attic Theatre, 2nd ed., p. 301; Barnett, The 
 'Greek Drama, f. 81, (Macmillan, 1899). Aristotle's scanty treatment of 
 vocal music in the Poetics applies only to fielonoda. 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETRY. 223 
 
 had been greatly enriched and developed, new poetical forms 
 arose, and the musical delivery tended to become more elaborate 
 and complex. This would be suitable enough for choral poetry 
 with its dance accompaniment, or for monodic poetry of an 
 impassioned tone, but would seem less appropriate for more 
 reflective verse, or for poetry of a narrative or didactic class. 
 Hence the non-melic verse-forms did not — indeed, could not, 
 without material change in form — keep pace with the advance 
 made in music, but continued to use the simpler and more modest 
 art. Their musical delivery, as long as this was preserved, stood 
 halfway between declamation and melic song, and must therefore 
 have closely resembled recitative. On the other hand, if declama- 
 tion, aided by an instrumental accompaniment, tended to pass 
 into musical utterance, we can see how these two modes of pre- 
 sentation would often meet on common ground, and yet be 
 described in different terms, according to the writer's point of 
 view. 
 
 In the rhapsodic delivery, then, we have a survival of the earlier 
 musical art which existed before Terpander's day, — a delivery 
 practically identical with the presentation on the stage of that 
 large portion of a drama which was intermediate between the 
 merely spoken dialogue and the sung lyrics.' Thus we can 
 explain the frequent use of musical terms in connection with the 
 arts of rhapsodist and actor, as in Plato's account of Ion's perfor- 
 mances, or Lucian's satiric description of the tragedian who " at 
 times struts about, singing iambics, and — the most unseemly 
 feature of all — putting his misfortunes into melody, and making 
 himself responsible for voice alone."'- Thus it is that in Athe- 
 naeus ' the three verbs t>.e\ahCiv, pa'^ahvv and iiroKptvecrBat are all 
 found in one passage to describe the rhapsodist's mode of 
 delivery. The first two are used in reference to the verses of 
 Archilochus, while the first and third are both applied to the 
 hexameters of Homer and Hesiod. The three terms are not 
 synonymous. The first, /xcXaSeiv, shows that the music was the 
 main feature of the performance, while vnoKpiveaBai emphasizes the 
 mimetic element.' The second verb, pa^fraSeiv, used of the iambics 
 
 ' See Zielinski, loc. cit. 
 
 ' Lucian, De Saltatione, 27 : evlore ml irepigduv ra lafipela, ml rb Sij aiaxiOTOv 
 
 " Athenaeus, xiv, 620. 12. 
 
 * Thus bharata means actor in Sanskrit, singer in Indian dialects. 
 
224 H. RUSHTON FAIRCLOUGH. 
 
 of Simonides, the hexameters of Empedocles, and undefined 
 verses of Archilochus, is the normal expression,' and as the 
 name itself indicates, implies musical utterance." Doubtless the 
 character of the performance differed according to time, place, 
 individual tastes and the skill of the performer, but nothing is 
 more certain than that, so long as poetry was made public in 
 Greece by oral delivery, — and this covers almost the whole 
 creative period of the literature, — vocal music was considered a 
 natural and regular, if not essential, element of the presentation. 
 The music involved was either plain or artistic, simple or 
 elaborate, recitative-chant or set melody, but it was music, and 
 in all cases, distinct from simple speech. If it was not neXadia, it 
 was at least pa^j^adia, a term which is never used of the formal 
 reading or recital of prose, even in public gatherings, and how- 
 ever musical the delivery.' 
 
 Terpander's singing of Homer was doubtless an attempt to 
 adapt the old song-material to the new music of his heptachord, 
 but the adaptation could not be made with any permanent success. 
 The non-strophic hexameters with their continuous flow (axoivorti'^ 
 acrfiaTo) could easily be rendered in simple chant-form, with slight 
 modulations and few melodic phrases, but were unsuited to the 
 variety of intervals and more definite melodies which resulted 
 from the enlargement of the musical scale. For us, whose music 
 is so elaborate, it is hard to find an analogous case in our own 
 experience, but the difference for the Greeks between an Odys- 
 sean episode, as sung by the early rhapsodists and as sung by 
 Terpander, might be compared to the contrast for us between the 
 Te Deum, as chanted to a simple Gregorian melody, and the 
 
 ' This verb is also used of Xenophanes' public rendition of his epic poem 
 on nature (Uiog. Laert. ix, i8). 
 
 'In Lucian's Symposium (431. 17) it is said that Histiaeus, the gram- 
 marian, rhapsodized, when at a banquet he combined into a single song 
 ((liSff) verses from Pindar, Hesiod, and Anacreon, two of whom are distinctly 
 melic poets. The term pafudia is used of Chaeremon's Cetitaur, a poem 
 ci>mposed of metres of all kinds (Aristotle, Poet. i. 9.) 
 
 ' I do not find it used even of the showy rhetoricians of late times, who 
 sometimes possessed " the voice of a nightingale," whose " rhythms were 
 more varied than those of the flute and the lyre," and whom Lucian derided 
 for turning their speeches into songs and melodies. (Vhilostr. Vii. Soph. 
 2." 10. 3; Lucian, Xhet. Praeceptor ig : ^ df irorE koX gam icaipdi; dvai Sunij, 
 Tfrti'ra Got (i6eadtj unl peh}^ jcyviaQu.) 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETRY. 225 
 
 same, as sung to an elaborate musical setting. Or again, since 
 only our simplest poetry is ever married to music, we might 
 fittingly compare a modern epic, composed in hexameters, viz. 
 Klopstock's Messias, as merely read, and the same, as sung to 
 the setting of Kapellmeister Graun, who, in composing music 
 for certain portions, tried to preserve "das Mittel zwischen Reci- 
 tativ und Arie, zum Versuch, wie die Griechen ihre Tragodien 
 gesungen hatten." • Graun's success delighted the poet's friends, 
 but we do not read that the experiment was ever repeated. 
 
 Even the Terpandrian music was simple enough in comparison 
 with that which succeeded it. Phrynis and Timotheus represented 
 two important stages in its further development, so that in time 
 the music of Terpander came to be regarded as quite out of date : 
 
 rrjv yap oXiyoxophiav (tot Tr]V AitKoTiyra Koi ctiivoTrjTa r^r fiovaiKris iravTfXas 
 
 apxa'iKTjv elvai vvpL^i^rjKtv.^ And Aristoxenus of Tarentum {Jlor, 
 300 B. c.) tells us how he and a few friends, believing the music 
 of his day to be thoroughly debased, would gather together to 
 contemplate the beauty of the older art.' 
 
 What the delivery of the Greek aoiSdt or pay\rabos was like may 
 perhaps be learnt even to-day from certain countries where the 
 minstrel's art preserves its primitive character. Thus, in Finland 
 " epic and lyric runes are sung to a musical phrase, which is the 
 same for every line; only the key is varied every second line, 
 or in the epic runes at every repetition of the line by the second 
 voice. The phrase is sweet, simple, without emphasis, with as 
 many notes as there are syllables."' In certain parts of Russia 
 epic songs are still sung, and collectors of these poems give us 
 descriptions of the Russian rhapsodists, " with their fine voices 
 and masterly diction," which enable us to appreciate the character 
 of their performance. " The airs to which the songs are sung or 
 chanted, are very simple, consisting of but few tones, yet extremely 
 difficult to note down. Each singer has an air of his own (per- 
 haps two), to which he sings all the songs in his repertory, 
 modifying it according to the subject and sentiment with the 
 greatest skill. Rybnikof and Hilferding often dropped their pens 
 
 ' Hamel, Klopstock-Studien, zweites Heft, p. 113 (Werther, Kostock, 
 1880). 
 
 ' Plutarch, De Mus. 12. ' Athenaeus, xiv, 632 a. 
 
 ■* Comparetti, The Traditional Poetry of the Finns, trans, by Anderton, 
 p. 71. 
 
 16 
 
226 //. RUSHTON FAIRCLOUGH. 
 
 and listened in amazement and admiration to the skill of these 
 untutored minstrels.'" 
 
 But the most interesting and instructive parallel is furnished 
 by the Kirghiz, of Central and Western Asia, a people peculiarly 
 rich in various kinds of folk-poetry. The songs of the Kirghiz- 
 Kazaks, a wide-spread nomad race, are mainly lyric; those of the 
 Kara- or Black Kirghiz, whose home is in the mountainous 
 country on the Russo-Chinese frontier, are exclusively epic. 
 Epic song, indeed, has absorbed all other kinds, and this is so 
 extensive that the common Volksgeisi — the whole life, spirit and 
 aspirations of the people-— is reflected in it, as in a mirror." Dr. 
 Radloff, who has collected many thousands of lines of this epic 
 poetry, finds striking resemblances between such a remarkable 
 body of verse and the great Homeric epics, and with good reason 
 expresses the opinion that the poetry of the Kara-Kirghiz "will 
 contribute not a little to the solution of the yet unsolved ' epic 
 question ' ". The interesting information furnished by Radloff 
 certainly throws a flood of light upon some dark places in early 
 literary history, and the Homeric student, in particular, is under 
 great obligations to this distinguished Russian investigator. 
 
 The character of the Kirghiz singing is thus described. "In 
 the delivery the singer always employs two melodies, one ren- 
 dered in more rapid tempo, for the narrative of facts, and the 
 other, for speeches, delivered in slow tempo as solemn recitative. 
 This variation of melody I have had occasion to observe in all 
 singers of any skill whatever. Otherwise, the melodies of the 
 various singers are almost absolutely the same. In respect to 
 clearness of pronunciation, the Kara-Kirghiz singers excel those 
 of every other branch, their musical presentation interfering so 
 little with an understanding of the words, that it is easy for even 
 a foreigner to follow the song." ' 
 
 The Kara-Kirghiz singers have all the inspiration of, the 
 Homeric dotSoi. " I can sing any song whatever," said one to 
 Radloff", "for God has planted this gift in my heart. He puts the 
 word upon my tongue, without my seeking it. I have learnt 
 
 ' Hapgood, T/ie Epic Songs of Russia (Scribner's, New York, 1886) p. 11. 
 ' Proben dcr Volkslitteratur der nordlichen tiirkischeti Stiimme, gesammclt 
 , und iibcrsetzt von Ur. W. KadlofC. v. Theil : Der Dialect der Kara-Kirgisen. 
 (St. Petersburg, 1885). 
 ' Ibid., p. xvi. 
 
CONNECTION BETWEEN MUSIC AND POETRY. 227 
 
 none of my songs ; each wells up from my heart." ' Only a 
 genuine doiSiSr, one who was himself full of the Volksgeist and had 
 the native song-inspiration, could possibly, according to Radloff, 
 combine the single songs into a unified epic, like the Iliad and 
 the Odyssey, for such an epic must be "a compilation of that 
 which is created and sung by the people," and in spite of its being, 
 in an important sense, the work of an individual, "will contain 
 contradictions and repetitions, even as do the episodes sung by 
 the people themselves, which have originated at different times 
 and under different circumstances." ' Who can doubt that if 
 such an architectonic poet should arise among the Kara-Kirghiz, 
 he too, like Homer, would set forth his work in song? 
 
 Lflano Stanpokd Jn. Uhivdrsitv. H. RUSHTON FaIRCLOUGH. 
 
 * lUd., p. xvii. ' Ibid., p. xxv. 
 
SOME STATISTICS ON THE ORDER OF WORDS 
 IN GREEK. 
 
 The free order of words in ancient Greek authors is often 
 emphasized and has even caused investigators to doubt the 
 possibility of finding general rules.' At the present stage of our 
 knowledge it is perhaps best to be satisfied with individual 
 observations. However, some fundamental ideas seem sufficiently 
 reliable to be used as guides in our search. 
 
 Henri Weil has taught us that sentences should be regarded 
 as having an initial notion and a goal. He says:' "There is then 
 a point of departure, an initial notion, which is equally present 
 to him who speaks and to him who hears, which forms, as it were, 
 the ground upon which the two intelligences meet; and another 
 part of discourse which forms the statement (I'^nonciation) 
 properly so called." He then discusses the following examples: 
 Idem Romulus Romam condidit ; Hanc urbem condidit Romulus 
 and Condidit Romam Romulus, AnAszys: "The point of departure, 
 the rallying point of the interlocutors, is Romulus the first time, 
 Rome the second, and the third time the idea of founding." 
 That is to say, these initial words were in each case familiar, and 
 so were used as natural starting points, from which to proceed to 
 the new idea, the goal of the sentence. In another passage 
 he says : ' "In general there is no syntactical part of the sentence, 
 whatever may be its name, form, or extent, which may not have, 
 in a given case, the initial notion of the thought." 
 
 On the other hand, Weil recognizes the fact that sometimes 
 the goal comes first. This he calls the pathetic order.' 
 
 This twofold division of the sentence, based on the order 
 of words, had before been taught by Chr. Karl Reisig.^ Re- 
 
 > KZ. 33, so8. 
 
 ' The Order of Words, transl. by C. W. Super, p. 29. 
 8 1. c, p. 33. M.c.,p. 43- 
 
 5 Chr. K. Reisig, Vorlesungen Uber lat. Sprachw., III. Bd. neu bearb. 
 V. Schmalz u. Landgraf, Berlin 1888, p. 845 ff. 
 
230 HERMA N LO UIS EBELING. 
 
 ferring to him Weil says in a note:' "The two parts of the 
 proposition which this scholar calls the 'logical object and the 
 predicate' seem to me to coincide with what I have named the 
 initial notion and the goal of the discourse." 
 
 Now, as regards emphasis, it seems evident that this should fall 
 on the goal of the sentence, on the new idea to be conveyed, 
 whereas the initial notion, though prominent by position, requires 
 less stress of utterance when already familiar. Reisig says on this 
 point : " Da nun in solchen Satzen oft die Hauptbetonung auf dem 
 Pradikat liegen musz, als dem Spezielleren, so folgt dass es 
 keineswegs notwendig ist, den betonten Begriff voranzustellen; 
 z. b. Gallia omnis divisa est in partes tris, wo das tris als das 
 Speziellere mehr zu betonen ist. Cic. p. Quinct. c. 12. Quis 
 sic dissolutus fuisset, ut fuit S. Naevius? Quum hominem nomino, 
 satis mihi videor dicere, wo nomino betont ist." There are, how- 
 ever, various possibilities by which the initial notion may gain 
 in stress, while the goal may lose. 
 
 When subject and predicate are accompanied by modifiers, it is 
 often difficult to determine which word, or words, the writer 
 intended to emphasize. An important principle that helps de- 
 termine this, is the tendency to move a word forward in the 
 sentence. B. Delbriick" says: "So lasst sich als ein durch alle 
 indogermanischen Sprachen durchgehendes Grundgesetz der 
 okkasionellen Wortstellung das aufstellen, dass das hervorzu- 
 hebende Wort nach vorne riickt." 
 
 To illustrate this principle, I present the results of an examina- 
 tion of the simple infinitive in Plato's Protagoras. It is easy 
 to see that the infinitive regularly follows the word on which 
 it depends, whether it be as subject, object or in other relations. 
 
 Excluding the occurrences of the articular infinitive and those 
 of a fixed order, suchasawre, ■npiv, etc., with the infinitive, I have 
 counted 635 examples, of which 593 follow the word on which 
 they depend and only 42 precede. That is to say, 93 per cent 
 follow in the regular order, which is the reverse of the order in 
 Sanskrit in the case of the auxiliary verb and infinitive.' 
 
 An examination of the 42 cases that precede will show that 
 these infinitives are more or less emphatic, sometimes presenting 
 
 M. c, p. 1 14. 2 Grundr. Vergl. Gram., V, p. 38 ff. 
 
 2 DelbrUck, 1. c, p. 63 ff. 
 
THE ORDER OF WORDS IN GREEK. 23 1 
 
 the initial notion of the sentence. Take for examples the passages 
 340 d, 343 d, 344 a, 344 b, 344 e, where Socrates makes points 
 on yevfirdai and eivai, or 337 b-c, where Prodicus explains the 
 
 difference between fiSoKiiieTv and enaivttirOai, ev^palvetrOai and ij8f(r0ai. 
 
 Sometimes it is not the infinitive alone, but the infinitive joined 
 to its adverb, object, or predicate, that is made prominent, the 
 latter taking first place, as 313 a, to <rS/*a itxiTpintiv, 337 a, koiv^ /uv 
 
 yap aKovirai, 343 d, ort avSpa ayaOov ytviaOai )(a\fTr6v, or following, 
 
 as in 31 1 c, reXfty TovTo TO apyvpwv. The last example shows that the 
 infinitive may take the prominent first place in order to serve 
 as a connecting link with the previous sentence, the chief emphasis 
 coming later on the postponed interrogative rlvi ovn. 
 
 In 325 c, we find oUaSai ye xpv which seems to be the usual 
 order for this phrase. It occurs again in Crito 53 d, 54 b, Phaedo 
 68 b, Gorg. 522 a. 
 
 More complex than the arrangement of the infinitive and its 
 governing word is that of the copulative verbs, mainly €ivai and 
 ylyvt<r6ai, with their predicate adjectives or nouns. In the Gorgias 
 I counted 604 cases of predicate before verb, and 84 cases of 
 predicate after verb; in the Protagoras 381 of the former and 
 73 of the latter. That is to say, in the Gorgias 88 per cent of the 
 predicates precede the copula and in the Protagoras 84 per cent. 
 In his article on the Greek verbals in -tso Professor C. E. 
 Bishop ' presents statistics for the relative position of verbal and 
 copula, which agree closely with the above results. For Plato his 
 figures show over 83 per cent of the order, verbal followed by 
 copula, and nearly the same (84 per cent), when his detailed 
 statements for the Orators, Xenophon, Thucydides and Herodotus 
 are included. 
 
 As regards the effect of the order by which the predicate 
 follows its copula. Professor Charles Short in his valuable essay, 
 prefixed to Yonge's English-Greek Lexicon,' makes this ques- 
 tionable statement: "If the word in the predicate be somewhat 
 emphatic, or have an adjunct following, it may stand after the 
 verb." The fact is that, while the predicate may be emphatic 
 when it follows the copula, it is equally or even more emphatic 
 when it precedes. The explanation is that the copula with its 
 predicate usually constitutes the goal of the sentence and as such 
 is emphasized. 
 
 > Am. J. Ph., XX, p. 252 ff. ' Chap. X. 
 
232 HERMAN LOUIS EBELING. 
 
 The change from the regular order should rather be explained 
 with reference to the copula, which is put before the predicate 
 in order to receive the emphasis: Protag. 343 d, ort oCk, aK\a. 
 
 yevtadai ftev xaXcTrop tivSpa dyndov isTiv, 344 ^) "^ "Y^P *""" aWa yeniaBat 
 fiiv f(TTiv avSpa dyadov . . . ;^aXe7ro>' aXadeas. (The emphasis clearly 
 
 rests on the infinitives and not on the predicate avBpa dyadov.') 
 
 Protag. 345 b, 6 de kokos dvrjp ovK av wore yevoiTO KaKos' tan yap dei^ 
 
 325 b, f^' oh ovK eari BdiiaTos ij Cripia. (Here punishment with death 
 is already before the mind; the emphasis lies on the negative 
 statement.) However, emphasis on the copula may easily and 
 naturally be joined with emphasis on the predicate: Protag. 337 a, 
 
 ?{rri yap ov tovtov. 3^^ d, iyai Se rfjv (ro^KTTiKijv Te^irriv (}>rip.i fxev €ii>at 
 iraXaidv. 35^ ^> ^^^ . » . to avTO (jiatvrjrai fjdv t€ /cat dyaSov. Gorg, 4^3 '^t 
 t SoKci jiiv elvai Tep^vij, i>s Se 6 f'/tor Xdyos, ovk ecrTtv TfX'"lt "^^ ifiireipia 
 Kal rpi^Tj, 
 
 Then again neither copula nor predicate are emphatic, as 
 
 in GorgiaS 4^3 ^j ^ ^ ^y<** koKw ttjv prjTopiKrjVf Trpdyfiaros rivds effTi 
 fioptoii oifdei'of Tall KoKuv, PrOtag. 32 1 b, eari d* ols edoiKiv eivai Tpocpqv 
 ^t^av dWav ^opdv. 
 
 If we turn to examples of the regular order, it will be easy 
 to find emphatic predicates: Protag. 350 b, oiiKoSv 01 BappaXioi oSroi 
 
 Ka\ dv&ptioi tlaiv', 3^5 ^> Toirrav 8e . . , ri /lei/ iroXv £cVoi icj^aivovTO. 
 
 This is regularly the case, as is recognized by Professor Short,' 
 when the predicate is placed at the head of the sentence, either 
 closely followed by the copula or separated from it; Protag. 
 
 325 b <TKf^ai u)s 6avpdo ioi yiyvovTot of dyadoi, 325 d &tapd\ovTai, oirmr ur 
 iSAnoToy eirrat 6 jrair, 331 a cor ovtoc 6 Xo'-yoy eoTi, 315 e oiic &v davpd^otpi, 
 el nai&iKa Uavaapiov Tvyxdva &v, 3^5 ^ naaao<fios yap /iot doxct dvfjp eivai 
 Kal 6(ios, 316 d ov yap aptxpo) jrep] aird tpBofoi re yiyvovrai. 
 
 But the arrangement, predicate copula, may also stand without 
 
 emphasis. Protag. 312 e, n 8ij to-n tovto, irepi ov avTos ts iiriarripav 
 eoTtv 6 <ro0t(7T^f Ka\ t6v paSrjTriv TToifi', here imaTripmv iarXv repeats the 
 (TrlaTarai of the preceding sentence; 309 d aocjiardra ph oSv SrjTTOv 
 tS>v yc vvv, ei (rot SoKei ao(f>mTaTos eivai JIpcoTayopai, 327 b oUt dv ti, t<bi}, 
 pdXKov, 2 2., tSiv dyaBZiv avkrjrav dyaOovs avXrjTas rour vUis ylyveaBai rj tS)V 
 <\>av\a>v. 
 
 The regularity with which the predicate precedes the copula 
 determines to a considerable extent the order of these parts of 
 
 > 1. c, ch. X. 
 
THE ORDER OF WORDS IN GREEK. 233 
 
 speech in connection with the subject. The following table 
 presents a view of all the cases of copula and predicate adjective 
 or noun in the Protagoras, both with and without subject. I have 
 indicated where words intervene between predicate and verb by 
 means of (W) and where particles, such as hi, ydp, Sv, alone inter- 
 vene by (part.) 
 
 PREDICATE PRECEDING COPULA. 
 
 Prcd. Verb. Subj. = 43 Pred. (W.) Vb. Subj. = 9 Pred. (part.) Vb. Subj. = 10 Total = 62 
 
 Subj. Pred. Vb. =84 Subj. Pred. (W.) Vb. = 10 Subj. Pred. (part.) Vb.= 10 " =104 
 
 Pred. Subj. Vb. =20 ■■ = ^o 
 
 Pred. Verb =154 Pred. (W.) Vb. =n Pred. (part.) Vb. =19 " =185 
 
 0I65 Te Vb. =10 " = ro 
 
 3S1 
 PREDICATE FOLLOWING COPULA. 
 
 Verb Pred. Subj. = 3 Vb. (W.) Pred. Subj. = i Vb. (part.) Pred. Subj.= 1 Total = 5 
 
 Verb Subj. Pred. = 8 Vb. Subj. (W.) Pred. = 5 " = 13 
 
 Subj. Vb. Pred. =24 Subj. Vb. (W.) Pred. = 8 " = 32 
 
 Verb Pred. = 11 Vb. (W.) Pred. = 8 Vb. (part.) Pred. =4 " = 23 
 
 It will be noticed that although the copula frequently stands 
 between the subject and predicate that this is not the most usual 
 arrangement in the Protagoras.* The verb follows in 124 cases 
 and precedes in 18, whereas it stands between the subject and 
 the predicate 94 times in all. 
 
 Let us now turn to an examination of the order of subject, 
 object and verb. 
 
 Professor G. Kaibel' writes of the six possible arrangements 
 as follows: " Allgemein giltige Gesetze fiir die Wortfolge giebt es 
 im Griechischen kaum: ein so einfacher Satz wie 01 S' 'ASrivatot 
 Toiis AaKtSaifioviovs fvUrjaav laszt eine sechsfache Ordnung der drei 
 Begriffe zu, eine jede wird unter dem Drucke des Gedanken- 
 ganges die einzig richtige sein konnen. Der Gedanke ordnet die 
 Worte, nicht ein Sprachgesetz, und je klarer der Gedanke desto 
 klarer und einfacher nicht nur der Ausdruck sondern auch die 
 Wortstellung." Professor Kaibel's insistence on the absolute 
 freedom of arrangement of subject, object and verb raises the 
 question whether or not there were conditions of thought or 
 language that favored one order rather than another. 
 
 Professor Delbriick ' sums up his conclusions on the order of 
 
 • Cf. Transactions Am. Ph. A., vol. XXI, p. 17. 
 
 5 Stil u. Text der 'Adr/vaiov TroXirda des Aristoteles, Berlin, 1893, p. 96. 
 
 ' Grundr. Vergl. Gram., V, p. no ff. 
 
234 HERMAN LOUIS EDELING. 
 
 words in the Indo-European languages in part as follows: "Die 
 Stellung der Worter war entweder habituell oder okkasionell. 
 Beide Stellungsarten sind beherrscht von dem Grundgesetz, dass 
 das wichtigere Wort seinen Platz waiter vorn im Satze erhalt. 
 Ausserdem kanndas rhythmische Gefiihl, ohne Rucksicht auf den 
 Sinn, die Stellung bestimmen. Das habituell wichtigste Wort war 
 das Subjekt, dann folgten die iibrigen nicht-verbalen Bestand- 
 theile des Satzes, den Schluss machte das Verbum finitum." 
 
 In Greek this seems to be true of the subject, but less true 
 of the verb. In referring to the verb, he says (p. 65): " Fur das 
 Griechische sind umfassende Sammlungen nichtvorhanden. Man 
 hat im Allgemeinen den Eindruck, dass die Stellung frei ist." 
 Again he says (p. iii): "Unter den im Satze vorkommenden 
 Kasus hatte der Akkusativ die besondere Neigung, unmittelbar 
 vor das Verbum zu treten." This also is true of Greek. Accor- 
 dingly we find that the most usual order is: subject, object, verb, 
 not subject, verb, object, as we might be led to believe from the 
 following statement:' "When the finite verb has its subject 
 expressed and a simple object, very commonly the subject stands 
 first, then the verb, and the object last, . . . but if the object be 
 emphatic it often stands before the verb." The fact is that both 
 arrangements are very common, as we shall see; though, in Xen- 
 ophon's Anabasis, which formed the basis of Professor Short's 
 work, the figures appear to be nearly equal. The following- 
 table shows the number of occurrences of the above mentioned 
 orders in the books named at the head of each column. 
 
 Anabasis I. Protagoras. Gorgias. -, /I'Yn fx 
 
 Subj. obj. vb 45 62 74 73 
 
 Subj. vb. obj 42 24 32 17 
 
 The predominance of the order S. O. V. is marked in Plato 
 and Isocrates. The difference in the style of the Anabasis, 
 indicated by the equality of the two arrangements will appear 
 even greater if the above table is subjected to some analysis. 
 In the next table, I have noted subject and object as noun or 
 pronoun, including as nouns, adjectives and participles so used, 
 and as pronouns, the pronominal adjectives ■noXiis and war. I have 
 counted only sentences with simple objects and have included 
 relatives. 
 
 ' Preface Yonge's Eng.-Gk. Lex., Chap. VII. 
 
THE ORDER OF WORDS IN GREEK. 
 
 235 
 
 
 
 
 Anabasis I. 
 
 Protagoras. 
 
 Gorgias. 
 
 s. 
 
 0. 
 
 V. 
 
 
 
 
 Pron. 
 
 Pron. 
 
 Verb .. 
 
 17 
 
 30 
 
 45 
 
 S. 
 
 V. 
 
 0. 
 
 
 
 
 Pron. 
 
 Verb 
 
 Pron. . . 
 
 3 
 
 5 
 
 9 
 
 S. 
 
 0. 
 
 V. 
 
 
 
 
 Noun 
 
 Noun 
 
 Verb .. 
 
 14 
 
 IS 
 
 12 
 
 S. 
 
 V. 
 
 0. 
 
 
 
 Noun 
 
 Verb 
 
 Noun .. 
 
 26 
 
 4 
 
 s 
 
 S. 
 
 0. 
 
 V. 
 
 
 
 Pron. 
 
 Noun 
 
 Verb .. 
 
 6 
 
 9 
 
 16 
 
 S. 
 
 V. 
 
 0. 
 
 
 
 Pron. 
 S. 
 
 Verb 
 0. 
 
 Noun .. 
 V. 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 13 
 
 Noon 
 
 Pron. 
 
 Verb . . 
 
 8 
 
 8 
 
 I 
 
 S. 
 
 V. 
 
 0. 
 
 
 
 
 Noun 
 
 Verb 
 
 Pron. . . 
 
 9 
 
 5 
 
 s 
 
 Isocrates 
 I II III IX 
 
 9 
 
 2 
 
 14 
 
 46 
 
 13 
 
 4 
 
 I 
 
 Here it will be observed that, where subject and object are 
 both pronouns, the order S. O. V. is about five times as frequent 
 as the order S. V. O. and that the Anabasis shows the same ratio. 
 But when we take the cases where subject and object are both 
 indicated as nouns, we find that, whereas in Plato the order 
 S. O. V. is somewhat more than three times as fi-equent as the 
 order S. V. O. and the former occurs 14 times in Isocrates with 
 only one instance of the latter, in the Anabasis, on the other hand, 
 the relations are reversed, the order S. V. O. occurring 26 times 
 with only 14 of the other. In the rest of the table I see nothing 
 noteworthy, except it be the frequency of the order S. O. V. in 
 Isocrates, in the third division. 
 
 I now present a complete view of all the cases of the six possible 
 arrangements that I have counted in the above mentioned books. 
 
 s. o. V. s. V. o. o. s.v. o. V. s. 
 
 Anabasis I... . 45 (relatives o) 42 (relat. i) 21 (relat. 9) 11 (relat. 2) 
 
 Protagoras 62 ( " 4) 24 ( " o) 36 { " 14) 9( " 2) 
 
 Gorgias 74( " 8) 32 ( " 3) 55 ( ■' 35) 18 ( " s| 
 
 73 ( " ") >7( " 3) 28{ " 4) 3( •■ 2) 
 
 v. s. o. 
 
 13 
 
 V. OS. 
 
 Isocrates { 
 
 mill IX f 
 
 We see that the totals of the first two columns, in which the 
 subject comes first, far outnumber the rest. The third column 
 shows the frequency of the order O. S. V. The fact that in 62 
 of the 140 instances of this order the object is a relative pronoun, 
 is an indication of the main reason for placing the object first, 
 namely, to make connection with the preceding sentence. This 
 is partially recognized by Professor Short,' when he says : " The 
 
 '1. c.,ch. VII, i. 
 
236 HERMA N LOUIS EBELING. 
 
 object is regularly put first if it be a demonstrative pronoun of 
 previous reference, or a word modified by such pronoun." But 
 his leading statement for the order in which the object precedes is : 
 " When the object is very emphatic, it is put first, the subject and 
 verb following, the more emphatic commonly last." This state- 
 ment can hardly be said to characteri:?e properly that class of 
 sentences in which the object precedes. In the first book of the 
 Anabasis there are, in all, 2 1 cases of the order O. S. V. Of these, 
 9 have relative objects, 7 demonstrative objects of previous 
 reference, and the remaining five cases are: t>oi yap i, 3, 3, 
 
 arpovdhv hi I, 5, 3, a-Tparevna I, 5, 6, /lera ravra oure (avra Opovrav 
 oSt€ TidpijKOTa I, 6, II, (cai ^r v/ias I, 7i 3- 
 
 An examination of these five passages will show that the i/iar 
 in the last example, though prominent, is not very emphatic and 
 that in the other four the objects are all more or less connective 
 and familiar and so can also not be called very emphatic. Take, 
 for example, the case of arpovehv 8c. Xenophon mentions (i, 5, 2) 
 the various animals that were found in the Syrian desert and says : 
 ravra Se ra drjpia ol inntU ivlor ihluiKov. Then he Speaks of each kind 
 and begins koX oi /lev ivoi, fnti nr Sioikoi, irpoSpaiiOPrts e<rraaav' k. r. X. 
 
 Next he refers to the ostrich and begins : arpov66v 5e oiSelr tka^ev ■ 
 R. , . X., and in a similar way to the bustards, ras fie dn'Sas av m raxv 
 dvi(rr^ fan Xa/tj3ai/€iv. These accusatives are, to my mind, no more 
 emphatic than the nominative ol Svoi, presenting like it only the 
 initial notion. 
 
 In the same way I find in Plato's Gorgias that, of the 55 exam- 
 ples of the order O. S. V., 35 have relatives as objects, and the rest 
 are mainly connective, and, while prominent, cannot be regarded 
 as especially emphatic. Thus in 512 e, rrjv eipappfvrjv oiS' &v eh 
 fKcpvyot, the idea of death being already before the mind, t^v «!f»ap- 
 liinrjn is without especial emphasis, which clearly falls on the oifi' 
 
 Similar results appear in the study of the Protagoras and the 
 four orations of Isocrates. Accordingly, I consider that the usual 
 reason for beginning with the object is, that the object in such 
 sentences forms an easy connection with what has gone before 
 or at least presents a natural initial notion for its sentence, and 
 I am of the opinion that the stress which falls upon it, while 
 variable in force, is usually less than that which we place on the 
 goal of the sentence. 
 
THE ORDER OF WORDS IN GREEK. 237 
 
 Professor Short, in the passage cited above, states that the 
 subject and verb following the object are placed in such a way 
 that the more emphatic commonly comes last. This cannot be 
 true, if stated as a general rule, for when the verb comes last 
 it is more likely that the subject receives the greater emphasis. 
 If, however, the verb precedes, it may unite closely with the 
 object, thus leaving the subject to stand out prominently as the 
 goal. But in this case, too, the subject may be the indefinite Tir 
 and the stress fall on the preceding verb. 
 
 In regard to the last two methods of arrangement in which the 
 verb precedes, Professor Short says : " When the verb is emphatic 
 it often stands first, the subject and object following, the more 
 emphatic last." In such cases the verb is put first largely for the 
 sake of the initial notion and indeed chiefly to connect with what 
 has gone before. The object or subject that follows is usually 
 joined closely to the verb, thus allowing the third member to 
 stand last and receive the emphasis that falls on the goal. Some- 
 times, however, in the order V. S. O. the subject is contrasted 
 with the object. 
 
 In discussing the relative importance of the various positions 
 we must of course bear in mind that some other word than sub- 
 ject, object or verb may receive the chief emphasis. One example 
 
 may suffice. In ovk a/iop^el tqut' iya \rf^o\iai, Anab. I. 7. 9, it is 
 evident that the chief stress falls on afiaxei. 
 
 In order to form a clearer conception of the arrangement of 
 the verb and object on the one hand and the verb and subject 
 on the other we must study them separately. In the Protagoras 
 I have counted 601 cases where the object precedes the verb, 
 relatives and interrogatives being excepted; and 363 cases where 
 the object follows. These figures show that the statement' : " The 
 simple object commonly follows the verb ; but precedes if em- 
 phatic,'' cannot be correct. I should prefer to say that the ten- 
 dency was to give the object the prominent position before the 
 verb, even when not emphatic, but that frequently the object was 
 made to follow. The following table presents a partial analysis 
 of the above figures, showing in which words a considerable part 
 of the difference in arrangement lies. 
 
 ' Pief. Yonge's Eng.-Gk. Lex., Chap. VII, iii. 
 
238 
 
 HERMAN LOUIS EBELING. 
 
 OBJECT PRECEDING VERB. 
 
 olTOf < no 
 
 TOCOVTOg 10 
 
 SKElVOg 6 
 
 b6e 3 
 
 airdg 24 
 
 fioi ISo^e 34 
 
 Sbst. noiua^ai 8 
 
 aXrj-d^ Myeiv 16 
 
 * ' of TO /la-^^/jara TTspidyovreg ... 10 
 
 * ov^Eva . . . [ie^Tiu kiro'iTjaav ... 8 
 
 * aa'UTov . . , Go^LOT^v 'jrapex<^ . . 13 
 
 * fxel^Qv TO v6G'i}fia notij 5 
 
 * aMcvg oi6g t' d ttoluv aya&ov; . . 4 
 
 OBJECT FOLLOWING VERB. 
 
 OVTOg 26 
 
 TOlOVTOg I 
 
 CKclvog 7 
 
 o(!e 2 
 
 avrdg 4^ 
 
 edo^E fific 17 
 
 Xiyei T7fv a^^eiav I 
 
 Tov firj irpoffiroiovftei^ov dtKatoai/viji/ , i 
 
 * ■KoLTjaei Koi c£ aofdn 2 
 
 * noidv avSpac aya^ovg TToXirag . . 4 
 
 * aaa^ eiroiei rd ^tydfteva 9 
 
 The prevalence of the order, object verb, in the case of oSras 
 and Toiourot is largely due to the desire to bring the pronoun into 
 close connection with the word or words to which it refers and 
 even when it follows, a similar reason can often be detected, such 
 as a desire to bring the demonstrative close to a following relative 
 or ort clause. At the same time ovtos before the verb may be 
 emphatic while an unemphatic ovtos of previous reference may 
 follow. The preference of the oblique forms of ovtos for the 
 position after the verb is probably due to their enclitic nature.' 
 
 Turning now to the arrangement of the subject and verb, I find, 
 omitting relatives, that in the Protagoras 65 per cent and in the 
 first book of the Anabasis 66 per cent of the subjects precede 
 their verbs. 
 
 The following table gives some idea of the distribution. 
 
 Subject verb. Protag. Anab. 
 
 eya 78 14 
 
 eya olpai 2 
 
 <jf iyi>iJ.at 8 
 
 (jf kyd ffffii 2 
 
 iyuy£ verb 6 i 
 
 ov " 38 I 
 
 av (imperative) 4 
 
 (jf ail (j)?Jg 2 
 
 Verb subject. Protag. Anab. 
 
 ^v S' eyd 44 (vb. kyii) 
 
 ifftyv eyS 31 
 
 ■fyyovjiai iyii 2 
 
 (lo/cu kyii I 
 
 tijrov ovv iyi) 2 
 
 verb lyuye 10 
 
 if^a&n ovv a'u i 
 
 (jf 0f f ail 
 
 'The examples marked with * are typical. 
 ^Kiihner-Blass, Gk. Gr., I, p. 339, A. i. 
 
THE ORDER OF WORDS IN GREEK. 
 
 239 
 
 Subject Tcrb. Protag. Anab. 
 
 iy^ re koX ov vb 4 
 
 ^''^'flverb 
 
 aiiToc: (imperative) .... 
 
 " verb 
 
 TO aiird verb 
 
 ovToi avTol verb 
 
 oirof " 
 
 eKEivo^ " 
 
 8de •• 
 
 6 fiiv [Si) •' 
 
 Kal 8f iijiT] " 
 
 ri (interrog.) verb 
 
 Wf (int. noun) " .... 
 Tt (indef.) •' .... 
 rif al7iO( " .... 
 
 ol aTCkot " .... 
 
 ■navTEf; ** .... 
 
 oMyoi " .... 
 
 noX^l ** .... 
 
 ovdelg ** .... 
 
 eKaoTO; " .... 
 
 ev fi6vov " .... 
 
 OTLOVV " .... 
 
 article participle verb. 
 
 toiovtSv Ti verb 
 
 sbst. " .... 
 several sbjs. " .... 
 a/iip6Tepoi 
 
 IS 
 
 2 
 
 17 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 37 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 7 
 
 4 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 32 
 
 14 
 
 I 
 
 >4 
 I 
 8 
 
 13 
 2 
 I 
 I 
 8 
 2 
 
 '83 
 10 
 
 S 
 9 
 
 18 
 
 54 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 9 
 I 
 
 3 
 9 
 I 
 I 
 
 186 
 
 Total. 
 Subj. verb : 
 
 Protag. Anab. I. 
 
 - S3S 33S 
 
 Verb subject. Protag. 
 
 vb. ey6 re Kal ad i 
 
 fif ifia/iev ey6 re Kal Tl.. . i 
 
 verb ij/tu^ j 
 
 verb aiirdi t 
 
 vb. amdc airij) sbst. ... 3 
 
 " TO. avrS. iicyiSri .... i 
 
 " ravTo. Tama -i 
 
 " OWTOf . 
 " CKClVO 
 
 vb. rb fih) sbst 4 
 
 Vi'k 8 
 
 " W (interrog.) i 
 
 vb. T(f (indef.) 13 
 
 vb. aXloi aXKijq 
 
 " irdfTEf 
 
 vb. TToTJ^i, , 
 ** oirJe/f . , 
 " iKaoTOf . 
 
 Anab, 
 
 136 
 
 vb. art. part 3 
 
 '* TOtOVT^V Tt I 
 
 " sbst in 
 
 " several subjs 18 
 
 " art. inf 2 
 
 " TO ETCpa 2 
 
 Total. Protag. Anab. I. 
 
 Verb subj. =z 284 169 
 
 It may be noted especially that the personal pronouns regu- 
 larly precede the verb. The chief exceptions are in the phrases 
 6(^1)1- cya 32 times, ^v d' iyi> 44 times, which occur invariably in this 
 order like the 8 cases of fj S' or. Plato's fondness for the phrase 
 f^r)v iyw is shown in 317 c, where the sentence begins with koI fyi>, 
 and after a long parenthesis continues with ti olv, t^jjv eym. He 
 might have used simply ?<^i)i/ as the sentence began with ey&, 
 especially as the solitary e<f>riv occurs 8 times in the Protagoras. 
 
 Liddell and Scott (s. v. tj)Jiiii) note that "in repeating dialogues, 
 
240 HERMA N LO UIS EBELING. 
 
 the verb commonly goes before its subject." Besides the cases 
 cited I counted ^mi\v hv iycoyt 2 times and 8 examples of ^arai with 
 a proper noun as subject. Of the opposite order with noun-suh- 
 jects preceding I found only 6 examples of (pdvai, in all of which 
 the subject has been made prominent, as in 317 e, eVtl fie navres 
 
 (rvptKade(6iJ.($a, 6 Tiparayopas, NCj/ Sfj &v, 'e(f>t), Xe'yoif, Z> 2. Only One of 
 
 them, 317 d, d KaXXi'aj e^ij, is a parenthetic phrase and here the 
 new subject must be made prominent. 
 
 With a>s and the verb ^avai also, the subject preferably follows : 
 
 majTfp ((j)ri O/iijpof, 34*^ &! & </)i)(ri UpoSiKos oSe, 34O C; i>s <^r]t trv, 361 d ; 
 Cdff <j>ap.€v iyui T( Koi lip., 354 ^> ^^ 4^V^ °^ '^**' ^V^ Trci^o/xui, 316 a (the 
 
 chiasmus here is easily made). Of the opposite order I have 
 
 found only ir iyi> (firipi, 33^ ^1 SLna in av (f>ris' fiKOTtos, i>s eya (pqfii, 
 
 322 e. Here the pronouns are decidedly emphatic. 
 
 With i>s and other verbs, however, the order, subject-verb, 
 seems the usual one ; and as we might expect, the pronouns are 
 here frequently used without especial emphasis, as in the 8 exam- 
 ples of (Bs e'y^pai. The rcst of the examples are : ij iyio iJKovaa, 
 
 311 a; &(rirep av Xtycis, 323 a; 344 c; 351 e; 352 c; as <ri eparas, 
 351 d ; SxjTiip nparayopas eTrexeipet Xc'yfii', 361b; ws airi 5?;Xoi, 329 b; 
 uXTTTfp ail in-oXa/j/Sdcfif, 341 a; cdc aii aiTeiSets, 361 b. I have Only 
 
 one example of the reverse order to oppose to the above citations, 
 
 ovx if otfrai Xlparayopas, 34'-' *-• 
 
 That the personal pronouns are not always emphatic is recog- 
 nized by Professor Gildersleeve,^ who calls attention to the 
 frequency of iy^ha and iy^pm. I think it is evident that the iya> 
 is unemphatic in the phrases ^v fi' iya> and (<^r)v eyu> and in many 
 other cases it seems better to read the pronouns without a special 
 
 stress as in Protag. 360 d, t/ . . . oiVe av ^ijr & ipara ot»T€ a7r6(f>7]s ', 
 Havebford College, Pa. HeRMAN LoUIS EbELING. 
 
 ' Syntax of Classical Greek, §69. 
 
THE ATHENS OF ARISTOPHANES. 
 
 That Aristophanes has been a frequent source of appeal to 
 students of Athenian topography is evident from a casual inspec- 
 tion of Milchhoefer's " Schrifiquellen zur Topographic von 
 Athen," published with Curtius' " Stadlgeschichte von Athen" 
 (Berlin, 1891), and of Miss Harrison's " Mythology and Monuments 
 of Ancient y4/^fw " (London, 1890). But to the topographer 
 Aristophanes usually yields barren results ; for the purpose of 
 comedy did not call for any precise localizing of the places and 
 objects he mentions — the chief aim of topographic study. Nor, 
 on the other hand, do the local allusions in Aristophanes prove 
 very suggestive to the student of literature, unless he brings to 
 the perusal of the author the topographic knowledge acquired 
 from a personal acquaintance with " the fruitful land of Pallas," 
 and from a study of the sites and monuments of land and city 
 as described in the Attika of Pausanias and in other sources. 
 But, if we presuppose the knowledge thus acquired, references to 
 places and monuments in the extant comedies and fragments of 
 Aristophanes fill in most richly the wavering outlines, and give 
 to our conception of Ancient Athens the touch of life. Hence, it 
 is the object of this paper, not to consider what contributions 
 Aristophanes may have made to Athenian topography, but to 
 define the scope and nature of his allusions to places and monu- 
 ments on Attic soil, and to sketch the Aristophanic picture of 
 Athens and Attika. 
 
 Attika is to Aristophanes ' the illustrious soil of the august 
 Pallas,'^ 'the much loved country of Kekrops." Its inhabitants 
 are alone rightly of noble birth and autochthonous.' It is the 
 land of brave men, abounding in temples and statues and votive 
 offerings to the celestial gods; in holy mystic rites and sacred 
 processions and well-crowned sacrifices ; and with the approach 
 of spring is here celebrated the Dionysiac festival, when are 
 heard the songs of melodious choruses and the loud-sounding 
 
 111773. 'Nzggff. '21076. 
 
 16 
 
242 MITCHELL CARROLL. 
 
 music of flutes/ It is a sea-encircled land with all the diversity 
 of climate and scenery, of fauna and flora, that mountain and 
 plain and seacoast and islands produce." It experiences the 
 snows of winter, as well as the gentle breezes of spring. Hares 
 and wild game abound in the woods, sheep and goats are tended 
 in the pastures, and the bees feeding on the wild thyme of the 
 mountain slope produce "the Attic honey."' The country dis- 
 tricts delight in the vine, the fig tree, the olive, the stately oak 
 and the plane tree ; so too, in the arbutus, the myrtle and ' the 
 violet bed beside the well.' The hooting of the owl, the shrill 
 piping of the cicada, and the sweet notes of the lark and the 
 nightingale are heard in the land. 
 
 About the mainland are the islands, which are regarded politi- 
 cally as an essential part of the territory of Attika,*— Aigina,' 
 which the Lakedaimonians coveted, merely that they might 
 dispossess the poet (who is known to have had an estate there) ; 
 Salamis,' with its seafaring population, oft mentioned because of 
 the naval engagement fought in its straits ; and Euboia,' pointed 
 out on the map by the Disciple of Sokrates to the docile Strep- 
 siades, as stretching out a long way by the side of Attika, and 
 which had been ' stretched ' by Perikles. 
 
 Of the mountains of Attika, Parnes* plays the chief role in 
 Aristophanes. It is from Mount Fames whence the Chorus of 
 the Clouds descends gently towards the theatre. Hither Lama- 
 chos had to journey in the depth of winter to guard the moun- 
 tain passes from Boiotian robbers. Leipsydrion' was one of its 
 strongholds. Phelleus,'" where goats were pastured and wood 
 was gathered, was probably one of the spurs of Fames. Kyklo- 
 boros," generally considered to be a mountain torrent pouring 
 down from Fames' slopes, serves frequently as a simile to describe 
 the thunderous voice of the loud-mouthed Kleon. 'Perky' 
 Lykabettos" is twice mentioned in connection with Fames, if in 
 B. 1056 we read with certain of the editors Xiapvifiiav rather than 
 
 ' N 299 ff. 2 Cf. A 990 ff., Ei 580, 1 127 ff., 228 ff . et al. 
 
 "61192,1(252. <Ii7o. 'A 653, S 123, B 363. 
 
 1 785,8204, A 59, 4ii,Ek38. 'N 211, 2715. 
 
 •A 348, N 323, B 1056, fr. p. 509. The references of the fragments are 
 to the edition of Dindorf, Oxford, 1835. 
 
 'A 665. '»A273, N71. "A 381, I 137, fr. 275,539. "* U 1056, fr. 509. 
 
THE A THENS OF ARISTOPHANES. 243 
 
 No reference is made to the more famous Pentelikon and 
 Hymettos, nor to the rivers Kephissos and Ilissos. Aristophanes 
 cites places and monuments merely because the situation he is 
 describing calls for mention of them, and the only conclusion we 
 can legitimately draw from omissions, such as these, is that while 
 occupying so prominent a place in literature and art these moun- 
 tains and rivers were not so intimately associated with the daily 
 life of the people as those more frequently mentioned. And we 
 must reflect that Pausanias, whose business it was to describe 
 what he saw, ignores the Pnyx and many monuments which must 
 have stared him in the face. 
 
 Paralia,' or the seacoast, and Diakria,'' the mountain region, 
 are recognized as divisions of Attika. And many of its historic sites 
 and characteristic demes are presented in suggestive passages. 
 Sounion' is the Aegean headland, the promontory of Athens, 
 sacred to Poseidon of the golden trident, who is here worshiped 
 and who smites his own temple and the tall oaks. Laureion* is 
 cited only for its owls. Eleusis,' is the spot, " where is reverence 
 for sacred rites not to be divulged ; where the house that receives 
 the initiated is thrown open in holy mystic rites." Marathon," 
 with its lovely meads, where was set up the trophy of victory, is 
 symbolical of that sturdiness of character nurtured by the Old 
 Education, for the return of which the poet longed. Phyle' was 
 still reminiscent of Thrasyboulos, when the Ploutos was com- 
 posed ; and to Phyle Lamachos was dispatched against his 
 protest through the snow to guard the passes. 
 
 Of the demes of Attika, Acharnai," the largest and the most 
 important, has given its name to one of the extant comedies, a 
 denie of charcoal-burners, selected no doubt by the poet because 
 here he found that love of freedom and manly vigor characteristic 
 of the older generation. About the play is the atmosphere of 
 
 'A 58. »2 1223. 
 
 ^I 560 and N 441 corroborate fully the recently discovered inscription 
 which proves that the beautiful temple hitherto called the temple of Athena 
 was the temple of Poseidon (v. Berl. Phil. W. Sept. 2, 1899; Athen. Mitth. 
 xxiv, 1899, p. 349). Cf. also 869, B 665. 
 
 *0 1 106. ''N 302. 
 
 "A 181, 696, N 986, S 711, 246, e 806, B 1296, A 285. 
 
 'A 1023, 107s, n 1 146. 
 
 ^A 177, 180, 200, 203, 223, 329, 666 et ah, A 62, 6 563. 
 
244 MITCHELL CARROLL. 
 
 vigorous country life. Its seniors are • sturdy old fellows, tough 
 as oak, inflexible, Marathon men, stout as maple.' Nor are the 
 women of Acharnai less pronounced. Lysistrate counted on them 
 first of all to join with her in her plot to restore peace to Hellas, 
 and in the Thesmophoriazousai mention is made of the story 
 of an Acharnian woman who once buried her father under the 
 kitchen-boiler. Other demes are known from the characters 
 attributed to them. Who does not recall Dikaiopolis of Chol- 
 leidai,' and Trygaios,the Athmonian/and Strepsiades of Kikynna,' 
 and Euelpides of Krios* and the less known Strymodoros of 
 Konthyle,' 'best of fellow-dicasts,' and Chabes of Phlya,' his 
 comrade, and Chairephon of Sphettos,' and " What's his name 
 of the deme of Kothokidai ? " ° Other demes and places freerred 
 to for various reasons are — Anagyrous," Brauron,'" Halimous,'' 
 Kephalai," Kropidai,'' Pergasai," Skiron^'* and Skambonidai.'^ 
 
 Coming to Athens itself, we find it frequently cited by name. 
 Athena" is guardian of the city and is supreme over this " most 
 sacred spot, surpassing all others in war and in poets and 
 in dominion." " For the city, Aristophanes has his favorite epi- 
 thets—ancient (apxaJai)," Sacred (Upat),'"' wondrous (dav/iaaTat)," 
 much-sung-of (TroXiu/ii/oi)," sumptuous (XiTrapui)," violet-crowned 
 (loo-Tc'^ai'oO," much-to-be-envied (dpif^XmroO.'' The epithets 
 Xmapal and lo(TTe<j)avot, the latter being first used by Pindar, are 
 made the subject of facetious parody in the parabasis of the 
 Acharnians. The ambassadors from the cities, says the poet, 
 made use of the term loareipavoi in order to cajole the Athenians ; 
 and he plays upon the double meaning of the word \mapos 
 ' sumptuous ' and ' sleek ' or ' greasy,' alleging that if the envoys 
 soft-sawdered them by speaking of \mapas . . . 'Adrjvas, they got 
 whatever they wished, though merely imputing to the Athenians 
 the glory of the anchovy. 
 
 Many of the important demes of the city are presented in 
 characteristic passages, — Diomeia," the site of the festival in honor 
 of Herakles, whose r61e Xanthias in the Frogs was playing, and 
 
 'A 406. 2Et 195. 3N 134, 210. *o 645. «s 233. 
 
 «S 234. 'N 156. 8 620. »A 65. '»Ej874. "O498. 
 '^0 476. "I 79. "I 321. li'BKie. "S81. 
 
 ''I 580, 763, N 602, A 345. "I 1327. '»I 1327. 2»l58o, 1037, 1329. 
 
 "A 639,1 1329. 22^637,11324,9. 23 1 1329. 21 B 651. 
 
THE A THENS OF ARISTOPHANES. 245 
 
 who sighs because it had not been for so long celebrated ; Melite,' 
 whence came the aforenamed Xanthias; Kolonos," home of 
 " Melon, whom Hellas and Kolonos knows "; and Kerameikos," 
 both the Inner, where near the gates the poor fellow at the Pana- 
 thenaia got so sound a drubbing, and the Outer, often alluded to 
 as the long home of the Athenian dead. 
 
 About the walls ' of the city swarm numbers of the inevitable 
 dicasts and beside the battlements during the siege Dikaiopolis 
 suffered hardship amid surroundings not so agreeable as those 
 of the ambassadors to the Persian Court. At the city's gates' 
 were the cheaper markets, where sausages were sold made of 
 rather unpalatable ingredients. The streets' of the city were 
 narrow and muddy, for, according to the Chorus of the Wasps, 
 the old fellows seek their way with the aid of lamps, and should 
 the light by any chance become extinguished, there was danger 
 that they would stir up the mud as they walked, like the snipes. 
 
 Demosthenes' promises the Sausage-Seller in the Knights, that 
 when he demolishes Kleon, he shall become alone Lord of the 
 Agora and of the Harbors and of the Pnyx. As these were 
 the chief centers of Athenian life, they receive the most frequent 
 mention in the comedies of Aristophanes. To notice first the 
 harbors. 
 
 The Peiraieus' was a clever device of Themistokles, yet not 
 so clever as the chiton which the Sausage-Seller presented to 
 Demos; it was kneaded up by Themistokles for the city, while 
 the latter was at breakfast;' one of its harbors was known as 
 Kantharos;'" its Deigma" or Exchange, points a witticism against 
 the litigious propensities of the Athenians ; its Tenderloin dis- 
 trict" was observed by Trygaios as he mounts heavenward on 
 his beetle; its marts and merchant ships" are pointed out to the 
 Sausage-Seller as part of his possessions, when he overcomes his 
 rival; its colonnades and dock-yards" are scenes of busy activity 
 in times of war, when vessels are being launched, figure-heads are 
 getting gilded, provisions are being measured out, colonnades 
 are groaning with the press of business, and the dock-yards are 
 filled " with spars getting cut into oars, wooden pins resounding, 
 
 1 B SOI. =0 998. « B 129, 1093, 39S, I 772. 
 
 ■>Siio7,A72. '11246,1398. •2 25off. ■'I16S. 
 
 'I 885. «I8i5. '»Eti45. "1 979- "^(165. "I 171. "As48ff. 
 
246 MITCHELL CARROLL. 
 
 bottom oars getting furnished with thongs, and boatswains' flutes, 
 fifes, whistlings." Phaleron,' on the other hand, has so sunk in 
 the scale of importance, that it is noted only for its anchovies, 
 which are frequently the subject of ludicrous mention. 
 
 The Pnyx is the subject of illuminating passages or forms the 
 center of important scenes in various plays. Thus in the Achar- 
 nians' we are introduced to the Pnyx as the place of assembly. 
 When Dikaiopolis arrives, he finds the Pnyx deserted and sees 
 the members gossiping in the Agora, trying to avoid the vermil- 
 ioned rope; but at the hour of noon they rush in pell-mell, every 
 man scrambling for the first seat. Demos, in the Knights,' insists 
 upon coming to the Pnyx to decide the contest between the 
 Paphlagonian and the Sausage-Seller, for he cannot sit in com- 
 fort in any other place. Sosias, in the Wasps,* relates to 
 Xanthias, his fellow slave, the vision that appeared to him in his 
 dream — some sheep sitting together with staffs and cloaks, hold- 
 ing an assembly in the Pnyx, and addressed by a whale with the 
 voice of a bloated sow — a parody on Kleon and the stupidity of 
 the Athenians. And in the Peace^ Hermes tells Trygaios how 
 the goddess Eirene is anxious to know "who at present is master 
 of the Bema in the Pnyx." The Thesmophoriazousai' doubtless 
 settles conclusively the question that the Pnyx was the scene 
 of the celebration of the Thesmophoria, and much of the fun 
 of the piece centers round this fact. The Pnyx became for a few 
 days annually, as we judge from the play, a sacred precinct under 
 exclusive feminine control. The assembly, the female herald, 
 the prayer, the debate, the resolution, show that in ancient times 
 as in modern, feminine assemblies got their ideas of parliamentary 
 practice from the sterner sex. And when Mnesilochos is dis- 
 covered, they run round the whole Pnyx, and search the tents 
 and the passages in the vain endeavor to find another masculine 
 interloper. The strong-minded women of the Ekklesiazousai ' 
 desired to hold forever the possession of that Pnyx which the 
 women of the Thesmophoriazousai held annually for a season. 
 They disguised themselves as men, seized the best places in the 
 Pnyx, overawed and out-voted the regular members of the assem- 
 bly, and petticoat rule is established in Athens. 
 
 . ' A901, 76, £r. 422. SA20ff. 3ij,^5g. <i:30ff. 
 
 ' Ki 680. « e 655 £f.; cf. 278, 879 etc. ' Ek 85 ff., 280 ff. 
 
THE A THENS OF ARISTOPHANES. 247 
 
 The neighboring hills — the Areiopagos, the Hill of the Nymphs 
 and the Hill of the Muses, receive no mention, but Barathron,' 
 just outside the walls, as a place of dire punishment, has become 
 a term of execration, and to it various disagreeable persons are 
 consigned by their angry antagonists. 
 
 The Agora or Market- Place, as the center of Athenian life, 
 naturally constitutes the chief theatre of action for the characters 
 of the Aristophanic plays, being referred to in all the extant 
 comedies and in the fragments as well." It is represented as the 
 resort for lounging and gossip, for public and private business; it 
 has its boundaries, its market-tolls, its market-clerks ; its various 
 commodities are often mentioned in detail ; even its plane-trees, 
 said to have been planted by Kimon, are referred to in a frag- 
 ment. The kvkKoi, or sections of the Agora, devoted to specific 
 lines of business, are familiar places of resort — the flour-market,' 
 fish-market,' bird-market,' cheese-market,' vegetable-market,' 
 bran-market,' lamp-market,' perfume-market," myrtle-wreath- 
 market," pottery-market," barber-shops," chemists'-shops," &c., 
 &c. 
 
 Buildings and temples and statues, known from Pausanias and 
 from other sources, to lie within the limits of the Agora or in its 
 neighborhood, are mentioned amid associations that fix them 
 forever in the memory. 
 
 Into the Bouleuterion'^ or Senate-House, the author was drag- 
 ged by Kleon on account of his last comedy (the Babylonians), 
 and calumniated and lied against. Hither rushed Kleon and the 
 Sausage-Seller in their efforts to convince Demos of their respec- 
 tive merits and Kleon is carrying the day by the mere strength of 
 his voice, when his opponent creates a diversion by announcing 
 the reduced price of anchovies, whereupon the dignified Senators 
 leap over the barriers and rush out to avail themselves of the 
 change in the market. Possibly in the 'Basileia" of the Birds,' 
 there is an allusion to Basileia the queen-mother of the neigh- 
 
 1 1 1362, N 1450, B 574, n 431, 1109, fr. 309. 
 
 'A 21, 533,719,896; I 147, 181, 293,636, 1009, 1245, 1373, 1375; N 991, 
 1000, 1055; 2 16, 492, 659, 1372; EJ999; 1000; A 558 59457, 578; B1350; 
 B/C62, 681, 711,728,819; n 787, 874; £r. 162,3; 344, 3,8; 391. 
 
 3 Bk 686. ■• B 1068, 2 789. » 14. ' B 1068. ■> A 557. 9 1 254. 
 
 » N 1065. '» I 1375. " e 448. " A 557- " n 335. » N 767. 
 
 " A 379, I 39S, 485. " 1537 (v- Miss Harrison, Athens, p. 52). 
 
248 MITCHELL CARROLL. 
 
 boring Metroon. The Heliaia,' a comprehensive term for the 
 various judicial courts, one of which was the New Court into 
 which Philokleon, the old jurist of the Wasps, on one occasion 
 rushed and began to adjudicate — naturally calls for frequent 
 mention in an author who delights in satirizing the litigious propen- 
 sities of the Athenians. Public maintenance in the Prytaneion,^ 
 outside the boundaries of the Agora, but in its neighborhood, the 
 emolument of many public servants, worthy and unworthy, is 
 oft-times the subject of the poet's sarcasm. Thither the King's 
 Eye is invited ; the Sausage-Seller is summoned by Demos to 
 the Prytaneion, to the seat once occupied by Kleon, and even in 
 Hades, the best poet was to receive maintenance in the Pryta- 
 neion. The Stoai' or Colonnades, used as regular resorts by the 
 Athenians for business and gossip, are vividly brought to mind 
 in suggestive passages. Thus in the Ekklesiazousai when Prax- 
 agora recounts the blessings of feminine supremacy, the law courts 
 and the Stoai are to be devoted to the use of the men at the 
 public tables. She will take her stand in the Agora and deter- 
 mine by lot whither the people are to go to dine, — some to the 
 Stoa Basileios, some to the Colonnade next to this (probably the 
 Stoa Eleutherios), and some to the flour-market. The Stoa 
 Poikile* is not expressly mentioned, but the mounted Amazons 
 of Mikon, one of the paintings with which it was adorned, served 
 to point a moral for the Chorus of the conservative old men in 
 the Lysistrate who are inveighing against the novel antics of the 
 women. Of the temples, the shrine of Theseus" and the pre- 
 cinct of the Eumenides are places of refuge for the oppressed, 
 whither the scandalized upper-class trireme of the Knights ex- 
 plains she will sail away and sit down as a suppliant rather than 
 let the hated Hyperbolos board her. 
 
 Allusions in Aristophanes to the famous statues of Harmodios 
 and Aristogeiton," and to the popular skolion upon these heroes of 
 democracy, are frequent. The old gentlemen of the Lysistrate, 
 fearful of the encroachments of the women, swear that over them 
 they shall not tyrannize, for henceforth they will wear their sword 
 in a myrtle-bough and will lounge in arms in the market-place 
 
 » I 897, N 83s, S 87. 121, A 383. 
 
 2 A 125, I 167, 281, 709, 766, 1404, E( 1084, B 764. 
 
 JEK684, 685, 686, A 548. <A678f. ' I 1312 ; fr. 477, z. 
 
 «A 633, E/C682, 2 1225. 
 
THE ATHENS OF ARISTOPHANES. 249 
 
 near the statue of Aristogeiton. In the Ekklesiazousai Praxagora 
 gathers all the people beside the statue of Harmodios, and chooses 
 them by lot, and sends them to the various syssitia. The statue 
 of Pandion/ one of the Eponymoi, whose statues were set up in a 
 group in the Agora, was used as a conspicuous place for posting 
 public notices. Thus the poor conscript in the Peace had no 
 individual warning and knew not he must go to war until stand- 
 ing by Pandion's statue, he saw his name on the list for service. 
 The Aristophanic Sausage-Seller swears by the Hermes' of the 
 Agora, a prominent bronze statue near the Stoa toikile. 
 
 Allusions to the Hermai' erected in the streets and squares of 
 the city and to the little chapels and statues of Hekate,* which 
 every citizen had before his door, give valuable hints as to the 
 private life of the Athenians. 
 
 Leaving the centers of political and commercial life and coming 
 to those of education and physical training, we find that the 
 schools, palaistrai and gymnasia ° frequented by the young men 
 of the town, figure largely in Aristophanes, particularly in the 
 debate regarding the Old and the New Education carried on by the 
 fixator and "AfiiKor Ao'yor in the clouds. Here the Academy' is 
 described as the resort par excellence, where the young men ran 
 races "beneath the sacred olives along with some modest com- 
 peer crowned with white reeds, redolent of yew and careless 
 ease, and of leaf-shedding white poplar, rejoicing in the season 
 of spring when the plane tree whispers to the elm." The Lyceum' 
 had its military as well as civic uses, alluded to by the citizen in 
 the Peace, who complains of marching in and out of the Lyceum 
 with shield and spear as one of the trials of war. 
 
 We pass finally to the Akropolis and its immediate neighbor- 
 hood, and consider first, its southern slope, on which were situated 
 the theatre of Dionysos and the precinct of Asklepios. As to the 
 theatre' itself, it is clear from Aristophanes, that it was open to 
 the sky, that the spectators still sat on wooden benches and that 
 it was a special honor to be present at the festivities in splendid 
 apparel beside the statue of Dionysos. Hard by the theatre was 
 the Odeion of Perikles, mentioned as the seat of one of the 
 
 > Bt 1 183. 'I 297. 3 A 1094, 1084, E( 925. " 2 805, A 63, B 364. 
 
 » N 179, 964, 972, 1002, 1050, S 1025, 1215, B 1070. 
 
 6 N 1005. 'B«355. 8N322, 9395, I S3S, B 217. 
 
250 MITCHELL CARROLL. 
 
 courts frequented by the dicasts. We are inclined with Kock 
 to locate the much disputed si^aiai in the neighborhood of the 
 theatre, for the Chorus of the Frogs in Hades recall 'the song 
 once sung in Limnai round the Nysaian Dionysos, son of Zeus, 
 when the crowd of worshippers rambling in drunken revelry on 
 the sacred festival of the Chytroi marched through their domain.' 
 Of the precinct of Asklepios' and the cult of the healing god, 
 we have a lively picture given us in the Ploutos, wherein the 
 blind god of wealth is led to the temple, and the method of his 
 cure described in detail ; we also recall that in the Wasps the old 
 man Philokleon was seized and made to lie down by night in the 
 precinct of Asklepios. 
 
 The action of the Lysistrate" centers round the Akropolis, 
 which has been seized by the women of Hellas, who have adopted 
 a novel method of bringing about peace between the belligerents. 
 The Akropolis is to Aristophanes the /icyaXdn-fTpof a^aros oKpoiroXis, 
 lepov Tf'/iei/of and in reading the Lysistrate, its topographical features 
 are brought vividly to mind,— the citadel, garrisoned by the women 
 who have made fast the Propylaia with bolts and bars, — the 
 Chorus of Old Men advancing slowly up the western slope to 
 smoke out and to burn out the revolted women, and their dis- 
 comfiture at the hands of their feminine antagonists, — the Temple 
 of Demeter Chloe hard by the Propylaia outside the fortifications, 
 near which the ardent husband of Myrrhine is first spied as he 
 approaches, — and the Grotto of Pan and the Klepsydra connected 
 with the bridal chamber incident of the young married lovers. 
 Reference is made in the course of the play to 'the inexhaustible 
 sum of money in the temple of the goddess,' to 'the sacred 
 wooden image' and to 'the guardian serpent' whose abode, 
 as generally accepted, was in the Erechtheion. Suggestive al- 
 lusions occur also in other plays. The gold-and-ivory image 
 of Athena Parthenos is suggested in the Knights,' where the 
 Sausage-Seller brings to Demos spoon-shaped pieces of bread, 
 which, says he, ' were scooped out by the goddess with her ivory 
 hand,' and Demos exclaims 'What a huge finger then you have, 
 O mistress!' Ploutos' after the restoration of his vision, is 
 established with becoming dignity on the Akropolis, as ' guardian 
 
 ' n 411, 621, 636, 640, 2 123. 2 Cf. A 174, 260, 483, 759, 836, 911, et al. 
 
 '1 1 169. * n 1 193. 
 
THE A THENS OF ARISTOPHANES. 25 I 
 
 of the Opisthodomos of the goddess.' And like the Akropolis 
 Nephelokokkygia of the Birds' has its Pelargikon. Finally, the 
 picture in the Knights' of the redeemed Demos gains in strength 
 and vitality from its association with the Akropolis, where he is 
 represented seated enthroned on his sacred rock, — " He is dwelling 
 in the violet-crowned, the ancient Athens, like as he was when he 
 used to mess with Aristeides and Miltiades. Ye shall see him : for 
 now there is the sound of the Propylaia swinging open. But 
 shout aloud at the appearance of the ancient Athens, both 
 wondrous and much sung of, where the illustrious Demos dwells." 
 The foregoing sketch has, perhaps, been sufficient to indicate 
 that we have in Aristophanes abundant illustrative material for 
 the study of Athens and Attika, and that his references to places 
 and monuments are very comprehensive in their scope, embracing 
 as they do, the islands, the principal sites and demes of the 
 mainland, and of Greater Athens, the harbors, the Pnyx, the 
 Agora and its monuments, and the Akropolis and its neighborhood. 
 The most salient characteristic of the local allusions of Aristo- 
 phanes is that in every instance the places and monuments are 
 mentioned incidentally to the portrayal of life. The locality is 
 inevitably associated with the living character created by the 
 greatest of comic artists, and consequently receives a connotation 
 which appeals to the sensibilities and the imagination. This has 
 been happily expressed by Professor Gildersleeve :' "The wave 
 of Aristophanes' torch often fixes an image such as no detailed 
 drawing can yield." And it is because of this abiding human 
 interest in his local allusions that Aristophanes is such an indis- 
 pensable traveling companion to the Greek student on Attic soil. 
 We cannot, it is true, dispense with the rather droll and arid Pau- 
 sanias, for, as we have seen, it is his detailed descriptions which make 
 it possible for us to realize the wealthof local colour in Aristophanes. 
 Yet the point of view of the guide-book maker and antiquarian 
 was altogether different from that of the portrayer of the comic 
 side of Athenian life, and while we go to the former for facts, we 
 go to the latter for inspiration. Whenever I seek to estimate the 
 respective merits of Aristophanes and Pausanias, I am vividly 
 
 ' 832. ' 1 1324 ff. 
 
 ' My Sixty Days in Greece, III. My Travelling Companions, Atlantic 
 Monthly, August, 1897. 
 
252 MITCHELL CARROLL. 
 
 reminded of the prophet Ezekiel's vision of the valley of dry 
 bones. Pausanias mentions numberless places, and buildings, 
 and temples, and statues, many of which are, as he says, dim a^ioi 
 but nevertheless, as he does not associate them with life, he sets 
 us down ' in the midst of a valley full of bones, and lo! they are 
 very dry.' Aristophanes, by the wave of his wand, supplies the 
 sinews and the flesh and the breath of life, and makes the dry 
 bones of topographical data become living realities to every 
 student of Athens and Attika. 
 
 The Columbian Uhwebsitv. MiTCHELL CaRROLL. 
 
ON THE THEORY OF THE IDEAL CONDITION 
 IN LATIN. 
 
 In all the Latin grammars in use in this country, in the chapter 
 on the Unreal Condition, we are warned that when the apodosis 
 contains an idea of possibility, power, obligation or necessity, or 
 the active or passive periphrastic or its equivalents, etc., the In- 
 dicative is used instead of the Subjunctive. The same is true of 
 most of the foreign grammars. 
 
 Various suggestions are offered in explanation of this phenom- 
 enon, most of which involve the idea that in these sentences we 
 have not genuine conditional sentences, but that the apodosis is 
 stated absolutely. Some grammars go so far as to supply a con- 
 ditional apodosis, as: he had the power to do so (and would 
 have done so) if, etc. 
 
 In the third edition of Gildersleeve's Latin Grammar (1894) 
 certain of the examples usually cited under this head were trans- 
 ferred to the 'Ideal from the Past Point of View '. But the sub- 
 ject has not been adequately discussed, and it has seemed to me 
 desirable to indicate what appears to me to be the theory of the 
 usage, so far as the narrow limits of this paper will admit. No 
 attempt will be made at a thorough discussion of the literature of 
 the subject, for which readers are referred to the articles cited 
 below. 
 
 In an extensive article, in 1884,' Lilie endeavored to explain 
 the usage. He drew attention to the fact that this use of the 
 Indicative is not an isolated use, but is found with a Present Sub- 
 junctive protasis also; and maintained that in investigating the 
 matter we should begin with the Present Subjunctive, rather than 
 with any other tense, — a perfectly just contention. 
 
 In formulating the diflference between a conditional sentence 
 in which both members have the same mood, and one in which 
 they have different moods, he says : 
 
 'Conjunctivischer Bedingungssatz bei indicativischem Hauptsatz im 
 Lateinischen von Dr. C. Lilie. Berlin Pr. 1884. 
 
254 GONZALEZ LODGE. 
 
 'Wahrend namlich in den hypothetischen Perioden bei der 
 Congruenz der Modi beide Glieder dieselbe Stellung zur Wirk- 
 lichkeit haben, so beansprucht hier die Aussage des indicativischen 
 Satzes entschiedene und durchgangige Giltigkeit auch fiir sich, 
 wogegen die im Vorstellungsmodus erscheinende Annahme in 
 suspenso bleibt; wahrend in jenen zwei sachlich coordinierte 
 Glieder durch Correlation mit einander verbunden sind, so dass 
 sie zu einander stehen als Vordersatz und Nachsatz, nicht als 
 Haupt- und Nebensatz, so ist hier einem Hauptsatz durch Subordi- 
 nation ein Nebensatz verbunden; wahrend in jenen, wo aus 
 einer Annahme eine Folge hergeleitet wird, der bedingende Satz 
 den antecedierenden Gedanken enthalt, so entsteht er hier erst 
 hinter dem Gedanken des Hauptsatzes ; er ist also ein posteriori- 
 scher Nebensatz im Sinne der neueren Grammatiker.' 
 
 Blase' takes issue with this distinction of Lilie, and maintains 
 that the difference is rather one of period, showing by statistics 
 that the form est si sit grows in Latin at the expense of the form 
 sit si «7, and practically drives out the latter.* As happens so 
 often in such discussion, both are at fault, Lilie in making all the 
 est si sit forms cases of subordinate si, Blase in practically deny- 
 ing that any are. 
 
 That si has, to a certain extent, the effect of a subordinating 
 particle, has long been recognized in the grammars, in the semi- 
 interrogative constructions after verbs of Trial and Expectation. 
 In the case of the former it is paralleled by the construction with 
 ut, and in the latter case, dum and ut are also used. So that the 
 subordinating character is evident. 
 
 In a short treatment of the subject in 1896," Greenough tried 
 to deduce the Unreal usage referred to above from the future 
 outlook of the verbs employed, in my mind the only correct 
 method, but he failed to develop any means of discrimination 
 except the very doubtful one of emphasis in the Roman enunci- 
 ation. 
 
 ' Der Konjunktiv des Praesens im Bedingungssatze, Archiv IX, p. 17 ff- 
 ^ This article of Blase's furnishes an excellent illustration of the slight 
 value of statistics, if not properly interpreted. Actual counting does show 
 a large growth of the form est si sit. But I can see no attempt to discover 
 the difference in the effects of the two types and a consequent investigation 
 \ihether the Roman ceased to need the one type. 
 
 « Some Features of the Contrary-to-fact Condition. Harvard Studies in 
 Classical Philology, VII, p. 13 ff. 
 
THEORY OF THE IDEAL CONDITION IN LATIN. 255 
 
 In the discussion of the Unreal Condition in Latin, we are 
 fortunate in not being able to refer to the Greek for assistance. 
 In Greek, Unreality is a matter of tense in combination with 
 particle {&v'). In Latin it is a matter primarily of mood, fixed by 
 opposing reality. 
 
 Consequently, in our discussion, we have to consider the mood, 
 and then of course the tense. In considering the Subjunctive 
 mood, the typical tense is the Present. 
 
 The Subjunctive Mood, Present Tense, 
 
 The investigations of recent years into the original forces of the 
 moods have resulted in a practical agreement that the Subjunctive 
 mood was future in force. Whether the Subjunctive is derived 
 from the Future or the Future from the Subjunctive is of little 
 importance. The important point is that the Subjunctive and the 
 Future were inextricably combined as far back as we can reach. 
 The Optative was also future in force. It is true that there was 
 a Perfect Optative, but in this case the tense expressed kind of time, 
 not sphere of time, as the ascertainment was always future. 
 
 Now the Latin Subjunctive, combining the functions of both 
 the Subjunctive and the Optative, must of necessity at the outset 
 have been future and only future in force. 
 
 How does this future force manifest itself in Latin? In inde- 
 pendent sentences the Subjunctive is used mainly in the Potential 
 and the Optative forms. In the case of the Potential, the narrator 
 interprets the nature of the person or object under discussion as 
 having a certain potentiality for action. This must of necessity 
 be future from the point of view of the narrator, which is always 
 present. The genuine wish is also always future, having regard 
 either to action that is to be, or (more rarely) to ascertainment. 
 The Will side of the Subjunctive is shown in the Imperative 
 usage and in the Deliberative Question. Both of these are future 
 from the point of view of the narrator. 
 
 In other words the present Subjunctive is prospective from the 
 point of view of the narrator. In this lies the key to the whole 
 matter. 
 
 The conception involved in the word prospective is very old. 
 Every grammar that has used of the Subjunctive the word Design, 
 Contingency, or Suspense, has used the word prospective thereby. 
 
256 GONZALEZ LODGE. 
 
 It has also always been present in Expectation. The term has 
 however certain advantages, which the recent discussion as to its 
 inventor has brought out; but these advantages are perhaps all 
 present in the term suspense, which has also the additional 
 advantage of showing the spirit as well as the attitude of the subject. 
 
 Now, the narrator may combine two future conceptions. 
 So far as the Subjunctive is concerned a premiss in the form 
 of a wish may be followed by a conclusion in the form of a poten- 
 tiality (Subjunctive), a wish (Optative), a will (Imperative) or 
 a prediction (Predictive Future). Both of these members would 
 have the same relation to the narrator, and the result would be 
 a normal conditional sentence, of the Ideal form. The important 
 matter to bear in mind is that both these members are referable 
 primarily to the narrator, and by his act to each other, but the one 
 is not the complement of the other nor is it dependent upon the 
 other. Lilie is right thus far, though he was, as is evident, wrong in 
 restricting his combination to a ' Congruenz der Modi.' 
 
 Opposed to this normal form is what may be called the 
 spurious form. The original prospective sentence introduced by 
 si may have proceeded from one of many mental attitudes on the 
 part of the narrator. When this attitude is actually spelled out 
 in words, the force of the si clause is no whit modified, but the 
 attitude of the subject is clearer. This is the form that has given 
 all the trouble. If in a sentence o si hoc verum sit, we substitute 
 for the o any form that looks forward, such as / intend, I can, 
 I must, I ought, we have this spurious condition. If we substitute 
 I am waiting, I am trying, the effect is the same. None of these 
 forms has a genuine apodosis, which is already implied in the 
 statement of attitude. But it is not on that account necessary to 
 supply an apodosis. That would be a work of supererogation. 
 
 One very important thing needs emphasizing. The si clause 
 now must be measured not from the point of view of the narrator, 
 but from the point of view actually stated. So long as this is the 
 point of view of the narrator, that is, so long as the narrator gives 
 his own experiences, there is no difficulty, but just as soon as the 
 narrator gives the mental attitude or interprets the potentiality of 
 any one other than himself, we have the idea of Oratio Obliqua 
 at once entering. As a result, it is almost impossible to exclude 
 the idea of Oratio Obliqua from these spurious conditions. Inas- 
 much however as both points of view, the actual and the assigned, 
 
THEORY OF THE IDEAL CONDITION IN LATIN. 257 
 
 are in the present, the conflict in personality escapes notice, though 
 it is none the less present. 
 
 In his further discussion Lilie makes four categories, according 
 as the «' clause stands to the leading clause, as: i, forderndes; 
 2, hinderndes ; 3, Ausnahme ; 4, aufhebendes. This division 
 seems to me not to be vital. It is more important to divide 
 according to the effect of the leading verb. 
 
 To mention only the more important categories, we find : 
 
 1. Verbs of Trial and Expectation. These are more frequently 
 followed by a clause of design, verbs of Expectation also have 
 dum. The si construction is merely the simplest way of indi- 
 cating suspense. 
 
 2. Verbs of Possibility, Power, Obligation and Necessity. In 
 cases like these the apodosis is usually involved in a following 
 Infinitive, which is waiting for existence until it shall please the 
 si clause to allow it. 
 
 3. The Active and Passive Periphrastic. The former expresses 
 intention, the latter will. With the former the idea of Oratio 
 Obliqua is very near at hand. To this category the Future 
 indicative when volitive must be added, though such a usage is 
 rare by reason of the use of the periphrastic. 
 
 4. Any word or phrase that looks toward the future. Such as. 
 There are two roads if you are going towards Rome. There is 
 a store on the Appian Way if you are searching for pictures. 
 We have strong hopes, if he can be gotten out of the city. This 
 is a broad category. 
 
 5. The Present tense when it indicates progress. For progress 
 is often due to pressure and that involves will. 
 
 6. A number of usages like longum est, par est, aequom est, 
 etc. The conception seems to be a little different here. I, the 
 narrator, look forward rapidly in my mind over a prospective 
 course of action. My judgment remarks : it is long, it is fair, it 
 is beautiful, it is good. The prospective idea is none the less 
 involved, though not so evident. 
 
 It will be seen that the conception of Repeated action can come 
 very readily from more than one of the above categories ; most 
 easily from the fourth. It depends partly upon the character of 
 the leading verb, partly upon the nature of the subject of the si 
 clause. 
 
 It may also be added that the above list of categories may be 
 
 17 
 
2S8 GONZALEZ LODGE. 
 
 indefinitely increased, but as it seems to me, without correspond- 
 ing advantage to the presentation. 
 
 The Imperfect. 
 
 The Imperfect is peculiar to the Latin. Formally, it is still 
 obscure, and consequently we can obtain light only from the study 
 of the function. 
 
 Delbrlick,' from a study of the independent uses in Latin, namely 
 the Unreal Wish, the Unreal Condition, the Potential of the Past, 
 the Deliberative of the Past, comes to the following conclusion: 
 ' Das eigentlich Bezeichnende fiir den sog. Konj. Impf. ist die 
 Entferntheit von der Wirklichkeit, eine Anschauung von der die 
 Versetzung in die Sphare der Vergangenheit nur eine Unterab- 
 theilung bildet. Der Name Konj. Imperfecti ist deshalb nicht 
 geeignet. Man sollte Irrealis des Praesens sagen.' To my 
 mind, the fact that this form does not always express unreality, 
 but sometimes ideality, even if it is past, is sufficient to destroy 
 the theory. To obtain unreality from ideality is easy, the reverse 
 is logically almost impossible. 
 
 Hale, in his article on the Sequence of Tenses,' on the basis of 
 a study of the behavior of this tense in subordination, claims that 
 the Imperfect denotes time (past) and stage (incomplete). This, 
 as it seems to me, introduces an idea into the Subjunctive which 
 we are not justified in assuming, as I shall try to show. 
 
 We have seen that the Subjunctive is future in its effect, and 
 that the subordinate clause holds primarily a future relation to 
 the leading point of view, whether it be of the narrator, or of the 
 subject introduced. Now, when the narrative shifts from the 
 present into the past, there is no apparent reason why the relation 
 to the leading subject should change. What is prospective from 
 the present point of view, is none the less prospective when the 
 subject is in the past.' The Roman felt this instinctively, as we 
 
 ' Vergleichende Syntax, II, p. 398-404. 
 
 3 A. J. P., VII, VIII. 
 
 « Here again we get no assistance from the Greek. The shift in Greek is 
 one of Mood and rests upon the simple doctrine, set forth by Professor 
 Gildersleeve, that what, from the point of view of the present or from the 
 point of view of the narrator, is or may be will, must of necessity become 
 wish when another personality enters; which is of course necessary when 
 the sphere shifts to the past. 
 
THEORY OF THE IDEAL CONDITION IN LATIN. 259 
 
 see at once from his large employment of Representation in his 
 colloquial language — a device which did not escape the notice of 
 the later artistic historian. 
 
 The Imperfect should accordingly be found in the same uses as 
 the Present. Let us see. The Deliberative of the Past is not a 
 question as to what under present conditions should have been 
 done in the past, as would be a necessary inference from Hale's 
 view, but a question as to what, under certain conditions, in the 
 past, should have been done subsequently to those conditions. 
 The same holds true of the Unfulfilled Duty. This duty was 
 incumbent under certain past conditions. The Potential of the 
 Past gives the potentiality from a past point. In fact the Imper- 
 fect is originally future to the past, not past to the present. 
 
 If this is true it involves a further consideration. In the case 
 of the present the fact that the narrator and the second subject 
 are in the same time obscures the idea of Oratio Obliqua. But 
 in the case of the Imperfect we have an enforced separation of the 
 two personalities, and consequently it is often very difficult to 
 avoid the Oratio Obliqua conception. 
 
 Now, just as in the present sphere, we had the normal Ideal 
 condition with both members referred to the narrator, so it is 
 possible without any indication of Oratio Obliqua to transfer the 
 same combination to the past. Then we have a genuine Ideal 
 Condition from the past point of view, with both members in the 
 Imperfect and no unreality indicated. Examples are naturally 
 very rare but they do occur, and some are cited in Gildersleeve's 
 grammar and by Greenough in the article above referred to. 
 
 Usually however the transfer aifects these spurious conditional 
 sentences which we have divided into categories above. 
 
 The categories will remain the same in the past sphere as in the 
 present. Still some interesting facts may be observed. Livy uses 
 the Future Participle in predicate combination with a verb so 
 frequently that it is a distinct mannerism. This falls under the 
 third group. Caesar has a number of cases of the Imperfect in 
 conditions. They all fall under the fourth group. The Imperfect 
 Indicative is much more readily adapted to indicate progress than 
 the Present : hence, the Imperfect Subjunctive after an Imperfect 
 Indicative is not a rarity. 
 
 In the case of the sixth group, we have no separation of the 
 personalities. The Indicative clause gives the judgment of the 
 
26o GONZALEZ LODGE. 
 
 narrator: consequently, the tendency towards unreality is ir- 
 resistible and the Imperfect after this Indicative is a rarity. 
 
 This leads to a consideration of unreality, which is wrapped up 
 with the use of the Pluperfect. 
 
 The Perfect, Pluperfect and Unreality. 
 
 We have observed that with an Imperfect Subjunctive, the 
 Potentiality, the Duty, the Command, the Question are all from 
 the point of view of the expressed subject (Past). We also notice 
 that every statement is made from the point of view of the nar- 
 rator (Present). 
 
 As the Present is subsequent to the Past, it may easily be within 
 the knowledge of the narrator whether the duty was fulfilled, the 
 potentiality exercised, or not. If this knowledge is negative, 
 unreality is the effect: otherwise the ideality remains unimpaired. 
 
 If the opposing reality is present, then the Imperfect Subjunctive 
 seems to express an Unreality of the Present: if that opposing 
 reality is itself past, then that same Imperfect seems to express 
 an Unreality of the Past. This ambiguity of effect is natural and 
 is frequent in the Early Latin, and occasional later. 
 
 It was natural that the Roman should try to avoid this ambiguity. 
 The English was confronted with the same problem. 'What was 
 he to do ? ' has as a rule an unreal effect, but not necessarily so. 
 'What should he have done?' always has the unreal effect. 
 
 It thus appears that the English has fixed the unreal effect by 
 means of the addition of the idea of completion through the tense. 
 The Roman did the same. Unreality of the past was shown by 
 throwing the activity into the completed stage, leaving the un- 
 completed stage to serve for the Unreality of the Present. 
 
 Greenough thinks that the Unreal of the Past is nothing but 
 the transfer to the past of a condition in the Perfect Subjunctive. 
 This is unlikely for two reasons. The Perfect Subjunctive con- 
 dition is very rare indeed, much too rare to have served for any 
 transfer. Then, the expression of both present and past unreality 
 originally by the same form, shows that a differentiation must 
 have been made. 
 
 I do not mean to deny that occasionally there are conditions in 
 which the reference is to a completed stage. In this case the 
 transfer would bring the Perfect into the Pluperfect Subjunctive, 
 
THEORY OF THE IDEAL CONDITION IN LATIN. 26 1 
 
 but with the Ideal, not the Unreal eflfect. We actually do find 
 examples of just such transfers. 
 
 Conclusions. 
 Our conclusions are as follows : — 
 
 A. A normal Ideal Conditional sentence consists of two members 
 usually both in the Subjunctive, and both referred independently 
 to the narrator. 
 
 When a complete Conditional sentence contains both members 
 in the Imperfect Subjunctive, it is an Unreal Conditional sentence 
 of the Present or (rarely) of the Past; except as follows. 
 
 But it occasionally happens that an Ideal Conditional sentence 
 which would have been naturally in the Present Subjunctive, is 
 by transfer to the past point of view, put into the Imperfect 
 Subjunctive without any indication of Oratio Obliqua except such 
 as is involved in the transfer. 
 
 B. When a si clause follows a verb in the Indicative, the si clause 
 may be either Ideal or Unreal, as follows : — 
 
 1. If the leading verb has a future outlook the si clause will be 
 Ideal. This is always the case when it contains a Present or Perfect 
 Subjunctive, regularly the case when it contains an Imperfect 
 Subjunctive, and rarely so when it contains a Pluperfect Sub- 
 junctive. 
 
 2. When the future outlook is obscured by the intrusion of the 
 point of view of the narrator, the si clause may be regarded as 
 Unreal. This is regularly the case when the clause contains 
 a Pluperfect Subjunctive (particularly if introduced by <«/>), 
 and rarely true if any other tense is involved. 
 
 Teachers College, Columbia University. LiONZALEZ L>0DGE. 
 
ON THE CASE CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS OF 
 SIGHT AND HEARING IN GREEK. 
 
 While the frequent association of verbs of sight and hearing 
 under the same case-regimen in Greek invites a parallel treat- 
 ment of the two senses, the study of their relations is interesting 
 still more from the point of view of diversity than of similarity 
 of case-construction. 
 
 A brief preliminary survey of the nature of the cases employed 
 seems desirable. These cases are almost exclusively accusative 
 and genitive. With verbs of hearing the dative also enters to 
 a small extent, but the reading is often doubtful and, where it is 
 not, in a large proportion of the instances the case is dependent 
 on the prefix with which the simple verb is compounded rather 
 than on the verb itself. Therefore anything more than a passing 
 reference to this case must be excluded from a paper necessarily 
 brief. 
 
 To consider first the accusative. Rumpel's view seems in the 
 main to reflect the nature of the case best, and his notion that the 
 accusative is joined to the verb 'gam untnitielbar,' prepares the 
 way for the view that the relation of the case to the verb is not an 
 enduring relation. Especially to be noted in this connection is 
 the habit of forming what have been called by Professor Gilder- 
 sleeve "temporary compounds"; e. g. koku noitiv beside KOKtmoitiv, 
 the <Txw<^ i"'^' "^o" ""i fifpos, and, by way of illustration from another 
 source, such expressions as " brow-beat a man ". It is then but a 
 step to the conviction that mobility as regards the action with which 
 it is connected and the power of registering the action's ultimate 
 effect are among the chief characteristics of the accusative. 
 
 This transitory quality of the accusative and its common func- 
 tion as the indicator of the result of an action lead easily to 
 the conception of the case as peculiarly involved, in the general 
 lines of its use, with the operation of the will, as the power that 
 both calls into being and dismisses from being. 
 
 In order to illustrate this readiness of obedience to the will, 
 two phenomena, everywhere present, will be observed. For the 
 
264 JAMES WILLIAM KERN. 
 
 manifestation in the one direction we have the principle of the 
 anticipation of the subject of the subordinate clause, by which 
 that subject is wrested from its ordinary grammatical setting and 
 lifted into temporary prominence, for a special reason. On the 
 other hand, as reflecting the power of dismissal, may be mentioned 
 the so-called attraction of the relative to the case of its expressed 
 or unexpressed antecedent. 
 
 At this point some help comes from our English speech. 
 English is fond of dropping relatives, but only accusative rela- 
 tives. The Greek does not drop his relatives, but disguises them. 
 In both languages, under a different outward form, the same force 
 is at work. 
 
 This seems at least partly accounted for by the consideration 
 that the accusative represents work done. It makes way for that 
 which contains more vitality. As serving to show with what 
 facility the accusative form vanishes in response to a force in 
 the immediate surroundings, and then recovers itself as the force 
 fades with distance, may be cited Dem. [48], 45 : Si'/tijy r^r om'as §r 
 
 t(j>atrK€s fii(r$affai fxot as vavrov oSaav* 
 
 In addition to the qualities mentioned, it is useful for present 
 purposes to note the quality of contrariety, recoil, at least sug- 
 gested in the case by the fact that the impersonals t$6v, etc., 
 regularly denote a relation of opposition. 
 
 The genitive is a case of not simple but complex character, two 
 cases in fact fused in one. The differentiation of the two functions 
 is sometimes a matter of extreme difficulty. The local situation 
 furnishes the solution in many instances. If we place II. 1,44: 
 
 firj 8e /car' OiXv/uTToto Kap^vav beside 1 9, 39: (rrd^e Kara pipav, the 
 
 distinction in case force is at once made by the meanings of the 
 words involved and by the general surroundings. 
 
 One of the most widely extended and characteristic uses of the 
 genitive is that which puts it on the same plane with the adjective. 
 The two occur side by side both with nouns and with verbs in 
 a way to show that they must have been felt as virtually if not 
 absolutely equivalent. Thus in Od. 20, 265 we find 8i,fiios con- 
 trasted with 'oSuo-^of and in 18, 353 occurs the adjective 'oSvarjwv. 
 Hdt. 5, loi : gives KuXafuvm beside KoXd/xou and in the same sense, 
 while Plato, Protag. 313 B, matches ianepas iKoioai with Spdpws iJKu.i'. 
 I have even ventured to compare II. 9, 219 : 
 
CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS OF SIGHT G^ HEARING. 265 
 
 airbs 8 avrlop i^ev 'OBvtr(r^ot 6tioio 
 roixov Tov irepoto 
 
 with Eur. Androm. 266: 
 
 Kadtja-' fSpala. 
 
 The passivity of the genitive is well illustrated by Aesch. Agam, 
 1359: 
 
 vcKpir Si TrjtrSt dcfia; X'P^' 
 tpyov BiKatac TtKTOvoc. 
 Compare " my meat". 
 
 In addition to that phase of the affinity of the genitive and 
 the participle in which the one form is used as the approximate 
 representative of the other, a no less important and instructive 
 usage in Homer may be mentioned, wherein the genitive and the 
 participle ("the adjective in motion") manifest their attachment 
 by association. The participle tlSas furnishes this illustration. 
 The occurrences of the genitive with non-participial forms of this 
 verb are few, only three or four, but sufficient, it would seem, to 
 make it highly improbable that the participle in connecting itself 
 with the genitive has lost the proper sense of the verb from which 
 it is derived. That this form should show also the case-regimen 
 of the other forms (i. e. the accusative) is not strange in view of 
 the double nature of the participle, "that floater between noun 
 and verb" (A. J. P. IX, 137). In the one construction the noun 
 end of the combination is emphasized, in the other the verb end. 
 
 The range of words employed in the genitive in this connection 
 is small, and their character is striking : ro^av, noKtuwv (no\ffioio), 
 
 alxiiijt, nvyfiaxiris, ^axi'i X^PM't ^'IPI'i oXktjs, t6koio, irdvap, olav&v, 
 
 Btonporriav, ayopaav, TtKToa-vvdaiv. Whether it be the warrior, the 
 seer, the artisan, or the citizen that is considered, we have in the 
 word the atmosphere in which he who follows the calling moves, 
 his vital breath ; in this, the trailing end of the participle, to express 
 it so, is conveyed the notion of intimate contact with details. The 
 content of the noun appears to have much to do in bringing about 
 the embrace. 
 
 When the verb side of elSas is uppermost, a marked difference 
 of character in the nouns employed is to be observed. Of the 
 occurrences, about twenty-five in number, I quote a few : pqSia, 
 
 a'aiiia, okoipam, iraXaid re jroXXd «, aOeploTta, ijma, KtpSea, K€dvd, \vypd. 
 
 More than half are substantivized neuter adjectives, a form en- 
 tirely absent from the other class. The line separating the two 
 
266 JAMES WILLIAM KERN. 
 
 usages seems clear. In the second we see no votary of a calling 
 following up all the suggestions offered him in the open field of 
 his profession ; instead the exercise of power to produce a definite 
 result. The note of sympathy is distinctly lacking. 
 
 The verbs of sight take everywhere and under all circumstances 
 the accusative. In the single occurrence of oyjfeiftv in Homer and 
 in the Herodotean use of npoopav the faculty is complicated with 
 other notions. Sight has been designated the 'king-sense'. So 
 the Greeks regarded it not only in what they had to say about it, 
 but in the way they treated it in case-construction. It stands for 
 will enthroned ; it recognizes no other side. Each visual act is 
 a new creation or annihilation. The frequent assumption, partic- 
 ularly by 6pav, Btaadai, of the prefix Kara seems an intensification 
 of the already present notion of headship. The not infrequent 
 employment of the aorist participle with the object of the verb, 
 whether of outward or inward vision, accentuates that impatience 
 of any bar to immediate and final results which is always present 
 in a verb of sight. Again, the notion of conscious control of 
 the situation is made more pronounced by the expression, with 
 great frequency in Homer and all the poets, not seldom in other 
 writers, of Spuaai, o(^6a\fioit, Plato is an exception. For him the 
 full expression, if he wanted it, would be something like yj/vxjj fl»' 
 
 The simplicity and directness in case-construction which char- 
 acterizes verbs of sight as compared with verbs of hearing is very 
 marked. While with the former class the accusative alone is 
 admitted, with the latter the genitive also plays an important 
 part. This diversified construction of verbs of hearing in contrast 
 with verbs of sight corresponds to the broad distinction in 
 character between the two senses from other points of view. 
 Hearing is dependent on external conditions and influences, sight 
 acknowledges no dependence; sight is active and aggressive, 
 hearing is in large measure passive. This passivity is shown in 
 the secondary sense of obedience which may appear at any time 
 in a verb of hearing. This is well illustrated by the common 
 
 Homeric verse : &s e<f)a6', oX &' Spa toC nd\a fiev xXiov ^d' t n-Wowo. It 
 
 is further distinctly shown by the construction with iiro or other 
 preposition as an ordinary passive form. The passive sense is 
 sometimes emphasized by sharp contrast with the active, e. g. 
 Aesch. Eum. 426 : 
 
CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS OF SIGHT &* HEARING. 267 
 
 Kkvtui BiKaiar ^aXXoi> ^ npa^ai dcXcir. 
 
 As a negative indication may count the rare expression of oUamv, 
 aai, with verbs of hearing, corresponding to oc^daA^oIr, ijiixaaiv with 
 verbs of sight. There is only one instance in Homer (II. 12, 442), 
 whereas this means of emphasizing the absolute control involved 
 in verbs of sight is nowhere more clearly marked than in Homer. 
 
 Two metaphors in Sophocles are instructive in their bearing 
 upon the Greek conception of the sense of hearing. In O. T. 
 1386 the blind Oedipus SS^yS : dXX' tl r^c dxovovaijr tr rjv itriyris hi &Tav 
 <j)payn6s, distinctly implying that the il>payn6s is beyond his control. 
 Again, in Antig. 1214, Kreon is told that a cry has been heard 
 from the direction of Antigone's tomb, and in an agony of dread 
 lest it be his own child that has uttered it, he cries: ■naiUs /it oatvet 
 (f>e6yyos, which Strikingly illustrates the clinging, pliant character 
 of continuous sounds. These are bold figures, but when taken 
 in connection with other indications along the same line, they are 
 not without value. The fanciful expressions are but the reflection 
 of what is elsewhere indicated more definitely, namely, that one 
 phase of the act of hearing is the awaiting of outside influences 
 over which the actor has no control. 
 
 On the other hand, there is involved in the sense of hearing 
 an element, if unstable, of activity. This is shown in a variety 
 of ways. It is foreshadowed in the prefixes th and eVi. Again, 
 there is frequent association with verbs of sight, as in the familiar 
 Homeric phrase, 4r iraur' e^op^ koI n-dir' (Traxouei (II. 3, 277), and 
 the putting forth of power in hearing is sometimes suggested in 
 the combination, as in Plato, Legg. 902 C. The construction with 
 the accusative is everywhere common, but even while thus mani- 
 festing its active power, the verb of hearing not seldom shows its 
 vacilteting character by leaning at the same time to the passive 
 
 construction, e. g. Ar. Eq. 820 : toutI iuvhv okovuv iirrlv /i in-i TovTov, 
 
 The dependent or. obi. ace. w. inf. is not rare. Here, as the reso- 
 lution oKo.ij voiiuravrav of Thuc. 4, 8 1 seems to show, the verb of 
 hearing exhibits its composite nature, as reflecting the will of the 
 actor tempered by external circumstances. So also in aKpoaa6ai 
 there is frequently present the notion of intention, as in Plato, 
 Euthyd. 304 D, but this is easily supplanted by the close-lying 
 sense of obedience, as in Thuc. 3, 37. This is true often also of 
 the compounds iiraKoitiv, eliraKoitw. So that we must be prepared 
 
268 JAMES WILLIAM KERN. 
 
 to see any verb of hearing show, according to requirements, 
 either its active or its passive side, sometimes both together, as 
 has been noticed. 
 
 And here it seems important to emphasize the adjective sense 
 of the genitive. It is by no means contended that with verbs of 
 hearing the genitive is always characterized by the notion of sus- 
 pension which belongs to adjective and participle. There are 
 various shades of color between the genitive of lightest touch 
 and the coarsest ablative that requires some 'gnomon' to raise it. 
 In this part of the genitive's territory, as in others, the context 
 must in many instances be the surest guide. 
 
 To illustrate by the familiar double usage of txioBai, what but 
 the surroundings makes possible a distinction in case force be- 
 tween II. 2, 97 : 
 
 KrjpvKeg ^odavTee epr^rvov, cittot dur^r 
 (TXoiaT, aKovireiav 8e SioTpicjieatv ^acriAijojf 
 
 and Od. 5, 429: 
 
 Ttjs fX"" <T(vdx<>>vr 
 
 Kruger thinks that the genitive of the thing with verbs of 
 hearing marks the " Wirkungskraft " of the object, while in the 
 accusative " der bloss percipirte Inhalt " is expressed. He does 
 not state whether his term Wirkungskraft imputes to the genitive 
 in this connection a clear-cut ablative sense, or a general evolu- 
 tionary movement, without the distinct notion of separation. If 
 the latter idea be intended, then from the very meaning of the word 
 in many instances Wirkungskraft is to be seen in the accusative 
 also, but Wirkungskraft as a totality, not in detail. 
 
 Space does not permit a discussion here of the setting of the 
 four occurrences of aiSijv and the two of aiS^s with kKvciv in Homer 
 nor of the one of Kpavyrjv and the two of Kpavyrjs with oKoiav in 
 Demosthenes, to select these as typical instances from many, 
 but an examination of the connection will, it is believed, show 
 that the accusative marks the absence of the responsive relation, 
 the genitive its presence. 
 
 An examination of participial usage in this connection will 
 show that when the noun end of the combination is emphasized, 
 we have the genitive ; when the verb end, the accusative. There 
 are apparent exceptions to this in situations where the case and 
 the meaning of the participle are not in harmony, and such in- 
 stances give rise to other interpretations to escape the difficulty. 
 
CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS OF SIGHT &^ HEARING. 269 
 
 An example of this kind is Soph. Philoct. 426: o'x iya ^kktt' &v 
 ^6(\t]tr' S\a)K6Tow kKvciv, in which the genitive has overbalanced 
 the accusative, and the reason for this is found in the stress the 
 speaker lays on the noun, as contrasted with the action which 
 is connected with it. There are several instances (most of them 
 in Homer) in which the genitive might not be expected in view 
 of the meaning of the participle and in view, moreover, of the 
 fact that the persons concerned are not within hearing distance of 
 each other. These examples, which are collected by La Roche, 
 have to do for the most part with the son's anxious search for 
 his father, or the longing of the wife and servant for the absent 
 husband and master, or of the mother for her son. It appears 
 better here, for the reason given, to see in the rare construction 
 a drift away from what might, on other grounds, seem the more 
 natural accusative, than to follow Kiihner and La Roche in giving 
 the sense by • de aliquo ', as if ntpi were to be supplied, and this 
 is what Jebb also seems to imply in Soph. O. T. 307, lAiav croC. 
 In Soph. Philoct. 615 we read 
 
 KOI Tav6 Snas iJKovir 6 haiprov t6kos 
 t6v iiavriv flirovT, 
 
 where Kiihner says the accusative is employed instead of the 
 usual genitive, apparently meaning that the sense is the same. 
 The words as they stand mean merely that Odysseus heard a 
 statement ; to say that the seer made it to him personally (which 
 is what the genitive would mean) is an unwarranted liberty of 
 interpretation. 
 
 It is important to notice, beside the double case-construction 
 involving the participle, the double form of proleptic subject with 
 verbs of hearing. Od. 3, 193: 
 
 'ArpeiSriv 8e Kal avTot aKovere v6(T<^iv (direr 
 
 and Dem. 19, 39: aKoitr !> av$pic 'ABrivalol T^f enurroKrjs, air KaXiJ Kal 
 
 <l>i\av6pmiros. In the former instance the animate subject is hurried 
 over in the eagerness to reach the more important predicate, 
 whereas in the latter lively fancy reverses the process and ele- 
 vates the inanimate subject into a living being. 
 
 If the foregoing view as to the difference in sense between the 
 accusative and the genitive as subject of the participle and as 
 proleptic subject of the clause dependent upon a verb of hearing 
 is correct, we have in it a clue to the distinction everywhere 
 
270 JAMES WILLIAM KERN. 
 
 between these cases with such verbs. The words that occur in 
 the genitive or the accusative with verbs of hearing may con- 
 veniently be divided into two main classes: i, Substantives proper; 
 2, Substantivized neuter adjectives and participles. 
 
 The substantives are in all about two hundred and twenty-five 
 in number and fall, according to case-usage, into three divisions : 
 
 1, those that occur in the accusative only, more than half of all; 
 
 2, those that occur only in the genitive, less than one-third ; 
 
 3, those that occur in both the accusative and the genitive, less 
 than one-fifth. The classes are distinguished from each other as 
 regards the nature of the words only on broad lines. Yet on the 
 whole the contrast is striking. In class i the presence of two 
 kinds of words in particular is to be noticed : such as convey 
 notions inherently disagreeable, as d8«ij/»aTa, akyos, Sxos, voarjfiara 
 and many more, and those that denote a violent, noisy or unex- 
 pected sound. The class is largely composed of words that do 
 not express sound, but suggest only action, and the absence of 
 purely vocal utterances is particularly noticeable. A distinguish- 
 ing feature of class 2 is the entire absence of what constituted so 
 large an element in class i, namely, sharp, explosive sounds and 
 offensive notions like an-nXdr, ^ifKvplav. Sounds are plentiful, but 
 they are vocal, musical, and the note of lamentation, a manifesta- 
 tion of the recognized melancholy of the Greeks, is not lacking. 
 The play of fancy is present in the use of such words as bairos, 
 otoKos, and the comic KpiBav. Throughout, the passivity of the 
 situation is felt in the notion of suspension, subordination to an 
 influence. Class 3 is interesting in that it is in some measure a 
 meeting ground of the other two classes and illustrates the facility 
 with which the Greek turns from the one construction to the 
 other according as he sees in the word at the moment the notion 
 of a mere fleeting action, or that of an unexplored territory which 
 engages his attention. The class is of heterogeneous composi- 
 tion, as witness vd/iot and ktvitos. The latter word occurs twice in 
 Homer: II. 10, 532, aiarap 8e irparos ktvitov aie, where there is no 
 suggestion of preparation for the sound;' Od. 21, 237, Ijv Si tk 5 
 
 ' As serving to emphasize the sharp, clear-cut character of one of the 
 words of sound in this list may be cited the striking transfer in Aesch. Sept. 
 loi : KTimou didopm. Krdn-of is probably related to (7)<roi7rof, which expresses 
 thfi same kind of sound in general and is used only in the accusative with 
 a verb of hearing. No other word to which the sense of hearing only is 
 properly applicable is found associated with a verb of sight. 
 
CONSTRUCTION OF VERBS OF SIGHT 6^ HEARING. 27 1 
 
 oTovayjis fje ktvttov cii&ov aKovai). The prospective attitude of the 
 subject is foreshadowed in the case as in the setting. The em- 
 ployment of Ko'jtior in the genitive with verbs of hearing to denote 
 the relation of the governed subject or of the expectant hearer of 
 its provisions is too frequent to require special illustration. Plato, 
 Legg. 721 D marks the contrast to this in situation and in sense: 
 
 TovTov Sfj nap tKeivop rbv vofwv aKovaavra i^eari nep\ ivot iKacrrov Siavorj- 
 
 Bijvai. The legislator is spoken of, the cold critic that touches the 
 law to create, not follow it. A striking instance of the reversed 
 relation, involving the genitive with the participle is found in 
 Legg. 839 B. 
 
 The second main division, which comprises substantivized 
 neuter adjectives and participles, about seventy in number, shows 
 almost invariably the accusative. Among the fifty different ad- 
 jectives thus employed the only plural genitives are t&v aya6av 
 and Tail efimv, and the only singulars are ov8ev6s and in]8ei'6s, all of 
 rare occurrence. The participles show four genitive forms, all 
 plural and with the article, which commonly attends the adjec- 
 tives also. This strong drift toward the accusative seems to 
 reflect the affinity of the governing verb's action for the activity 
 concealed under the noun form. Of neuter pronominal forms 
 the great mass are accusative, but Towmi/, rSi/Sf, S)v, and avTwv are not 
 uncommon. The only singulars are the interrogatives toS and 
 Tivot, once each in Ar. in reference to the future, and one of them 
 in a situation of intense anxiety and suspense. 
 
 Among the substantives which stand always in the accusative 
 is the word Svo/ia, which occurs several times in both numbers. 
 Thus with reference to the verb of hearing, the person, or what- 
 ever endowed or conceived as endowed with life represents it, 
 stands at the one pole; the name, compressing the personal 
 relation within the narrowest possible limits, at the other. Plato, 
 Protag. 311 E, shows the higher form reduced to the grade of the 
 
 lower : W Svofia aK\o yt Xcyd/ucvoi' srepi Uparayopov aKouoftcK, &a7Tep . . . 
 n-epl 'Ofi^pov jToiriTtjv', 
 
 Bh«,k Academy. JaMES WiLLIAM KeRN. 
 
THE SCENIC VALUE OF THE MINIATURES IN 
 THE MANUSCRIPTS OF TERENCE. 
 
 For sources of information concerning the manners of the 
 Roman stage, it has been usual to cite above all the literary 
 record of Quint. (Inst. Or. xi, 3, 65 ff.) and certain scholia of 
 the Donatus Commentary on Terence along with the testimpny 
 from ancient art, including notably the scenes of the Pompeian 
 wall-pictures and the miniatures of the illustrated manuscripts 
 of Terence. Accurate knowledge, however, concerning this inter- 
 esting subject is in nowise commensurate with the variety and 
 apparent richness of the material. The pictures that are placed 
 at the beginning of each scene in the illustrated manuscripts,' 
 represent the actors as they appear at some critical point in the 
 action and the different series, unmistakably related, are all 
 referred to an older original, which is supposed to approach in 
 date the period of theTerentian presentation. Arguments for the 
 antiquity of the tradition have been found in the possibility of 
 identifying many of the gestures shown with those described by 
 Quintilian (1. c.) ; in the general harmony between the pictures and 
 certain situations assigned in the Donatus Commentary, in which 
 the scholia touching stage direction are commonly thought to be 
 excerpts older than the time of Donatus ; " and in the close resem- 
 blance which they bear, in action and technique, to the Pompeian 
 wall-scenes. Leo (1. c, p. 342), considering the last point to be of 
 special importance, places the original after the appearance of 
 the Imagines of Varro — Rome's oldest illustrated book (cf. Pliny, 
 N. H., XXV, 2. 1 1) which was published about 39 before Christ — 
 
 ' The group is represented by four MSS, CFPO, with approximately 
 complete series of pictures, and by three unimportant fragments (cf. Leo, 
 Rh. M. 38, p. 336, n. 2, and Sittl, Die Gebard. der Griech. u. R5m. Leipz. 
 1890, p. 204). Following Hoeing (Codex Dunelmensis of Terence, Johns 
 Hopk. Univ. Diss., 1898, p. 311, u. 3), I designate the Dunelmensis O 
 (Oxoniensis), since it may not be called D for fear of confusion with the 
 Victorianus. 
 
 ' Sittl (1. c, p. 203) holds the contrary view. 
 18 
 
274 JOHN W. BASORE. 
 
 and before the destruction of Pompeii. Pease ingeniously argues 
 (Trans. Amer. Phil. Assoc, 1887, p. 40) that the editor of the 
 archetype of the P family must have taken his illustrations from 
 a very old manuscript, which did not belong to the Calliopian 
 recension, since the division into scenes is often different' and 
 the order of plays has been changed, presumably to that of the 
 ancient illustrated edition (And., Eun., Heaut., Ad., Hec, Phor.). 
 Since the actors are shown with masks, the originals must in any 
 case be assigned to the post-Terentian period (cf. Diomed. p. 489 
 and Cic. de Or. Ill, 221).' 
 
 By the same radical estimate which at once rejects the value of 
 the Donatus " Gestenscholien" for the ancient stage and disputes 
 the reliability of the tradition preserved in the illustrated manu- 
 scripts, Sittl (1. c, p. 205) eliminates from consideration two 
 principal sources of information. Thus, in a treatise from which 
 much might be expected, he is permitted to contribute but little 
 upon the matter of comic gesture. While recognizing an older 
 original for the miniatures and a measurable amount of accuracy 
 in the reproduction of masks and costume, he considers them 
 unauthoritative as far as the portrayal of ancient gesture is con- 
 cerned, because the copyist is surmised to have introduced the 
 customs of his own period. 
 
 " Die Bilder," he asserts, " gehoren ihrer kunstgeschichtlichen 
 Stellung nach nicht zu einer antiken Technik, sondern zu der im 
 neunten Jahrhundert entwickelten Gattung der Federzeichnungen, 
 welche gerade in den Bewegungen einen derben Realismus auf- 
 weisen. Daher ist in den Terenzbildern die antike Zeichentradition 
 der Gebarden verlassen und das tagliche Leben (z. B., erwahnte 
 italienische Gewohnheit, die Fingerspitzen zusammenzulegen) 
 nachgebildet." 
 
 From the close relation of ancient comedy to the customs of 
 real life it may be supposed that the system of gesticulation 
 
 'A. Mai, in an autograph pre6xed to F, notes a picture at Heaut. 3. 3. 
 32, (reproduced in his M. Accii Plauti frag, inedita, etc., Med. 1815, p. 
 47), wanting in C, (neither is it in P), and on the other hand C has one at 
 Heaut. 5. 2, omitted in both F and P. F leaves a space ; P makes no pro- 
 vision for its insertion, merely indicating the rdles in red capitals. Were 
 such devised by the copyist ? 
 
 ' Other opinions concerning the date are given in Wieseler, Theater- 
 gebaude u. Denkm. des Buhnenwes. bei den Griech. u. R6ra., GOtt. 1851, 
 P- 63. 
 
MINIA TURES IN THE MANUSCRIPTS OF TERENCE. 275 
 
 employed on the comic stage was lacking in a highly developed 
 artificiality.' 
 
 The dilettante effort of Canon Andrea de Jorio (La mimica 
 degli antichi investigata nel gestire napolitano, Napoli, 1832), who 
 sought to interpret the gestures of ancient art and those described 
 in writings, by the modern gesticulation of the Neapolitans, has, 
 in addition, furnished some good evidence that the general sys- 
 tem of gesture once prevailing in ancient Italy is substantially the 
 same as now observed. Mr. Mallery' further, commenting on 
 the similarity of the merely emotional gestures and attitudes of 
 modern Italy to those of the classics, compares very aptly the 
 attitude of a pulcinella, drawn from life in the streets of Naples, 
 with the characteristic abandon in limb of the fawning, clownish 
 servus of the Vatican Terence. A highly wrought realism, 
 therefore, and the marks of later Italian life do not force the con- 
 clusion that these did not exist in the older period. It remains 
 true, however, that the value of the pictures for critical purposes will 
 depend not only upon their claims to an older original, but also 
 upon the faithfulness with which this is represented in the later 
 manuscript-drawings, and the opinion of Sittl is pertinent in sug- 
 gesting the need of evidence for the latter. 
 
 With a stable basis of investigation, the method of Leo, who 
 identified in the miniatures many of the gestures described by 
 Quintilian, might be further employed with interesting results ; 
 but even apart from such identification, the variety and complete- 
 ness of the situations portrayed, — with the constant possibility of 
 interpretation by the accompanying text — must always insure for 
 the collection a distinct and unique value in the estimate of 
 scenic action. 
 
 Gesticulation as the accompaniment of speech is characteristic of 
 the southern blood, and, among the Italians, the play of the fingers 
 as a means of interpretation, is a matter of familiar observation. 
 In the Terence miniatures the prominence given to the disposition 
 
 1 Compare for example Quint. Inst. Or. II, 10. 13 Actores comici . . . 
 neque ita prorsus, ut nos vulgo loquimur, pronuntiant, quod esset sine 
 arte neque procul tamen a natura recedunt, quo vitio periret imitatio, sed 
 morem communis huius sermonis decore quodam scaenico exornant. 
 See also Donat. Comment, de Comoedia, p. 8 (ReiS.). 
 
 ^Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1879-80, Wash. 1881, p. 292, 
 Fig- 73- 
 
276 JOHN W. BASORE. 
 
 of the fingers is very striking, and it is probable that, after the 
 introduction of masks upon the stage, the fingers were taxed to 
 an unusual degree, but in accordance with a set system,' to make 
 clear much that might otherwise have been disclosed by facial 
 expression.' Since in all the manuscripts the general grouping, 
 action and postures are sufficiently identical to establish the 
 unmistakable relation of the different series, it is in these less 
 obtrusive gestures that the marks conjectured by Sittl or the 
 careless divergencies from a copy might be discovered. To this 
 end a comparison of all the manuscripts which show most clearly 
 the supposed ancient tradition in the smaller matters of the play 
 of the fingers and the hands will be significant in determining the 
 accuracy with which this tradition has actually been preserved. 
 It therefore becomes necessary to speak in greater detail of the 
 published forms in which the pictures have been available. Only 
 those of the Vatican MS are accessible in complete series. 
 These, imperfectly published, first by De Berger (Comment, de 
 personis vulgo larvis seu mascheris, etc., Francof. et Lips. 1723), 
 and later in two Italian editions (Fortiguerra, Urbini 1736, and 
 Cocquelines, Rome 1767), are manifestly inaccurate. A marked 
 difference in the representation of gestures is to be observed, and 
 Cocquelines, the best of the three, where pictures are wanting for 
 the division of scenes accepted by him, devises such as are con- 
 sidered fitting for the situation.' 
 
 ' Cf. Quint. Inst, Or. xl, 3. 103 a peregrinis scholis tamen prope recepta 
 tremula scaenica est. 
 
 » The school-rules elaborated by Quint, for the orator and the attention 
 paid to the matter by other writers whose works are lost (e. g. Flotius and 
 Nigidius, cf. Quint, xi, 3. 43), emphasize the importance with which it was 
 regarded. 
 
 SAndr. 1. 3 is typical, with the note; "In codice Bibliothecae Vat. 
 nulla his visitur actoris persona . . . nos vero . . . Davi personam insculpi, 
 et ad servandam nostra in editione uniformitatem poni curavimus." 
 
 The Vatican picture of Mysis, and Davus with the child, v. 716 Dz., is 
 inserted at v. 722 and the figure of Mysis supplied for the scene at v. 716. 
 (P and C are alike; F lacks Andria.) In like manner elaborate pictures 
 are devised for Andr. 5. 1 = v. 820, and for 5. 2 =; v. 842. (In P spaces 
 appear, but no picture.) At Andr. 5. S= v. 957 the figures of Pamphilus 
 and Charinus are found (P adds Davus) ; at Ad. 3. 6 z= v. 511 the figure 
 .of Hegio appears; at Ad. v. 882 the picture of Syrus and Demea is 
 repeated from the preceding scene. Contrasting Fortiguerra and Coc- 
 
MINIA TURKS IN THE MANUSCRIPTS OF TERENCE. 277 
 
 Most accurate in technique, but giving only isolated pictures, 
 are the facsimiles of D'Agincourt (Histoire de I'art par les monu- 
 ments, Paris 1823, T. 5, PI. 35 and 36).' These, with the photo- 
 graphs of the Phormio included in the Harvard edition of the 
 play (Cambridge, 1894), supply the only reliable copies of C. 
 
 In the case of P, Madame Dacier has said much that is inter- 
 esting, but Picart's execution of those pictures which her 
 enthusiasm required for her translation of Terence (Amsterdam, 
 1724), depicts the actors performing in edifices of modern con- 
 struction and may thus be duly estimated. Faithful reproductions 
 are published by Chatelain (Pal6og. des class, lat. pi. vii, Andr. i. 5 
 and Ad. 3. 3) and by ChampoUion (Pal6og. des class, lat. pi. iv, 
 Eun. 2. 3). 
 
 F has had even less notice. A. Mai (M. Accii Plauti fragment, 
 inedita, etc., Med. 1815) gives (pp. 51 and 61) the masks to the 
 Ad. and Phor., and (p. 47) the picture at Heaut. 3. 3. 32 (= v. 592 
 Dz.), for which C makes no provision.' Chatelain's specimen 
 page of the manuscript (1. c, pi. viii) shows the scene at Ad. 3. 4. 
 
 The last of the group, the Dunelmensis, shows unmistakable 
 traces of mediaeval influence. The figures are larger and coarser 
 than those of the general type, grotesque and clownish, with 
 fingers disproportionately long and conspicuous, and inferior 
 artistic ability is everywhere evident (cf. Hoeing, 1. c, p. 313). 
 
 It thus appears that the Vatican apparatus is useless for a full 
 grouping of typical gestures and that for the information which 
 is desirable concerning F and P recourse must be had to the 
 manuscripts themselves. The results therefore of a comparison 
 which sought for detailed evidence of a copy common to both, 
 
 quelines, ihe prologus o£ the Phormio in the former does duty in the latter 
 for the Hecyra. Similarly the aediculae of the Eunuchus and the Hecyra 
 are exchanged. At Heaut. 4. 3 = v. 723, in a group of five figures, one 
 shows the order, Bacchis, Clinia, Phrygia, Dromo, Syrus ; in the other the 
 order is Syrus, Dromo, Clinia, Bacchis, Phrygia. It will be observed that 
 we have here not a mere matter of substituting designations of the figures. 
 In one, the first figure is a female ; in the other, a slave. Other similar 
 matters might be noted. 
 
 > These show, besides a series of grotesque masks, the scenes at Andr. 
 I. 5 ; 4. 3 ; Prologus Phor.; Phor. 2. 4 ; Eun. 2. i ; 4- 7 ; Heaut. I. I [all 
 reproduced in Wieseler (1. c, Taf. v. and x.)]. 
 
 > Reproduced in the edition of Giles (Lond. 1837) and in Wieseler (1. c, 
 Taf. v. 29 and x. 9). 
 
278 JOHN W. BASORE. 
 
 will be partially indicated below. The first example will illustrate 
 both the correctness of the method suggested and the caution 
 to be observed in the use of the pictures. 
 
 A common gesture among modern Italians for scoring points 
 as they are successively presented in discourse, as it were the 
 commas of speech, is that made by placing together the tips 
 of the thumb and first finger, approximating a circle, the others 
 being carelessly relaxed or elevated. This position seems indi- 
 cated by Quint, xi, 3. loi poUici proximus digitus mediumque, 
 qua dexter est, unguem pollicis summo suo iungens, remissis 
 ceteris, est et approbantibus et narrantibus et distinguentibus 
 decorus. Jorio (1. c, p. 86) shows that this gesture was also a 
 Neapolitan sign for inquiry, and he mentions another, which 
 differs but a little in the disposition of the unemployed fingers, 
 and which was used in the sense of" good ! " (cf. Quint. 1. c, "appro- 
 bantibus "). Beda (De computo vel loquela digitorum, p. 256, § i, 
 ed. Sittl), quoting Hieronymus, gives evidence that in antiquity 
 the elements of the same gesture made up the sign for marriage, 
 " Triginta referuntur ad nuptias ; nam et ipsa digitorum con- 
 iunctio quasi molli osculo se complectens et foederans, maritum 
 pingit et coniugem." This practically is one of the few out of 
 the large number of gestures described by Rabelais, the signi- 
 ficance of which is explained. Nazdecabre (Pantagruel Bk. Ill, 
 ch. xx) is described as having elevated his left hand,' the fingers 
 retained 'fistways closed together', except the thumb and the 
 forefinger the nails of which ' he softly joined and coupled to one 
 another '. " I understand," quoth Pantagruel, " what he meaneth 
 by that sign. It denotes marriage."" The position, formed 
 however upon the right hand, seems indicated also by Apuleius 
 (Met. IV, 28) where the adorers of Venus are shown "ad- 
 moventes oribus suis dexteram primore digito in erectum polli- 
 cem residente." 
 
 With these literary notices of a gesture which is still perpet- 
 uated in Italian custom as a sign of love (Jorio, 1. c, p. 46) and 
 
 ' It should be noted that St. Jerome's symbol for thirty is made on the 
 left hand. Cf. Beda (1. c. §5), trecenta in dextera, quemadmodem triginta 
 in laeva. 
 
 2 J' entends, dist Pantagruel, ce qu'il praetend par cestuy signe. II denote 
 'mariage ; et d'abondant le nombre trentenaire, scelon la profession des 
 Pythagoriens. Vous serez marie. 
 
MINIA TURKS IN THE MANUSCRIPTS OF TERENCE. 279 
 
 in the other significations noted, its frequent occurrence in the 
 Terence miniatures is most interesting ; but these miniatures are 
 of but little use in determining its scenic value, when it is found 
 from the collected instances as shown by the Vatican reproduc- 
 tions and F and P, that no strict uniformity is preserved in the 
 dramatic situations to which the gesture is assigned. The prints 
 of Cocquelines and De Berger differ much as F and P; out of 18 
 instances of the gesture in the latter, Cocquelines has only 14. 
 F and P agree in giving it to Pythias (Eun. 4. 5 = v. 727) ; 
 Thais (Eun. 4. 6 = v. 739); Parmeno (Eun. 5. 8 = v. 1031); 
 Chremes (Heaut. 3. 3 = v. 562); Hegio (Ad. 3. 4 = v. 447); 
 Demea (Ad. 5. 6 = v. 889) ; Laches (Hecy. 4. 2 = v. 577) ; 
 Laches (Hecy. 4. 3 = v. 607); Demipho (F) = Chremes (P) 
 (Ph. 4. 3 = v. 606). 
 
 In F the fingers are often shown merely tending together, and 
 at Eun. 4. 5, the thumb and third finger, instead of the first, are 
 involved ; at Eun. 5. 8 (9), the second and the thumb are em- 
 ployed. P shows it, besides for Parmeno, for both Thraso and 
 Gnatho, (Eun). 5. 8 (9) ; for Chaerea (Eun. 5. 10 = v. 1049), and 
 for Philotis (Hecy. i. i = v. 58). F alone has it for Gnatho 
 (Eun. 4.7 =v. 771); Bacchis (Heaut. 2. 4= v. 381) whereas in P, 
 she holds a small object between the fingers ; Demea (Ad. 5. 4 = 
 V. 855) ; and Geta (Ph. 2. 3 = v. 348). 
 
 By an examination of the situations in which the manuscripts 
 show the gesture in common, the conclusion that it was charac- 
 teristically a sign of interrogation or inquiry was drawn apart from 
 other information concerning its significance. Some instances 
 possibly exemplify the attitude described by Quintilian as that 
 of an " approbans " or " distinguens." ' 
 
 1 Chaerea (Eun. 5. jo = v. 1049) ^"^ Demea in the monologue (Ad. 5. 4 1= 
 vv. 855 to 881} are cited by Jorio (1. w., p. 49) as instances of the sign of 
 "love". The MSS C F P, however, do not divide at v. 882, as do the 
 published pictures which the canon used, so that in the manuscript picture, 
 which shows both Demea and Syrus, a critical situation is portrayed in the 
 longer passage of vv. 855 to 889, and the gesture may naturally be assigned 
 to the excited inquiries of Demea v. 883. In the Eun. passage, Chaerea's 
 part is a minor one ; he is prominent only in the latter part of the scene, 
 where his words show Quintilian's " approval ". Cf. v. 1086, ac lubenter; 
 T. 1087, placet. He is also shown as addressing Gnatho (cf. the text). 
 Furthermore, one should expect the left hand to be used in the sign tor 
 love. 
 
28o JOHN W. BASQUE. 
 
 Reviewing the situations involved in the instances presented by 
 F and P in common, the value of the gesture is, in most cases, 
 clear. 
 
 At Eun. 4. 5 = V. 727, the two figures of Chremes and Pythias 
 are shown. The youth enters from the left, uncertain in gait and 
 speech after a drunken debauch, while Pythias propounds eager 
 interrogatories, gesticulating with the right hand. Compare v. 733, 
 An abiit iam a milite ? v. 735, nil dixit, tu ut sequerere sese? v. 736, 
 Eho, nonne id sat erat ? 
 
 Eun. 4. 6 = V. 739. Pythias on the right, in pose of rest, sup- 
 ports a casket on the left arm. Thais appears from the opposite 
 side inveighing against Thraso. 
 
 In V. 753 the girl has been dispatched for the casket of tokens, 
 and since she now is seen with the box in hand, the grouping 
 depicted evidently belongs in the latter part of the scene. The 
 action of Chremes, too, who, on the point of exit, looks back over 
 his shoulder at the meretrix is indicated at v. 763. Thais seems to 
 use the gesture to punctuate a series of arguments that Chremes 
 should bestir himself against Thraso for the possession of the 
 girl in her charge. " Consider this further," says she (v. 759), 
 " your rival is a foreigner, with less influence, fewer friends, is less 
 known." 
 
 Eun. 5. 8 (9) = V. 1031. Chaerea, who, as he enters, exclaims 
 joyfully at his good fortune, " O populares, ecquis me hodie vivit 
 fortunatior ? " is the object of interest. The three other figures 
 Parmeno, Thraso and Gnatho, are evidently curious to know the 
 cause of such extreme joy. Parmeno who is nearest the youth 
 questions apart (v. 1034), " Quid hie laetus est ? " ' 
 
 The scene at Heaut. 3. 3 ;= v. 562, is marked by Chremes's 
 rapid questioning, first of Clitipho then of Syrus, as to the latter's 
 design hatched up for Menedemus. The dialogue is largely 
 between Chremes and Syrus who is advancing towards him, and 
 the attitudes of the two point to the latter part of the scene 
 in which comes the chief contribution to the plot of the play as 
 the slave reveals his plan. Chremes interrupts with inquiries at 
 vv. 595 (twice), 596, 597, 598, 602, 605, 606, 607, 611, 612, 613. 
 
 Ad. 3. 4 = V. 447. Geta stands in the centre in an attitude of 
 excitement, strained and comical, having disclosed to Hegio his 
 
 'De Berger gives the sign to all three; Cocquel. only to Thraso; F and 
 P only to Parmeno. 
 
MINI A TURES IN THE MANUSCRIPTS OF TERENCE. 28 1 
 
 family's woes consequent upon Aeschinus' desertion. The old 
 man here employs the gesture, and with figure and eyes afire, 
 bursts into the impassioned exclamation " Pro di immortales, 
 facinus indignum, Geta, quod narras ! " (vv. 447-48). 
 
 Ad. 5. 6 = V. 889. In a short scene between Demea and 
 Geta,* the old man plays the affable, with complimentary expres- 
 sions to the slave reinforced by the gesture. (Cf. Quintilian's 
 " approval ".) " Geta, hominem maximi preti te esse hodie 
 iudicavi animo meo," etc. (vv. 891-97). 
 
 Hecy. 4. 2 = V. 577). Sostrata in a dialogue with Pamphilus 
 reveals her resolution to retire into the country in order to 
 remove the fancied obstacle to her son's happiness. Laches 
 (unnamed in F), who takes no part in the dialogue, stands on 
 one side overhearing it (cf. the next scene v. 607 : Quern cum istoc 
 sermonem habueris, procul hinc stans, accepi, uxor) and seems 
 to -indicate by the gesture his secret approval which is openly 
 expressed in the following scene (cf. 4. 3, v. 610). In this F and P 
 again show him with the gesture, while in the Vatican prints it is 
 unfittingly transferred to Sostrata. 
 
 Ph. 4. 3 = V. 606. Geta and the third figure of the group, 
 including besides the slave, Antipho and two old men, are the 
 engaging figures. The fourth figure with the gesture under 
 consideration, is called by F, Demipho, by C and P, Chremes, a 
 variation which introduces difficulties in the proper use of the 
 text. The threatening attitude, however, of the third figure 
 seems to make it certain that this figure represents Demipho 
 (so C and P), at the climax of the scene, where Geta reveals that 
 he has promised to the parasite, with hardihood unwarranted, a 
 sum of money for which his master is to be responsible (vv. 636 ff.). 
 All are intent to hear the amount promised, and Chremes at this 
 point urges (v. 642), Cedo quid postulat ? (v. 643) Quantum ? die. 
 
 A further marked difference between the manuscripts is the 
 characteristic substitution by P of the first and second fingers in 
 those positions in which F shows the first alone extended, the 
 thumb being usually apart. This occurs in the ordinary positions 
 of pointing and in others where the fingers seem disposed for no 
 special effect." The type common in P is designated by Sittl 
 (1. c, p. 286, 3) an ear-mark of post-classic art. 
 
 1 F reverses the names in obvious error. 
 
 ' Examples are numerous. For the act of pointing, I cite Eun. 4. 7 
 
282 JOHN W. B AS ORE. 
 
 Again, an attitude in the miniatures that is typical in passages 
 of soliloquy, usually monologues, is that of the hand directed 
 toward the face while the head inclines downward as if to meet it. 
 The fingers are variously disposed. In the movement of the hand 
 may frequently be discovered the emotional value which Quintilian 
 (xi. 3. 103, cf. 96) assigns to it : digitos cum summi coierunt, ad 
 OS referre, cur quibusdam displicuerit, nescio ; nam id et leviter 
 admirantes et interim subita indignatione velut pavescentes et 
 deprecantes facimus. P and F, however, show no uniformity 
 either in defining the position of the hand or in the disposition 
 of the fingers. At Eun. 4. 2 = v. 629 and 4. 3 = v. 643 Phaedria 
 is shown in P with the first finger extended, the hand tending 
 upwards. In F the first finger rests above the eyebrow. At 
 Eun. 5. I = v. 817, Thais appears in F, advancing with arm 
 raised high and with hand compressed and touching her brow. 
 The gesture suggests that of striking the forehead, while in P 
 her clenched hand merely tends upwards and is removed from 
 her face. 
 
 In Eun. 5. 5 = V. 971 Laches, in F, has the less pronounced 
 gesture; in P, the forefinger extended rests upon the left cheek. 
 The same positions are shown in reversed order for Clinia, Heaut. 
 2. 2 = V. 230. At Heaut. 2. 3 = v. 242 the figure named Clinia 
 in P (Clitipho in F), with all fingers bent under and hand against 
 cheek, seems to be supporting his head. In F he is shown with 
 his arm sharply elevated, all his fingers extended, and his hand 
 directed toward his face. At Phor. i. 3 = v. 153 Antipho with 
 his arm extended and his right hand uplifted rests his first and 
 second fingers on his left brow (F). In P and C,^ the first finger 
 alone is extended and touches the left cheek. Similar differences 
 appear in the pictures at Eun. v. 942 (Parmeno), Heaut. v. 874 
 (Chremes), Ad. v. 364 (Demea); Phor. v. 534 (Geta); v. 766 
 (Demipho). 
 
 (Sanga PrzThraso F); 5. 4 (Parmeno); Heaut. 1.2 (Clitipho); 4. i 
 (Syrus), pointing downwards; cf. Quint, (xi. 3. 94), versus in terram et 
 quasi pronus urguet. For other positions cf. Eun. 5. 6 (Pythias); Heaut. 
 4. 4 (Phrygia F = Bacchis P) ; 4. 8 (Menedemus) ; 5. 3 (Sostrata) ; Ad. i. i 
 (Micio); 2. I (Aeschinus); 5. 2 (Dromo) ; Hecy. 3. i (Pamphilus); 
 Phor. 2. 4 (Demipho) ; 4. 3 (Geta), et saepe. 
 
 fhe Harvard pictures for the Phor. are much like those ofP. 
 
 ' According to the Harvard photographs. 
 
MINIA TURKS IN THE MANUSCRIPTS OF TERENCE. 2^1 
 
 Another gesture, which appears not infrequently, viz. that of 
 extended first finger, other fingers bent down, the thumb resting 
 on the second, is so variously shown that the type for definite 
 situations is destroyed. Thus at Eun. 4. 7 = v. 771 F and P show 
 it in common for Chremes; at Eun. 5. 5= v. 971, F gives it to 
 Parmeno, while in P he is shown with open palms and fingers 
 extended. Dromo has it in F at Heaut. 2. 3 = v. 242, while P, 
 with the substitution noted above, modifies the gesture by showing 
 the first and second fingers out, and the thumb on the third which 
 is bent upon the palm. The form which appears here in P may 
 be exemplified in both manuscripts at Hecy. 3. 4 = v. 415 (Sosia), 
 5. 3 = v. 799 (Bacchis), Phor. 4. i = 567 (Chremes) ; 5. 5 = v. 
 829 (Antipho). Other numerous instances in which it occurs in 
 but one of the two manuscripts clearly define the type, but 
 leave unsettled any opinion concerning the correctness of its 
 claims. Where it is found in F, P often substitutes the open 
 palm and extended fingers, e. g. Ad. v. 447 (Demea) ; Hecy. v. 
 336 (Pamphilus) ; v. 607 (id.) ; Phor. v. 348 (Phormio). 
 
 Thus far the examples cited have been of characteristic 
 gestures selected from different plays ; but before drawing a 
 conclusion it will be well for the purpose in hand to include a 
 comparison of F, P and C (using Cocquelines) at the strikingly 
 comical scene of Eun. 4. 7 = v. 771 where the braggart soldier 
 comes indignantly with his following to storm the house of Thais. 
 This has often been reproduced from the Vatican with varying 
 identification of the characters and conflicting explanations.' 
 The representations of F and P differ markedly in both attitudes 
 and gestures. The first figure on the left, Gnatho, is seen in C 
 and P excitedly girding or ungirding a scarf about his waist. 
 In F he lifts his right arm aloft, tending to form a circle with his 
 thumb and first finger, his left hand being disengaged and all 
 his fingers extended. Thraso, the third of the group, advancing 
 with action, points with his first finger to the right (F and C). 
 P adds also the second finger (cf. above). Donax, the fourth 
 figure, in C and P, grasps in his right hand a club-like object 
 (the "vectis" of v. 774), while the left seizes the scarf (ito<ru/t0ij) 
 about his shoulder. Named Simalio in F, the figure is shown 
 
 ' Cf. Wieseler (1. t., PI. x, Fig. s ; Baumeister (Denk. des kl. Alt. II, p. 38, 
 Fig. 914) ; Schreiber (Atlas of Class. Antiq., PI. Ill, Fig. 5) ; Leo (Rh. M. 
 PP- 339-340). 
 
284 JOHN U'. BASORE. 
 
 with the arm lifted high over the head, and the next figure (Donax 
 in F) assumes the"vectis". This figure, in P, is Simalio with 
 arm elevated ; in C, Syriscus bearing in the right hand a whisk 
 (cf. Plaut. Men. vv. 77 and 391).* 
 
 On the right F shows a door between the advancing crowd 
 and the meretrix and Chremes who are within. Syriscus (F 
 and P), having reached this point, halts and turns to those 
 behind. In P no door appears, but the figure which faces those 
 that are advancing, grasps a gourd-like object the end of which 
 is held by the figure preceding. C, omitting the door, designates 
 here the figure Simalio and represents it much as F. Wieseler 
 and Leo have made much of the attitude of Thais who stands 
 in C and P as though in deep thought or perhaps careless and 
 unconcerned, with her right hand supporting her cheek, the elbow 
 resting on the other hand crossed about the waist. In F, how- 
 ever, she awaits the storm in pious supplication with hands 
 crossed religiously over her breast. 
 
 Certain differences are further to be mentioned in the care 
 bestowed upon the aediculae prefixed to the plays, P being 
 much superior to F, and both evincing greater elaboration for 
 the early plays of the manuscripts. F, after the Heaut., places 
 the masks merely upon waving, rough-drawn lines of blue. 
 At the Hec. the collection is wholly omitted. Nor is the 
 number of masks represented with regularity, F having, for the 
 Ad. and Phor., eight each, P, at these places, thirteen. In P 
 some of the aediculae are ornamented with birds (so Ad. Hec, 
 Phor.), a device popular in the Carolingian Renaissance, and thus 
 in itself a mark of the later period." At the Hec. one perches 
 above each corner, and a pair is seen in the centre of the gable. 
 That on the Adelphi holds a spray in its bill. 
 
 Stage entrances are shown in different forms of square open- 
 ings draped or undraped, or with arched tops usually undraped. 
 Some appear with lattice-work in the middle. P and F, again, 
 are far from uniform both in the type chosen and in the frequency 
 with which they are added to the pictures. 
 
 The footgear of the actor is shown by P and C to be quite 
 uniformly the comedian's soccus laced across the instep and 
 
 'The text (v. 777) assigns to Sanga the peniculus. 
 
 »Cf. Sittl, 1. c, p. 205, n. 3; Janitschek, Die Trierer Ada-Handschrift, 
 Leipzig 1889, p. 69 f. 
 
MINIA TURES IN THE MANUSCRIPTS OF TERENCE. 285 
 
 ankle. F, on the other hand, omitting detail, gives the somewhat 
 odd effect of the modern sock. Ludicrous exceptions are to be 
 noted. The miles at Eun. 4. 7 has bootlets; at Ph. 2. 3, Geta 
 stands with his feet close together, as though in bonds adjusted 
 about the ankles; so also at Ph. 4. 2 and at Ph. 2. 4, Cratinus' 
 left foot is drawn with protruding toes. 
 
 In general, the pictures of F are not regular in execution, but, 
 as types, exhibit more grace than those of C. All are shaded in 
 light blue with ornamental effect. Some are drawn with full, round 
 outlines, others are deficient in technique with disregard of proper 
 proportions. Those of the Adelphi and Phormio are perhaps 
 the best of the manuscript. The early scenes of the Eunuchus 
 exhibit an unpracticed hand, while in the later portions and in 
 the Heautontimorumenos, the next in order, more regularity may 
 be observed. Those of P share the superiority of the manuscript, 
 and, though lacking the blue ornamentation of the other, are 
 outlined and shaded with good effect in the brownish ink of the 
 manuscript. 
 
 The results of our investigation, which has been sufficiently 
 illustrated by the matters presented, are such as to warrant, 
 conservatively speaking, the conclusion that the pictures do not 
 adhere to the supposed original as accurate copies of a fixed model, 
 and that in the elaboration of a system of scenic gestures, they 
 should deserve credence as representing the older tradition 
 only in those particulars in which the testimony of the several 
 manuscripts coincides. For depicting general situations and 
 bearing, for the nature of the devices and the resources available 
 for comic effect, for the characterization of stock r61es' and 
 attitudes, and to a certain extent, for the costume, they are of 
 undoubted value. 
 
 University op California. JOHN W. BaSORE. 
 
 ' E. g. the "servus currens" is depicted with admirable conformity to 
 our testimony as to the stock type of comedy, usually also in the short 
 tunic, cf. Donat., De Com. p. 11 Reiff., servi comici amictu exiguo teguntur 
 paupertatis antiquae gratia vel quo exftditiores agant. The type appears 
 in Quint. (1. c. 112), «r»», ancillulae, parasiti, piscatores, citatius moventur. 
 Compare also Ter. Heaut. vv. 31, 124; Eun. 36, et al.; Donatus, scholia 
 to Ad. vv. 299, 324; Phor. 179; Andr. 722; Hecy. 16, 443; similarly in 
 Plautus, Acanthio (Merc. vv. 111-119); Leonida (Asin. vv. 290 £E.); Epid- 
 icus (Ep, TV. 185 ff.) 
 
PUPULA DUPLEX. 
 A Comment on Ovid, Amores I, 8, 15. 
 
 In his Address to the Lena, a conventional theme of the elegiac 
 poet, Ovid says of her : 
 
 , . . ocuUs quoque pupula duplex 
 fulminat et gemino lumen ab orbe venit. 
 
 This statement occurs in the usual list of magic feats which all 
 lenae were supposed to perform; for everyone knows that the 
 business of this indispensable adjunct of an antique love-affair 
 included, as a matter of course, the brewing of love-potions and 
 the practice of necromancy in all its branches. 
 
 Of course, it is Ovid's implication that his ' Dipsas,' as he 
 expressively calls her, has the Evil Eye. But what would have 
 been his definition oi^ pupula duplex, a double pupil? And why 
 was this peculiarity, whatever it may be, esteemed a sign of the 
 Evil Eye ? Commentators have added nothing of any value to 
 the solution of these questions since the time of Burmann.' Of 
 the parallels cited by them Pliny, VII, 16 and a passage from 
 Ptolemaios Chennos are all that have any bearing upon the point. 
 
 Pliny, VII, 2, 16, says that " In this same Africa, according to 
 Isigonus and Nymphodorus, are certain families of people possess- 
 ing the Evil Eye who cause cattle to die, trees to wither up, babies 
 to perish, simply by commending them. Isigonus adds that per- 
 sons of the same sort are found among the Triballi and Illyri. 
 These, also, especially if they are angry, charm and kill by their 
 gaze whomsoever they look upon for any length of time. Youths 
 who have just reached maturity are most easily injured by them. 
 More notable still, says Isigonus, is the fact that they have double 
 pupils in each eye. According to Apollonides there are also 
 women of this sort in Scythia. They are called Bitiae. Phy- 
 larchus says that in Pontus there is a race called Thibii and many 
 
 ' The latest commentary on the Amores is by Martinon, Paris, Fon- 
 temoing, 1S97. 
 
288 KIRB V FLOWER SMITH. 
 
 others who have the same powers. As peculiarities of these 
 people he notes that they have in one eye a double pupil, in the 
 other the figure of a horse. Even when their garments are 
 soaked through they cannot be made to sink in water." Cicero 
 also, among us, is authority for the statement that all women 
 everywhere with double pupils possess the Evil Eye." 
 
 Pliny refers again to this passage at XI, 142, and Gellius, IX. 
 4, 7, gives the substance of it. No other references to the super- 
 stition are quoted from Roman authors. It may be observed too 
 that, except Cicero, all the authorities cited by Pliny are Greek, 
 The eldest, Phylarchos and Nymphodoros, belong to the early 
 Alexandrian period. The time of Isigonos must have been 
 later as is shown by his use of Nymphodoros. The most 
 recent is ApoUonides. He lived in the period of the Mithradatic 
 Wars. All belong to that class of marvel-mongers familiar to 
 everyone who has followed the romantic and novellistic literature 
 of later Greece." This type of popular historian and paradoxo- 
 graphos was much read throughout the entire Roman period, and 
 perhaps may be said— at any rate in the case of Pliny, who lacked 
 the training, not the temperament, of a scientist — to have taken 
 the place of that which, under different circumstances, might have 
 ripened into more profitable investigation. 
 
 The passage which Pliny quotes from Cicero is not to be 
 found in any work of his now extant. But Baiter and Kayser 
 (Cicero, Tauchnitz, Leipzig, 1869, vol.XI, p. 77) are undoubtedly 
 right in ascribing it to the Admiranda. Pliny used the work, 
 indeed, quotes it by name at XXXI, 12 and 51 for notices similar 
 in character to this. The title of the Admiranda and, as far as we 
 know them, its contents, are so suggestive of "An-tora, napaSo|a, 
 eaviMaa-rd and similar names given to the books of the Hellenistic 
 romancers that we may well believe Cicero's work to have been 
 based directly upon the sources used by Pliny. In fact, it is not 
 impossible that, in this particular statement, Cicero merely gener- 
 alized where Pliny, more accurate — or more painstaking — gave 
 
 ' This detail is familiar to all who have studied the judicial side of sorcery 
 in the Middle Ages. See Grimm, Z>. M.*, p. 899; Deutsche Rechtsalt., II, 
 p. 923 ; Soldan-Heppe, Gesch. der Hexenproxesse, 1880, 1, 394 f.; Remigius, 
 Daemonolatreia, Cologne, 1596, III, 9 (p. 370). 
 
 ^ See, for example, Rohde-SchoU, Der Griech. Roman und seine Vorldufer, 
 Leipzig, 1900, p. 188 f. 
 
PUPULA DUPLEX. 289 
 
 his authorities in detail. Finally, if we turn back to our passage 
 from Ovid, reminding ourselves of his extraordinary acquaintance 
 with the light literature of later Hellenism, we may suspect 
 that he, too, drew from a source similar to that used by Pliny and 
 Cicero. 
 
 It would be dangerous, however, to conclude that this super- 
 stition was not Italic, although with the Latin authors mentioned, 
 it has all the air of being the result of reading rather than the 
 personal observation of a commonplace superstition near home. 
 It is true, moreover, that Pliny's Greek sources agree in placing 
 all actual examples of the double pupil in a remote country. But 
 just as the testimonial of a patent medicine seems to flourish best 
 in a town remarkable for its distance or obscurity, so the Land of 
 Marvels is generally well outside the limits of the known world. 
 In both cases the suggestion is very likely to have originated in 
 the home of the reporter. For our purpose, therefore, it is quite 
 unnecessary to discuss the identity of the ' Thibii ' and ' Bitiae ' 
 or why and how this idea of a double pupil became connected 
 with the various remote and obscure peoples mentioned in Pliny's 
 catalogue. 
 
 We should note, however, the curious statement of Phylarchos 
 that his ' Thibii and many others in Pontus ' have ' in altero 
 oculo geminam pupillam in altero equi effigiem.' In his edition 
 of Pliny, Lyons, 1587, Dalecamp suggested that Pliny had made 
 the mistake of taking the word 'jrn-or, in its literal sense, whereas, 
 in fact, it was the regular name given by Phylarchos to a peculiar 
 disease of the eye, the most prominent symptom of which, as we 
 are told by Hippokrates,' was a constant trembling and winking 
 of the lids. Dalecamp's explanation was very reasonably ques- 
 tioned by later editors of Pliny, Hardouin in particular, but was 
 again adopted, without reference to Dalecamp, by Otto Jahn.' 
 But, as Hardouin saw, we could hardly expect Phylarchos to 
 couple a simple everyday eye-disease on one side of the Thibian 
 and Pontic nose with a miraculous double pupil on the other. 
 Moreover, as Riess, A. J. P. XVIII, 195. has well observed, this 
 theory, like Miiller's mythological 'disease of language' in a 
 
 1 Galen, 8, 604, F ; 732, A. See Thesaurus Steph. s. ». 
 
 2 Ueber den Aberglauben des bosen Blicks bei den Alten, 185s, p. 3S> 
 n. 26. 
 
 19 
 
290 KIRB Y FLO WER SMITH. 
 
 kindred field, really reverses the order of things. " The very 
 name of the sickness proves that its presence was ascribed to a 
 horse-shaped demon." ' It is evident, therefore, that in his desire 
 of making us quake again Phylarchos has followed a method not 
 infrequently observed in writers of his class. He has furnished 
 his ' Thibii and many others in Pontus ' with a double share of 
 horrific signs for the Evil Eye. 
 
 We may now turn to an interesting passage from Ptolemaios 
 Chennos ' who, according to Suidas, would be a younger contem- 
 porary of Pliny the Elder. His Kmvij 'laropta, which consisted of 
 seven books and is fortunately preserved for us in the abstract of 
 Photios, at once stamps him as a mythographer of the semi- 
 novellistic type. 
 
 In this work,' according to Photios, Chennos told " that the 
 wife of Kandaules, whose name Herodotos does not mention, was 
 called Nysia ; that, according to report, she was SUopos (i. e., 
 had a double pupil), and extremely sharp of sight, being in 
 possession of the stone dpaKoirfVijr,* and on this account perceived 
 Gyges passing out of the door." 
 
 At first sight we might suspect that this passage is merely a 
 piece of Alexandrian embroidery on the famous story of Hero- 
 dotos, I, 8-12. But in his life of ApoUonios of Tyana,^ Philos- 
 tratos, during a long digression on Indian dragons, the manner of 
 their capture, etc., observes that the wonderful stone in their heads 
 (i. e., the apaxoiriVijr) is " invincible even against the ring which, 
 they say, was possessed by Gyges." This shows that in the 
 version to which Chennos refers and which is that of neither 
 Plato ° nor Herodotos, Gyges was not put behind the door, as 
 Herodotos tells the story, but, probably without the connivance 
 
 ' For modern instances of the horse-demon as a sign of the Evil Eye, 
 Professor Riess refers to an article by Tuchmann in La M/lusine, vol. IV. 
 I have been unable to inspect a copy of this volume, 
 
 * Persistently quoted by his father's name of Hephaistion. The title of 
 his work is HroTi^/iaiov tov 'Kfaiariuvoc irepl t^s eif iroXvfiaBiai) naivijg laropiag 
 Uy. f. 
 
 * Mythographi Gratci, Westermann, p. 192. 
 
 * So Westermann. The word is not found in L. & S. (8th ed.). " Dra- 
 conitis sive Dracontias " according to Pliny, XXXVII, 158. Compare 
 Solin., XXX, 16, 17; Isidor, XIV, 14, 7; 14, 5, 15; Tzetz. ffist. 7, 656. 
 
 • »III, 6 (vol. I, p. 88, K.). 
 'Repui. II, 359, D. 
 
PUPULA DUPLEX. 29 1 
 
 of Kandaules, was depending upon his ring — as old Henslowe 
 used to describe certain of his theatrical properties — "for to goo 
 invisibell." But against the dragon-stone which, according to a 
 world-wide superstition regarding serpents,' makes its possessor 
 all-seeing and all-knowing, even this famous ring was as power- 
 less as the hypnotism of the Hindoo juggler in the presence of the 
 kodak. 
 
 Chennos is our only authority for the statement that Nysia, as 
 he calls her, possessed a double pupil as well as the dragon-stone. 
 Moreover, it is to be observed that he uses the idea of the double 
 pupil in a new sense. The Evil Eye is not the point here, though 
 it may be implied. Nysia derives the same power from her double 
 pupil that she already derived from her dragon-stone in infinite 
 measure — supernatural sharpness of vision. In other words 
 Chennos, hke Phylarchos, has doubled his signs of the same 
 thing. 
 
 So far as I am acquainted with the commentators on this sub- 
 ject we have now reached the end of our resources. As we pause 
 to review the situation it becomes clear that we are hardly wiser 
 than when we started. The two questions proposed for solution 
 are still unanswered. To show how far they have been from an 
 answer, let me quote the only two persons who, to my knowledge, 
 have ever expressed any opinion on Apupula duplex. 
 
 The first comes from no less a person than Cuvier. He was an 
 associate editor of the Lemaire Pliny, Paris, 1827. At the pas- 
 sage already quoted he observes : ^ " Unde haec de pupula 
 duplici pervagata opinio, equidem nescio; neque crediderim 
 tales unquam in humanitate, etiam monstrosa, oculos visos." 
 
 The second comes from E. Miiller, Phil. VII, the main object 
 of whose article was to prove that Plato's story of Gyges and his 
 Ring originated in a volcanic myth. Commenting on the word 
 SiKopos in the passage from Chennos, Miiller makes the naiive sug- 
 gestion (p. 254, n. 40) that the wife of Kandaules " verschiedenar- 
 tige, wie es scheint, nach ganz verschiedener richtung blickende 
 
 'Comp. p. 290, n. 4; Fafnir in the tale of the Volsungs ; Bulukiya and 
 the Queen of the Serpents, Bookoftke Thousand Nig kis and a Night, vol. 
 V, p. 278 (Burton) ; etc., etc. 
 
 « Vol. Ill, p. 24. 
 
292 KIRBY FLOWER SMITH. 
 
 pupillen gehabt habe." The old legend of Venus Paeta' — if one 
 must turn to the books to settle a question like this — makes it 
 clear that any Dream of Fair Women is incomplete unless it 
 includes at least one with a cast in her eye. But " nach ganz 
 verschiedener richtung blickende pupillen"! Add this touch of 
 description, if you please, to that figure of gleaming white which, 
 seen and yet unseen, stands amid the flickering, perfumed shadows 
 of the doomed king's chamber. We have all gazed, with Gyges, 
 upon its perilous beauty, we have all shared his mingled emotions 
 of rage and fear, shame and delight. 
 
 But, to leave Miiller's theory for the present, we have, at 
 least, discovered that the Greek word for one possessing Apupula 
 duplex is hUopoi. It is not found in Liddell and Scott, but the 
 Thesaurus gives us three examples, none of which, curiously 
 enough, seem to have ever been connected with the discussion of 
 the double pupil. 
 
 In the Scriptores Physiognomonici, II, p. 225 (Foerster), a pas- 
 sage dealing with the color of the eyes as a sign of character, reads 
 
 as follows : o(]>6a.\ixo\ ne\aves ayadov arffulov d /jei'four flcriv. o(j>Ba\fioi 
 iiKopoi aaraTov yvapiana icai avvnoaraTov, tl /ndXior' eV rw aira 6(fida\fia 
 tla-tv. 
 
 Suidas, S. v. ^Uopos, tells us that 'AvaaTdartos 6 Tav 'Pa/iaiav fiaaiKdif 
 
 ^Uopot f\iytTo. Zonaras, XIV, 3, p. 53 (cf. Joh. Mai., p. 392) adds 
 
 that he was so named, Srt dvo/ioias dW^Xais ft^e rat K6pas Tail i<p6a\iiS)v' 
 Tp fih yap 5" ""A XP^I^o Itt^dvTtpov, ij Si Xaia TrpAs rA y\avK6Ttpov (Xpap-dTiaro. 
 
 Finally, an old scholium on Thamyris, the minstrel (Iliad, B, 
 595 f-)i preserved in Eustathios, 298, 44, says, among other things: 
 
 l<rTopov(Ti Si avT6p Koi SiKopov (hat, rav o(f>daXfmv top fiiv y'KavKov eyonTa 
 riv de fitkava. 
 
 These passages tell us that a SUopoc is a person whose eyes are 
 of different colors. Sometimes the difference of colors may be 
 found in one eye. More frequently, to judge by modern experi- 
 ence, one eye differs in color from the other. This new associa- 
 tion for SUopos, pupula duplex, lets in a flood of light. It removes it 
 from that which, to one accustomed to deal with problems of folk- 
 lore, might well seem a curiously contracted sphere, and takes it 
 into the domain of a world-wide superstition— one might cite the 
 
 •Ovid, A. A. 2,659; Priap. 36, 4; Varro, Sat. Men. 344 B. ; Lucian, 
 Dial. Dear. 20, 10; Petron. 68, Fried. 
 
PUPULA DUPLEX. 293 
 
 single example of Hereward, " last of the English " — according 
 to which all persons who show a difference of color in the eyes are 
 credited with the power of fascination 
 
 But what has pupula duplex, SiKopoc, to do with color? How 
 does it happen that two ideas, apparently quite foreign, should 
 be associated? Finally, what is a. pupula duplex f Before at- 
 tempting to answer these questions it may be well to observe 
 briefly some aspects of the primaeval and universal superstition 
 with which they are connected. 
 
 The Evil Eye ' may be the cause of every ill in mind, body or 
 estate that flesh is heir to; briefly, of misfortunes which in 
 modern times are covered by insurance, attributed to the weather 
 or for which the remedy is sought by recourse to a lawyer, a 
 physician or a gun, according to the temperament of the loser. 
 Above all, the Evil Eye is responsible for those slow, wasting 
 diseases and nervous or mental disorders for which the untutored 
 mind can And no explanation in the circumstances of the person 
 afflicted. Anyone may be blighted by it, babies in the cradle 
 especially. The possessor of it simply has to cast a glance — la 
 getiatura, as the Neapolitans expressively term it — upon his 
 chosen victim at some unguarded moment. The etymology and 
 historical usage of words like invidere, paa-KaUeiv and their 
 parallels in other languages show that, in the popular conception, 
 envy was the principal motive for using the Evil Eye. Never- 
 theless there are some unfortunates born with the Evil Eye who 
 involuntarily blast all that they look upon. This was the pathos 
 of Gautier's well-known story. The ability to detect the Evil 
 Eye is an acquisition of obvious value. There are many rules for it, 
 and most of them are common to all folk-lore. Persons with a 
 piercing eye who look at you steadily are to be avoided. Persons 
 who are cross-eyed, "wall-eyed," one-eyed or have any other 
 marked peculiarity of the eye have always been dreaded. 
 
 1 My friend, Mr. Charles Stafford-Northcote, who lived for nine years in 
 the highlands of Ceylon, tells me that the natives, one and all, have the 
 utmost fear o£ anyone who possesses this peculiarity. The same is true 
 elsewhere. 
 
 » The subject has attracted much attention, especially in its connection 
 with Phallic worship. One of the best known and most important treatises 
 upon it is the work of Otto Jahn, mentioned in note 2, p. 289. For 
 ancient and mediaeval authorities, see note 2, p. 295. 
 
294 KIRB Y FLO WER SMITH. 
 
 Witches, werewolves, vampires — the three are often united in 
 the same person — possess and use the Evil Eye as a matter of 
 course. Indeed, it should be observed that the Evil Eye is very 
 frequently accompanied by other powers of an uncanny nature. 
 
 An enquiry into the origin and philosophy of this widespread 
 superstition, which was, of course, derived in the first instance 
 from the primaeval explanation, whatever it was, of vision, may 
 safely begin with the general axiom of folk-lore that the primitive 
 man, whose beliefs survive in our superstitions, conceived of no 
 manifestation of natural forces or organic life except as due to a 
 personality. To him, the causes of all effects are never things or 
 laws, but always persons. Those well-known lines of Pope, 
 
 "Lo, the poor Indian whose untutored mind 
 Sees God in clouds and hears him in the wind," 
 
 are not only truer, but they must be taken in a more literal and 
 homelier sense, than their author had ever supposed. Without 
 pausing to mention many other ideas of a similar nature, the ' poor 
 Indian ' is one of those also who see in the eclipse a monster pro- 
 ceeding to gulp down quick the god of day, and is much relieved 
 when his strenuous efforts in the way of shouting, beating of 
 drums, archery practice and such like, have averted the threatened 
 calamity. He also knows that the real cause of his chills and 
 fever is a devil, that another one of a different sort gives him the 
 small-pox. In short, after his own peculiar fashion he believes in 
 microbes. Hence the medicine-man prescribes an allopathic dose 
 of tom-toms over his patient's bed while the Chinese practitioner, 
 more advanced, pierces the diseased member with needles. The 
 object in both cases is to oust the demon. 
 
 The primitive man of all nations accounted for the phenomenon 
 of sight and explained the functions of the eye after a similar 
 fashion. Nor do we need to consult the lore of the modern 
 savage here. Traces of it are clearly visible in the traditional 
 discussion of optics found in the earliest Greek and Roman 
 thinkers, the Church Fathers and various mediaeval doctors and 
 theologians, from the dawn of Hellenic thought to the middle of 
 the 17th century. A detailed review of this long discussion, in- 
 teresting and curious as it is, would be unnecessary and, more- 
 over, is impossible in the space at my disposal. A few points, 
 'however, may be noted. 
 
PUPULA DUPLEX. 295 
 
 We shall go far towards understanding the primitive theory of 
 sight among the Greeks and Romans if we begin by giving a 
 perfectly literal interpretation to the old saying that ' the eye is the 
 window of the soul.' The expression has been traced to Hera- 
 kleitos, but it is repeated or implied in all languages and all 
 periods. The same thought, for example, is in the NoOr op^ Koi vovs 
 oKoifi' ToXXa Kai(f)a koX Tv<j}\d, that famous verse of Epicharmos' 
 which was the emphatic expression of a philosophical dogma and, 
 for ages, the text of a philosophical dispute regarding the nature 
 of vision.' It is evident moreover, that, in the strictly popular 
 conception, the eye was more than the window, it was literally the 
 door of the soul." 
 
 Still another step back brings us face to face with the belief that 
 the soul actually resides in the eye itself, ' profecto in oculis ani- 
 mus habitat,' to give a literal turn to Pliny's words (XI, 145), and 
 may be seen there in the form of a mannikin. This view explains 
 a number of superstitions. It becomes clear, too, that such desig- 
 nations of the pupil as itiSpi;. pupa, pupula, pupilla, i. e. the little 
 lass, the mannikin, das mdnnlein, though easily explained by a 
 different theory in the wisdom of a later age,* undoubtedly go 
 back to the time when they were applied in a literal sense to the 
 soul which was seen in the man's eye." I would suggest that this 
 
 'See Kaibel, Com. Dor., 249 and references. Add Pliny, XI, 146 
 anitno autem vidimus, animo cernimus. 
 
 'See especially Lucretius III, 359 f. and the long list of references in 
 Heinze's note. Frequently in connection yi\\.)\ fascinatio itself. Comp., 
 e. g., Plutarch, 680, C f. ; Heliod. Aeihiopica III, p. 86, B. ; Alex. Aphrodis. 
 Problem. Sect. I, 39, 68. 70 ; II, 53 (vol. I, Ideler), etc. Plentiful reference 
 to the Church Fathers and a long line of mediaeval authorities may be 
 found in the detailed discussion by M. Delrio, "de fascinatione," Disquis. 
 Magicae, Mainz, 1624, Lib. Ill, Pars I, Quaest. IV, Sect. I. Add P. de 
 I'Ancre, L' Incredulite ei Mescreance du Sortilege plainement convaincue, 
 Paris, 1622, pp. 70-113; Du Laurens, De Opera Anatomica, quaes. 16. 
 
 'See Rohde, Psyche, p. 22, n. i and p. 692, with ref. Add Physiognom. 
 II, p. 17 (Foerster). 
 
 *See, for example, Plato, Alkib. I, 133, A. 
 
 '^itipri, meaning the pupil of the eye, is notably a favorite with Euripides. 
 More than a score of examples are found in the extant plays. For the 
 complete list see the Index Graecus of the Glasgow edit., 1829, vol. IX. 
 Empedokles, 227, is the earliest example quoted. The word K6pri is still 
 used by the modern Greeks in the same sense. On the traditional explana- 
 tion of yU/vri in the Ippt, KaKq yMivri, of Iliad, G, 164, see Leaf's note. 
 
 l^3X\x\. pupilla survives in Italian. Old F reach pupille has been replaced 
 
296 KIRB Y FLO WER SMITH. 
 
 theory is the origin, for example, of the old Norse superstition 
 that the werewolf when in his bestial form may always be detected 
 by his eyes. The eye is the one thing that remains unchanged.' 
 
 When one dies, the mannikin, i. e. the soul itself, leaves the 
 eye." Hence the origin of that immemorial custom of closing 
 the open eyes of the dead, closing the door, as it were, upon the 
 departed guest and insuring against the possible return of an 
 occupant no longer welcome. 
 
 Conversely, though a man be never so ill, there is no immediate 
 danger of death as long as the mannikin may be seen. ' Augu- 
 rium ex homine ipso est non timendi mortem in aegritudine, quam- 
 diu oculorum pupillae imaginem reddant' (Pliny, XXVIII, 64). 
 
 On the other hand, in the very midst of health and prosperity, 
 the mannikin may disappear. This is a sure sign of impending 
 doom. Capitolinus says of the unfortunate Pertinax (14, 2): 
 " Et ea die, qua occisus est, negabant in oculis eius pupulas cum 
 imaginibus, quas reddunt spectantibus, visas." 
 
 But, even before death and without being a premonition of it, 
 the mannikin, in exceptional circumstances, may leave the eye 
 
 by prunelle and survives only as a technical term. See Littre. Old 
 Spanish /»/»Vo has been replaced, and the idea preserved, by New Span. 
 niiia. Descansar la niiia del ojo\& quoted as Cuban Spanish for 'Take a 
 nap.' Eng. 'pupil' has the same history although quite lost upon the 
 uneducated speaker. 
 
 Augapfel, augenstern, 'the apple of the eye ' seems to be the figure in all 
 the Teutonic languages. But the Germans say 'das mannlein im auge ' 
 and everyone will be reminded of the 'babies' so often mentioned by the 
 Elizabethan dramatists and other old English writers. Compare Beaumont 
 and Fletcher's Woman's Prize, V, i : 
 "No more fool 
 To look gay babies in your eyes, young Rowland, 
 And hang about your pretty neck — " 
 
 The Macusi Indians of Guiana say that though the body decays the 
 " man in our eyes " will not die but wander about. J. H. Bernau, British 
 Guiana, p. 134 (quoted by Tylor). 
 
 ' W. Hertz, in his famous monograph Der Wehrviolf, Stuttgart, 1862, p. 
 49, n. 2, refers to Maurer, Bekehrung des Norwe^ischen Stamms, Munich, 
 1855, II, p. 105, for examples of this superstition. 
 
 "Rohde, Psyche, p. 692 and Crusius, on Babrios, 95, 35, Rhein. Mus. 
 XLVI, 319, show that this superstition was Greek as well as Latin. Ex- 
 amples from Scottish and Anglo-Saxon sources are given in Grimm's 
 Deutsche Mythol*, p. 988. 
 
PUPULA DUPLEX. 297 
 
 and, return again. In this connection a story told by P'u Sung- 
 Ling, a famous Chinese author and scholar of the 17th century, 
 deserves our attention. 
 
 Fang-Tung was a good scholar but an unprincipled rake who 
 followed up and spoke to every woman he saw. One time he 
 caught sight of a beautiful girl going by in a carriage and followed 
 it for a long distance, staring at her. Finally, the girl's maid, 
 taking a handful of dust, threw it at him and blinded him. 
 
 Upon examination the doctor found on the pupils a small film 
 which, in a few days, became as thick as a cash. On the right 
 pupil there came a kind of spiral and no medicine was of any 
 avail. Mr. Fang then betook himself to repentance and religious 
 meditation. At the end of a year, being now in a state of perfect 
 calm, he heard a small voice, about as loud as a fly's, calling out 
 from his left eye: "It's horribly dark in here." To this he 
 heard a reply from the right eye, saying, " Let us go out for a 
 stroll, and cheer ourselves up a bit." Then he felt a wriggling in 
 his nose — as if something was going out each of the nostrils ; and 
 after a while he felt it again, as if going the other way. After- 
 wards he heard a voice from one eye say, "I hadn't seen the 
 garden for a long time," etc. 
 
 Mr. Fang related the matter to his wife and she concealed her- 
 self in the room. 'She then observed two tiny people, no bigger 
 than a bean, come down from her husband's nose and run out of 
 the door ... In a little while they came back and flew up to 
 his face . . . After some days Mr. Fang heard from the left 
 eye, " This roundabout road is not at all convenient. It would be 
 well for us to make a door." To this the right eye answered, 
 "My wall is too thick; it wouldn't be at all an easy job." "I'll 
 try and open mine," said the left eye, "and then it will do for 
 both of us." Whereupon Mr. Fang felt a pain in his left eye as 
 if something was being split, and in a moment he found he could 
 see.' His wife examined his eye and ' discovered an opening in 
 the film, through which she could see the black pupil shining out 
 beneath, the eye-ball itself looking like a cracked pepper-corn. 
 By next morning the film had disappeared and when his eye was 
 closely examined it was observed to contain two pupils. The 
 spiral on the right eye remained as before: and then they knew 
 that the two pupils had taken up their abode in one eye. Further, 
 although Mr. Fang was still blind of one eye, the sight of the 
 other was better than that of the two together had formerly been.' 
 
298 KIRB Y FLO WER SMITH. 
 
 H. A. Giles, the translator ('Strange Stories from a Chinese 
 Studio,' London, La Rue, 1880, vol. I, p. 8), adds in a note: 
 "The belief that the human eye contains a tiny being of the 
 human shape is universal in China ... " 
 
 It will be seen that in this story the idea of the mannikin is 
 further extended. It is itself the sight of the eye and has an 
 entity separate from that of the man. We also have here an 
 instance of the double pupil and the Chinese explanation of it. In 
 the Occident, at least so far as we are now concerned, the absence 
 or obscuration of the mannikin during a man's lifetime has a 
 different meaning and is best taken up in another connection. 
 
 The soul, the real self, that dynamic part of every person 
 which is of kin with the dangerous and unmeasured forces of the 
 other world, dwells in the eye. Otherwise how could we see? 
 Here, in fact, it may actually be observed by any one in the form of 
 an homunculus. Naturally, then, any influence, at all events, any 
 spiritual influence, exerted by the individual must necessarily 
 come from the same source. Nor should we forget that this 
 idea received ample support from the primaeval observation of 
 certain natural phenomena, for example, the power of the serpent 
 to charm its chosen victims, the hypnotic power of the human 
 eye, etc., etc. 
 
 The light which this primitive theory of vision appears to 
 shed upon the doctrine ol fascinatio is in itself a strong proof 
 that the two are closely connected. Once granted, for example, 
 — and, certainly, such was the theory of primitive man — that the 
 homunculus, the real personality, dwells in the eye, it was inevit- 
 able to suppose that the appearance of that dwelling should 
 betray and reflect the character of its occupant.' This will 
 explain why it is that among all nations every marked peculiarity 
 or defect of the eyes is thought to be a proof of the Evil Eye. 
 
 Having reached this point we find ourselves face to face with 
 the doctrine of possession. Any part of a man may be possessed, 
 especially the part that aches, but if the real man, the director, 
 
 ' Especially, in view of the undoubted fact that the eye actually does 
 play an important part in the determination of character and temperament 
 by the physiognomy. So too the universal idea that the body reflects in a 
 visible form the character of its occupant is certainly responsible for the 
 fict that in art, tradition and literature all demons and evil spirits have 
 been misshapen and ugly since the world began. 
 
PUPULA DUPLEX. 299 
 
 has been possessed — or dispossessed — we must, of course, expect 
 to find the evidence of it in the eye, if anywhere, because the eye 
 is his abode. In such cases, the Evil Eye and the defect which 
 marks it are both caused by the fact that the possessor is himself 
 possessed. Thus we, at once, understand that large class of 
 apparently anomalous cases in which the possessor of the Evil 
 Eye inflicts damage quite against his will and, indeed, may even 
 suffer from it himself as well as those about him. 
 
 The homunculus, except at death or the premonition of it, does 
 not leave the eye unless driven out by the intrusion of a superior 
 power which usually takes his place. Hence in German folk-lore 
 (Grimm, D. M.\ p. 898) : "Ein mensch, in den holden gezaubert 
 sind, ist erkennbar daran, dass man in seinen augen kein mann- 
 lein oder kindlein (iciJpi;, pupa) sieht, oder nur ganz triibe." In 
 other words the man himself is really absent or, at least, under a 
 charm. So of Pliny's horse-demon and the frog's foot observed by 
 Pierre de I'Ancre.' In short, any peculiarity of the eye may be 
 traceable to the same cause. 
 
 The /«/«/« duplex can now speak for itself. The iUopos is a 
 person who has two mannikins instead of one. In such cases, 
 the demon-mannikin — and the case of Nysia shows that at least 
 one of them was a demon — does not oust the legitimate occupant, 
 but the two live side by side either in the same eye or in different 
 eyes. The presence of the uncanny intruder is betrayed by the 
 difference in color. If, therefore, BUopos means two colors in the 
 same pair of eyes it is only because the word contains what was 
 originally the popular explanation of that peculiarity. Moreover, 
 we can now explain why the dUopos should have supernatural 
 
 ' Tableau de Vinconsiance des mauvais Anges, etc., Paris 1612, p. 184 : 
 "Une fiUe nous a diet (de I'Ancre, who was 'conseiller du Roy au Parle- 
 ment de Bordeaux', was hunting witches at the time) qui faisoit semblant 
 de cognoistre les sorciers et sorcieres au premier trait d'oeil qu'elle jettoit 
 sur eux, que toutes celles de Biarrix estoient marquees en I'oeil gauche, 
 d'une marque semblable a une patte de crapaud ... ." Afterwards, he 
 made use o£ this valuable discovery (p. 188) : "Le 3 Septembre 1610 ils 
 [la Grande Chambre] m'appellerent pour voir si ie recognoistrois la 
 marque dans I'oeil a une ieune fille de dix-sept ans : ie la recognus des 
 I'entree de la Chambre, et dy qu'elle I'avoit dans I'oeil gauche, le quel 
 estoit aucunement louche et egare et plus hagard que I'autre : on regarda 
 audedans, on y trouva comme quelque petit nuage qui sembloit une patte 
 de crapaud, etc." See also Grimm, D. M.*, 903-4. 
 
300 KIRB Y FLO WER SMITH. 
 
 powers of vision. Gyges might, indeed, escape the notice of 
 Nysia herself but no one would venture to assert that her 
 demon-/tdpij could be deceived by a ring of darkness. He, 
 or — who knows — possibly she, could " perceive Gyges passing 
 out of the door " and immediately reported the matter to head- 
 quarters. 
 
 Whether ' aiKopm ', if not too pronounced, is a blemish to beauty 
 I leave to the more extensive experience of my readers. Cer- 
 tainly Ptolemaios Chennos never meant to imply it and, for one's 
 own part, it is not unpleasant to feel that, whatever else they 
 may have inherited, the Mermnadae were in no danger of inher- 
 iting eyes of "ganz verschiedene richtung" from one who is 
 not only the central figure in a masterpiece of the great story- 
 teller, but who, we are convinced, still deserves the place among 
 those tot tnilia formosarum which has been given her by every 
 reader of the tale of Kandaules. 
 
 Last of all, turning back to Ovid's lines quoted at the beginning 
 of this paper, we may assert that the dictionaries are mistaken 
 in telling us that his word orbe means the eye. It means the 
 pupil. Moreover, if my explanation of dUopos is correct, the 
 indefiniteness of Ovid's orl>e is of such a character, the Roman 
 references to a double pupil are of such rarity and from a sphere 
 so limited, literary, and foreign, as almost to make one suspect 
 that their authors had simply translated SUopos by pupula duplex 
 and set it down as another wonder of the world, without knowing 
 what the word really meant, and possibly without connecting it in 
 any way with that familiar phenomenon which dUopos itself in no 
 way suggested but of which it had once been the explanation. 
 
 Johns Hopkins University. KiRBY FlOWER SmITH. 
 
INGENIUM IN THE ABLATIVE OF QUALITY 
 AND THE GENITIVE OF QUALTIY. 
 
 Several conclusions reached in a recent investigation of the 
 constructions of the Ablativus et Genitivus Qualitatis may receive 
 notable illustration from the instances furnished by the use of the 
 noun ingenium. From the nature of the quality which this noun 
 expresses and from the antiquity, persistency and frequency of its 
 occurrence arises the fact that almost no other illustration is so 
 valuable. 
 
 That the list of instances available for citation in this discussion 
 does not include all that occur in Latin literature is a matter for 
 regret; especially when the entire works of some authors have 
 been neglected. Yet the ground actually covered in the previous 
 investigation may be fairly regarded as comprehensive enough, 
 and the instances as of sufficient scope to yield some degree of 
 security for the conclusions which were there drawn. The 
 instances under observation include all the examples from the 
 following authors: Plautus, Terence, Cato, Varro, Lucretius, 
 Caesar, Cicero, Sallust, Vergil's Aeneid, Livy, Velleius Pater- 
 culus, Valerius Maximus, Seneca rhet., Seneca phil., Tacitus, 
 Pronto, Justinus, Gellius, Apuleius, Firmicus Maternus, Palladius 
 and the Scriptores Physiognomonici. Besides these there are 
 many instances from Catullus, Horace, Tibullus, Propertius, 
 Ovid, Curtius, PHny the Elder, Phaedrus, Pomponius Mela, 
 Petronius, Statius, Quintilian, Juvenal, Suetonius, Lactantius, 
 Eutropius, Aurelius Victor, Scriptores Historiae Augustae, 
 Ammianus Marcellinus, Prudentius and other writers. 
 
 Not all of the conclusions reached in my former investigation 
 are shown in the usage of any single noun, but the instances of 
 ingenium furnish the clearest illustration of the following points : 
 
 I. The frequently observed distinction between the genitive 
 as the expression of the permanent characteristic and the ablative 
 as the expression of the transient is not sufficiently fundamental 
 to govern all the instances. 
 
302 GEORGE VAIL EDWARDS. 
 
 2. The distinction observed between internal and external 
 qualities likewise fails to be established. 
 
 3. The distinction between actual and apparent qualities (cf. 
 Kriiger's Gen. " wie er ist," Abl. " wie er sich zeigt ") is not suf- 
 ficiently fundamental. 
 
 4. The distinction between the predicative and the appositional 
 use is not sufficient to explain the usage. 
 
 5. In early Latin the ablative construction was as freely used 
 as ever in its history, while the genitive was comparatively rare 
 and did not reach its full development until after Livy. 
 
 6. By this early prevalence of the ablative its use in certain 
 phrases became stereotyped, so that later when, after Livy, so 
 many new expressions of quality were being put in the genitive, 
 these particular phrases still appeared in their original ablative 
 form alone. 
 
 7. In the consideration of these two expressions for quality the 
 historical factor is of greater importance than has been anywhere 
 recognized. 
 
 The instances of ingenium which illustrate these points are 
 the following : 
 
 Ablatives : Plaut., Aul. 9 (ita avido i. fuit); Asin. 944 est tam i. 
 duro; Bacch. 454 consimili i. est; 615 malevolente i. natus; 1086 
 eost i. natus; Merc. 969 sunt i. malo; Most. 206 mulierem lepidam 
 etpudicoi. ; Poen. 1185 ingeniis quibus sumus; Pseud. 137 eo 
 enim i. hi sunt ; 1134 sunt alio i.; Stich. 116 quae i. est bono; 
 True. 452 nimio i. sumus; 780 colubrino i. ambae estis; Pacuv., 
 frag. trag. 37 (Ribb.') feroci i.; 254 feroci i.; Ennius, frag. trag. 
 23 (Ribb.') est tam firmo i.; 326 eo i. natus sum; Terence, Andr. 
 487 ipsest i. bono; Heaut. 151 i. te esse . . . leni; 420 i. egregio 
 ad miserias natus sum; Eun. 880 inhumano i. sum; Phorm. 497 
 i. esse duro te atque inexorabili; Hec. 164 liberali esse i. decet; 
 489 fuisse erga me miro i.; Adel. 297 talem, tali i.;' Caec. Stat., 
 com. frag. 137 (Ribb.') habuissem i. si sto amatores mihi;" 
 Afran. com. frag. 15 (Ribb.') i. unico; Sail., Cat. 5, i fuit . . . 
 malo pravoque i.; Jug. 7, 4 erat impigro atque acri i. ; 20, 2 is 
 . . . placido i. ; 28, 5 acri i.; 46, 3 i. mobili esse; 66, 2 i. mobili 
 erat; Cic, Tull. 33 singulari i. esse; Verr. 3, 170 homo summo i., 
 summa prudentia, summa auctoritate praeditus; 4, 131 summo 
 i. hominem; Leg. Agr. 3, 6 tardo i. esse; Muren. 36 Philippum 
 summo i.; 61 summo i. vir; Arch. 31 hominem tanto i.; Place. 
 
 • ' Tali genere, A cum relU, ingenio Bentley, 
 ° Variants are, si ston, si isto, si istoc. 
 
INGENIUM IN ABLATIVE &- GENITIVE OF QUALITY. 303 
 
 76 virum singular! i. ; Har. Resp. 41 quo i.; 57 poeta praestanti 
 i.; Gael, i adulescentem inlustri i.; 76 adulescentes magno i. ; 
 de Orat. i, 95 pari fueris i.; 104 summo hominem i.; 191 homi- 
 nem acutissimo omnium i.; 2, 162 acri i. esse videbatur; 351 
 non sum tanto ego, inquit, i. quanto Themistocles fuit.; 3, 124 
 acri vir i.; 230 (orator) i. peracri; de Rep. 2,4 i. esse divine; 
 6, 18 (homines) praestantibus ingeniis; de Leg. 2, 46 qui modo 
 i. possit moveri;' pro Ligar. i praestanti vir i.; Brut. 125 vir 
 praestantissimo i.; 130 acuto i. fuit; 180 fuit . . . i. sane probabili; 
 212 summo i. fuisse; 237 Murena mediocri !.; 237 Turius parvo 
 i.; Orat. 18 vir acerrimo i. ; 109 poetas divino i.; Acad, i, 34 fuit 
 acri i. ; 2, 117 sit i. divino; 125 paribus . . . esse . . . ingeniis; 
 Fin. I, I summis ingeniis . . . philosophi; 2, 51 praestantissimis 
 ingeniis homines; 74 te isto ... i. ; 105 magno hie ... i.; 4, 62 
 tantis ingeniis homines; Tusc. i, 3 si qui magnis ingeniis . . . 
 exstiterunt; 7 vir summo i. ; 5, 45 fuerit . . . hebeti i. atque nullo; 
 68 i. eximio (is vir) sit; Nat. Deor. 2, 16 Chrysippus, quamquam 
 est acerrimo i. ; de Div. i, 6 accessit acerrimo vir i. Chrysippus ; 
 53 singular! vir i. Aristoteles et paene divino; Off. i, 158 optimo 
 quisque i. ; 2, 59 magno vir i. ; 3, 25 optimo quisque et splendi- 
 dissimo i. ; Phil. 2, 13 vir summo i. ; 10, 17 hebeti enim i. est; 11, 
 II ille summo i.; ad Fam. 4, 6, i summo i. . . . filium; 11, 22, 2 
 hominem . . . summo i. ; ad Att. 13, 28, 3 discipulum summo i. ; 
 14, I, I ille tali i. ; Curt. Ruf., 4, 6, 3 horridis ingeniis multumque 
 abhorrentibus ; Plin., N. H., 16, 233 testudo . . . portentosis 
 ingeniis . . . inventum; 5, 62 memorabili i.; Tac, Ann. 5, 8, 11 
 Pomponius . . . i. inlustri; Hist. 2, 87 calonum . . . procacissimis 
 ingeniis; Pomp. Mel., i, 13, 3 specus singular! !.; Fronto, ad M. 
 Caes. 4, I fuisse egregio i. . . . virum ; ad Ant. i, 2 sublimi !. 
 extiterunt ; i, 2 ita egregio i. natus est; 2, 6 is ... placido i. ; 2, 6 
 acri i. (erat); ad Amic. i, i vir est . . . i. libero ac liberal!; 2, 7 
 homo !. . . . remisso et delicato ; Gell., i, 53 subagresti homo i. et 
 infestivo; 2, 18, 3 fuit . . . i. liberal!; 4, 15, i non mediocri i. viri; 
 6 (7), 3, 8 fuit !. homo eleganti; 12, 4, i quo i. . . . esse; 13, 25, 21 
 obtunso ingeniost; 13, 30, 3 feroc! i. virum (quoting Pacuvius); 
 17, 15, 2 vir i. praestanti; 19, 8, 6 eo i. natus sum (quoting Ennius); 
 19, 9, I adulescens . .. facili i. ac lubenti; Script. Hist. Aug., 
 Ant. Pius 2, I fuit vir . . . ingenio singular!, eloquentiae nitidae, 
 litteraturae praecipuae; Firm. Mat., 3, 6, i divinis ingeniis; 
 Script. Physiog., H, Anon., 78 (Foerst.) virili i.; total 115. 
 
 1^" Genitives: Plaut., Most. 814 esse existimo human! ingeni;' 
 Cic, Q. Rose. 48 est hoc principium improbi anim! miser! ingeni! 
 null! consilii; Caec. 5 summi ingenii causam esse; ad Att. i, 20, i 
 idque . . . ingenii summi ac sapientiae iudico; de Or. 2, 298 
 
 1 Ingenio sit mediocri, Davis, Halm, Baiter. „ 
 
 ' Human! ingenii FZ, humani ingenio CD, humani ingenio B. 
 
304 GEORGE VAIL EDWARDS. 
 
 Crassi quidem responsum excellentis cuiusdam est ingenii ac 
 singularis; 2, 300 videsne quae vis in homine acerrimi i.; de Leg. 
 3, 45 vir magni i.; ' Brut, no in quibusdam laudandi viri etiamsi 
 maximi i. non assent; Orat. 90 est autem illud acrioris i., hoc 
 maioris artis; Liv., i, 46, 4 Tarquinium, mitis i. iuvenem; 2, 23, 
 15 Appius, vehementis i. vir; 7, 23, 6 gens ferox et i. avidi ad 
 pugnam; 22, 29, 8 eum extremi i. esse; 22, 58, 8 Romani i. homo; 
 25, 37, 2 impiger iuvenis et i. ... maioris; Val. Max., i, 8, Ext. 
 18 in vate i. florentis ; 8, 8, Ext. 2 i. caelestis vates; 9, 12, 7 
 illustris i. orator; 7, 2, Ext. 7 concitati i. iuvenes; Veil. Pat., i, 7, 
 I vir perelegantis i.; 2, 75, i magni vir animi doctissimique i.; 
 Sen. rhet., Controv. 2, 2 (10), 12 summi i. viro; 2, Exc. 2 summi 
 i. ; 2, 4 (12), 8 fuit autem Messala exactissimi i. ; 3, praef. 4 vir 
 maioris i. quam studii; 7, 4 (19J, 8 Euctemon homo exactissimi 
 i-; 7> 5 (20), II Vinicius, exactissimi i. ; 7, Exc. 5 Vinicius 
 exactissimi i. ; 9, 5 (28), 15 homo rarissimi etiam si non 
 emendatissimi i. ; Suas. 2, 15 Lesbocles magni nominis et nomini 
 respondentis i. ; 2, 17 Seneca fuit . . . i. confusi ac turbulenti; 2, 
 22 homo . . . quam infelicis i. ; Sen. phil., Dial. 3, 20, 6 dicitur 
 vir i. magni magis quam boni; 5, 7, 2 qui fervidi sit i. an frigidi 
 atque humilis ; 6, 16, 4 iuvenem inlustris i. ; de Ben. 2, 27, i i. 
 fuit sterilis ; de Clem, i, 9, i stolidi i. virum ; 2, 7, 4 multos parum 
 sani sed sanabilis i. servabit ; Plin., N. H. 8, 6 est unum tardioris 
 i- ; 8, 55 vir tam artificis i. videbatur ; 9, 39 PoUio . . . prodigi et 
 sagacis ad luxuriae instrumenta i. ; 36, 51 importuni i. fuit; Tac, 
 Ann. 4, 42 Celebris i. viro; 13, 11 iactandi i. voce principis; Suet., 
 de Gram. 7 fuisse . . . i. magni ; Gell., i, 4, i fuit honesti atque 
 amoeni i. ; i, 10, 4 excellentis i. ac prudentiae viro; 19, 8, 3 vir 
 i. praecellentis ; Justinus 18, 3, 13 servilis i. ; Script. Phys , II, 
 Pseud.-Pol., 6 (F. p. 152) pauci i. est; 12 (P.p. 155) praeceps 
 est et pauci i.; total 51. 
 
 It takes but a glance at these totals, ablatives 115, genitives 51, 
 to show the insufficiency of the principles mentioned in the first 
 three of our conclusions above ; for no one would venture to assert 
 that ingenium denotes now a permanent, now a transient quality ; 
 now an internal, now an external one; now a quality "as it 
 appears," now one " as it is." 
 
 A single glance, also, is sufficient to show, in illustration of the 
 fourth proposition, that ablatives and genitives appear without 
 distinction with or without esse. 
 
 To illustrate more clearly the truth of the remaining three 
 propositions, a rearrangement of the instances is here made 
 wjiereby they will appear in one table in chronological order, 
 
 ' Magno Davis. 
 
INGENJUM IN ABLATIVE &- GENITIVE OF QUALITY. 305 
 
 as far as practicable, the ablatives and the genitives being placed in 
 separate columns and cited by the limiting adjectives only. Many 
 phrases occur repeatedly. These will appear regularly in their 
 chronological places, enclosed, after their first appearance, in 
 parentheses. The fact of their repeated occurrence will be noted 
 also at the place where the phrase first appears. 
 
 Phrases which appear in both ablative and genitive form will 
 be put in italics. 
 
 Plautus avido 
 
 duro, also in Terence 
 
 consimili 
 
 malevolente 
 
 eo, twice and also in Ennius 
 
 and GelHus 
 malo, also in Sallust 
 pudico 
 quibus 
 alio 
 
 bono, also in Terence 
 nimio 
 colubrino 
 
 feroci, twice and in Gellius 
 
 firmo 
 
 (eo) 
 
 (bono') 
 
 leni 
 
 egregio, also in Fronto twice 
 
 inhumano 
 
 (duro) 
 
 inexorabili 
 
 liberali, also in Fronto and 
 
 Gellius 
 miro 
 
 tali, also in Cicero 
 (i)sto, also in Cicero 
 unico 
 (malo) 
 pravo 
 impigro 
 acri, twice; also in Cicero 
 
 thrice; and in Frianto 
 placido, also in Fronto 
 mobili, twice 
 
 singulari, thrice, and in Pomp. 
 Mela and S. H. A. 
 
 Pacuv. 
 Ennius 
 
 Terence 
 
 Caecilius 
 Afranius 
 Sallust 
 
 Cicero 
 
 humani (humano ?) 
 
 miseri (?) 
 
3o6 
 
 GEORGE VAIL EDWARDS. 
 
 summo, eleven times 
 
 Livy 
 
 tardo, twice 
 
 tanto 
 
 quo, also in Gellius 
 
 praestanti, twice and in Gellius 
 
 inlusiri, also in Tacitus 
 
 magno, thrice 
 
 pari 
 
 acutissimo 
 
 summi, twice, second 
 time doubtful, and 
 in Sen. rhet. twice 
 
 (acri), thrice 
 
 quanto 
 
 peracri 
 
 divino, four times 
 
 praestantibus 
 
 mediocri, twice and in Gellius 
 
 praestantissimo 
 
 (isto) 
 
 acuto 
 
 probabili 
 
 parvo 
 
 acerrimo, thrice 
 
 paribus 
 
 summis 
 
 praestantissimis 
 
 tantis 
 
 magnis 
 
 hebeti, twice 
 
 nuUo 
 
 eximio 
 
 Optimo, twice 
 
 splendidissimo 
 
 (tali) 
 
 excellentis (?) 
 ac singularis (f) 
 acerrimi (J) 
 
 tnagni (magno ?) also 
 in Veil. Pat., Sen. 
 phil., and Sueton. 
 
 maximi (?) 
 
 acrioris (?) 
 
 mitis 
 
 vehementis 
 avidi adpugnam 
 extremi 
 
INGENIUM INABLA TIVE <S- GENITIVE OF Q UALITY. 307 
 
 Val. Max. 
 
 Veil. Paterc. 
 
 Curtius Ruf. horridis 
 Seneca rhet. abhorrentibus 
 
 Seneca phil. 
 
 Pliny, elder 
 
 Tacitus 
 
 portentosis 
 
 memorabili 
 procacissimis 
 
 (inlustri) 
 
 Pomp. Mela (singulari) 
 Suetonius 
 
 Fronto (egregio) twice 
 
 sublimi 
 
 Romani 
 
 maioris, also in Sen. 
 rhet. 
 
 florentis 
 caelestis 
 inlustris, also in Sen. 
 
 phil. 
 concitati 
 perelegantis 
 imagni) 
 doctissimi 
 
 {sumnti), twice 
 
 exactissimi, four times 
 
 {maioris) 
 
 rarissimi 
 
 emendatissimi 
 
 nomini respondentis 
 
 confusi 
 
 ac turbulenti 
 
 infelicis 
 
 {ynagni) 
 
 boni 
 
 fervidi 
 
 frigidi 
 
 humilis 
 
 (inlustris) 
 
 sterilis 
 
 stolidi 
 
 sani 
 
 sanabilis 
 
 tardioris 
 
 artificis 
 
 prodigi 
 
 sagacis 
 
 importuni 
 
 Celebris 
 iactandi 
 (jnagni) 
 
308 GEORGE VAIL EDWARDS. 
 
 (placido) 
 (acri) 
 libero 
 liberali 
 remisso 
 delicato 
 Gellius honesti 
 
 amoeni 
 subagresti 
 infestivo 
 (liberali) 
 
 excellentis 
 (non mediocri) 
 eleganti 
 (quo) 
 obtunso 
 (feroci) 
 (praestanti) 
 (eo) 
 
 praecellentis 
 
 facili 
 
 lubenti 
 Scrip. Hist. Aug. 
 
 Capitol. (singulari) 
 Justinus servilis 
 
 Firm. Mat. divinis 
 Physiog., Anon. 
 
 virili (?) 
 Physiog., Ps.-Pol. pauci, twice 
 
 Again the conclusions follow from our first glance through the 
 table. The ablative, very frequent in early and classical Latin, 
 almost disappears from use in Livy and the writers of the Silver 
 Age. After Tacitus it is seen again, frequently in phrases verb- 
 ally identical with those of the earlier time. The genitive 
 almost non-existent in early Latin, seems to be more frequently 
 used by Cicero. After Livy it came to be used, for a time, to the 
 almost total exclusion of the ablative, but lost this predominance, 
 later beneath the tendency of Quintilian's school to return to 
 earlier models. 
 
 As an illustration of the history of these ablative and genitive 
 constructions the list just cited would be fairly representative of 
 the whole situation. But this list of genitives can not be 
 allowed to pass without material correction. It will be observed 
 that in the table just given the genitives from Plautus and Cicero 
 
INGENIUM IN ABLATIVE &<• GENITIVE OF QUALITY. 309 
 
 have nearly all been marked doubtful. They have been cited for 
 various reasons which will appear through the discussion of them 
 in detail. 
 
 First, let us consider the example from Plautus, Most. 814 
 humani ingeni. The latest editors agree in reading Et bene 
 monitum duco atque esse existimo humani ingeni. This reading 
 makes the meter easy, for in the seventh foot of a trochaic sep- 
 tenarius a trochee |lngen|i is regular, whereas a dactyl ingenio 
 would be extremely unusual. Earlier editors, however, have not 
 reached the same agreement for the text. Guyet proposed atque 
 humano ingenio te existumo ; Ritschl, et te esse humano ingenio 
 existumo; and besides these Bentley, Miiller, Bergk, Langen and 
 others have attempted emendations of this verse. The inconsist- 
 ency of the manuscript readings tempts indeed to emendation, 
 for C and D read humani ingenio, which seems not to make sense ; 
 F and Z (the inferior codex Lipsiensis and the editio princeps) read 
 humani ingenii, while B has humani ingenio, with a correction by 
 the second hand to humano. The correction oi humani to humano 
 is simple and easy, for the corrected vowel is in an elided syllable 
 as the verse stands and is identical with the initial vowel of the 
 following word. On the other hand the change of zw^ew? at the 
 end of a line to ingenio would be difficult. It would seem, there- 
 fore, that the reading humano ingenio would be clearly superior 
 except for its metrical irregularity. How great importance is 
 to be attached to this metrical irregularity is difficult to determine. 
 Granting that a parallel instance to ^w^— at the close of^ 
 trochaic septenarius is hard to find, and that the synizesis ingenio, 
 ■^^—, does not occur elsewhere in Plautus, the fact remains that 
 Plautus is in other places by no means metrically perfect, and 
 that the manuscripts point to the ablative rather than the genitive 
 as the true reading. 
 
 To settle this balance of arguments comes now the historical 
 consideration that in early Latin such genitives of quality are 
 extremely rare and that a genitive of quality ingenii is, except for 
 this instance, totally unknown before Cicero, while the ablative of 
 quality ingenio occurs before Cicero 28 times, Plautus alone fur- 
 nishing 13 of these instances, not including the passage under 
 discussion. Therefore, the texts which give us here a genitive of 
 quality ingeni are at fault, and we should either read here with 
 the best manuscripts ingenio, in spite of the meter, or emend 
 by transposing ingenio to some other part of the line. 
 
310 GEORGE VAIL EDWARDS. 
 
 Second, let us consider the examples from Cicero, miseri, 
 summi, excellentis ac singularis, acerrimi, magni, maximi, acri- 
 oris ingenii. Each of these expressions has been cited or trans- 
 lated as a genitive of quality by some authority and hence has 
 been admitted, with or without attaching a sign of caution, to 
 the list above. We shall see from a brief discussion how little 
 some of these instances deserve a place among true genitives of 
 quality. 
 
 One of the plainest of these instances is ad Att. i, 20, i deinde 
 te . . . moderatissimum fuisse vehementissime gaudeo, idque 
 neque amoris mediocris et ingenii summi ac sapientiae iudico. 
 Clearly the meaning here is " I regard this as a mark of no small 
 affection and of the highest ability and rightmindedness," or in 
 other phrase, " as the act belonging to, or pertaining to no small, 
 etc." or " as due to no small, etc." This is not a genitive of 
 quality but a possessive. To be a genitive of quality it should 
 mean " a thing which possesses no small affection, etc." 
 
 Another instance plainly not belonging in our category is Orat. 
 90 est autem illud acrioris ingenii, hoc maioris artis. This does 
 not mean " the former possesses the keener constitution, the latter 
 the greater skill," which would be a genitive of quality, but it 
 means " the former is a thing belonging to the sharper nature, the 
 latter to the higher skill," or as Sandys translates, " while ' wit ' is 
 more a gift of nature arising from an inborn sprightliness of 
 temper, 'humor' is rather the result of refined cultivation." 
 Compare also Piderit's phrase " die/aceiiae sind mehr Sache der 
 feinen Bildung," where the genitive is one of origin. 
 
 A third instance where the question is one of interpretation is 
 de Or. 2, 298 Crassi quidem responsum excellentis cuiusdam est 
 ingenii ac singularis ; cui quidem . . . visum est. . . Some assert 
 that the passage means, " The reply of Crassus is one of a noble 
 and singular character,'' that is, possesses a noble and singular 
 character, an interpretation which makes the construction a genitive 
 of quality. It is better, however, to interpret it as a possessive, 
 and so it is interpreted by many, for instance by Guthrie, who in 
 his translation of 1808 will hardly be suspected of bias on the 
 question of the genitive of quality. He renders: "As to the 
 answer of Crassus it was the answer of a noble and elevated mind 
 who looked upon it etc." It may be added, in support of this 
 interpretation that a genitive of quality singularis would be 
 
INGENIUM INABLA TIVE <S^ GENITIVE OF Q UALITY. 3 1 1 
 
 of itself extremely unusual, especially so for Cicero, as is shown 
 in my dissertation, The Ablative of Quality and the Genitive 
 of Quality, page 30. 
 
 A fourth instance of the same character is de Or. 2, 300 
 Videsne quae vis in homine acerrimi ingenii, quam potens et 
 quanta mens fuerit ? This sentence, appearing in Livy or Seneca, 
 might well be interpreted by a genitive of quality but the great 
 rarity of this genitive in Cicero, contrasted with the frequency 
 of the ablative ingenio, gives strong support to those who interpret 
 this genitive as a possessive with vis and translate, " Do you 
 conceive what force and vigor of genius, how powerful and 
 extensive a capacity there was in that great man ? " 
 
 A fifth instance, Q. Rose. 48 Est hoc principium ' improbi animi 
 miseri ingenii nulli consilii, has similar grounds for its exclusion 
 from our category. Whether we read here principium with 
 the manuscripts and earlier editors, or adopt MUller's con- 
 jecture principio, the interpretation of the genitive remains 
 unaffected. As a genitive of quality the rendering would be, 
 " This beginning, or plan, is characterized by a wicked spirit, 
 a despicable nature, a lack of foresight." Much better seems the 
 interpretation as a mere possessive : " This is the plan of a wicked, 
 worthless, unwise individual {animus, ingenium, consilium)," 
 and this interpretation has the authority of an unprejudiced 
 scholar, Osenbriiggen, who translates, in Jahn's Archiv fiir Phil, 
 u. Paed., vol. 11 (1845), p. 574, "so legt ein schlechtes Herz, 
 ein elender Geist, ein unkluger Kopf einen Plan an." We 
 have to do in this instance with what, if accepted, would 
 be the earliest undenied example of ingenii as a genitive of 
 quality ; for the instance cited from Plautus must be denied that 
 place. It is proper, therefore, to regard the innovation with the 
 closest scrutiny and, other things being equal, to assume that it 
 is the familiar and not the novel interpretation which is to be 
 accepted. Many editors call attention in this passage to the 
 archaic character of the genitive form nulli, which would indicate 
 an early origin for the whole phrase. Osenbriiggen suggests 
 that Cicero is quoting the words of some poet. The suggestion 
 is not unreasonable and its acceptance, owing to the rarity of all 
 such genitives of quality in the early times, would render still more 
 unlikely an interpretation of these genitives as genitives of quality. 
 
 1 Principio MUUer. 
 
312 GEORGE VAIL EDWARDS. 
 
 A sixth instance presents an objection of a different sort : Brut, 
 no in quibusdam laudandi viri, etiamsi maximi ingenii non 
 essent, probabiles tamen industria. In this case the text is cor- 
 rupt. Klotz, Orelli, Ellendt, Kayser, Jahn-Eberhard, Piderit, 
 Stangl and others read as above, with all the manuscripts. On 
 the other hand Peter, Madvig, Friedrich and others read " lau- 
 dandis viris . . . probabilis etc." The manuscripts on which the 
 text rests are all derived from the lost Laudensis, itself not a 
 codex of perfect authority, and the difficulties of the passage are 
 so great that editors have not stopped with brief conjectures, but 
 Eberhard has rejected the clause " etiamsi . . . essent," and Bake 
 discards as spurious the whole passage " in quibusdam . . . 
 industria." It is but fair to say that our passage might derive some 
 support for maximi ingenii as a genitive of quality from three con- 
 siderations; first, the Brutus is one of Cicero's later works, so 
 that ing;enii)\&x& might have been used after the analogy of many 
 of his other genitives of quality ; second, the genitive of quality 
 with the adjective maxifni is one of the earliest and most frequent 
 of the forms through which the genitive of quality attained its 
 Ciceronian development ; third, Cicero had probably once before 
 used one genitive of quality, ingenii, though of a somewhat 
 different type. Notwithstanding these circumstances the fact 
 remains that ingenii here is opposed to Cicero's regular usage, 
 is almost unexampled at the date of its supposed occurrence and 
 appears in a difficult passage of much-doubted MS authority and 
 in a phrase which some editors hold to be spurious. 
 
 Two more illustrations from Cicero must be cited. One of 
 these, our seventh, is perhaps a true genitive of quality though of 
 exceptional character. Caec. 5 video summi ingenii causam esse. 
 "Qua in re," says Cicero, "si mihi esset unius A. Caecinae 
 causa agenda, profiterer satis idoneum esse me defensorem . . . 
 Sed quum de eo mihi iure dicendum sit quod pertineat ad 
 omnes . . . video summi ingenii causam esse non ut id demon- 
 stretur quod . . . , sed ne omnes, etc." If the meaning here is, " I 
 see that the case is one calling for the highest ability," then 
 although not of the ordinary type, which would be, "a case having 
 an ability of the highest order," yet it is to be distinguished from 
 the mere possessives discussed above and is to be compared 
 rather with those figurative expressions of early origin which 
 have been assigned to this construction, as de Or. i, 257 Multi 
 sudoris res ; ad Fam. 9, 24, 4 multi cibi hospitem, multi ioci. 
 
INGENIUM IN ABLATIVE <&- GENITIVE OF QUALITY. 313 
 
 The eighth and last instance is a puzzle: de Leg. 3, 45 vir 
 magni ingenii summaque prudentia. The expression has been 
 fully discussed in the writer's dissertation, The Ablative of 
 Quality and the Genitive of Quality, pp. 54 and 55, where the 
 conclusion is reached that, in spite of the agreement of all manu- 
 scripts, Cicero may have written, as some editors think, magno 
 ingenio. Otherwise we should have here, as Stegmann remarks, 
 "eine eigeiithiimliche Mischung." 
 
 Of all these supposed instances of the use oiingenii SiS a genitive 
 of quality before Livy, nearly every one, then, has some ground to 
 warrant its exclusion from our category, the exceptions being only 
 one or two of those last cited. 
 
 With this reconstruction of the historical aspect of our genitive 
 ingenii "KQ are brought next to the sixth point of our discussion, 
 namely, the preservative influence which the early prominence of 
 the ablative ingenio exerted upon its later use. 
 
 Having reduced the number of Cicero's examples of ingenii to 
 one or two, we find the proportion of genitives very small for this 
 noun. Of all Cicero's ablatives of quality one in every twenty 
 occurs with ingenium ; of Cicero's genitives of quality not one 
 in a hundred occurs with this noun. The ready inference is that 
 the great frequency of ingenio helped to maintain its own use and 
 to hinder the use of ingenii, on the principle that familiar ideas 
 tend to recur to the mind in their familiar form. 
 
 A further consideration of the table will illustrate more widely 
 the operation of this principle. Of the 28 adjectives used with 
 the ablative ingenio before Cicero, 12 recur with ingenio in later 
 writers; in all 17 times. Of the' 24 instances of ingenio as an 
 ablative of quality occurring after Suetonius, 1 1 are phrases dating 
 from a period at least as far back as Cicero. On the other hand few 
 of the conventional ablative phrases were ever changed to 
 the genitive form. So of the 40 new genitive phrases with 
 ingenii appearing after Cicero, only 3 show adjectives which 
 have been used in corresponding ablative phrases, and 
 two of these even seem to apologize for their form by the 
 addition of qualifying phrases: with Plautus' avido ingenio 
 compare Livy's ingenii avidi ad pugnam, and with Plautus' 
 bono ingenio compare Livy's ingenii magni magis quam boni. 
 Furthermore the transformation of an ablative phrase into 
 a genitive phrase seems at times distinctly avoided by means 
 
314 GEORGE VAIL EDWARDS. 
 
 of a synonym; so with Terence's ingenio leni compare Livy's 
 miHs ingenii; with Cicero's ingeniis praestantibus, ingeniis prae- 
 sianHssimis, ingenio praestantissimo and with Cicero's and GelHus' 
 ingenio praestanii compare Gellius' ingenii praecellentis, ex- 
 cellentis, but never praesiantis. 
 
 From the above discussion must appear the truth of the seventh 
 of the propositions enumerated at the beginning of this paper, 
 namely, that the historical factor is of very great importance 
 for the understanding of our constructions. If the investigator 
 were to stop with the writers preceding Livy, or with the phil- 
 osopher Seneca, the evidence of the forces which were operating 
 to control the usage would be incomplete. It is only by a more ex- 
 tended investigation that the operation upon these constructions 
 of two forces, analogy and the desire for a change of style, is 
 brought clearly to the surface. 
 
 Olivet College, Mich. GeORGE VAIL EdWARDS. 
 
MAGIC IN THEOKRITOS AND VERGIL.i 
 
 No one who will read the Greek and Latin versions of the 
 love-incantations given in the second idyl of Theokritos and the 
 eighth eclogue of Vergil can fail to be impressed with the greater 
 vigor and intensity of the Greek original. The reason, and a very 
 cogent one, which drives Simaitha to magic rites is given in v. 36 ' 
 
 Si ii€ ToKaivav 
 avri yuvaixif edijKC kokov Koi airapBevov tliitv. 
 
 So in speaking of her lover (v. 3) she says toi/ ffj-bv fiapiiv elvra 
 (jjiKov KoraSijo-o/iai av8pa; she terms him avapaios (v. 6) and speaks 
 (v. 159) of the sorrow that he brings to her al 8' In nai fit \ Xyn-ei. 
 
 Nor is her charm designed to have but a gentle effect upon 
 
 Delphis; note v. 21 irdaa-', apia Koi Xeye Taiira' ' ra AeKt^ibos oa-ria 
 iraaaa' , V. 26 ourai rot (cm AcX<^i; iv\ <fi\oyX aapK ap,a6vvoi , \. 50 
 (tat is ToSc bafia ncpdtrai \ naivoftevm iKiXos , V. 6 1 koI \ey im<j>6v^oiaa' 
 'to. A</V<^i8o9 oiTTia fidava' (cf. V. 2l), V. 159 rav 'AiSao nv\av 
 vol Molpas apa^fi which re-echoeS V. 6 oiSe dipas apa^fv dvdp(Ttos. 
 
 Again we may note Simaitha's earnest protestations of passion 
 and her remarks on the power of love in v. 23 AA<^tr l/i' dvlaaev, 
 
 V. 35 d\X' fVl Tijcft) naa-a KaTaiSofiat' cf. V. 6 and V. 55 if. 
 
 In general, however, the incantation of Theokritos contains 
 very little poetic digression.' The charm is described and carried 
 out in a quick succession of actions through which these notes 
 of anguish and anger keep ever recurring. 
 
 In turning to Vergil, a much less technical and a far milder treat- 
 
 1 Owing to the untimely death of the author, Dr. Morris C. Sutphen, who 
 was drowned In the Shrewsbury River on August 31, 1901, this article, 
 which was left by him in manuscript, did not have the benefit of his final 
 revision. 
 
 5 The references are to Ahrens, Bucolicorum Graecorum Reliquiae, Lips. 
 
 1861. 
 3 The exceptions are vv. 33-36, 45-6, 48-9, SS-6. 
 
3l6 MORRIS C. SUTPHEN. 
 
 ment of the theme is at once noticeable. There is no prologue with 
 magic invocation, no story of a maiden cruelly wronged. There 
 is a lover, of course, — for so we must probably take the meaning 
 of coniugis (v. 66) ' — but faithless Daphnis is not faithless Delphis. 
 There is also a certain softening of the details that were borrowed 
 
 from TheokritOS; for example v. 21 vaaa , S/ia koI X«ye raCra' TO 
 
 AA(/)iSor So-Tia Trdo-o-w' appears in Vergil (v. 78) as necte, Amarylli, 
 modo et 'Veneris ' die 'vincula necto.' In each poem mention is 
 made of the barking of dogs; but in Theokritos (v. 30) Simaitha 
 interprets the sound to indicate the approach of the dread Hekate, 
 in Vergil (v. 107) it is apparently a favorable omen. 
 
 If we exclude the introductory lines in Theokritos the two 
 poems are of almost exactly the same length, the actual incantation 
 covering forty-four hexameters in Theokritos and forty-five in 
 Vergil or if we further exclude the intercalary verse — thirty-five 
 in one and thirty-six in the other, since the first intercalary in 
 Theokritos (v. 17) and the re-echoing of the intercalary in Vergil 
 (v. 109) are, I believe, not properly parts of these incantations. 
 I have indicated that the purely poetic element in Theokritos is 
 slight ; in Vergil, on the other hand, there are two long digressions 
 ori the power of carmina — a hackneyed subject in later Latin 
 poetry' — vv. 69-71 and 95-99, and five lines are used to imitate 
 a simile which was borrowed from Varius (vv. 85-89) " to parallel 
 two lines in Theokritos (vv. 45-6). 
 
 A still wider divergence is noted when we investigate the form 
 of each incantation. 
 
 The recent publications of magic papyri, particularly those 
 edited by C. Wessely in Denkschriften d. k. Akad. der Wiss. zu 
 Wien, phil.-hist. CI., vol. 36, II (1888) and 42 (1893), enable us to 
 investigate each poem, but more especially the idyl of Theokritos, 
 in a manner that before was impossible. The words of Theokritos 
 
 ^ So of one's betrothed : Verg. Aen. 3,330 (Forbiger); 9, 138 (Conington). 
 Euphemistically: Prop. 2, 8, 29; Ovid, her. 8, 84 ; Verg. eel, 8, 18; Aen. 7> 
 189 (but cp. Conington). 
 
 2 Cf. Verg. Aen. 4, 489, TibuU. i, 2, 43; i, 8, 19; Propert. 4, 5, 9 J Ovid 
 am. 1, 8, 17 ; 2, i, 23 ; rem. am. 253 ; her. 6, 85 ; met. 7, 199 ; med. fac. 35 ; 
 Petron. 134, Sen. Here. Oet. 454; Apul. met. 1,3, ApoU. Rhod. Arg. 3, 
 532. See A. Zingerle, Ovidius und sein Verhaltniss zu den Vorgangern, 
 
 P- 75- 
 
 'Macrob. 6, 2, 20. 
 
MAGIC IN THEOKRITOS AND VERGIL. 317 
 
 in the few lines that sketch the invocation show some strong 
 points of agreement with these papyri. 
 
 Wessely' comments on verbal agreements. So Theokritos 
 in V. lo vvv hi vw Ik Bviav Koradijiro/iai uses two magical termini 
 iechnici, Karabea with which may be compared the general use 
 of this verb and its accompanying noun Karaheaiios in these papyri, 
 and Bvftov, with which Wessely compares pap. Par. 2575 ij bflva 
 
 <roi 6vfi 6ta Seii/di' rt dv/iiaa-fia ; further pap. Par. 2866 aapKo<jia.yi . • . 
 i\6e in eiiais 6v<rlats. Again the epithets in V. 11 Slavx^' Saiiiov and 
 
 in V. 14 xo'p' 'EKora 8ao-)rX^Ti are found together in pap. Par. 2856 
 
 t\<TV)^e Kol Saff-jrX^Ti.' With V. 12 rav Koi cKvXaKcr rpofiiovTi, note the 
 
 epithet of Hekate, pap. Par. 2722 iTKv\aKdyeta and Ps.-Origen. 
 
 refut. Omn. haeres. IV, 35 xaipovira aKvKaKoiiv vXaKJj re KOI aiiuiTi <f>otv^.* 
 A parallel with V. 13 ipxa/J-evav vtKvav avd T r/pla Ka\ p-tKav aXfia IS 
 found in pap. Par. 2856 ijirvxe koI floffirX^n Td(j>oit (Vi Saira ix"^'"' ' 
 
 and the citation from Ps.-Origenes just quoted x^povo-a <rKv\aKa>v 
 
 iiXaK^ re fcai ai/xart (f)Otv£, | dv vcKvat (TTflxovaa kut r/pia Teflci/uroiii, . . . 
 I eXdois evdvTriTos e(p' ^/leTepj/at dvijXotr. 
 
 Further attention may be directed to v. 11 <j)aive KoKdp with which 
 
 compare pap. Par. 1045 c'c^Xde koI <f>dvri6i' /xoi iXapor ev/ifpfis trpais. 
 
 The epic and tragic verb oirdSti (v. 14) is reflected in pap. Par. 
 
 948 a-divas avTos oTrafoir. With the epithet x^<»"'(> (v. 1 2) t? x^°>"'? 
 
 e' 'E/edr? compare pap. Par. 1443 'Ekutij x^ovla, pap. Lond. (Anastasy) 
 335. Theokritos says (v. 40) 
 
 xi>s SiveW o8e po/i^os 6 xd^Ktos f| 'A<j)poBiTas 
 Ar rijvos fiivoiro nod A/ieTepjidi Svpjjaiv 
 
 a parallel to which occurs in pap. Par. 2782 trnevSt rdxiar. ^bij en 
 
 c/otaicri 6vpai(Tt jrapeVroj, 2757 «'"■' eiiatat OvpaKri rdxiara \r)6oiifvri Toiuav ' re 
 
 ' Denkschriften d. k. Akad. der Wiss. zu Wien, 1888, II, p. 27. 
 
 » For the term vavxe applied to the moon see pap. Par. 2544. 
 
 ' These two epithets, apparently so contradictory, arise from the invoca- 
 tion to the moon as the kindly goddess Selene (of. Roscher, Selene und 
 Verwandtes, p. 75 ff.) and as Hekate the dread mistress of ghosts, see 
 Dilthey, Rhein. Mus. 27, 390. 
 
 •» Dilthey, Rhein. Mus. 27, 388. 
 
 " See A. Dieterich, Nekyia, Leipzig, 1893, p. 52 fi. 
 
 •The adjuration i^aivc (^avrr&i) occurs frequently in the magic papyri, cf. 
 pap. Par. 1002, 1007, 1015, 1019 etc. 
 
 ' See Dilthey's conjecture, Rhein. Mus. 27, 405 and Abel, Orphica, p. 290, 
 V. 29. 
 
3l8 MORRIS C. SUTPHEN. 
 
 trvvTjdeiijs re TtKvatv <Ir€^ koX aTvyeovtra to irav dvdpav yevos JjSe yvvaiKav 
 is ToS' e'fioB ToO 8(eii'a) /idyov S' ?/i' ?;^ou(ra irapiara iv (jipeirl dafivafievj) 
 
 KpaTepjjs in tparos avayKris. With this compare further Theokritos 
 
 V. 45 Tutraov e;^ot \d6ai and V. 44 etT« ■yuva ti/co) napaKCKKiTai sire leai aK^p 
 
 and pap. Par. 2737 ff.' 
 
 ptjStTTOTt ^\i<jiapov ^\f<f>dpco' KvWiarov (koXXijtov, \VeSSeIy) cTrfKdoi, 
 Tfipicr6a> 8 eV* ifiaicn (jtCKaypvirvoiiri fiepifipais, 
 €1 8i Tlv^ oKKov f\ois iv KoKnois \os\ KaraKcirai, 
 K^lvov dtrunrdaBia, ifie 8 iv (f>pea\v iyKaraBefrOai 
 Ka\ npoXiirovaa rdxKTT in e'/uoic npodvpoiai napeara, 
 iaiivafiivri yj/vxri in ifiy <J)CK.6tj)ti koX ivvjj. 
 
 Verse 51 koi is riiSe iapia nepdaai : note pap. Par. 2756 tuuvofiivt) ^8ij 
 Koi in' ijiaiiTi Bipauri rd^KTra and 2908 avatra' ixcrS) Sf ov t^v Seiva Td^urTa 
 IxoKovirav i\6civ iv npoOvpouriv ipiov rov beiva (j)i\6TrjTi Ka\ fvvfj. 
 
 In investigating the various magical properties we find the 
 SKtjiiTa ofv. 18 mentioned in pap. Par. 2583, 2586, 2647; the pdiifios 
 6 xoXxtor (v. 40) in pap. Par. 2296 and 2336 pofL^os aiSiipoSs; Kijpdr 
 (v. 38) frequently, pap. Par. 1878, 2359, 2378, 2945, 31 14 etc.; 
 mrvpa (v. 28) in pap. Par. 2580. 
 
 Two facts are plainly evident; that the actual language of these 
 incantations and the words of Theokritos are much alike, and 
 that the magical properties employed are also mentioned, in great 
 part, in the magic papyri. 
 
 In the eclogue of Vergil no sketch of an invocation is given 
 and the amount of space taken up with the description of the 
 magic rites is relatively so small, that little can be found suggestive 
 of an incantation in the wording of the poem. However, even 
 here, all editors note the internal rhyme of v. 80 
 
 Limus ut hie durescit, et baec ut cera liquescit 
 
 as a magical reminiscence. Many interesting examples of such 
 rhyming syllables have been collected by R. Heim in Jahrb., 
 Supplementband 19, p. 544 ff.' To these I would add a striking 
 
 ' Dilthey, Rhein. Mus. 27, 398. 
 ' Cf. Shakspere, Macbeth, i, 3. 
 
 > See especially Marcell. 8, 191 and Varro, r. r.i, 2, 27; cf. also the remarks 
 of Woelfflin, ALL. i, 365 and 3, 454, and of BOcheler, Rhein. Mus. 34, 343. 
 
MAGIC IN THEOKRITOS AND VERGIL. 319 
 
 instance in the Medea of Dracontius 398 (PLM. V, p. 206 Baehr.) 
 where Medea is described addressing the moon : 
 
 Ac nocturnorum triplex regina polorum 
 Atque tenebrarum splendens patrona nigrarum 
 
 with which may also be compared pap. Lugd. 7, 30 ff.' 
 
 ou r^ Svofia (j>v) ^ yrj aKovvaaa 
 cXiVirerai, 6 ifBrfs oKovap Tapcitr(rlra^, 
 iroTafiol 6d\aa<Ta Xt^vai iri]ya\ OKOvovtrai 
 irrj-yvvvTai, at irirpai aKova-airai pfiyvvvTai. 
 
 But in Theokritos and Vergil we have a very strong magical 
 reminiscence to which too little attention has been paid— the 
 intercalary verse and the number of times that it is repeated. 
 
 The intercalary verse is of ancient origin — perhaps it is as old 
 as poetry itself. Its artistic use was appreciated in bucolic poetry 
 in Theokritos' idyls i and 2, in Bion's 'ETrira^io; 'hbi>vibos and 
 in the third idyl of Moschos." In Latin literature it was used by 
 Catullus,' by Vergil* in the eighth eclogue, Ovid her. 9, (vv. 146, 
 152, 158, 164), am. I, 6, in the Pervigilium Veneris, incert. epist. 
 Didonis (PLM. IV, p. 272 Baehr.) and in Ausonius eel. VI, pre- 
 catio p. 17 (Schenkl). 
 
 No intercalary appears in any of the shorter charms cited by 
 Heim nor, as far as I can discover, in the magic papyri. An ex- 
 cellent parallel however exists in a Chaldean incantation given 
 by Lenormant, La magie chez les Chald^ens, p. 75 (English 
 translation). 
 
 The evil, which is in my body, in my flesh, and in my bones. 
 May (all that) be broken in pieces and plucked up 
 
 As this twig. 
 May the burning fire devour it this day, 
 May the evil fate depait and I behold the light again, 
 
 ' A. Dieterich, Jahrb., Suppl. 16, p. 808. 
 
 ' K. Feiper, Jahrb. 87 (1864), 449 and 456; further literature in Susemihl, 
 Gesch. d. gr. Litt. in der Alexandrinerzeit I, p. 216, n. 58. 
 
 ' See Ziwsa, Wien. Stud. 3, 298. 
 
 * Brandt, p. 7, de re metrica qua usus est Vergilius in eclogis, Festsch., 
 Salzwedel, 1882. 
 
320 MORRIS C. SUTPHEN. 
 
 As this wool is rent, so also shall this spell be, 
 
 The burning fire shall devour it. 
 May the burning fire devour it this day, 
 May the evil fate depart and I behold the light again. 
 
 Other close parallels occur in Sanskrit' literature, especially 
 in the sixth book of the Atharva-Veda which is concerned with 
 charms for gaining the passionate love of a man or a woman. 
 Here the intercalary is frequently employed; VI, 30, may yonder 
 man burn after me;'' cf. VI, 8 ; VI, 139.' Such incantations form 
 very close parallels with the second idyl of Theokritos. 
 
 A matter of still greater importance is the number of the inter- 
 calaries. Lenormant* makes the suggestive remark that these 
 are used not merely for metrical adornment, but have actual 
 reference to magic procedure. There is no doubt that the number 
 of intercalaries, if they are to have magic significance, should be 
 three or a multiple of three." T\i& locus classicus for the religious 
 and magic use of three and its multiples is Ausonius griph. 26, 
 p. 129 (Schenkl); note especially v. 4 
 
 luris idem tribus est quod ter tribus, omnia in istis. 
 
 The number three occurs very often in Heim's collection," twenty- 
 seven seems to be next in frequency, closely followed by nine.' 
 In both Theokritos and Vergil three is fairly well represented ; 
 Hekate is expected at the third turn of the iynx wheel (Theokr. 
 II, 31) and Simaitha pours out her libation three times, v. 43. 
 In Vergil note the three magic colors (v. 73), the triple circum- 
 ambulation of the altar ' (v. 74), and the binding of three love-knots 
 (v. 77) each of three colors. 
 
 * Kaegi, Der Rig-Veda, n. 83, A. 
 
 '' I cite from Bloomfield, The Atharva-Veda, 1899. 
 
 * So in charms to ward off disease, I, 25 ; II, 10 ; III, 31 etc. 
 
 * Rhein. Mus. 9, 376. 
 
 ^Heim, notwithstanding the experience gained by the collection of 
 about two hundred and fifty i ncantamenta, says (1. c, p. 511) 'fortasse 
 etiam afferri carmen decies repetitum necesse est.' But ten, as a magic 
 number, has hardly any significance ; see further his remarks upon magic 
 numbers, pp. 542-3. 
 
 •Seenos.49, 52, 69,82, 84 etc; for twenty-seven, nos. Sii94. 100, 118 etc • 
 ninety-nine, no. 187; nine, nos. 38, 58, 184, 196, 226. 
 •' See also Woelfflin, ALL. 9, 334 ff. 
 
 'Perhaps <> prophylactic ceremony; cf. Verg. Aen. 11, 188 ter circum 
 accensos cincti fulgentibus armis | decurrere rogos. 
 
MAGIC IN THEOKRITOS AND VERGIL. 321 
 
 The number nine appears to be associated directly with the 
 tfeoi x^tji/ioi;' compare TibuU. i, 5, 15 
 
 Ipse ego velatus filo tunicisque solutis 
 Vota novtm Triviae nocte silente dedi. 
 
 So Ovid, fast. 5, 439 
 
 Hoc navies dicit, nee respicit.' 
 
 Since three and its multiples appear to possess magic significance 
 we must assume that Theokritos chose nine " as the number best 
 suited for his artistic purpose. 
 
 At once objection will be made that there are still ten repetitions 
 of the intercalary in Theokritos. In reply to such objections, 
 it may be said that the intercalary verse, in general, follows the 
 colon to which it is attached and artistically separates it from the 
 following colon. But this is not a necessary or invariable usage. 
 At times we find an introductory verse afterwards repeated as an 
 intercalary. This seems to be the case in the first idyl of Theo- 
 kritos where Spxtre PouKoXixSr, Mottrai (jylXai, Spj^ir' aoi&at merely 
 
 introduces the song of Thyrsis which follows. Again, in the 
 
 'Emratpioe 'Afian-tdor the first line Starts with the words ataC' 2> t6v "ASan-ii' 
 
 foreshadowing the intercalary which first appears in v. 6 ainf ' Z> tw 
 
 'ASaviv' i7rata(ov<Tiv Eparts. 
 
 The same artistic plan has been followed, in my opinion, in the 
 second idyl. To express this in musical terms, we have a prelude, 
 vv. 1-16, followed by the intercalary verse (v. 17) which serves as 
 the motif, expressing the ever-recurring thought and keeping the 
 object of the incantation before the mind. Thus it forms an artistic 
 separation between the invocation and the incantation. The latter 
 
 • See Lersch, Antiquitates Vergilianae, §70, p. zio and Servius on Verg. 
 Aen. VI, 426 and 565. 
 
 « See further Ovid met. 7, 261 and 7, 234. 
 
 ' For farther literature on the significance of the number nine see Jahn, 
 Ueber den Aberglauben des besen Blicks, p. 95, n. 277, Diels, Sibyll. 
 Blatter, p. 41, n. i. Compare Shakspere's Macbeth, act. i, sc. 3 : 
 
 The weird sisters, hand in hand 
 Posters of the sea and land 
 Thus do go about, about. 
 Thrice to thine and thrice to mine 
 And thrice again to make up nine, 
 feace 1 the charm's wound up. 
 21 
 
322 MORRIS C. SVTPHEN. 
 
 also — or to be more exact — the first and last cola end, if so I may 
 term it, on the same note, to AcX^idoi Soria irao-o-ci) (v. 21) and rh. 
 
 Ae\(j)tioc Sana fiavaa (v. 6l}* 
 
 Again the use of jTparov (v. 18), aX0ird Toi nparov irvpl TaKcrai, 
 
 indicates that the actual rites of magic have just been started, 
 while in v. 3 ^apiiv cSi/ra (pOiov KaTabritrofiai avbpa Simaitha speaks 
 of them as future action. But if this is the case the first inter- 
 calary is merely used with artistic not magical intent. 
 
 Confidence in this theory may be strengthened by the fact that 
 the incantation proper consists of just nine magic actions each 
 accompanied by a subsidiary wish expressed, or suppressed for 
 artistic reasons and separated by the turning of the iynx wheel, 
 the whir of which is plainly heard in the intercalary. In the first 
 colon comes the burning of the SKcjuTa with the partially expressed 
 wish (v. 21) TO Ae'X(^idar Sana ndaaa. Then the Sa^vij is thrown On the 
 
 fire and the wish (v. 26) follows ourw toi kqi AeX(f)is ivl cl>\oyl ardpK 
 
 apaBivoi.' In the third colon the wirvpa are introduced but the 
 wish is artistically suppressed through Simaitha's dread of the 
 expected appearance of Hekate. The fourth colon contains 
 neither magic rite nor wish but serves to break the monotony 
 arising necessarily from the description of a close succession 
 of technical actions. Note, however, that the fifth colon contains 
 izvo actions, one of which properly belongs to the fourth division 
 of the charm, each with its accompanying wish, v. 39 and v. 41. 
 The libation (v. 43) and the wish with a slight poetic addition 
 which again dispels monotony, fill out the sixth part. The seventh 
 is perfectly regular with magic act (v. 48) and wish (vv. 50-1). 
 A natural outburst of feeling' which takes the place of the formal 
 expression of the wish, gives color to the eighth colon, while the 
 ninth with its suggestion of a more powerful incantation brings 
 the poem to a fitting close. 
 
 If this theory is true for Theokrilos, it should also hold good 
 for the imitation by Vergil in the eighth eclogue. Here if we 
 
 iSee BUcheler, Rhein. Mus. 15, 451 and Ribbeck, Rhein. Mus. 17, 551. 
 
 2 For the form of this wish see Kuhnert, Rhein. Mus. 49, 54 ff. 
 
 »It may be noted that ra; ;f/la«'vaf rd Kpdanedov is the only thing thrown 
 into the magic fire which is personally as well as symbolically suggestive 
 of the faithless lover. 
 
MAGIC IN THEOKRITOS AND VERGIL. 323 
 
 follow the MS tradition and retain v. 76' we have again but nine 
 intercalaries, since the last line of the poem 
 
 Parcite, ab urbe venit, iam parcite, cartnina, Daphnis 
 
 is no true intercalary but a mere re-echoing of it, a parallel 
 to V. 61 in the first half of the eclogue 
 
 Desine Maenalios, iam desine, tibia, versus, 
 
 itself a direct imitation of the change of the intercalary in Theo- 
 kritos' first idyl. Each verse is used as a fitting and artistic close 
 to its own poem. 
 
 Nor does the incantation in Vergil really end with the seventh 
 intercalary (v. 94) though no following acts of magic are men- 
 tioned. Apparently the rest of the poem is taken up with 
 preparations for a new incantation and a hint of the final happy 
 dinouement. But we must not forget the iynx wheel or the art of 
 Vergil. After asking for stronger herbs the enchantress repeats 
 her charm (v. 100) for the eighth time. Then supposing that the 
 magic fire is really dead — she terms it cineres — she bids Amaryllis 
 cast the ashes over her head into running water, and with the 
 despairing cry ' nihil ille deos, nil carmina curat ' completes her 
 charm by the final turn of the wheel. Note the instantaneous 
 transition from despair to hope (v. 105) ; 
 
 Aspice : corripuit tremulis altaria flammis 
 Sponte sua, dum Cerre moror. 
 
 The maid' has seen a last red spark which brightens into life — 
 with life there's hope — the dog barks — and lo I the faithless lover 
 appears. 
 
 In retaining the intercalary at v. 76 we avoid Charybdis but we 
 must sail uncomfortably close to Scylla. It is charged that its 
 retention violently breaks the sense of the colon and shatters the 
 strophic arrangement of the two parts of the poem. In answer to 
 the first objection it may be said that we have two undoubtedly 
 different acts of magic separated by v. 76. The winding (v. 74) 
 is merely preliminary to the solemn circumambulation of the 
 altar — the main magic act of the first half, while the actual tying 
 
 ' This verse is retained by Ribbeck, Heyne-Wagner, Paldamus, Coning- 
 ton and Papillon, braclceted by Tliilo, Kappes and Benoist, and omitted by 
 Ladewig, Kolster, Forbiger, Walz and Hermes. 
 
 >I follow Ribbecli's arrangement of the dialogue. 
 
324 MORRIS C. SUTPHEN. 
 
 of the vincula Veneris * is, in reality, a distinct step onward in the 
 progfress of the incantation. 
 
 To meet the objections of the metricians, we must consider the 
 warrant that they have for the omission of v. 76. Of course no 
 one will assert that metrical unity should be violated between the 
 two halves of the poem by the retention of v. 76, unless we have 
 a corresponding intercalary at v. 28, the only place, it may be 
 noted, in the first half of the eclogue where, within a five-line colon, 
 the grammatical sense would not be broken." Ribbeck, follow- 
 ing y, retains the intercalary at v. 28 against the authority of M 
 and P. This may seem daring, but if we believe that there is 
 a cogent reason for the retention of the intercalary at v. 76, what 
 appears daring is after all only right and reasonable. 
 
 One or two points connected with these magic incantations 
 require a more extended treatment. 
 
 On terna . . . licia (eel. viii, 73) Servius says : terna : tria : tria 
 alba, tria rosea, et tria nigra; the schol. Bern, novem intelligimus 
 ... id est, alba, rosea, nigra omnia trinum numerum habentia. 
 That Servius meant by rosea the color called puniceus is evident 
 from his note on Aen. v, 269 puniceis ibant evincti temporibus : 
 vittis roseis. Hence the magic colors were red, white and black.' 
 
 The color red in antiquity has been the subject of considerable 
 investigation,' from which we reach the result ihaX purpureus and 
 puniceus correspond most closely to that color which we term 
 red. This color in ancient superstition appears to possess a 
 distinct prophylactic quality.' In anthol. Pal. 5, 205, 5 the iynx 
 wheel is bound with it ; in Theokritos II, 2 red fillets are twined 
 
 ' See Heim, 1. c, p. 484, n. i. 
 
 ''An examination of other five-line cola will show that it would be 
 manifestly unfortunate to attempt the insertion of an intercalary at v. 39 or 
 V. S4 ••> the first half and equally unfortunate at v. 87 or 97 in the second 
 half. 
 
 'This triplicate of colors is directly associated with Ilekate, the especial 
 goddess of magic, by Eusebius praep. evan. 5, 14 ioTL 6i eiinPoTM fiiv r^r 
 'Exdrw Knpii rpixpufiog, iic ^evkov koI fiihivoc xal epvdpov awearij;, ixav rmov 
 'E/tdri/f. 
 
 < Price, Am. Journ. Phil. 4, 15, Jordan, Jahrb. 113, 164, H. BlUmner, ALL. 
 6, 401, 
 
 , ' Lobeck, Aglaoph. 1257 I.; Jahn, 1. c, p. 42, n. 47 ; Propert. 5, 9, 51 (M.); 
 TertuU. apol. 13; Aesch. Eumen. 1007. 
 
MAGIC IN THEOKRITOS AND VERGIL. 325 
 
 about the altar. On the other hand, Artemidoros i, 77 says «x" 
 
 yap Ttva to noptjivpovv XP^I"" <TViiira6uav npit t6v Savarov', Compare 
 
 Aesch. Eumen. 1007.' Red has then evident magic qualities and 
 associated with white and black we have the magic — or to be 
 more exact — the moon-colors.' 
 
 In Apuleius met. 11, 2 Lucius invokes the moon: regina caeli, 
 sive tu Ceres . . . seu tu caelestis Venus, • . . seu Phoebi soror - . . 
 seu nocturnis ululatibus horrenda Proserpina triformi facie lar- 
 vales impetus comprimens. The cult of all these divinities is 
 associated with that of the moon-goddess. ' The caelestis Venus is 
 evidently Luna or Selene herself, a prominent figure in love- 
 incantations.' Ceres is at times associated with the moon,* 
 Artemis is the second one of the regular triad,' while Hekate, the 
 third, is often confused with Persephone.' Such a four-fold lunar 
 divinity appears in magic papyri, pap. Par. 2561 TtTpaobnt, but 
 rpioSm, V. 2525; 
 
 When now the lunar divinity appears to Lucius she is described 
 with the words : multicolor bysso tenui pertexta, nunc albo can- 
 dore lucida, nunc croceo flore lutea, nunc rosea rubore flammida, 
 et quae longe longeque etiam meum confutabat optutum, palla 
 nigerrima splendescens atro nitore.' 
 
 Here evidently exists a color distinction for this manifold lunar 
 divinity in her different manifestations.' That white is associated 
 with Luna or Selene hardly requires proof. Her color is often 
 likened to silver' or to swan's-down. With the remarks of 
 Apuleius compare also Prudentius contr. Symmach. 1,365 denique 
 cum luna est, sublustri splendet amictu ; Euseb. praep. evan. IH, 
 
 II, 32 'Ekotij hi 17 o-tX^i/i; -naKiv . . . Si6 rpifioptpos ^ Simpis, T^r piv 
 rovpi]viat (pipovira Trjv Xevxdpova Kal xpvtroirdvdaKov. 
 
 Yellow was also frequently and persistently associated with 
 Demeter-Ceres," while black was appropriate and symbolic for 
 
 ' See Jahrb. Archaeol. Instit. 1894, Anz. p. 81. 
 
 ' For these magic colors in Sanskrit and German folk-lore see Kuhn, 
 Zeitschrift fUr vergl. Sprachf. 13, 148. 
 
 » See Roscher, Selene, p. 83, n. 326 and Hildebrand on the passage in 
 Apuleius, 
 
 *Roscher, 1. c, p. i2S,.n. 531. 'Ibid. p. 116. 'Ibid. p. 119. 
 
 ' See Dieterich, Abraxas, p. 103. ' Ibid. p. ig. 
 
 » See BlUmner, Farbenbezeichnungen bei den r5m. Dichtern. 
 
 '"Dieterich, Nekyia, pp. 26 and 38. 
 
326 MORRIS C. SUTPHEN. 
 
 Hekate ; cf. the epithets in magic papyri yux'Oi x^'"''"' /'e^a>'"V'»»'- 
 But to connect the color red with Artemis-Diana is a matter of 
 greater difficulty, though this color was strongly associated with 
 Phoebus Apollo/ and it is but natural that it should also be indic- 
 ative of the Phoebi soror (Apul. met. ii, 3). 
 
 It may be noted that Venus, appearing to Aeneas (Aen. 1,328), 
 is taken for Diana 
 
 O dea certe, | an Phoebi soror ? 
 
 and she replies (v. 335) 
 
 Virginibus Tyriis tnos est gestare pharetram 
 Purpureoque alte suras vincire cothurno. 
 
 Here the connection may appear too obvious with the famous 
 Tyrian purple. But in eel. VII, 32 where ' parvus Micon ' dedi- 
 cates the stag-horns to Diana, we read 
 
 levi de marmore tota 
 funiceo stabis suras evincta cothurno, 
 
 and Livius Andronicus, Ino 5, p. 5 (Ribb. 3) says 
 
 hymnum quando chorus festo canit ore Triviae. 
 ' set iam purpurea suras include cothurno.' 
 
 Hildebrand in his note on the passage from Apuleius (XI, 3) 
 compares with it the remarks of Plutarch, Isis et Osiris, c. 77 
 oToXal S al iifv *lo-»dor" TrouiXat raic |3a0aic. He assumes that these 
 colors are associated with the moon when most identified with 
 magic — during eclipse. Of the four colors mentioned by Apuleius, 
 the yellow is undoubtedly the least distinctive and could be most 
 easily omitted from the color-triad naturally belonging to the 
 iriformis dea. During an eclipse the first change of color results 
 in a pallid, dead-white hue ; compare Ovid rem. am. 256 nee 
 subito Phoebi pallidus orbis erit ; cp. Lucan 6, 500. As the eclipse 
 proceeds the color red becomes prominent, as Lucan shows in the 
 passage just cited; Phoebe . . . palluit et nigris terrenisque ignibus 
 arsit; Horace sat. i, 8, 33 Lunam rubentem (with double signifi- 
 cance) ; Seneca Hipp. 796 carmina sanguineae deducunt cornua 
 lunae. Black is, of course, the color of total eclipse. 
 
 ' Colors are often in Aegyptian mythology directly associated with cer- 
 tain divinities; cf. Plutarch, Isis et Osiris, c. 22. 
 
 • ' For the identification of Isis with the lunar divinity see Roscher, Selene, 
 p. 14, n. 40. 
 
MAGIC IN THEOKRITOS AND VERGIL. 327 
 
 On Theokritos II, 28 vvv 6va& to niTvpa the scholiast says: wlrvpa 
 TO Xeirritrfiara rou <tItov koI Trjs Kpi6^t. But great doubt may be cast 
 upon the scholiast's definition. That irirvpa were possessed of 
 magic or sacred significance is evident from Demosth, de Cor. 
 §259 and pap. Par. 2579. 
 
 The latter passage reads Xenra nlnpa tSk pvpav. This appears 
 to be a better definition. Not only is it unnatural to suppose that 
 a\0«ra would be used in one magic rite and Xtn-nV/iara roC o-iVou koI 
 T^r itpifl^r so closely following in a new act of magic significance, 
 but also sweet-smelling herbs were frequently used in incania- 
 menia} The pap. Par., in particular, gives an incantation to be 
 made with myrrh (1498 ff.) which in many points corresponds 
 quite closely with the amorous character of the Theokritean idyl,' 
 especially with such lines as 
 
 ovroi rot Ka\ Ai\(J3K c'i/2 (f)\oyl adpK dfiaBvvoi. 
 Johns Hopkins University. JYIORRIS 1^. oUTPHEN. 
 
 • Eusebius, praep, evan. 5, 12, quotes in reference to the making of a figure 
 of Hekate a/ibpvrji naX aripoKo; TiipdvoiS re fiiyfiara rpl'fa; . . . avrbf emvxifievot 
 
 'See Kuhnert, Rhein. Mus. 49, p. 42. 
 
THE INTERPRETATION OF EURIPIDES' 
 ALCESTIS. 
 
 No play of Euripides has given rise to a wider discussion, or 
 been interpreted in more widely divergent ways, than the Alcestis. 
 A good summary of the question is given in the former of Bis- 
 singer's two papers,* with comments in the main judicious ; but 
 since that time the discussions of Bergk, (Literaturgeschichte, 3, 
 p. 494 ff.), of Wilamowitz, (Isyllos, Philologische Untersuchun- 
 gen, Neuntes Heft), of Verrall, (Euripides the Rationalist), of 
 Schone, (Ueber die Alkestis des Euripides, Kiel, 1895), and of 
 Ebeling, (Transactions of the American Philological Assoc, 
 1898), and the editions of Weil, Earle, and Hayley have shown 
 that the last word has not yet been said. 
 
 Measured as a great tragedy, every one must feel the Alcestis 
 to be inadequate, whether one's conception of a great tragedy be 
 drawn from Aeschylus and Sophocles, or from Shakespeare. It 
 does not offer us the spectacle of a great and heroic soul strug- 
 gling against Fate, or against an inherited burden of guilt that 
 has gone on increasing from generation to generation ; we see no 
 noble nature brought, through witting or unwitting sin, into cir- 
 cumstances fraught with pity and terror ; there is no grappling 
 with great problems ; no resolving of life's enigmas ; no portrayal 
 of passions and resulting actions.' It is simply an affecting pic- 
 ture of wifely devotion to a husband whom we feel to be unworthy 
 of her, and of her restoration to him by Heracles. Yet, when one 
 reflects, how stupendous, the theme ! — nothing less than Death 
 and Resurrection. Moreover apart from this inadequacy in the 
 treatment of the theme, we are told that in Admetus, Pheres, and 
 Heracles, Euripides has given us characters wholly unworthy of 
 tragedy. In particular, the intolerable baseness of the husband 
 who accepts the wife's sacrifice, and the cold selfishness on the 
 
 ^ Ueber die Dichtungsgattung und den Grundgedanken der Alcestis des 
 Euripides, Erlangen, 1869-1871. 
 ' See Bissinger, i, p. 9. 
 
330 AUGUSTUS TABER MURRAY. 
 
 sides of both father and son in the odious scene between the two, 
 are emphasized, and Heracles is stigmatized as a braggart and 
 swash-buckler, who feasts like a sot and a glutton, and talks in 
 maudlin, boisterous fashion in the house of his grief- stricken 
 friend. As a result, some decry the play altogether, and while 
 admitting, perhaps, the beauty of certain scenes, declare that it is 
 preposterous to regard it as a work of art ; while others, relying 
 upon the notice of the didascalia that the play occupied the fourth 
 place in the tetralogy, have considered it but as a substitute for a 
 satyr-drama, and see in it, not perhaps an out-and-out comedy, 
 but a nondescript play, in which, while the outward form of 
 tragedy is retained, full scope is given to travesty, and the comic 
 tone is purposely sought. This is plain, they say, in the charac- 
 ters of Admetus and Heracles, in the scene between Pheres and 
 Admetus (which on their view was added solely for comic effect), 
 in that between Apollo and Thanatos, and in that in which Alces- 
 tis is restored. 
 
 This last view may be said to represent one extreme ; the other 
 is that held by those who endeavor to save both play and poet by 
 contending that the traditional view misinterprets entirely the 
 character of Admetus: that, to the Greek, his action in accepting 
 the sacrifice of Alcestis was not base and egoistic, but natural and 
 proper. The purpose of this paper is to show that both of these 
 views are untenable, and to point out a more reasonable inter- 
 pretation. 
 
 In approaching the question we should endeavor to put our- 
 selves in Euripides' position, and to understand his attitude 
 toward his art, difficult as this unquestionably is in the case of an 
 antique poet. A great dramatic artist, in the fullest sense of the 
 word, he certainly was not ; his plays are not perfect tragedies 
 either of the ancient or the modern type. Powerful plays he 
 could and did produce, distinctly great plays at times, displaying 
 not only power but great art. Yet in most cases we feel something 
 to be lacking, or are struck with the artificiality of the prologue 
 or denouement, or with triviality in detail. But with a decline in 
 art, we note an astonishing advance in humanity, evinced, at 
 times, in a fondness for dealing with situations which appeal to us 
 by their very pathos ; a phase of his work which is the more to 
 be noted, because it gives rise to one of his most patent artistic 
 defects— a tendency toward sensationalism, and to the elaboration 
 
INTERPRETATION OF EURIPIDES' ALCESTIS. 33 1 
 
 of certain scenes which attracted him strongly and which appeal 
 to us strongly, at the expense of the effect of the whole. He is 
 TpayiKwraTor always, in season and out of season ; and Aristotle's 
 famous phrase is not wholly complimentary. For the same reason 
 we must be prepared for many an incongruity ; we have left the 
 antique, and, while tending toward it, have not reached the modern. 
 Keeping the background of the heroic age, he gives us varied pic- 
 tures of life, in tone oftentimes neither heroic nor Hellenic, but 
 almost, if not quite, modern. And many a scene, rich in promise 
 for the future, shows that the despised Euripidean art contained 
 in itself the germs, and the partial fruition, of much that was to 
 make the art of the future deeper and richer, in some respects, 
 even than that of Aeschylus and Sophocles. 
 
 Why then did he write an Alcestis, and why did not Sophocles ? 
 The answer is, I think, simple : the theme, looked at from any 
 standpoint, offers inherent difficulties when regarded as a tragic 
 theme. There is no conflict, nor, indeed, room for a conflict, 
 unless it be between Heracles and Thanatos, and all will, I think, 
 agree that Euripides chose the wiser and more artistic course, in 
 limiting himself to the brief soliloquy in which the heroic resolve 
 is taken, and the still briefer statement at the end. Or shall we 
 say that Alcestis could have been made a genuinely tragic char- 
 acter, and a struggle on her part between love and duty to her 
 husband and a clinging to life, be made the essential action ? Or 
 Admetus himself, perhaps, blinded by Srij, and led on to a weak 
 acceptance of another's sacrifice ? (The myth barely mentions a 
 failure to sacrifice to Artemis, — a possible motif, in the Aeschylean 
 sense.) And, frame it as you will, the fact remains that a gen- 
 uinely tragic conclusion is unattainable ; not Euripides' play alone, 
 
 but the myth itself, ds xapav koI r\hovi\v (caraoTp«<^«. 
 
 But Euripides does not demand of a theme that it, of itself, offer 
 material for a great tragedy in the strictest sense, and many of 
 his plays cannot adequately be understood, so long as one at- 
 tempts to wrest them into this form. Nay, he often takes such a 
 theme and makes something quite different out of it, (witness the 
 Orestes). The theme before us offered him what he most desired 
 — an opportunity to portray a beautiful character in a highly 
 affecting situation. This he has wrought out with admirable art. 
 It is to be noted, further, that the theme of vicarious suffering— or, 
 if not vicarious, of suffering, or even death, voluntarily undergone 
 
332 AUGUSTUS TABER MURRAY. 
 
 for the sake of others — seems to have been a favorite one with 
 Euripides. In the extant plays we have many instances. That 
 of Iphigenia may, perhaps, best be left out of the question, as it 
 is not his peculiar property; although, with him, it is no mere 
 incident but the theme of a whole play ; but we think of young 
 Menoeceus, in the Phoenissae ; of Macaria, in the Heraclidae ; 
 of old lolaus in the same play ; of Andromache, leaving her place 
 of safety at the altar, to save her child ; and in the Iphigenia 
 Taurica, we have first the generous rivalry between the two 
 friends as to which shall die to save the other — a scene particu- 
 larly suggestive because of the arguments by which Orestes pre- 
 vails upon his friend to accept his sacrifice, — and then the sister's 
 resolve to save them though it cost her life, and the brother's 
 unwavering refusal to accept safety on these terms. So we may 
 safely say that the strange legend of Alcestis was one strongly to 
 attract Euripides, and that it attracted him because of its inherent 
 human interest rather than as a subject upon which he could 
 construct a drama which would satisfy all the requirements of 
 Hellenic art. 
 
 These are, in my opinion, the principles in the light of which 
 the Alcestis is to be interpreted ; and to say, with Verrall, that it 
 was written " to kill the legend," or with Schone, that it is but a 
 travesty of Phrynichus' Alcestis, seems to me preposterous, and 
 itself a travesty of literary interpretation. And now of the char- 
 acters of Admetus and Heracles. 
 
 That the former is oiie who has won the favor of a god, and 
 that Apollo interests himself in his behalf, is a feature of the 
 legend, and is told in the prologue ; he is an oo-iot avi\p. Further, 
 his boundless hospitality, under the most distressing circumstan- 
 ces, is a striking feature of the play. Yet, when all has been said, 
 we still feel that he is lacking in the one thing needful,— that his 
 acceptance of Alcestis' sacrifice is base.* But we are told that 
 this is modern misinterpretation, that the Greek would not so 
 read his character ; and this view must be discussed. 
 
 It is put most pointedly by Way.' " Admetus," he says, " was 
 
 'For a survey of the various means by which modern poets have en- 
 deavored to avoid this feature o£ the story, see Ellinger, Alceste in der 
 modernen Litteratur, Halle, 1885. But, after all, what one of the modern 
 versions of the legend would one choose in preference to that of Euripides ? 
 
 'In the appendix to the first volume of his Euripides in English Verse. 
 See also Sittl, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 3, p. 334. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF EURIPIDES' ALCESTIS. 333 
 
 a noble character. 2. He was right in respect to the motif and 
 incidents of the play. 3. He reaped the just reward of the good 
 man." And, in connection with the first of these postulates, he 
 maintains that hospitality was " the highest social virtue recog- 
 nized by a Greek;" that, beside such a trait, "conjugal affection 
 shrank into insignificance," and again says later on : " The espec- 
 ial pathos of the situation to the audience lay in this, that the 
 sacrifice of a young and happy woman was forced upon her by 
 the cowardly selfishness, not of her husband, but of a miserable 
 old man : that Admetus should not have found a substitute at all 
 would have seemed monstrous." 
 
 Now in all this there is just thus much of truth, that the act of 
 Admetus might appear less base to the Greek than it does to us. 
 That, however, Euripides did not mean to idealize his character, 
 that, on the contrary, such an idealization entirely misinterprets 
 the play, I hold most strongly, and for the following reasons : 
 
 (i) Such an assumption is unnatural. After making all allow- 
 ance for the Greek glorification of youth as against age, and of man- 
 hood as against womanhood, it remains true that human nature 
 is essentially the same in all ages, and that the Greek tragedians 
 are strikingly faithful in their portrayal of human nature. Now 
 that men love their wives is not a modern sentiment. It is elo- 
 quently voiced by the Homeric Achilles; it plays an important 
 part in one of Euripides' romantic dramas. Further, Euripides 
 offers us in the Tauric Iphigenia a situation that is closely par- 
 allel, and his treatment of it shows how far he was from feeling 
 that it was the " duty " of a noble youth to allow a loving woman 
 to die for him. (Iph. Taur. 1003-1011.) 
 
 (2) The character of Admetus was not thus understood by 
 that Greek of the Greeks, Aristophanes ; but, on the contrary, 
 his parodies show that he read it as we do. In the Thesmopho- 
 riazusae, Euripides, not daring himself to plead his cause before 
 the women, endeavors to induce Agathon to go in his place. The 
 whole scene is paratragedic and the language strikingly Eurip- 
 idean ; Agathon's refusal is phrased as follows : 
 
 Ar. 'Ekpmliri ETP. t'i eartv ; Ar. iiroiiiad; itote, 
 Xaipsc; bpCni fa;, varipa <5' ov x^'v^'^ ioKel( ; 
 ETP. lyaye. AT. fif; vvv iXTrlaijg rb cbv Kanhv 
 ^/lag i^^etv, Kal yap av ftatvoi/ieB' av, 
 aXK^ avrb; 6 ye a6v canv okciuf ipipe. 
 
 (Thesmo. 193-197.) 
 
334 AUGUSTUS TABER MURRAY. 
 
 It is not that vs. 194 is quoted from the Alcestis that is the im- 
 portant thing, but that Aristophanes puts Euripides in a situation 
 corresponding roughly to that of Admetus, and makes the one 
 whom he approaches in the hope of finding a substitute, ridicule 
 his claims. This same verse (Ale. 691) is used by Aristophanes 
 again in a scene (Nub. 1415) where he appears to be travestying 
 the wrangle between Admetus and Pheres, and the brutal parody 
 of Ale. 367 f. in Acharn. 893 f. may perhaps be taken as an indi- 
 cation that the hollowness of Admetus' protestations of love for 
 the woman whom he none the less allows to die for him, was not 
 unfelt even in antiquity. 
 
 (3) This view seems to be absolutely untenable in the face of 
 the scene with Pheres (vss. 614-738);' one who meant to idealize 
 Admetus would not have gone out of his way to portray the base- 
 ness of his act so mercilessly. 
 
 (4) A sympathetic study of the earlier scenes of the play leads 
 to the same conclusion. Alcestis is brought before us as she is 
 about to bid farewell to life and life's joys, and not for a moment 
 does she waver or appear to regret her choice. Yet, true to 
 Greek conceptions and true to nature, she does not belittle the 
 joys she is leaving, nor does she belittle her sacrifice. And, 
 throughout it all, there is no word of passionate farewell to the 
 husband who wept and "waxed importunate in prayer," who 
 
 ' This scene has been interpreted in the most strikingly divergent ways. 
 Hartung said long ago (Eur. Restitutus, i, p. 225), " Vix credas fieri 
 potuisse, ut risum movere voluisse Euripidera hanc patris iiliique conten- 
 tionem super probissimae mulieris funere institutam proponendo quisquam 
 arbitraretur." So, too, Bissinger calls the scene "keineswegs lachener- 
 TCgend." Weil, on the other hand, speaks of "la seine vraiment comique 
 entre Admite et Pheres," and Haigh even says (Tragic Drama, p. 286) : 
 "In this well-known scene the unblushing egotism of father and son is 
 depicted with humorous exaggeration," and a little further on, he speaks 
 of the "humorous situation." Far truer are Sch5ne's words (Ueber die 
 Alkestis, p. 8), " Wie man in dieser Szene etwas von humoristischem Tone 
 hat finden kSnnen, begreift sich schwer. Wer dieses Drama ernst nimmt 
 . . . wird weit eher geneigt sein, jenen Dialog vielmehr peinlich und 
 brutal, als bumoristisch anklingend zu iinden." SchSne's inference seems 
 to me, however, unsound. A great blot on the play the scene certainly is; 
 but it has an important bearing on what follows, as Ebeling has pointed 
 out. This fact, and Euripides' fondness for a pointed debate must be 
 borne in mind in interpreting it; and Wieland's suggestion that Admetus 
 is beside himself with grief is worth remembering. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF EURIPIDES ALCESTIS. 335 
 
 pleads with her not to leave him, who cries out against the 
 "fate "that robs him of a loving wife without whom life will be un- 
 endurable. Almost all that she says directly to him is the calm, 
 reflective speech, uttered with all the solemnity of approaching 
 death, in which she shows him the freedom of her choice, and 
 bids him respect her children and never to give them a step- 
 mother to oust them from their rights. There is no passionate 
 outburst, no word of love for him in all that she says ; she does 
 not even ask that he do this for her sake. Would it not appear 
 that even in the heroism of her sacrifice the iron has entered into 
 her soul : he can let her die ? ' 
 
 (5) Euripides plainly means us to see a change in Admetus' 
 character during the course of the play. I say " plainly," despite 
 the fact that, in the face of much that has been written on the 
 Alcestis, it may seem a strong statement, and it may be claimed 
 that I am interpreting Browning, and not Euripides ; ° but, to me, 
 the matter admits of no doubt. Were one to say that Admetus 
 comes back from the tomb a changed and chastened nature, it 
 might indeed be objected that a modern conception was being 
 substituted for the antique view. Changed and chastened in the 
 Christian sense he certainly is not ; but he comes back realizing 
 his loss, and realizing also that the fault is his own and not an- 
 other's. In the earlier part of the play he protests his love, begs 
 Alcestis not to leave him, and bewails the "fate" that makes this 
 sacrifice necessary. This, and, if we add protestations that he 
 will prove faithful to her memory and that life will be a blank 
 without her, this alone. He speaks of himself and of her as " two 
 souls fordone by woe, who have committed no sin against the 
 gods that thou shouldst die " (vs. 246 f ). He will not marry 
 again ; he cares not for more children ; he but prays the gods 
 that he may have joy of those he has, o-oC yap ovk avqiitBa (335) ; 
 and this tone of indignant protest against his lot is strongly 
 marked ; it is a part of his egoistic nature. 
 
 ' That this is not to be interpreted merely as an instance of antique 
 reticence, is plain from other passages in Euripides ; see, e. g,, the fine 
 outburst in Iph. Taur. 708-710. 
 
 ' Ebeling has rightly emphasized this, and has shown that this fact helps 
 us in understanding the Fheres-scene ; but I should hardly go so far as to 
 assume that Euripides' main purpose in writing the play was to criticise 
 the conception of Admetus' character as seen in the epic version. 
 
336 AUGUSTUS TABER MURRAY. 
 
 But when he comes back from the tomb his eyes are opened. 
 The maid-servant had said of him (vs. 145): ov^na rcifi' oiSt ficcrwdriir, 
 TrpW h> nien, and, when the chorus attempts to soothe him with 
 the commonplace: i>s naa-iv ^/xi* Kardavttv ocfxiKfTat, he answers: 
 
 miarafiai ye kovk ijivu kukov rdSe 
 irpoaiTTTaT' • ci6i); d" air' krcip6iirrv italai. 
 
 Yet, in a far different sense, he cries out in vs. 1068, 
 
 wf apTi Tzevdcvq rovde yevofiac iriKpov, 
 
 See also vs. 940. 
 Mm, instead of groaning at his " fate," he sees where the fault 
 
 lies. The chorus says (929) aW taaaas fiiorov Kol yjrvxav, but he 
 
 answers: 
 
 fiTiot, ywatKog SaifLov* evTvx^<JT€pov 
 Tovficn) vofiiCoif KaiiTEp ov doKovvd^ bfiug * 
 T^f fi£V yap ovdht dXyof a'^ETai Trorf, 
 TTo/l/luv Si /iSxSi-w ivKkciji kiravaaro, 
 iyii 6' bv ov XPV" Wv, vapslg t& fi6paifiov, 
 'Ktmpbv did^o pioTov apn fiavddvu. 
 
 This is the new key, tya d' &v ov xpv" C^"- Life now has no 
 charms for him, it will be \viTp6s; now he knows what his foes 
 will say of him, and, with what good reason, Ihov rhv alcrxptos iavra 
 (955 ff.). Verily, Pheres' taunts have left an impression, and 
 Admetus is in full earnest when he cries out (vss. 897 ff.) : 
 
 Tt fi' cxitXvaac jntjiai ri/tpov 
 Td<ipov £(f KoCh/v Kol fiir' eKtlviK 
 TtjQ ftty' aploTiK licioBat ^ifievov ; 
 
 (Compare the passage beginning fijXS (pdiftivovs, vss. 866 ff.) 
 
 To call this last "ein lacherliches Gerede" is not sane criticism. 
 At the same time it would be wholly wrong to assume that 
 Euripides means us to see in the restoration of Alcestis a divine 
 amende to a husband who is now worthy of her. Of this there 
 is no suggestion. We are not even to think of her restoration 
 as due to the nobility of her sacrifice, as though the gods them- 
 selves gave her back.^ Heracles is but paying a debt to his 
 friend, who had so generously entertained him, and had made 
 nothing of his private grief. Thus there is a break in the action, 
 
 ' Contrast Plato, Symposium 179 C, where a very different form of the 
 myth is given. 
 
INTERPRETATION OF EURIPIDES' ALCESTIS. 337 
 
 as was indeed inevitable, and the motif va. the first part of the play 
 is different from that in the last part; a dramatic blemish, no 
 doubt, but one that, in Euripides, need not surprise us ; he offers 
 many parallels. 
 
 These same considerations afford, it seems to me, the best 
 answer to those who maintain that Admetus is a comic personage. 
 These protestations of his in the first part of the play are not to 
 be taken as a travesty of sincere affection. No, he is sincere and 
 stricken with grief; but when the choice was made and the alter- 
 native had been put before him by Apollo, he, the prince, honored 
 and beloved even by the god, and still in the glory of youth and 
 strength, had chosen — well, he had chosen life rather than death ; 
 and he rendered all honor to her who had bought his life at the 
 price of her own. It was still in the future, and it had the divine 
 sanction ; but now the time is at hand, she is being taken from 
 him, and he can but cry out against his " fate." 
 
 And now of Heracles, " der ungezogene Herkules." ' He is 
 the central figure of the play as read by Browning ; but, much as 
 we admire the heroic figure of " the Helper," " the grand Benev- 
 olence," who does but " snatch repose " in the " interval 'twixt 
 fight and fight again," and all for man's sake, we must admit that 
 this is really hineininterpretirt. Euripides, in this play at least, 
 has not a word of it all." But when this has been said it remains 
 true that the character is drawn from life. Heracles is the epitome 
 of animal strength, somewhat slow of wit, but fearless in danger 
 and shrinking from nothing. He makes little of what he has 
 done, and talks lightly of the labor he is now on his way to per- 
 form. He honors his friend and is quick to make return for the 
 entertainment given him at the cost of a struggle from which any 
 other than Admetus would have shrunk. We see him in relaxa- 
 tion, or rather, in the first place, we are told of him by a servant ; 
 and it is to be noted that this servant is overwhelmed with grief 
 at the loss of a loved mistress, whose kindness had been marked 
 (vss. 193 ff.), and whom he would fain have followed to the tomb 
 instead of serving this reveller (vss. 765 ff.). Is it to be expected 
 that he will give a sympathetic picture of the feasting hero ? ' 
 
 ' Wieland, Briefe ttber das neue Singspiel Alceste. 
 ' See Verrall's vivacious travesty, Euripides tiie Rationalist, p. 19. 
 'In this Euripides appears as the artist rather than the man ; for his own 
 temper was, all tradition says, like that of the servant, and he was no lover 
 
338 AUGUSTUS TABER MURRAY. 
 
 So, between the setting out of the funeral procession and the 
 return of the now really grief-stricken husband, Euripides has 
 inserted a scene of distinctly lighter tone. He has represented 
 Heracles, who is soon to go forth to wrestle with Death himself, 
 as feasting and drinking in the house of mourning, and bidding 
 the gloomy servant join his revels. An instructive fact, surely, 
 coming from Antiquity. The blending of the serious and the 
 hghter tones has no extensive range on the Greek tragic stage ; 
 there are touches here and there, but that is all. In the Alcestis, 
 for the first time, we see a whole scene so treated. Shall we 
 with Shakespeare before us, say that this is inconsistent with 
 tragic dignity ? This very scene has, by French critics ' been put 
 side by side with that in Romeo and Juliet where Peter and the 
 musicians jest with each other while Juliet lies dead, in semblance, 
 in the adjacent chamber. They came for the wedding, they 
 serve for the funeral ; and meanwhile they jest and banter. Or 
 shall one say that we have here not tragedy but tragi-comedy, a 
 form alien to the spirit of Hellenic art ? Yet that very phrase is 
 
 Hellenic, it is Plato's, rp rov jSi'ou ^vfivdag rpayaSia Koi KafJuoSta, Phile- 
 
 bus, 50 B, and, apart from all false realism, Euripides gives us 
 here a genuine reflection of human life." 
 
 Lklan^ Stanford JumoR AUGUSTUS TaBER MuRRAY. 
 
 Univehsity, 
 
 of professional athletes. Yet he sketches the character sympathetically, 
 and points it by the splendid soliloquy, vss. 837 ff. Those who will have 
 it that Heracles gets drunk and so disfigures the play, must not disregard 
 the fact that in such a scene Euripides has Aeschylus for a predecessor 
 see Athenaeus, 10, 428 F. One must not forget the position of the play in 
 the tetralogy, or that 'HpoK^^f ireivov was a stock figure. 
 
 ' See Fatin, Euripide, 1, p. 216. 
 
 ^In the same spirit the scene between Apollo and Thanatos should be 
 interpreted, and the concluding scene as well. The "comic" tone some 
 have found in these is to me unimaginable. Thanatos is grim, not "/ilump " 
 (Wilamowitz), and the verbal duel between him and the god of light a fit 
 prelude to the play. As for the silence of Alcestis, what was she to say ? 
 (Cf. Tennyson, In Memoriam, XXXI.) Heracles' testing of Admetus may 
 perhaps be playful, but it is to be noted that it leads him to reiterate the 
 very promises he had before made to Alcestis — and how much more they 
 mean now I 
 
CHIASMUS IN THE EPISTLES OF CICERO, 
 SENECA. PLINY AND PRONTO. 
 
 Chiasmus occurs in the Epistles of Cicero, Seneca, Pliny and 
 Pronto in about eight hundred and fifty passages. A more 
 careful search might add further examples, but this number — for 
 Cicero 300, Seneca 225, Pliny 260, Pronto 65' — is complete 
 enough to represent fairly the usage of these writers. In another 
 paper, I gave a systematic division of the examples of chiasmus 
 in Sallust, Caesar, Tacitus and Justinus,' and in the following 
 study, the divisions will correspond to those there used. That each 
 citation will not show a conscious arrangement for the purpose 
 of producing the chiasmus is altogether likely, especially in cases 
 where intervening words may have somewhat weakened the im- 
 pression made by placing together similar terms. The euphony 
 resulting from different combinations must have had great in- 
 fluence in determining the arrangement. As, however, in the 
 majority of my examples one member of the chiasmus imme- 
 diately succeeds the other, without apparent violation of euphony, 
 the changed order must, in such instances, be considered as a 
 conscious use of the figure. 
 
 Preedom in the use of chiasmus seems to depend on a conscious 
 rhetorical development in the style of the individual writer. In 
 those epistles of Cicero which were most freely and rapidly writ- 
 ten chiasmus does not often occur. The short compact sentences, 
 written to convey facts and not to display rhetoric, practically 
 preclude its use. The different works of Seneca, however, have 
 all the same character, and to all may be applied the words of 
 Quintilian 10, i, 130 si rerum pondera minutissimis sententiis non 
 fregisset. Any page will give examples of this style of his with 
 its short clauses and excessive use of anaphora, e. g., Ep. i, i 
 
 ' In the case of Cicero and of Fronto, some of the examples are found in 
 the letters of their correspondents, and the few of these which have been 
 quoted are enclosed in parentheses. 
 
 > Chiasmus in Sallust, Caesar, Tacitus and Justinus, J. H. U. Diss., 
 Northfield, Minn., 1891. 
 
340 -ff. B. STEELE. 
 
 quaedam tempora eripiuntur nobis, quaedam subducuntur, quae- 
 dam effluunt. turpissima tamen est iactura quae per neglegen- 
 tiam fit. 
 
 The Panegyricus of Pliny is thoroughly rhetorical and contains 
 more examples of chiasmus than his epistles. Fronto's style is 
 somewhat like that of Seneca. His work opened at random (ad 
 Amicos I, 8, p. i8o, Naber) shows this: Ama eum, oro te. 
 Cum ipsius causa hoc peto, turn mea quoque. Nam me etiam 
 magis amabis, si cum Pio familiarius egeris. Ep. ad amicos i, ii 
 (p. i8i, Naber) is similar in style: Figurae orationis sunt quae 
 maxime orationem ornant. Duplex autem genus est figurarum : 
 aut enim verborum figurae sunt aut sententiarum. In figuris 
 verborum est tropos, metaphora. In contrast with this, observe 
 the passage ad Aurel. Caes. I. (pp. 1 13-14) in which thirteen 
 lines are made up of successive pairs of words, containing a few 
 instances of chiasmus. So also in his Greek epistles, e. g. p. 247, 
 
 2 tv6a ouT€ i TOTTor tSk iiKa<m\piav, oSri tS>v 8iKa{^6vTav o apiB/ios, oijTt 
 rd^ts tS>v <f>a<reav Koi icX^ircciiv, offre toC vdaror to fifrpov. 
 
 Cicero. 
 
 The few adverbs used in chiasmus are chiefly those of time ; 
 e. g. ad Att. 8, i, 3 umquam, semper; 9, 6a, i feci saepe, saepius 
 facturus; 13, 30, 2 hodie, eras; ad Fam. 3, 12, i prius, deinde; 
 4, 6, I saepe, numquam ; ad Quint. Frat. i, 3, 3 aliquando, 
 umquam. The Ep. ad Octavianum, formerly attributed to Cicero, 
 furnishes two examples 'sui generis': i iam, deinde; 10 primo, 
 post. The adverbs are made the extremes with but few exceptions, 
 as ad Fam. 2, 7, i longe enim- absum, audio sero. 
 
 Repetition of the same word and the use of contrasted terms 
 seem to have been the dominating factors in the chiastic arrange- 
 ment of nouns and adjectives : ad Att. 7, 7, 4 tranquilla, tranquil- 
 lissimus; ad Brut, i, 3 a, i consules duos, bonos quidem, sed 
 dumtaxat bonos consules amisimus; ad Att. 5, i, 4 lenius, asperius; 
 ad Fam. 3, 11, 4 leviora, maiora; 5, 15, 4 perpetuam, exiguam ; 
 II, 27, 2 mihi utile, nee inutile ipsi Caesari. Ad Fam. i, 4, i 
 acerbum Curionem, Bibulum multo iustiorem ; but 1,7,2 Hor- 
 tensium percupidum tui, studiosum Lucullum; 7, 23, 2 aptum 
 bibliothecae studiisque nostris congruens. 
 
 The personal element in the epistles accounts for the large 
 number of pronouns used in chiasmus : ad Att. i, 16, 3 ex eventu 
 
CHIASMUS IN THE EPISTLES OF CICERO, ETC. 341 
 
 ab aliis, a me ex ipso initio; 3, 23, 4 tibi, aliis; 5, 10, 5 in te, 
 in nos; 6, 3, 5 non in Pompeium prolixior per ipsutn quam per 
 me in Brutum ; 12, 7, i liberalitate mea, sua libertate; 14, 20, 4 
 tibi, mihi; ad Fam. 10, 28, 3 ilia ex aliis, a me pauca; 11, 27, 2 
 dilexi te, meque ate diligi iudicavi; 15, 4, 12 inimicum meum, 
 tuum inimicum. Ad Att. 2, i, 11 te expectat et indiget tui ; ad 
 Fam. 4, 5, 6 in te amor fuit pietasque in omnia suos. 
 
 In combining verbs with dependent nouns no preference in 
 arrangement whether as means or as extremes seems to have 
 been shown: ad Att. 9, 5, 3 cogito, cogito; 10, 8, 5 fugiamus, 
 fugeremus; 13, 22, 3 aut obsoletum Bruto, aut Balbo inchoa- 
 tum ; ad Fam. 6, 6, 4 utebar familiarissime Caesare, Pompeium 
 faciebam plurimi; 10, 8, 6 (confirmare salutem, periculum 
 morari); ad Quint. Frat. 1,3, 3 amabat ut fratrem, ut maiorem 
 fratrem verebatur. Ad. Att. 7, 21, 1 Capua discessi et mansi 
 Calibus; 9, 12, 3 nos vivimus, et stat urbs; ad Fam. 12, 7, 2 
 in senatu disserui, dixi in contione. Similar in arrangement 
 are the passages in which there is a dependent clause or 
 infinitive: ad Att. 2, 9, 3 male vehi malo alio gubernante quam 
 tam ingratis vectoribus bene gubernare; 9, 2, 1 gaudere ais te 
 mansisse me et scribis in sententia te manere ; 9, 6, 5 proximae 
 gaudere te ostendunt me remansisse; 12, 48, i te venturum scrip- 
 sisti et addidisti te putare opus esse; 13, 20, 4 non possum non pro- 
 bare et tamen non curare pulchre possum; 13, 48, 2 cures velim, 
 velim mittas; ad Fam. 5, 12, 4 et reprehendes ea, quae vituperanda 
 duces, et, quae placebunt, . . . comprobabis; 6, 21, i aut 
 interitum adlatura esset, si victus esses, aut, si vicisses, servitutem ; 
 7, 27, 2 non enim ingrata mihi sunt, quae fecisti, sed, quae 
 scripsisti, molesta; 7, 32, 2 derideri te putas; nunc demum 
 intellego te sapere ; Quint. Frat. 2, 14, 2 faceres, quod velles, ego 
 ipse quid vellem, ostenderem. 
 
 Examples of chiasmus with pairs of nouns or adjectives which 
 govern genitives are frequent: ad Att. 8, 6, 3 malo Tironis vere- 
 cundiam in culpa esse quam inliberalitatem Curi ; ad Fam. 8, 3, 2 
 (quod ad Philotimi officium et bona Milonis attinet); 15, 14, 3 cum 
 pro rerum magnitudine, tum pro opportunitate temporis. Ad 
 Fam. 5, 1 2, 7 ad laetitiam animi, ad memoriae dignitatem ; 10, 10, 2 
 non invitamentum ad tempus, sed perpetuae virtutis est praemium. 
 
 Chiastic arrangement of successive pairs of nouns dependent on 
 the same verb is rare : ad Att. 9, 10, 3 me meis civibus famem, 
 
342 R. B. STEELE. 
 
 vastitatem inferre Italiae? 13, 52, 2 Puteolis se aiebat unum 
 diem fore, alterum ad Baias; 4, 8, i hoc scito, Antium Buthrotum 
 esse Romae, ut Corcyrae illud tuum Antium ; 5, i, 3 in Arcano 
 Quintus . . . ego Aquini ; ad Fam. 5, 12, 7 Timoleonti a Timaeo 
 aut ab Herodoto Themistocli ; Quint. Frat. i, 3, i flens flentem, 
 prosequentem proficiscens dimiseras. 
 
 In most instances prepositional phrases in chiasmus are placed 
 together : ad Att. 3, 7, 3 accedemus in Epirum, per Candaviam 
 ibimus ; 6, 6, 2 largitio fuit in cives, sed in hospites liberalitas ; 
 14, 12, 3 remotum a dialecticis, in arithmeticis satis exercitatum ; 
 ad Fam. 5, 12, 4 optabiles in experiendo, in legend© iucundae. 
 
 Successive pairs of words which form a chiasmus are compara- 
 tively common: ad Att. i, 14, i non iucunda miseris, inanis im- 
 probis, beatis non grata; i, 16, 9 manet . . . consensio, dolor 
 accessit, virtus non imminuta; 5, i, 5 mandata exhaurias, scribas 
 ad me omnia, Pomptinum extrudas; ad Fam. 2, 8, i scribent alii, 
 multi nuntiabunt, perferet multa etiam ipse rumor ; 15, 4, 2biduum 
 Laodiciae fui, deinde Apameae quadriduum, triduum Synnadis, 
 totidem dies Philomeli; ad Quint. Frat. i, i, 11, 32 esse abstinen- 
 tem, continere omnis cupiditates, suos coercere, iuris aequabilem 
 tenere rationem, facilem se . . . praebere. 
 
 A few instances are found with groups of three or more words : 
 ad Att. I, 19, 4 sentinam urbis exhauriri et Italiae solitudinem 
 frequentari; 7, 21, i fugam ab urbe turpissimam, timidissimas in 
 oppidis contiones, ignorationem adversarii ; 11, 17 a, 3 ne profec- 
 tum quidem illim quemquam post Idus Martias, nee post Idus 
 Decembr. ab illo datas ullas litteras; ad Fam. i, i, 2 tuorum in se 
 officiorum et amoris erga te sui ; 3, 10, 6 alienum tempus est mihi 
 tecum expostulandi, purgandi autem mei necessarium; i, 7, 9 
 magna est hominum opinio de te, magna commendatio liberali- 
 tatis, magna memoria consulatus tui; ad Quint. Frat. i, i, 2, 7 
 exsistunt graves controversiae, multae nascuntur iniuriae, magnae 
 contentiones consequuntur ; i, i, i, 5 nullas, ut opinor, insidias 
 hostium, nuUam proelii dimicationem, nullam defectionem soci- 
 orum, nullam inopiam stipendii aut rei frumentariae, nullam sedi- 
 tionem exercitus pertimescimus. 
 
 Seneca. 
 
 Chiasmus is not a very prominent feature in the style of Seneca. 
 In adverbs it is found most frequently with primum, deinde, 
 
CHIASMUS IN THE EPISTLES OF CICERO, ETC. 343 
 
 Ep. 28, 10; 29, 5; prius, deinde, 44, i; 65, 15; 116, 3 inbecillus 
 est primo omnis adfectus, deinde ipse se concitat et vires . . . parat. 
 Scattering examples with other adverbs also occur: Ep. 82, 13 
 Cato honestissime, turpissime Brutus ; 104, 14 petierant cupidis- 
 sime loca, cupidius deserunt; 114, 8 hominis interdum, interdum 
 temporis. There are also a few instances in which the adverbs 
 are arranged as the extremes; Ep. 14, 15 aliquando innocentes, 
 nocentes saepius ; 20, 3 se domi contrahunt, dilatant foris ; 43, 3 
 non ut tutius vivamus, sed ut peccemus occultius ; 95, 5 recta 
 faciunt, nesciunt facere se recte ; 99, 24 effusissime flere, memi- 
 nisse parcissime. 
 
 Adjectives are often arranged chiastically, the nouns which they 
 modify being generally placed together : Ep, 90, 16 tactu mollia 
 et inpenetrabilia ventis ; 116, 5 alteri emancipatam, vilem sibi; 
 116, 4 regredi facile, optimum progredi; 117, 18 si algor malum 
 est, malum sit algere ; 1 19, 1 1 corporibus electa, spectabilis cultu ; 
 80, 3 solem ardentissimum in ferventissimo pulvere ; 92, 7 bene 
 homini, si palato bene; 97, 9 plurimum libidini, legibus minimum ; 
 70, 14 unum introitum, exitus multos; 70, 27 varios accessus, 
 finem eundem ; 9, 7 fructuosior adulescentia, sed infantia dulcior. 
 Note also Ep. 100, 12 sine commendatione partium singularum in 
 universum magniiicus. 
 
 The use of pronouns in chiasmus shows nothing remarkable : 
 Ep. 23, 2 felicitatem suam in aliena potestate;' 70, 10 illo saeculo 
 quisquam aut ipse ullo; 95, 56 discendum de ipsa est ut ipsa dis- 
 catur; 121, 23 tutelam sui et eius peritiam ; 37, i honestissimi 
 huius et illius turpissimi; 108, 17 dissimilis utrique, utrique 
 magniiica ; 32, i inquire in te et ab omnibus sciscitor ; 54, 4 hoc 
 erit post me, quod ante me fuit ; 69, 6 ilia ad nos, ad illam nos ; 
 98, I ilia ex nobis, non ex illis nos. In a few passages the pro- 
 nouns form the extremes : 10, 2 de te sperem, spondeam mihi ; 
 34, 4 inter se congruant ac respondeant sibi ; 94, 31 altera in 
 totum, particulatim altera; 109, 12 alienam virtutem exercendo, 
 exerceat suam. 
 
 Very few instances occur in which a genitive forms one of the 
 terms in the chiasmus: Ep. 11,6 condicio nascendi et corporis 
 temperatura ; 55, 3 amicitiae Asinii Galli, Seiani odium ; 84, 4 ros 
 
 ' Compare Ep. 13, 5 suis viribus, inbecillitate nostra, and 47, zo suarum 
 virium et inbecillitatis alienae where suua is placed before its noun. 
 
344 ^. B. STEELE. 
 
 illius caeli aut ipsius arundinis humor; 95, 22 multa auxiliorum 
 genera, periculorum paucissima; 74, 11 vitae odium, timor mortis; 
 81, 9 verborum proprietas, consuetude sermonis ; 82, 18 peiorum 
 metu aut spe bonorum. Pairs of nouns dependent on the same 
 verb, show a chiastic arrangement frequently : Ep. 117, 17 sapere 
 sapientiae usus est, quomodo eloquentiae eloqui. Of the cases, the 
 nominative and accusative occur most commonly : Ep. 16, 8 exi- 
 guum natura desiderat, opinio inmensum ; 22, i r paucos servitus, 
 plures servitutem ; 24, 5 ad occupanda pericula virtus, crudelitas ad 
 inroganda; 80, 2 quam multi corpora exerceant, ingenia quam 
 pauci; 94, 66 Marius exercitus, Marium ambitio; 105, 8 tutum ali- 
 qua, nulla securum. There are also a few scattered instances with 
 other cases : 24, 5 Porsenna Mucio . . . sibi Mucins ; 53, 1 1 ille 
 beneficio naturae non timet, suo sapiens; 97, i6-multos poena, 
 metu neminem ; 98, 10 nihil firmum infirmo, nihil fragili aeternum ; 
 108, 34 Ennium Homero, Ennio Vergilium. 
 
 About one-half of the instances of chiasmus with only two 
 pairs of words, are formed by verbs and the nouns which they 
 govern, the nouns being most frequently placed together : 90, 3 
 colere divina, humana diligere ; 94, 33 expelle falsas, veras repone ; 
 114, 7 pepercit gladio, sanguine abstinuit; 124, 16 conprendit 
 praesentia, praeteritonim reminiscitur, but with the opposite 
 arrangement 74, 12 praesentibus gaudet, concupiscit absentia. In 
 some passages the verb is repeated: Ep. 68, 13 credituri fuimus 
 ration!, experientiae credimus ; 71, 26 cadere in hominem, in se 
 cecidisse; 74, 20 placeat homini, deo placuit. In such cases the 
 verbs are generally placed together: 3, 3 committas, committere; 
 19, 8 accesserit, accedet; 51, 8 cessero, cedendum est; 52, 9 
 fiant faciantque; 105, 6 tacuerit, tacebit. In the remaining in- 
 stances some of the verbs are contrasted : 49, 9 mors me sequitur, 
 fugit vita; 120, 9 factum laudavimus, contempsimus virum ; 24, 
 13 persona demenda et reddenda facies. The contrasted terms 
 are sometimes arranged on the extremes : 71, 8 mala fortuna vin- 
 citur et ordinatur bona. 
 
 Infinitives or clauses frequently form chiasmus with the verbs 
 on which they depend : Ep. 5, 7 desines timere, si sperare desieris ; 
 14. 1 nego indulgendum, serviendum nego; 59, 5 loqueris quantum 
 vis et plus significas quam loqueris; 94, 41 non deprehendes . . . 
 prosit, profuisse deprehendes ; 94, 45 prodest qui suadet, et qui 
 monet proderit ; 99, 4 quid doles amisisse, si habuisse non prodest ; 
 
CHIASMUS IN THE EPISTLES OF CICERO, ETC. 345 
 
 48, I seducere me debeo et quid suadeam circumspicere ; 81, 29 
 non quia concupiscenda laudantur, sed concupiscuntur quia lau- 
 data sunt; 114, 4 cupierit videri . . . latere noluerit; iii, 3 minus 
 adparet longe intuentibus, cum accesseris manifestum fit; 61, 3 
 quicquid necesse futurum est repugnanti, volenti necessitas non 
 est ; 88, 22 dehiscentibus, quae cohaerebant, aut his, quae dista- 
 bant, coeuntibus, aut his, quae eminebant, residentibus. 
 
 Prepositional phrases in chiasmus are arranged both as the ex- 
 tremes and as the means : Ep. 66, 24 amicitia in hominibus, in 
 rebus adpetitio; 71, 20 haec de omnibus, de hac nulla; 78, 14 
 deploratus a meis, a medicis relictus ; 89, 8 nee philosophia sine 
 virtute nee sine philosophia virtus ; 90, 35 civem extra patriam, 
 extra mundum deos ; 93, i multos inveni aequos adversus homi- 
 nes, adversus deos neminem. 19, 2 in freto viximus, moriamur in 
 portu; 71, 17 in bonis numeres, numerabis in malis; 84, i de 
 inventis iudicem, et cogitem de inveniendis; 87, 25 ex malb 
 bonum . . . ficus ex olea; 91, 5 ex amico inimicus, hostis ex 
 socio. Here also may be placed 66, i ad cetera contemnenda 
 a contemptu sui. 
 
 Chiasmus with three or more successive pairs of words occurs 
 more frequently in Seneca than in the other authors here exam- 
 ined: Ep. II, 7 deiciunt enim vultum, verba summittunt, figunt in 
 terram oculos ; 15, 2 occupatio exercendi lacertos et dilatandi 
 cervicem ac latera firmandi ; 24, 8 minus sanguinis, minus virium, 
 animi idem ; 66, 8 nihil invenies rectius recto, verius vero, tem- 
 perate temperatius; 68, 8 pedem turgidum, lividam manum,aridos 
 nervos; 24, 26 diem nox premit, dies noctem, aestas in autumnum 
 desinit, autumno hiemps instat ; 41, 4 interritum periculis,intactum 
 cupiditatibus, inter adversa felicem, in mediis tempestatibus 
 placidum; 117,31 incendium domus et periculum liberorum et 
 obsidio patriae et bonorum direptio. 
 
 Groups of three or more words which form a chiasmus are also 
 common in this author. One word has generally the same rela- 
 tive position as the corresponding word in the second group : Ep. 
 13, 5 alios inter flagella ridere, alios gemere sub colapho; I3, 12 
 nulla causa vitae, nuUus miseriarum modus; 51, 5 Hannibalem 
 hiberna solverunt . . . ilium virum enervaverunt fomenta Cam- 
 paniae; 74, 25 non facit adiectio amici sapientiorem, non facit 
 stultiorem detractio ; 94, 23 puta avaritiam relaxatam, puta ad- 
 strictam esse iuxuriam ; 104, 4 securior sui tutela, et vitae usus 
 
346 R. B. STEELE. 
 
 animosior; 124, 22 effuderis more Parthorum vel Germanorum 
 modo vinxeris. 8, 5 cibus famem sedet, potio sitim extinguat, 
 vestis arceat frigus. 23, 4 hilariculo mortem contemnere ? pauper- 
 tatidomumaperire? voluptates tenere sub freno? meditari dolorum 
 patientiam ? 29, 7 moveat ille mihi risum, ego fortasse illi lacrimas 
 movebo. 66, 4 non deformitate corporis foedari animum, sed 
 pulchritudine animi corpus ornari; 76, 35 alii diu patiendo levia 
 faciunt, hie levia facit diu cogitando; 86, 21 ne quemadmodum 
 Aegialus me sibi adversarium paravit, sic ego parem te mihi. 76, 
 14 ad secandum subtilis acies est et mucro munimentum omne 
 rupturus. 
 
 Pliny the Younger. 
 
 The variety of feeling, ranging from the frank, unrhetorical state- 
 ments in some epistles to the artificiality of others which were com- 
 posed with greater care, makes Pliny's letters an excellent thougli 
 a limited field for study. That the use of chiasmus was recognized 
 by Pliny as a part of his rhetorical art is indicated by its frequency 
 in the Panegyricus, which, with the two epistles to Tacitus, 6, 16 
 and 20, will be considered in detail, since all three were carefully 
 prepared. Pliny himself states to Tacitus the object he had in 
 writing Ep. 6, 16, indirectly quoting from Tacitus, quo verius 
 tradere posteris possis. Again the quotation from Vergil at the 
 beginning of Ep. 6, 20 seems to herald an attempt to emulate in 
 prose and on a smaller scale an artistic recital of the Aeneid. 
 
 Adverbs, as is usual when the arrangement is chiastic, are placed 
 together with but a single exception ; P. 83 aut inconsultius uxor 
 adsumpta aut retenta patientius. In a few instances the same 
 adverb is repeated : 58 ita consules semper ut semper principes 
 erant ; 84 invicem, invicem ; 91 simul, simul. With adverbs of 
 time or place chiasmus is found at P. 11 lacrimis primum . . . 
 mox templis; 88 optimi prius, deinde maximi ; Ep. 6, 16, 6 inter- 
 dum, interdum; 10 illuc, unde; 17 alibi, illic. In P. 29 a preposi- 
 tional phrase is used in the second member of the chiasmus : quod 
 genitum esset usquam, id apud omnes natum esse videretur. 
 
 There are some noticeable examples of the chiastic arrangement 
 of adjectives: P. 28 gaudentibus gaudens, securusque securis; 
 37 tributum tolerabile et facile heredibus dumtaxat extraneis, 
 domesticis grave ; 56 aut beneficio sterile aut vacuum laude ; 56 
 magnum est differre honorem, gloriam mains; 78 non nimium 
 privatis quod principi satis est; 63 marcidi somno, cena redun- 
 dantes. 6, 16, 17 faces multae variaque lumina. 
 
CHIASMUS IN THE EPISTLES OF CICERO, ETC. 347 
 
 The use of chiasmus to emphasize the personal or demonstra- 
 tive element is fairly common, the pronouns being generally 
 arranged together: P. 6 sollicitior tu, ille securior; lo illud, ilia; 
 20 aliis, tibi ; 55 nos, tu ; 57 aliis, in se ; 72 nee magis sine te nos 
 esse felices quam tu sine nobis potes. 74 alius fortasse alium, 
 ipsum se nemo deceperit .... precati sumus ut sic te amarent 
 dii quemadmodum tu nos. The arrangement of the pronouns as 
 the extremes is far less frequent; P. 71 te mirer magis an impro- 
 bem illos; 42 alienis mancipiis, civibus suis. 6, 16, 18 alios in 
 fugam vertunt, excitant ilium. 
 
 Possessive pronouns are frequently placed together, though 
 with suus, nosier and iuus the normal order may not be inverted : 
 6, 16, 2 perpetuitati eius scriptorum tuorum aeternitas; i2timorem 
 eius sua securitate ; 6, 20, 10 tuus, tuus. P. 80 fortunis suis, tua 
 existimatione ; 80 utilitate nostra, tua laude. 
 
 At times in the chiastic arrangement of verbs with nouns, repe- 
 tition occurs: P. 43, donavit , . . donasti; 66 deceptus est, 
 decepit ; 67 invita suscipiat, susceperit invita ; 68 scis tibi ubique 
 iurari, cum ipse iuraveris omnibus; 76 sequerentur omnes et 
 omnes improbarent. In other instances the most strongly con- 
 trasted words are placed as the means in the chiasmus : 63 non 
 consulatus detur sed abrogetur imperium. 53 neque enim satis 
 amarit bonos principes qui malos satis non oderit ; 68 ibi intem- 
 perantius amamus bonos principes, ubi liberius malos odimus ; 74 
 dabat apud optimum principem quod apud malos detrahebat. 
 
 Nouns with dependent genitives are usually arranged as the 
 extremes : P. 24 securitatem olim imperantis et incipientis pudo- 
 rem ; 70 nee poenis malorum sed bonorum praemiis ; 56 urbis otic, 
 sinu pacis. The chiastic arrangement is frequently used with 
 pairs of words dependent on the same verb: 11 Tiberius 
 Augustum . . . Claudium Nero . . . Vespasianum Titus, Domi- 
 tianusTitum; 62 nemo omnes, neminem omnes fefellerunt; 6, 16, 
 16 et apud ilium ratio rationem, apud alios timorem timor 
 vicit; 70 magistratus magistratu, honore honor petitur; 10 tibi 
 terras, te terris reliquit; 13 cum solacium fessis, aegris opem 
 ferres ; 89 alteri triumphalia, caelum alteri ; 31 nos Aegypto, nobis 
 Aegyptum ; 10 imperator tu titulis et imaginibus et signis, ceterum 
 modestia labore vigilantia dux et legatus et miles. 
 
 There are but few instances of the chiastic arrangement of 
 dependent clauses or of infinitives : P. 9 successor, etiamsi nolis. 
 
348 R. B. STEELE. 
 
 habendus est; non est habendus socius, nisi velis; 6i ut felicitatis 
 est quantum velis posse, sic magnitudinis velle quantum possis. 
 With prepositional phrases chiasmus is comparatively frequent : 
 5 adversa ex secundis, ex adversis secunda; 9 provincias ex pro- 
 vinciis, ex bellis bella; 13 a manibus ad oculos, ad voluptatem a 
 labore ; 43 scriberis ab amicis, ab ignotis praeteriris ; 48 pallor in 
 corpore, in ore inpudentia ; 73 sanguinis in ore, in animo pudoris; 
 92 suffragator in curia, in campo declarator. 
 
 Where three or more pairs of words occur in succession the 
 order of the words is sometimes varied: P. 9 principi civis, legatus 
 imperatori, filius patri; 60 vis constare reverentiam magistratibus, 
 legibus auctoritatem, modestiam postulantibus? 16 interfuso mari, 
 fluminibusinmensis, praecipiti monte; 15 mores gentium, regionum 
 situs, opportunitates locorum, aquarum temperiem; 81 lustrare 
 saltus, excutere feras, superare iuga, gradum inferre; 25 negotiis 
 aliquis, valetudine alius, hie mari, illefluminibus; 25 terras . . . ad- 
 movere, spatia contrahere, intercedere casibus, occursare fortunae, 
 omni ope adniti; 6, 20, 14 audires ululatus feminarum, infantum 
 quiritatus, clamores virorum : alii parentes, alii liberos, alii coniuges 
 vocibus requirebant. Successive groups of three or more words 
 do not always exhibit a parallel arrangement : 32 sive terris divini- 
 tas quaedam sive aliquis amnibus genius ; 80 reconciliare aemulas 
 civitates, tumentes populos . . . compescere, intercedere iniqui- 
 tatibus magistratuum. 
 
 The straightforward, business-like tone of the epistles to Trajan 
 is noticeable and in them there are but few instances of chiasmus: 
 Ep. 8, 1 oratione pulcherrima et honestissimo exemplo; 43, 2 sump- 
 tus levaretur et impleretur officium ; 73 de agnoscendis liberis et 
 natalibus veris restituendis. Cf. 72 where the arrangement is 
 anaphoric. Compare 81, 2 tuam statuam et corpora sepultorum, 
 with 96, 6 imaginem tuam deorumque simulacra. 116, i qui viri- 
 lem togam sumunt vel nuptias faciunt vel ineunt magistratum vel 
 opus publicum dedicant. 
 
 In the other epistles, chiasmus occurs less frequently, and only 
 a few of the instances will be quoted. Adverbs are usually placed 
 side by side : rursus, mox Ep. 2, 17, 5 ; primum, mox 3, 3, 7 ; 8, 14, 
 21 ; primum or primo, deinde 4, 15, 4; 7, 19, i; 7, 27, 5; rursus, 
 rursus 3, 9, 36; acriter, fideliter 4, 9, 2; altissime, humillime 6, 
 24, I. There are but few instances of adverbs as the extremes : 
 Ep. 6, 5, 5 frequentius singulis, ambobus interdum ; 8, 14, 8 num- 
 
CHIASMUS IN THE EPISTLES OF CICERO, ETC. 349 
 
 quam seria, tristia saepe; 8, i8, 8 diu vidua, mater olim; 9, 21, 4 
 iterum rogabo, impetrabo iterum. 
 
 In the arrangement of adjectives with nouns the words most 
 strongly contrasted are placed together: Ep. i, 6, i manus 
 vacuas, plenas ceras; 2, 17, 10 grande, modica; 2, 13, 6autfidelius 
 amico aut sodale iucundius. In a few instances the adjectives are 
 repeated, Ep, 6, 25, 5 mira, mira ; and an equivalent occurs 5, 3, 
 II multis gloriosum, reprehensioni nemini. In Ep. 8, 22, 3 nobis 
 inplacabiles simus, exorabiles istis, the strongly contrasted adjec- 
 tives have forced the pronouns to the extremes, as in Ep. 9, 22, 3 
 ego non minus aeger animo quam corpore ille. Demonstrative 
 and possessive pronouns with genitives are usually arranged in 
 similar fashion: Ep. 2, 11, 14 audientium adsensu, sollicitudine 
 mea ; hie and ille are so placed 5, 6, 43 hie Aeneae, Achillis ille : 
 cp. 9. 33. 7 and 2, 17, 7. A personal pronoun is usually placed 
 in the emphatic position, e. g. 5, 18, i mihi, tibi; 8, i, 3 ipse, nos; 
 9, 7, 2 tu, ego ; 9, 12, 1 pater ille, tu filius ; 9, 24, i iuvabit hoc te, 
 me certe iuvat. 
 
 Emphasis determines the position of verbs with nouns though 
 repeated terms are placed together: Ep. 8, 8, 6praebent, praebent; 
 9, 6, 2 nunc favent panno, pannum amant; 8, 12, i colit studia, 
 studiosos amat ; 6, 6, 6 dicenti adsistit, adsidet recitanti ; 6, 22, 
 8 neque enim tam iucundum est vindicari quam decipi miserum ; 
 8, 10, I omittit. facit; 9, 13, 11 praesentibus confidis, incertus 
 futurorum ; 9, 13, 2 insectandi nocentes, miseros vindicandi. Here 
 may be placed 9, 32, i scribere noHm, velim legere. 
 
 Nouns with dependent genitives are placed as in the Panegyri- 
 cus, the genitives forming the means, e. g. Ep. i, 12, 4 pretia 
 Vivendi mortis rationibus; 3, 4, 9 simplicitas dissentientis, com- 
 probantis auctoritas; 9, 6, 2 velocitate equorum, hominum arte. 
 Chiasmus with pairs of nouns in other cases is not frequent: Ep. i, 
 23, 4 tribunum omnibus, paucis advocatum ; 3, 20, 9 multi famam, 
 conscientiam pauci verentur ; 9, 13, 23 coUega Certi consulatum, 
 successorem Certus accepit. 
 
 Prepositional phrases chiastically arranged are common: Ep. 2, 
 14, 2 in foro pueros a centumviralibus causis auspicari ut ab 
 Homero in scholis ; 3, 9, 3 Priscus ex Baetica, ex Africa Classicus ; 
 5» 6> 23 ; 5, 6, 37 ; 7, 5, 2 requies in labore, in miseria curisque 
 solacium; 9, 13, 23 reddat praemium sub optimo principe, quod 
 a pessimo accepit; 5, 21, 3 ex quaestura rediit, decessit in navi; 
 
350 R. B. STEELE. 
 
 6, 24, 4 se cum marito ligavit, abiecitque in lacum; 8, 14, 18 cum 
 secunda prima, secunda cum tertia ; 9, 4, 2 in universitate longis- 
 simum, brevissimum in partibus; 9, 19, 4 tanta in praedicando 
 verecundia quanta gloria ex facto. 
 
 Chiasmus is of comparatively frequent occurrence when there 
 are several successive pairs of words: 3, I, 11 obiit officia, gessit 
 magistratus, provincias rexit, otium meruit; 4, 7, 4 imbecillum 
 latus, OS confusum, haesitans lingua, tardissima inventio, memoria 
 nulla, nihil denique praeter ingenium insanum ; 4, 25, 4 poposcit 
 tabellam, stilum accepit, demisit caput, neminem veretur, se con- 
 temnit; 6, 11, 2 mira utrique probitas, constantia salva, decorus 
 habitus, os Latinum, vox virilis, tenax memoria, magnum inge- 
 nium, indicium aequale; 6, 33, 8 copia rerum et arguta divisione et 
 narratiunculis pluribus et eloquendi varietate ; 9, 20 2 decerpere 
 uvam, torculum invisere, degustare mustum, obrepere urbanis. 
 
 Successive groups of three words present some variety in 
 arrangement: Ep. 2, 11, i personae claritate famosum, severitate 
 exempli salubre, rei magnitudine aeternum; 2, 17, 6 altera fenestra 
 admittit orientem, occidentem altera retinet; 6, 5, 6 nam et Celsus 
 Nepoti ex libello respondit et Celso Nepos ex pugillaribus; 8, 14, 
 7 cum suspecta virtus inertia in pretio, cum ducibus auctoritas 
 nulla nulla militibus verecundia; 8, 18, 6 mira illius asperitas, 
 mira felicitas horum. 9, 7, 4 haec unum sinum molli curvamine 
 amplectitur, ilia editissimo dorso duos dirimit. Here the first 
 and last terms alone have the same relative position. 
 
 Fronto. 
 
 Adverbs in chiasmus have the position as means p. 6 habeas in 
 promptu, quod facile respondeas, or as extremes p. 45 aeque 
 accipit, habitatur aeque; p. 135 si umquam me amasti sive ama- 
 turus umquam es; p. 185 ut numquam venierit, veniat semper. 
 
 Adjectives are most often placed as the means in the chiasmus, 
 e. g. p. 41 "puerulum audacem" aut "temerarium consultorem;"' 
 p. 131 delinquere humanum est, et hominis maxime proprium 
 ignoscere;p. 154 dulce esu, haustu iucundum ; p. 155 parum e- 
 loquentiae, sapientiae nihil; p. 229 curruli strepitu et cum 
 fremitu equestri. 
 
 _1A quotation from the preceding letter to Fronto, temerarium consul- 
 torem sive audacem puerulum, but he has changed the order of the words 
 thus causing chiasmus. 
 
CHIASMUS IN THE EPISTLES OF CICERO, ETC. 351 
 
 With the exception of p. 24 versus, quos mihi miseras, remisi 
 tibi, pronouns are placed together: p. 12 cocco alii, alii luteo; 
 p. 19 meam tua; p. 164 (mallem mehercule Gyaris cum ilia 
 quam sine ilia in Palatio vivere). Where chiasmus occurs of verbs 
 with nouns the latter are usually placed as the extremes : p. 74 
 ut frivolis finem faciam, et convertar ad serium; 188 praesens 
 trepidaveris, trepidaverim absens. p. 170 cum dedisti procurationes, 
 cum excusationes recepisti. 
 
 No preference is shown in the arrangement of nouns with 
 dependent genitives : p. 28 (decus eloquentiae, amicorum gloria); 
 p. 46 socium dignitatis gloriae bonorumque omnium participem ; 
 p. 71 (vitium corporis, animi studium) ; p, 215 diffidentia formae, 
 diligentiae inlecebras. p. 7 Baiarum specus, fornaculas balnearum ; 
 8 feminae consiliis, vaticinationibus Sibyllae; p. 143 Achillei 
 pernicitatem, debilitatem Philoctetae; p. 146 Alexini verba, verbis 
 Platonis, Pairs of nouns form chiasmus on p. 98 terra urbem 
 illam, animos audientium tua oratio moverit. 
 
 Verbs with dependent infinitives in chiasmus occur on p. 4 
 (metuo quicquam dicere quod tu audire nolis), and chiastic prepo- 
 sitional phrases on p. 213 infrequentes a laudibus, verum in usu 
 cultuque humano frequentissimos. 
 
 Three or more pairs of words in succession forming chiasmus 
 are comparatively frequent: p. 61 (verbum absurdius, inconsultior 
 sensus, infirmior littera); p. 154 Libero thyrsi, corona Sileno, 
 nymphis redimicula; p. 157 caudam cycni, capillum Veneris, 
 Furiae flagellum ; p. 126 eloquentes ut oratoris, strenuae ut ducis, 
 graves ut ad senatum, ut de re militari non redundantes; p. 106 
 vel graves ex orationibus, vel dulces ex poematis, vel ex historia 
 splendidas, vel comes ex comedis (so MS), vel urbanas ex togatis, 
 vel ex Atellanis lepidas; p. 114 saevit Cato, triumphat Cicero, 
 tumultuatur Gracchus, Calvus rixatur; p. 113 quid si Parrhasium 
 versicolora pingere iuberet, aut Apellen unicolora, aut Nealcen 
 magnifica, aut Nician obscura, aut Dionysium inlustria, aut 
 lascivia Euphranorem, aut Pausiam [p]f<7e[l]ia ? 
 
 Groups of more than three words are occasionally found : p. 
 204 bella duo maxima a duobus maximis imperatoribus ; p. 33 
 omnes meae fortunae et mea omnia gaudia; p. 14 (veram sensuum 
 facultatem, elocutionis variam virtutem, inventionis aliquam novi- 
 tatem, orationis dispositionem), is anaphoric excepting the posi- 
 tion oi veram in the first group; p. 8 ratio consiliorum prudentia 
 
352 R. B. STEELE. 
 
 appellatur, vatum impetus divinatio nuncupatur; p. 177 quantum 
 ex tua benivolentia Faustinianus ornamenti adsequetur, tantum 
 tu voluptatis ex Faustiniani elegantia capies, in which the first and 
 last terms are anaphoric, while the four intermediate terms form 
 chiasmus in the order 1234 3412. 
 
 Summary. 
 
 As has been pointed out, the repetition of words and the use 
 of words strongly contrasted, influence the chiastic arrangement. 
 In the use of the different parts of speech some of the writers 
 show a preference for a certain arrangement. Adverbs are regu- 
 larly placed as the means in the chiasmus by all the four authors 
 with the exception of Fronto who has but few examples. With 
 pairs of nouns and adjectives, Cicero and Pliny show no choice, 
 Seneca prefers to place the nouns together, Fronto the adjectives. 
 With the exception of Seneca, all use pronouns freely in chiasmus 
 and regularly place them as the means. Seneca rarely uses pairs 
 of nouns with dependent genitives, and only Pliny shows a pref- 
 erence in arrangement with the genitives as means. When pairs 
 of nouns with verbs form chiasmus, Seneca is inclined to place 
 the nouns as means, Fronto as extremes. Seneca here shows the 
 most extended usage as he also does with pairs of nouns dependent 
 on the same verb. All four use chiasmus in the arrangement 
 of dependent clauses, and all, except Seneca, prefer to place 
 prepositional phrases together. As far as these authors are 
 concerned, no difference due to personal preference is discernible 
 in the arrangement of three or more successive pairs of words, 
 nor in the case of groups of three or more words, unless we may 
 say that Seneca seems to use the latter more freely than the 
 others. 
 
 Vandkrbilt Univ.. Nashviub, Tknn. R. B. StEELE. 
 
ON CAUSES CONTRIBUTORY TO THE LOSS OF 
 THE OPTATIVE ETC. IN LATER GREEK. 
 
 Hatzidakis, in the course of his convincing argument for the 
 essential identity of the modern with the ancient Greek, calls 
 attention (Neugriechische Grammatik, p. 13) to the part played 
 in the disappearance of words and forms by phonetic changes 
 blurring the distinctions in sounds. 
 
 An ingenious application of the combined effect of "itacism" 
 and the loss of the spiritus asper is his explanation of the fact 
 that the words ut and o'r, already in the usage of the New Testa- 
 ment, had been replaced by j^oJpor and wpo^aTov respectively 
 because they had become indistinguishable in sound. 
 
 I do not know whether any one has ever made the obvious, 
 application of the principle here involved, in connection with the 
 disappearance of the optative. Hatzidakis (1. c) goes on to 
 illustrate by the confusion, ' due to itacism,' of forms of ^/lue and 
 vfiets which resulted in the development of new forms inels, iath, etc. 
 
 In Lucian MSS, as elsewhere, the confusion between rmwv and 
 vfiav is frequent and, as illustrative of this whole category of con- 
 fusions, one may instance the v. 1. in Lucian, Piscator 5. a, *, B 
 
 have dpare firj . . . Troie'iTt while SI, 31, T, Urb. have 6paTe iiri . . . 
 
 TToi^re. Sommerbrodt prefers the subjunctive, by virtue perhaps 
 of the somewhat superior MS authority, but the context would 
 seem to point to the indicative as more vivid and, with 'itacism'' 
 to reckon with, one may safely choose on other grounds than the 
 mere overplus of MS authority. The same may be urged in the 
 case of other homophones of the decadent pronunciation, i. e. 
 01 = *; I ^ «i = ?; = u = 01 ; o) = o" ; and o, t, c = S, i, «. Hence 
 
 'Cf. Winer-Schmiedel,' Gram, des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 
 §5, i6. This confusion of tiiese five sounds " fUhrte in den Handschriften 
 zu den eingreifendsten Verwechselungen." For the whole discussion of 
 "itacism " in the N. T. see pp. 43-47. E. g. dSi) was even written for W^, 
 though more frequently Won for cWov, 
 
 ' On the confusion of o and o, of e and ^ cf. Winer* §5, 19; e. g. ^firiv 
 and ^/iev. This was brought to an end when ^ became identical in sound 
 with c, while " der Wechsel zwischen und a dauerte fort." 
 23 
 
354 FRANCIS G. ALLINSON. 
 
 Hatzidakis (p. 306) says: " Es ist eine vollstandig verlorene 
 Miihe, wenn man statistisch nachzuweisen sucht, welche Ortho- 
 graphic fiir diese oder jene neue Form der spateren Zeiten iiblich 
 war." Examples follow illustrating the confusion of Xtytrai = X«y«Te, 
 that of the fut. indie, and the subjunct. as in ha ir\t]pa>aei, that of o 
 
 and a> as in ha Se^ovrai etc. 
 
 On p. 13 Hatzidakis concludes: " Vor allem ist aber dieser 
 wechselseitige Einfluss bei den verschiedenen Kasus, Deklina- 
 tionen, Personen und Modi bemerkbar, z. B. . . . \eyeis, Xeyti, 
 
 Xfyo/uei' — Xeynf' ^'yW) Xcyu/ifv. ' 
 
 This statement would seem to involve the similar confusion in 
 sound between forms of the subjunctive and optative but he draws 
 this conclusion neither here nor on page 218. At the latter point 
 (p. 218) one might well have expected the explicit statement but, 
 although speaking of the disappearance of the optative,' he con- 
 tents himself with the general remark that the subjunctive com- 
 pletely supplanted the optative and then definitely attributes to 
 the coincidence between ei and 5 — e. g. woiijo-eir and n-oi^o-iyr — the 
 fact that the subjunctive has driven the future indicative out of 
 use. 
 
 But why may we not make the application of this phonetic 
 blurring as contributory to the disappearance of the optative? 
 The points of contact, cited above from Hatzidakis, between the 
 indicative and subjunctive present, are three, — two due to ' itacism,' 
 one to the leveling of the o and <a. In the paradigms of the active 
 present subjunctive and optative there are four points of contact 
 
 due to Itacism, 1. e., Xcynr, Xe^y^i XcyijTov Xeyijrc — Xtyots, Xeyoi, Xe'yoirov, 
 
 XcyotT*. The same confusion exists between the act. perfect subj. 
 and optative, and while the forms of the aorist subjunctive and 
 optative could only have been confused by way of the two-fold 
 confusion, — r\ with e, and then of« = at, — yet the coincidence in 
 sound between the four forms of the paradigms of the aor. subj. 
 and the fut. opt. and two of the fut. indie, may be reckoned in, 
 perhaps, as contributory. In the middle voice there is little con- 
 fusion, and that not as significant as if in the third person, i. e., 
 
 \iyr\a6ov \iyi\aQi — \fyota6ov, XiyoiaSf ', SO the aor. pass. X£;j{5^to«', 
 
 Xex^^Tt — Xept^Eiroi/, Xf^^firf. It may be remarked, however, that in 
 
 • '"Der Optativ ist schon dem N. T. fast vOUig £remd . . . und die 
 Atticisten machen seltenen oder verkehrten Gebrauch von ihm, was nichts 
 anderes als ein Schwinden desselben in der Sprache beweist." 
 
LOSS OF THE OPTATIVE ETC. IN LATER GREEK. 355 
 the 2nd aor. act., e. g. Xin-pr \lirji Xlntfrov X/jrijrt — X^Troif Xitroi XiTrotrov 
 
 XijvoiTt, the same confusion of four forms of the paradigm exists 
 between the subjunctive and optative, while, from the nature of 
 the augmented tense, no confusion whatever exists between the 
 indie, and subjunctive. The same may be said also of the 2nd 
 perf. XeXoiVnr etc. The optative, it is true, was doomed to disap- 
 pearance anyhow, but it seems not unlikely that these coinci- 
 dences in sound may have been contributory to the process. 
 
 It is a matter of surprise to find Lucian using, not infrequently, 
 the optative for the subjunctive. Especially is this the case in final 
 clauses after a primary tense — a case of ' verkehrter Gebrauch ' 
 (cf. Hatz., 1. c.) on the part of an Atticist.' One would like to 
 maintain that Lucian could not have committed so obvious a 
 solecism while so faithfully reproducing other more intricate 
 niceties of Attic syntax. It would be tempting to think of these 
 optatives as due to itacizing scribes, but no such application is 
 possible here. Lucian not only makes this blunder in his most 
 carefully finished works (e. g. Piscator, Charon, etc.), but out of 
 seven instances in the Charon, §§1-9, for example, three only 
 could under any circumstances be claimed as due to phonetic 
 confusion with the subjunctive — i. e. Moir, KaWSoif , apxoi — the other 
 four optatives are in the first person. Such distinctions, it is 
 clear, had been blurred long since and Lucian, in resurrecting 
 Attic ghosts, ferried back in Charon's boat or let in with the 
 iva^iovvTK (cf. Piscator §§13, 15, 16, 44, 47) some very un-Attic 
 optatives. 
 
 On p. 206 Hatzidakis mentions various synonyms where the 
 later Greek, ignoring many finer distinctions in vocabulary as 
 well as syntax, has contented itself with retaining one only of a 
 group of two or more. 
 
 Mere poverty of imagination may in some cases have been the 
 reason, but in others various causes, sometimes hard to guess, 
 must have operated. That vi<a {swim) should have been dis- 
 
 > For other deviations in the use of the opt. by Atticists in general see 
 Schmid, Atticismus I, pp. 97-98 ; for Lucian see Schmid I, pp. 242-244, 
 etc., and cf. KrUger 54, 8, 3 for the use of the optat. with Iva after primary 
 tenses even in Attic authors where "im Haupttempus ein Prateritum mit zu 
 denken ist oder aber rein Ideelles vorschwebt." This, it may be assumed, 
 is the entering wedge and, like other deviations from the Attic standard, 
 this too has its origin in a distortion or an extension of a legitimate usage. 
 
356 FRANCIS G. ALLINSON. 
 
 placed by -nXka (sail) is hard to understand. One might rather 
 have expected that «<» would have expanded to take in ifKia, 
 but it is not unlikely that the number of meanings of vei (i. e. 
 swims; spins; piles up) may have made it convenient to discard 
 at least one meaning when the chance offered. Itacizing homo- 
 phones of vii, like the particle vii or a form like vol (yovs), present 
 no points of contact. 
 
 In another pair (H. p. 206), lei — /3p«Vi, it might seem as if 
 itacism may have co-operated, after the spiritus asper was lost, 
 just as in the case of Is and oh, in supplanting {!« by Ppex"- ^^ 
 fact, vti would be indistinguishable from the following verbal 
 forms : viz. (from ti/ii) — jju, Xji, lot; (from ii;/iO — «i) and "« {bis i. e. 
 imperf. and imperat.); (from W/xi) — eiij. While these verb forms 
 have no contact in meaning with v€i as in the case of Is and ols 
 there are here enough homophones to suggest the feeling, 
 when pronouncing vet (e6-ee), that ' it never rains but it pours.' 
 Hatzidakis, however, does not appeal to itacism as co-operative 
 here, although he suggests it (p. 207) in the case of the confusion 
 between Kd6iaov and KaBrjao, which even in Lucian's time (Pseudo- 
 logista §11) "man nicht zu unterscheiden wusste." 
 
 One might perhaps add to his list the pair 6(a and Tpex<^- Of 
 the former Veitch (s. v.) says : " In lexicons the usage is consid- 
 erably understated." In the N. T. 6ia> is not used, but it would 
 be far-fetched to assume that homophones from rWrnxi, e. g. Subj. 
 2nd aor. e^s, 6^, dlJTov, Bjjre, contributed to crowd out the indie, of 
 Sea — 6eis, 6e~i, BelTov, 6e'iTe, 
 
 Another interesting case of crowding out, dating at least from 
 the time of Polybius (see Hatzidakis, p. 207, and for references cf. 
 Winer-Schmiedel,' Gram, des neutestamentlichen Sprachidioms, 
 IP" Th., §26, 5, note 8), is that of the indefinite Tir which is 
 supplanted by els. Possibly foreign Hellenists, losing the feeling 
 for the accent, found it increasingly hard to distinguish between 
 t\s and Ti'f. The interrogative ris, indeed, confused in usage with 
 n-oios, was itself disappearing — " ist fast vollig aus der Volkssprache 
 verschwunden " (H. p. 208). May not the shorter forms of rir, 
 i. e. gen. and dat. tou and ra, have co-operated through a confu- 
 sion with the same forms of the article ? 
 
 Brown University. FrANCIS G. ALLINSON. 
 
THE ETYMOLOGY AND MEANING OF THE 
 SANSKRIT ROOT ID. 
 
 In the Rig- Veda I. 1-2 we read as follows: 
 Agnim i\e purdhiiarh 
 yajadsya devdm rivijam 
 hdidrarh rainadhatamam 
 
 Agnih piirvebhir f^ibhir 
 idyo nuiandir uid 
 sd devan ihd vak^ati. 
 These two stanzas are usually translated: "Agni I praise, the 
 purohita, the divine ministrant of the sacrifice, the hotar, the 
 greatest giver of riches. Agni, worthy of being praised by the 
 rshis of old and by those of the present time, will bring the 
 gods hither." 
 
 It is often no easy task to interpret a Vedic word restricted in 
 its meaning and referring to a single deity. We have to search 
 for the sphere in which it is used and to determine to what deity 
 it refers. With but one exception, this has not been done in the 
 various attempts at explaining the etymology and meaning of the 
 root V H- The root has been treated too much in vacuo and its 
 frequent discussion has been due to phonetic reasons, viz. the 
 treatment of the sonant sibilant in Sanskrit. Cf. Bechtel BB. X. 
 286; Bartholomae ibid. XII. 91; Arische Forschungen II. 78; 
 Johansson IF. II. 47; Brugmann IF. I. 171 f. The last-named 
 connects it with the root »j yaj (Greek ay-io-t) part, i^id, evidently 
 following out a suggestion made by Bezzenberger in Gottinger 
 Nachrichten for 1878, p. 264 n. 
 
 But it seems to me that we cannot refer li, either with 
 Bechtel, Bezzenberger and others, to Greek alSeo/im, atSoiiai, Lat. 
 aesHmare < aezditumare, and Goth, distan, ga-disian on phonetic 
 grounds, or to njyaj as Brugmann has done. 
 
 My reasons for not agreeing with the distinguished scholars 
 mentioned will be seen later. A fairly complete literature on the 
 subject can be found in SBE. XLVI. p. 4 to which may be added 
 
358 JENS A. NESS. 
 
 the hints given by Benfey in the glossary to his edition of the 
 Sama-Veda. 
 
 As stated above, the cause of the frequent discussion of the 
 word has been a phonetic one, viz. the treatment of the sonant 
 sibilant in Sanskrit, a question which need not be entered into at 
 this time. All these attempts must be regarded as unsatisfactory, 
 because it has not been considered at all i) to what divinity the 
 word is applied, 2) to what sphere it belongs, and 3) with what 
 other word or words it is correlated. The most recent explana- 
 tion is that of Oldenberg in SBE. XLVI. p. 2 f. He translates 
 it by " magnify," considering id etymologically connected with 
 i% " food," according to which its original meaning would be " to 
 give sap, nourishment." But this is as improbable as the other 
 derivations referred to above. Oldenberg rightly observes, how- 
 ever, that, although no god in the Vedic Pantheon is so highly 
 and frequently praised by the poets of the Rig- Veda as Indra, 
 with very few exceptions 1^ td is avoided in speaking of this god. 
 
 The ninth mandala is devoted to the praise of Soma. Yet 
 throughout the entire book l4 occurs but twice (5, 3 ; 66, i), and of 
 these one instance (5, 3) is contained in an apri verse transferring 
 to Soma such qualities as originally belong to Agni. On the other 
 hand, in invocations addressed to Agni, this verb and its deriva- 
 tives are most frequently used. 
 
 To show how id and its derivatives had a connotation which 
 qualified them to be used with Agni and not with Indra or Soma 
 is difficult, if not impossible. It is probable that it may be due to 
 the development of the myth, although it is hardly worth while to 
 enter upon any discussion in regard to this matter. 
 
 We may now explain the form of id. 
 
 The root \lld<,i3-\-d<, i% + «/with assimilation of the sibi- 
 lant to the following sonant consonant, the s itself disappearing 
 under the law of the existing language, which admits no sonant 
 sibilant but causes a lengthening of the preceding vowel, if 
 short, cf. Whitney § 222 c. This regularly occurs where Indo-Iran. 
 s and z follow a vowel; cf. Ascoli, Krit. St. 283 flf.; Hiibschmann, 
 KZ. 24, 405 ff; Bloomfield, Non-diphthongal e and o in Sanskrit.' 
 
 'For a similar phenomenon in Germanic, cf. OE. «(;</," reward, pay," 
 OS. meda, OHG. mita, meata, miata, mieta. The Goth, mizdo corresponds 
 exactly to the OE. ott. Uy. meord. Cf. further Gr. /iiffiS(5f, OB. viizda, Streit- 
 berg, UG. §79, 2. But see Sievers, PBr B. XVIII. 409. 
 
ETYMOLOG Y OF SANSKRIT ROOT ID. 359 
 
 Wackernagel, in his Altindische Grammatik § 40, is uncertain 
 whether to connect irf with ^j yaj or V^" to wish, choose: " "i 
 aus iz in v. 2d-„anflehen" zu jra/'-nOpfern " (oder zu i^-„wun- 
 schen")"} As additional examples may be cited nida < *nizdd, 
 pid < *piz.d < /z.j-rf; wrcf < mrz-d; cf. Skt. mrdikdm: Av. 
 mpr9zdiksm; midhdm < Indo-Iran.»«iW/ea < Indo-Eur. viigdha 
 < Indo-Eur. mighta; vidil < wf + rfw < wzj; jWa^z < sizdeii 
 (d for rf by analogy, cf. Osthoff, Perf. 2 ff.); see further Wacker- 
 nagel, Altind. Grammatik §§ 40 and 238; Jackson, Avesta Gram- 
 mar § 183. 
 
 r4 then is z? + a 'determinative' rf through which the connection 
 between id and t^ is effected and by which id is differentiated from 
 the simple i§. The original signification of this root-determina- 
 tive d is uncertain ; it may be, in some way, connected with the 
 root V da, to give. 
 
 The key to the whole problem, and we need not go outside of 
 Sanskrit, is found in the fact that on one hand vr interchanges 
 with z?, on the other with l4- The question is how far ?j in id 
 has retained its original signification of wishing, choosing. It 
 would be futile, of course, to deny that this word never has the 
 meaning of honoring, praising, because what we wish we love, 
 and what we love we honor. What we do claim is that the mean- 
 ing of choosing is dominant in certain forms of id, and that the 
 same forms oi vr are used in similar connections and applied, in 
 most cases, to the same divinity. 
 
 We will now give a few examples, showing the interchange of 
 V vr with V *? and V id. 
 
 In the Kaufika-Satra 94, 2 we read : iaira raja bhumipaiir 
 vidvansam brahmdnam ichet and in 126, 2 of the same work: 
 taira raja bhUmipatir vidvansam brahmdrj.am vrniydt. In the two 
 passages cited above we have the very best evidence that V i^ and 
 »jvr are used synonymously. The connection, too, is the same in 
 both passages. Again in RV. VII. 93, 4: 
 
 glrbhir viprali pr&matim ickdmdna 
 Hie rayim yafdsavt purvabhajam 
 
 ' Max Mailer SEE. XXXII. p. 354, is still more uncertain: "Whether 
 .yljis distantly connected with ,JT»z=to desire (Brugmann I. 591), or with 
 ardzz. to strive, or with ar-=.io go, is a question which admits of many or of 
 no answer." 
 
36o JENS A. NESS. 
 
 where itte clearly =vrnilS ; this passage is of additional interest 
 in that /i/l4 iitte) is used side by side with V i^ {ichdmana). For 
 further passages where ^^'^ V^f cf. RV. III. 30, i ; IX. 112, i. 
 
 But it is especially in the gerundive forms idinya, vdrenya 
 that the relation of the two words is most clearly shown, and I 
 need but to present a few instances where id&nya and vdrenya 
 occur to put, it seems to me, the question, as a whole, upon a 
 firm basis. 
 
 In the ApQ. 4, 5, 5 we have : idenyakratur aham apo devlr 
 upa bruve with which we may compare Av. 6, 23, i : vdrenya- 
 kratur ahdm apd devir tipa hvaye ' ; here the two words idenya- 
 kratur and vdrenyakratur are synonymous. 
 
 In the Rig-Veda idinya is without exception used of Agni, 
 the case in RV. IX. 5, 3 being, as above stated, but an apparent 
 exception as the qualities belonging to Agni are transferred to 
 Soma. Indeed, as Bergaigne has observed, tdenya is as regu- 
 larly used of Agni aspavamdna is of Soma; likewise vdrenya is 
 generally used of Agni. Cf. Grassrnann, Wbrterbuch, s. v. 
 
 On the writing tie, i\inya cf. von Bradke ZDMG. XL. 668 n. 
 i; Whitney, §54. 
 
 I have been purposely rather sparing with examples, as this is 
 not a question of interpretation, and to adduce a large number of 
 instances of the use of vdrenya I consider unnecessary as the 
 meaning is quite clear. From \/ id, idya is also employed with 
 Agni, the exceptions out of thirty passages numbering but four 
 or five. 
 
 A noticeable fact in connection with vdrenya is that instrumen- 
 tals such as gira, suvrktibhir, etc., are used with it, precisely as is 
 the case with tdhiya (idya). 
 
 To sum up our remarks : hfld < yTJ + a? < ifT^ + d, this 
 determinative d effecting a connection between i^ld and ijT^and 
 diiferentiating tj id from the simple hjlq'; njld and ii[T§ are 
 frequently correlated with V^T/ id&nya is always, and idya 
 and vdrenya are, with but few exceptions, used in invocations 
 addressed to Agni; the *jld is Vedic. I would, therefore, trans- 
 late RV. I. 1-2 as follows: "Agni I choose as the purohita, the 
 divine ministrant of the sacrifice, the hotar, the greatest giver 
 of riches. 
 
 'For these two passages I am indebted to Dr. Bloomfield. 
 
ETYMOLOGY OF SANSKRIT ROOT ID. 3^1 
 
 " Agni, fit to be chosen by the rshis of old and by those of the 
 present time, will bring the gods hither." 
 
 If this account of >J id holds good, the meaning of the word 
 will be slightly modified in a few Vedic passages, but the interpre- 
 tation of these passages will not be essentially changed, since 
 the matter involved is not so much the sense of the word as its 
 derivation and relation to V ^f- 
 
 Jens A. Ness. 
 
THE TECHNIC OF SHAKSPERE'S SONNETS. 
 
 (I)S>! ifiion row vov TO Ka\a oco'/tiara. 
 
 — LONGINUS. 
 
 It may be reckoned as the progress of the 20th century beyond 
 the 19th, that it begins with a general confession of the futility of 
 that criticism which has too long been exercised upon the sonnets 
 of Shakspere. The biographical theory may frankly be said to 
 have failed. The 'dark lady' whitens into a ghost. Students of 
 the poet's life and achievement are not, it may be hoped, to be 
 worried any longer by those fantastical legends of his personal 
 weaknesses and abasements, which bad critical method so long 
 sought to draw from his poems. 
 
 The gain is likely to be great. For, so soon as the world 
 ceases to seek in the sonnets for morbid details of the poet's 
 biography, and for the revelation of his adventures and intrigues, 
 those poems assume their true value as works of art. And, if the 
 stages of a poet's artistic development be in truth the vital facts 
 of a poet's life, then the sonnets become of monumental worth, 
 stages in the attainment of his perfect art, the training-school of 
 his transcendent genius for poetic form. They are the abiding 
 record of his studies in poetry. In them the young dramatist, 
 with his mind set upon all that was best in the sonnet-literature 
 of his time, trained himself by strenuous practice and through 
 the most ingenious and varied experiments in style and poetic 
 diction, to his final purpose, the dramatic rendering of human 
 character. 
 
 In essence, therefore, the sonnets, as a long series of elaborate 
 studies in the lyrical expression of thought and emotion, are as 
 purely and intensely dramatic as the dramas themselves. There 
 is, under the lyrical form, the same movement and process of the 
 imagination. For, in each drama, each dramatic speech that the 
 poet creates is the utterance, as conceived by the poet, of some 
 imagined person as evoked by some imagined situation. If the 
 speech fit the character and spring by force of nature from the 
 situation, there is the true fii/ti/air, the full attainment of dramatic 
 
364 THOS. R. PRICE. 
 
 life. And, in the sonnets, in like manner, for the creation of each 
 sonnet, there is the situation that the poet imagines and the 
 personality that he poses in the situation. Thus, in fitting dra- 
 matically the style, in all its details of language and versification, to 
 the character and to the situation as he imagined them, he struck 
 the deepest fountain of lyrical inspiration. Hence the infinite 
 variety and impersonality of the sonnets themselves. Shakspere 
 made of them, in the mighty studies of his youth, no trivial rev- 
 elation of women that had kissed him nor of friends that had 
 betrayed him, but the generalized utterance of human passion. 
 The characters that he imagined were so placed in a series of 
 imaginary situations, as to exhibit, in the widest possible range 
 of emotion, the full play of the human soul. 
 
 And again, in thus combining character and situation, the poet, 
 whose whole nature was dramatic, followed the same bent as in 
 the dramas. The situations, instead of being drawn from his own 
 life and personal experience, were, as it has been proved, almost 
 without exception, taken from that sonnet-literature with which 
 his youthful reading had made him so familiar. Thus, as in his 
 plays, with his mind under the obsession of the assumed char- 
 acter, he sought in each poem to attain the final harmony of 
 dramatic utterance. The thought, the sentiment, and the style 
 were, as his final aim, in their emotional tone, to be fitted as closely 
 as possible to the assumed situation. It is the full achievement 
 of this purpose in the best of the sonnets that gives them, for 
 students of poetry, such peerless charm. And if, as will be seen, 
 in many of the sonnets this harmony is not fully attained, the 
 striving and experimentation, even the failures, of so great a poet, 
 have always a profound interest. 
 
 The steps by which Shakspere approached and attained his 
 perfection of lyrical utterance are to be seen in the sonnets 
 themselves. The study of them in their details is the study of 
 Shakspere's technic in the management of words and sentences 
 and versification. It involves all the means and processes of his 
 poetical art, and the creation of his style. And, as the composi- 
 tion of the sonnets was the special work of his youthful years, it 
 is plain that the labor spent upon the sonnets, in making each 
 one in its concentrated brevity the dramatic expression of some 
 phase of human passion, was his intellectual training for the 
 dramas that were to come. 
 
THE TECHNIC OF SHAKSPERE S SONNETS. 365 
 
 For Shakspere himself, as for all the great writers of his time, 
 the chief problem of style, in the poetic handling of their English 
 language, was the dainty choice of words. Each man's habit of 
 mind and intellectual range of expression showed themselves in 
 the preference that he gave either to the native words or to the 
 borrowed words of contemporary speech. In the absence of 
 dictionaries and elaborate works of reference, this choice, far 
 more than in later ages, was the work of individual bent and 
 personal taste. On the one hand, there was the charm of racy 
 popular usage, in words so rich in natural poetry, inherited from 
 the earlier time. On the other hand, there was the charm of 
 literary usage and association, in words derived either from the 
 Latin, through which men's education had been conducted, or 
 from the French or the Italian or the Spanish, in which their read- 
 ing chiefly lay. There was, as was natural, excess on both sides, 
 much ugliness and endless affectation. In Shakspere, within the 
 compass of the sonnets, the chief character to be noted is the wide 
 range of his choice, the flexibility of his style. In all the sonnets 
 taken together, there is the average of i6f per cent of foreign 
 words to 83! per cent of native words. But in separate sonnets, 
 and in groups of sonnets, there is large divergence from this 
 normal average. The percentage of foreign words, at its lowest, 
 falls to 7J per cent, and at its highest rises to 26J per cent. The 
 sonnets that stand at each extreme show a special character that 
 makes them noteworthy. Sonnet 73, for example, 
 That time of year thou may'st in me behold, 
 
 with its low percentage of foreign words, represents the class in 
 which the gem-like radiance of Shakspere's poetical diction is 
 most keenly felt. On the other hand, sonnet 125, 
 Were it aught to me, I bore the canopy, 
 
 with its high percentage of foreign words represents the class in 
 which the movement of imagination is most impeded, the charm 
 of poetry least felt. Such extremes mark the range of the young 
 poet's experiment in poetic diction, and the movement of his 
 mind toward purity and daintiness. The sonnets that show the 
 largest excess of foreign diction are 
 
 107, 125, 15, 66, 85, 
 
 129, 127, 4, 8. 
 
366 THOS. R. PRICE. 
 
 The sonnets in which the diction is purest are 
 
 43. 73, 22, 24, 42, 
 
 61, 9, 72, 92, 140- 
 Several in each class are supremely beautiful. They show with 
 what skill the poet knew how to secure the tone of his emotion.^ 
 The charm of the Shaksperian word-choice is chiefly to be seen 
 in those elaborate passages in which, for special emotional effect, 
 he confines himself to one class of words. Thus, although in 
 general, he blends native words with foreign, he gives in many of 
 the greatest sonnets, series of verses that are composed altogether 
 of native words. Such, for example, is the superb opening of 
 the 73rd sonnet, made by three pure verses, or that exquisite 
 passage, vv. 9-13, by which, in five pure verses, he leads the 
 80th sonnet to its close. These groups of pure verses represent 
 the poet's highest attainment in poetic style ; and the few sonnets 
 that contain no pure verses, like sonnets 125 and 127, are of 
 inferior workmanship. The poet loved, especially in closing the 
 sonnet by the rhyming couplet, to reach his final effect by such a 
 grouping of pure verses. See, for example of this manner, the 
 powerful close of sonnets 136 and 137.^ Such sequences of pure 
 verses seem to render in Shakspere's art the highest emotional 
 intensity. 
 
 In reckoning the poetical quality of words, next to their his- 
 torical sense and emotional power, their length and syllabic 
 quantity seem the most important condition of usage. The verse, 
 as Shakspere came to conceive it, in its lovely interlacing of 
 accents and quantities, is mainly dependent on the interchange 
 of monosyllabic with dissyllabic words. A word of excessive 
 length is almost fatal, from his point of view, to the poetical 
 movement. It marks the lapse into prose. Only three times, 
 for example, does he suffer a word of five syllables to intrude 
 its unwieldy length into the sonnet-form.° Of words of four 
 
 ^In his use of foreign words, Shakspere showed a strong preference for 
 foreign nouns and an aversion for foreign adjectives. Of his foreign words 
 the nouns are 54 per cent, the verbs are 31 per cent, the adjectives are 15 
 per cent. Sonnet 121 stands alone in its excess of foreign adjectives. 
 
 "The average of pure verses is slightly over three to the sonnet. The 
 largest number is found in sonnets 43 and 73. There are only five sonnets 
 tljat contain not a single pure verse, viz., i, 4, 35, 125, 127. 
 
 ''Determination, 13. 6, imaginary, 27. 9, insufficiency, 150. 2; of these only 
 imaginary seems to have the true poetic quality. 
 
THE TECHNIC OF SHAKSPERE S SONNETS. ^67 
 
 syllables, there are in the sonnets only 80, and of words of 
 three syllables only 517. Thus in the poetic diction of Shakspere 
 as elaborated for the sonnet, over 97 per cent of his words are 
 either monosyllabic or dissyllabic. But here, once more, as in the 
 case of native and foreign words, a special character is given to 
 separate sonnets by their wide divergence from his normal usage. 
 Many of the most exquisite sonnets are formed altogether of short 
 words. So, for example, sonnets 104 and 137. See also sonnets 
 
 17, 47, 69, 83, 130, 145. On the other hand, a few sonnets, like 
 the beautiful 66th, owe their special charm to the skilful manage- 
 ment of the many polysyllabic words. It is a marvellous triumph 
 of technical skill, a startling experiment in poetic diction. But, 
 in general, the excess of polysyllabic words, as in sonnets 125, 
 105, 124 and 135, gives a prosaic movement. Among the sonnets 
 there are only 16 that show such faulty use of polysyllables — and 
 there are 41 from which they are almost or altogether absent. 
 
 Shakspere's love for the short word, as leading to terseness of 
 expression and concentrated energy of emotion, culminated in 
 that superb use of the monosyllabic line which was a special mark 
 of his poetic style. Such verses form in truth the special glory 
 of English poetry ; for, as they form themselves by the grouping 
 of separate syllables, according to their vowel-quantity, under 
 accentual law, they cannot arise save in our English language. 
 Thus, by their condensation of meaning, they give to the poet 
 that can use them such an overwhelming rapidity and fulness of 
 imaginative force as no other poetry can parallel. In the son- 
 nets it is remarkable that the distribution of the monosyllabic 
 verses is strangely irregular. There are 36 sonnets that contain 
 no such verses; and they are fewest in the early sonnets (1-31) 
 and most numerous in the latest sonnets (128-154). It seems to 
 indicate a chronological order as basis of the sonnet-groups. It 
 is, as if the poet, pleased by the movement of such verses, came 
 as the result of his experiment to use them more and more freely. 
 It is, however, in sonnets 42, 43 and 44 that the use of the mono- 
 syllabic verse is carried to its highest point. They occur in 
 unbroken sequence of three verses in sonnet 44, and they are 
 used with splendid skill to make the closing couplet of 43.' 
 
 'Compare also the final couplet of sonnets 127, 134, 147, 149, 103, 115, 
 
 18, 26. It is chiefly condensation of thought that the poet here seeks and 
 attains. 
 
368 THOS. R. PRICE. 
 
 There was, however, in Shakspere's choice of words, still 
 another, a third principle of selection. The leading words of each 
 verse were chosen habitually for their delicate alliterative harmony 
 with one another. In composing the sonnets, he became, as we 
 shall see, almost infallible in the proper placing of the caesural 
 pause. Thus, as the result of the caesura was to cut the verse 
 into two halves, he felt, like the older poets, the need of linking 
 the two parts by most ingenious harmonies of sound. In many 
 cases, this could be done without formal alliteration, by the cor- 
 respondence of his accented vowels. Apart from this means, and 
 apart from those innumerable cases in which alliteration is used 
 only to decorate a single half-verse, there is in the sonnets 
 careful alliteration of verse-structure in 38 per cent of his 
 verses. In general, Shakspere confines the process to the single 
 verse; but in some sonnets he binds together by alliteration 
 groups of verses, e. g. 82, vv. lo-ii ; 71, vv. 2-3 ; 135, vv. 1-2 ; 
 127, vv. 2-3-4; 109, vv. 6-7. Within the compass of the single 
 verse, so used in each case, as to bind the two halves together, 
 alliteration is either double, triple or four-fold, e. g. — 
 
 From fairest creatures, we desire increase, i. i. 
 'Lean penury within that pen doth dwell, 84. 5. 
 Poor soul, the centre of my ««/«/ earth, 146. i. 
 Like a lamb, he doth his looks translate, 96. 10. 
 
 The poet's preference for the various sounds of our language 
 as bearers of alliteration is visible, according to scale, in the 
 table : 
 
 S alliteration used 134 times. 
 
 Vowel 
 
 (( t( 
 
 118 
 
 L 
 
 t i( 
 
 61 
 
 B 
 
 H (1 
 
 53 
 
 F 
 
 ( It 
 
 48 
 
 H 
 
 i ti 
 
 46 
 
 W 
 
 1 (( 
 
 44 
 
 P 
 
 ( t( 
 
 43 
 
 T 
 
 t if 
 
 41 
 
 M 
 
 (t t< 
 
 41 
 
 &c., &c. 
 
 It is to be noted that, in general, alliteration is more frequent 
 in the later sonnets. It rises to its highest use in sonnets 141-50 
 
THE TECHNIC OF SHAKSPERE S SONNETS. 369 
 
 and sinks to its lowest in sonnets 41-50. There are ten sonnets 
 altogether free from alliteration, and there are seven that rise 
 above the rest in what may almost seem excess of alliterative art, 
 viz.: 30, 85, 116, 129, 135, 146, 148. 
 
 In the sonnet, as the name denotes, the chief condition 
 of excellence is the beauty of the words taken singly, each 
 in its place, and the beauty of the verse-cadence by which 
 they are united. Thus it has showed itself, in the develop- 
 ment of the sonnet-form, that almost all poets have, in fix- 
 ing their attention upon the sensuous element of poetry, been 
 prone to neglect its intellectual side. In almost all sonnets there 
 is lack of lucidity in syntax, lack of logical precision in the 
 arrangement of sentences, either a too violent compression of the 
 thought to be expressed or an excessive looseness and prolixity. 
 It is here that the young Shakspere shows the supreme mastery of 
 his art. For him, the perfect pose of his thought upon the 
 'sonnet's Procrustean bed' reveals neither cramping nor stretch- 
 ing. Except in two or three passages, where the text is doubtful, 
 the syntax of the sonnets is faultless and even luminous. He has 
 solved in his sonnet-composition not only the problem of choos- 
 ing and grouping his words according to their sensuous rhythm, 
 but also the problem of constructing and grouping his sentences 
 according to their intellectual relations. Thus, in the best of the son- 
 nets, above all in those in which he has revealed the fulness of his 
 imaginative power, there is the attainment of the highest poetic 
 harmony, the harmony of cadence with emotion and truth of 
 thought. 
 
 If all the sonnets be taken together, the average length of Shaks- 
 pere's sentences is twenty-five words. It is a sentence so moder- 
 ate in length as to allow at once perfect freedom and perfect 
 accuracy of formation. But here again, around this normal pat- 
 tern, there is in the different sonnets an ample range of 
 variation. In sonnet 15, for example, he arranges 112 words 
 in one single sentence, and so lucid and easy is the arrange- 
 ment as to make us unconscious of its unusual length. But in 
 sonnet 40, he breaks his thought into 10 sentences with an 
 average length of only 12 words. In these two extremes, 
 he illustrates the two theories of perfect sentence-construction; 
 and between these two extremes, there is each step of 
 variation. The average length of his sentences is highest in 
 
 24 
 
370 THOS. R. PRICE. 
 
 the early sonnets, especially in sonnets 12 to 31 ; and it is lowest 
 in the later sonnets, lowest of all in sonnets 132-154.' 
 
 In the form of the sentence, there is visible the same freedom of 
 variation. Among all forms, the complex sentence, in which the 
 main statement is modified by one or by two subordinate clauses, 
 is the form that Shakspere best loved. In all the sonnets 
 taken together, such complex sentences make 45 per cent of all. 
 The simple sentences make only 18 per cent, and the compound 
 sentences only 13. The rest, 24 per cent of all, are the special 
 glory of the poet's constructive skill. They are sentences that are 
 at the same time both complex and compound. Notice, for 
 example, how sonnet 15, composed on this pattern, develops the 
 thought, through a long succession of graceful members, to the 
 lovely epigram with which it closes. Such work as this shows 
 the highest technical skill that was ever seen in our English 
 poetical literature. 
 
 With exception of 99 and 126, poems that are not sonnets at 
 all, the sonnets of Shakspere were planned upon the familiar 
 sequence of seven rhymes. 
 
 ABAB— CDCD— FFEF— GG. 
 
 He conceived the sonnet, not in the Italian fashion, as octave 
 and sestet, but, in English fashion, as three quatrains and a 
 couplet. It was, as many have felt, a false conception. By the 
 prominence that this plan gives to the closing couplet, in which 
 there is too often an epigrammatic flash of thought or sentiment 
 out of harmony with the first quatrain, he has changed the 
 natural movement of the sonnet, and lost its natural grace of 
 easy subsidence. But, although the rhyming plan calls for seven 
 rhymes, the full number is, in Shakspere's practice, often reduced. 
 Thus, in sonnet 135 and in sonnet 3, the poet, by repeating one 
 of his rhymes, reduces the number from seven to four. In both 
 sonnets this novel arrangement is plainly calculated for a special 
 purpose. And in 11 other sonnets, by the like repetition, the 
 number of rhymes is reduced from 7 to 6. From this point of 
 view, the group of sonnets, 133, 134, 135 and 136, is specially to 
 be noted. 
 
 'The sonnets that have the highest average of length are 12, 15164,75 
 and 29; those that have the lowest are loi, 100, 130, 40, 19, 87 and 96. 
 
THE TECHNIC OF SHAKSPERE'S SONNETS. 371 
 
 Much the same result as by reducing the number of rhymes is 
 
 secured by the lavish use of assonance. It serves to bind together 
 
 parts of the sonnet that would otherwise be disconnected. Notice, 
 
 for example, in sonnet 96, the two sets of assonance: 
 
 queen— esteemed, seen — deemed vv. 5-8, 
 
 betray — translate, away — state vv. 9-13. 
 
 Shakspere loves the rich assonance in i, a and e. It produces 
 in his art almost the effect of rhyme, and, of the 154 sonnets, 63 
 are constructed on this plan of interlacing assonance with rhyme. 
 In sonnet 64, not less than 10 of the 14 verses are those linked 
 by assonance on a; and, in sonnets 27 and 55, eight verses in each 
 are linked by assonance on I. In all these poems, the loveliness 
 of verse-movement and the unity of the sonnet-form are by this 
 expedient much enhanced. 
 
 The perfect rhyme, so much used by poets of the time, is but 
 seldom used by Shakspere — e. g. offence and defence, 89. vv. 
 2-4. It occurs only six times in the sonnets. Cf. sonnets 10, 
 26, 69, 74 and 114. 
 
 As against this dislike of the perfect rhyme, there were two 
 kinds of imperfect rhyme that Shakspere tolerated and even 
 loved. His fondness for vowel-assonance has already been dis- 
 cussed. He lets it even take the place of the true rhyme and 
 serve in its stead, e. g. — 
 
 open — broken, 61. 1-3, 
 remembered — tendered, 120. g-ii. 
 
 Here the charm of the unexpected combination is delicious. Less 
 pleasing to modern ears is the other habit of Shakspere's rhyming 
 to which we may give the name of consonantal assonance, e. g. — 
 
 field — held, 2. 2-41, 
 
 son — noon, 7. I3-I4. 
 
 Rhymes founded upon the consonantal assonance, false rhymes to 
 modern ears, are largely used in the sonnets, over 90 times 
 in all, and many of them are so often repeated as to show that the 
 poet loved them. It is, however, to be borne in mind, that in the 
 shifting and breaking of vowel-sounds that have gone on since the 
 1 6th century, many rhymes that were good in Shakspere's time 
 are now false.' Each case of apparent consonantal assonance would 
 
 ' So, for example, the frequent rhyme o£ parti and deserts and of one and 
 alone. 
 
3/2 THOS. R. PRICE. 
 
 need a special discussion. The majority of cases involves the 
 sound of 6 and o. 
 
 In the study of Shakspere's rhymes, it is the question of his 
 feminine rhymes that has the highest technical interest. It is in 
 using them largely and in refusing to use them at all, that he 
 shows the most deliberate intention to experiment with their 
 poetic value. If all the sonnets be taken together, the feminine 
 rhymes make only eight per cent and the masculine rhymes 
 make 92 per cent. But the distribution of the feminine rhymes 
 is plainly not accidental nor according to any law of general 
 average. From great masses of the sonnets, taken in large 
 groups, the feminine rhyme is altogether absent.' On the other 
 hand, sonnet 20, whose exquisite movement is a marvel of litera- 
 ture, is composed altogether on feminine rhymes; and sonnet 87, 
 not so well done, shows the feminine rhyme in 12 out of 14 
 places. See also the large use in sonnets 26, 42, 119, 121 and 152. 
 There is here always deliberate calculation, the purpose of secur- 
 ing a definite emotional effect. The use of feminine rhymes is 
 at its lowest in the sonnet-groups 71-80 and loi-iio, and at its 
 highest in sonnet-groups 11-20, 81-90 and iii- 120. There are 
 few examples of a sonnet in which masculine and feminine rhyme 
 are used in fairly equal proportion. The poet saw that, for his 
 effect, there must be in each sonnet, the strong predominance of 
 the one or of the other, or the total exclusion of the one by the 
 other. 
 
 Even more important, in Shakspere's eyes, than the manage- 
 ment of the final rhyme, was the management of the caesural pause. 
 In this respect, also, the sonnets reveal the wonderful progress 
 of his verse-construction. Some verses are, indeed, to be found 
 in which there is no recognition of any natural caesura, e. g. — 
 
 Until Death's composition be secured, 45. 9. 
 Against confounding Age's cruel knife, 63. 10. 
 
 Such inarticulate verses, of which there are 71 in all, occur 
 most frequently in the sonnet-group 34-66, and most rarely 
 in the sonnet-groups 23-33, and loo-iii. They form less than 
 three per cent of all the verses. In all the other verses, more 
 than 97 per cent, the poet makes the caesural pause so coincide 
 
 ' See, for example, the group of sonnets 95 to i to, with exception of one 
 pair in sonnet 102. 
 
THE TECHNIC OF SHAKSPERE S SONNETS. 373 
 
 with the structure and meaning of the verse itself as to be always 
 clear and always beautiful. In this point, also, the sonnets mark 
 the advance in his verse-construction from the verses of his 
 youthful period to those of his mature manner. 
 
 If all the sonnets be taken together, there is a steady predom- 
 inance of the masculine over the feminine caesura, 68 per cent 
 against 32. But here again the actual distribution defies the 
 general average. In many groups of sonnets, the one form or the 
 other is almost exclusively employed. In a few sonnets, eight 
 in all, there is an exact balance between the masculine and the 
 feminine form, each occurring seven times — e, g. sonnets 97 
 and 98. In each the reader is conscious of the exquisite har- 
 mony that results. Among the other sonnets there are 58 
 marked by large predominance of masculine caesuras. It 
 produces an effect that can best be felt in sonnets 28 and 42. And 
 there are seven sonnets that are rendered remarkable by the 
 predominance of feminine caesuras. Read, for example, sonnet 
 48. The proportion of feminine caesuras is largest in the group 
 of sonnets 89-133. It is lowest in the groups 23-33 stnd 145-154. 
 
 In the construction of the separate sonnets, there is in general 
 a free shifting of the caesural pause from verse to verse. The 
 poet's purpose is, in the great majority of sonnets, to give 
 variety. In 72 sonnets, one-half of all, each poem is arranged 
 on the shifting movement of four different forms. Many have 
 only three forms. But there are 41 sonnets that show five different 
 forms of caesura, 17 that show six, and three that show seven 
 varieties. The marvellous charm of such ample caesural varia- 
 tion is best seen in sonnet 116. 
 
 On the other hand, in order to attain some special emotional 
 tone, the poet loves to construct a sequence of verses on the same 
 caesural arrangement. Thus in the splendid 14th sonnet, there 
 is a grandeur of movement in the monotony of the masculine 
 caesura, opening with vv. i, 2, 3 and 4, repeated in 8, 9 and 10, 
 and closing with 13, 14 and 15. Contrasted with this in emo- 
 tional tone, is the lovely monotony of the opening in sonnet 95, 
 formed by a sequence of feminine caesuras. Of all unbroken 
 sequences, the most remarkable is to be found in sonnet 30, vv. 
 6-14, all in one and the same masculine form. 
 
 The last and the highest point of view from which the poetical 
 style of Shakspere is to be studied, so far as displayed in the 
 
374 THOS. R. PRICE. 
 
 sonnets, is the extent to which his vocabulary is penetrated and 
 colored by his imagination. For, according to the purpose to be 
 attained, words are to be chosen either because they involve the 
 figure and thus transfer the movement of the imagination, or 
 because, being so far as possible freed of figure, they make 
 their appeal only to the pure reason. It is, in making this choice 
 of words between the Hmits thus given,' that the style of Shaks- 
 pere shows the infinite range of its emotional variation. There 
 are in fact, within the group of sonnets, intermingled with each 
 other, two sets of poems formed on principles of art that are fun- 
 damentally diverse. On the one hand, composed with the highest 
 attainable splendor of imaginative diction, there are poems formed 
 of verses that are made each to sparkle and corruscate with bril- 
 liant touches of natural poetry. On the other hand, composed 
 in words from which all touch of figure is carefully withheld, there 
 are poems in which the subtle play of pure thought, rising some- 
 times into ingenious conceit, is made to take the place of imagi- 
 native fervor. Whether a poem belongs to the one or to the other 
 class, may be roughly tested by the presence or the absence of 
 consciously suggested figure. Thus among the sonnets there are 
 45 that may be fairly described as purposely left bare of figure and 
 of imaginative decoration. And there are 44 others in which the 
 play of figure is, except upon close analysis, almost invisible. 
 In these 89 poems, the poetic quality lies solely or almost 
 solely in the melody of verse, in the refined and accurate 
 choice of words and in the emotional interest of the psycho- 
 logical problem. The 42nd sonnet, for example, without intro- 
 ducing a single image of natural beauty, shows the dramatic 
 poet dealing, in verses of lovely form and arrangement, with a 
 dramatic situation of most curious dramatic interest. Inter- 
 mingled with these 89 there are 21 others that are unsurpassed in 
 human literature for their concentrated splendor of poetical 
 imagery. In them the poet, instead of developing a curious 
 thought, embodies an overwhelming emotion, in symbols and 
 figures of natural beauty, drawn from all the sources of the 
 poetical imagination. Watch, for example, the magical eflfect 
 of sonnet 33, as, full-orbed in radiance, it falls into its place 
 after the more subdued harmonies of 30, 31 and 32. And so, 
 again, sonnet 73, with its incomparable fulness of sensuous 
 charm, is set, like a precious gem, between the almost 
 
THE TECHNIC OF SHAKSPERE S SONNETS. 375 
 
 unadorned movements of sonnets 72 and 74. Between the two 
 extremes that have been defined and exhibited, there are 
 44 sonnets that partake, in ever shifting degrees, of both 
 characters. They are poems, in which, while there is more or 
 less development of natural figure, there is also the purely psy- 
 chological delight in situation and dramatic movement. 
 
 The sources of imaginative figures are, as revealed in the son- 
 nets, almost the same, in their nature and relative proportions, as 
 revealed in the dramas. Those figures that involve the beauty 
 of animal life are 52 in number. Those that involve the beauty 
 of plant life are 70 in number, with rose, lily and violet as the 
 most prominent. Figures drawn from the color,' form and 
 movement of landscape are 74 in number. They deal by pref- 
 erence with the change of season as seen in English nature, 
 with the change from day to night, and with the aspects of the 
 seashore and the sea. It is in the vivid and intense beauty of 
 these landscape effects, in the fewness of the words employed 
 and the infinite variety of their suggestiveness, that the best 
 of the sonnets reach their fullest poetical splendor. Such supreme 
 sonnets as 33, 73 and 97, may in their power of using the beauty 
 of physical nature as the symbol of human emotion, be accepted 
 as the highest lyrical expression that English poetry has 
 achieved. 
 
 Columbia University. THOS. R. PrICE. 
 
 * Color, as element of physical beauty, is used in the sonnets 42 times. 
 There are 13 colors employed, with great preponderance of gold, red and 
 green. 
 
Ill 
 
 THE ATTITUDE OF ALCUIN TOWARD VERGIL. 
 
 No attentive reader of Alcuin (Albinus Flaccus) will have 
 failed to detect that this avowed enemy of the classics in general 
 possesses a Latin style which, setting aside the mere matter of 
 literal quotations, betrays an evident fondness for certain classical 
 poets in particular. In his life of Alcuin, published at Halle in 
 1829, Lorenz was struck by this inconsistency between precept 
 and practice and found it difficult to explain.' Nor does any 
 adequate discussion of the matter seem to have fallen within the 
 purpose or province of those writers' who, since the book of 
 Lorenz was published, have been interested in the career of the 
 famous teacher, minister, and friend of Charles the Great. The 
 nearest approach to a discovery of the key to the situation is 
 suggested by the words of Comparetti (Vergil in the Middle 
 Ages, trans. Benecke, 1895, p. 83), who maintains that "if any 
 one were to collect from the ecclesiastical writers all the passages 
 in which they inveigh against the reading of pagan authors and 
 the pursuit of profane studies generally, the collection would be 
 a considerable one; but far greater would be a collection of the 
 passages which prove that none the less the same writers oc- 
 cupied themselves with studies of this very kind." 
 
 It is proposed here to restate briefly the attitude of representa- 
 tive patristic writers prior to Alcuin, and by a collection of 
 material from Alcuin, chiefly from his poems, to show that his 
 inconsistency is merely a reflex of his age. 
 
 1" In a letter to Angilbert (Mon. Ale, Ep. 54, p. 282), who was then re- 
 siding in Rome, and whom he requests to bring some relicts from that city, 
 Alcuin quotes a verse from Ovid's Ars Amandi. Strange as it may seem, 
 that a man who could quote a frivolous poem when speaking upon a sub- 
 ject so serious and sacred as relicts were to him, should prohibit the read- 
 ing of the poets, still it was one of the inconsistencies of his character." 
 Slee's trans, of Lorenz, London, 1837, p. 284. 
 
 » The work of Lorenz has been partially superseded by Monnier, Al- 
 cuin et Charlemagne, Paris, 1863; MuUinger, The Schools of Charles the 
 Great, London, 1877; Werner, Alcuin und sein Jahrhundert, Wien, 1881; 
 West, Alcuin and the Rise of Christian Schools, New York, 1892. 
 
3/8 OMERA FLOYD LONG. 
 
 The student of patristic Latin knows that two extremes in the 
 attitude of Christian writers toward pagan literature are repre- 
 sented in the period which may be roughly fixed between the 
 reigns of Constantine the Great and Charles the Great. During 
 a large part of this period, as Comparetti in particular has shown 
 
 . 96), references to Vergil are so numerous in expressions of 
 hatred or love for the ancients that it may be assumed that he 
 was to them " the chief representative of the classical tradi- 
 tions."' Their attitude toward Vergil, then, may very well illus- 
 trate the two extremes to which reference has been made. In 
 the early part of this period, before the open rebellion against 
 classical traditions, Vergil as " the poet of the Saints " is already 
 a familiar figure. To the Christian feeling, doubtless, mens sibi 
 conscia recti and auri sacra fames were as good as their own 
 equivalents " a conscience void of offense " and " the love of 
 money," or even better, because certain of the pagan poets had 
 also said them; while such a line as Aen. V, 815 unum pro mul- 
 tis dabitur caput, seemed little short of actual inspiration.' Au- 
 gustine quotes from the fourth Eclogue as if from sacred proph- 
 ecy (e. g. C. D. X, 27; Ep. 137, 12, Migne XXXIII, col. 521), 
 and this was the general interpretation of the eaily fathers, who 
 were glad to welcome any testimony from this source; Jerome 
 alone denied, and that, too, in no uncertain terms, that this 
 Eclogue referred to the coming of Christ (Ep. LIII, 7, Migne 
 XXII, col. 544). In this same passage Jerome also speaks dis- 
 paragingly of the " Vergiliocentonas," but Proba's lengthy mosaic 
 was only the first' of many productions of that sort. The ex- 
 tensive use made of Vergilian passages by many, as Cyprian, 
 Lactantius, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and Minucius Felix, in 
 proving Christian principles, was supported by the example of 
 Moses, who gained wisdom from the Egyptians ; ' but numerous 
 reminiscences and quotations in these same authors show pas- 
 sages used purely for ornamental effect. Thus Jerome found 
 horror ubique animo, simul ipsa silentia terrent (Aen. II, 
 
 ' Compare also Manitius, Gescb. d. cbrist.-lat. Poesie, Stuttgart, 1891, 
 P- 57- 
 
 'See Peiper, Vk-gilius als Theolog u. Prophet d. Heidentums in d. 
 Kirche, Evangel. Kalender, Berl. 1862, p. 49. 
 
 •Isidorus, de Vir. 111. 22; Orig. I, 38, 25; Manitius, p. 124 f. 
 
 *Cassiod. Instit. Divin. Lit. ch. 28, Migne LXX, col. 1142. 
 
THE ATTITUDE OF ALCUIN TOWARD VERGIL. 379 
 
 755) most expressive of his feelings when surrounded by the 
 gloom of the catacombs; cf. Comm. in Ezech. ch. 40 (Migne 
 XXV. col. 375). 
 
 The frequency of these reminiscences was in a large measure 
 due to the training of the schools ; compare August., C. D. I, 3 
 apud Vergilium quem propterea parvuli legunt,' ut videlicet 
 poeta magnus omniumque praeclarissimus atque optimus teneris 
 ebibitus animis non facile oblivione possit aboleri. Augustine 
 himself used to read half a book daily. By the sixth century 
 the word "Virgilius" was synonymous with grammar,' and a 
 would-be grammarian of the day appropriated the poet's full 
 name. 
 
 Meantime a counter current was running toward the other ex- 
 treme. Its beginning may be traced as far back as Tertullian ; 
 e. g. de Idololat., ch. 10 quaerendum autem est etiam de ludi- 
 magistris sed et de ceteris professoribus litterarum. Immo non 
 dubitandum affines illos esse multimodae idololatriae. Arnobius 
 adv. Nationes III, 7 is glad to record that the pagans themselves 
 desired the destruction of Cicero's de Naiura Deorunt, as a case 
 of saving themselves from their friends. The two extremes re- 
 ferred to often met in the same writer. Augustine in middle life 
 regrets the time wasted on Vergil (Conf. I, op. 153), yet shows 
 abundant traces of such wasted time in the work of his old age. 
 Jerome censures priests " who have Vergil always in their hands 
 and make a sensual sin of that study which for children is a 
 necessity,"' and asks with feeling, " What has Horace to do with 
 the Psalter, or Vergil with the Gospels, or Cicero with the Apos- 
 tles ? " * Yet Vergil was still used in the school at Bethlehem and 
 Jerome's inconsistency is criticised by Rufinus.' Julian with 
 more consistency, even in his apostasy, ordered that grammar 
 and rhetoric, i. e., pagan literature, should not be taught in the 
 
 schools : Tav iBviKBiv |3i/3Xi(Oi' ndvTiov airtxov, . . . etre yap laropiKa 6{Ktis 
 
 'See the statement of Paalin. of Pella, Corp. Eccl. XVI, p. 263!. 
 
 » Compare e. g. Greg. Turon. IV, 47. 
 
 »Ep. XXI, 13 (Migne XXII, col. 386). 
 
 *Ep. XXII, 29 (Migne XXII, col. 416); cf. Praef. ad Comm. in Epist. 
 ad Galat. Ill, S (Migne XXVI, col. 399). 
 
 * Apol. in S. Hieron. II, 8 (Migne XXI, col. 592) ; cf. also ibid. 7 si una 
 eius operis pagina est, quae non eum iterum Ciceronianum pronuntiet, ubi 
 non dicat : sed TuUius noster, sed Flaccus noster, sed Maro. 
 
38o OMERA FLOYD LONG. 
 
 StfpX«r6ai, «X*" ™^ PairiKelovs ' . . . eiTf dafiaTiKav opeyjj, fX^^' '"""^ 
 ylraX/iovs ' . • • TravToiv oZv tcov aWorptav kqi Sia^oKiKav t<r)(vpS>s diroaxov, 
 
 Apost. Const. I, 6. This work may not be canonical \ but that 
 some action was taken is evident from Amm. Marc. XXII, lo, 7 
 illud autem erat inclemens, obruendum perenni silentio, quod 
 arcebat docere magistros rhetoricos et grammaticos ritus christian! 
 cultores. 
 
 The matter, however, was not easily controlled, and later at- 
 tempts at consistency, as in the case of Gregory of Tours, Isi- 
 dorus and Beda, only made the inconsistency mpre conspicuous. 
 Among the earlier Christians all had read Vergil, a few had re- 
 viled him ; among the later Christians all read him, and but few 
 did not revile him.* And yet, whatever the outward pose, those 
 who attempted epics, without exception, imitated Vergil.' 
 
 Alcuin's inconsistencies merely reflect the inconsistencies of his 
 age. According to the anonymous author of the vi'/a beali 
 Alchuini Abbatis, whose source was Srgulfus* (Vetulus), one of 
 Alcuin's followers from England, Alcuin in his earlier years was 
 Virgilii amplius quam psalmorum amator (ch. i, Mon. Ale, p. 
 6). A characteristic story follows, according to which Alcuin, 
 when 1 1 years old, was allowed to stay all night with a rustic for 
 the sake of company ; the latter by loud snoring next morning 
 disturbed the service of worshipers near by, and, while he was 
 being flogged by the brethren as a wholesome example, Alcuin, 
 puer nobilis tremiscens, ne sibi eadem fierent, haec, ut ipse post 
 testatus est, corde dicebat imo: O domine Jesu, si me nunc isto- 
 rum eruis manibus cruenlis, et post hoc sollicittis erga ecclesiae 
 tuae vigilias ministeriaque laudtim nonfuero, plusque ultra Vir- 
 gilium quam psalmorum modulattonem amavero; tunc tale sortiar 
 castigationis flagellum, Tantum, obnixe precor, nunc Doinine 
 libera me. 
 
 'Cf. Comparetti, p. 81, n. iz. 
 
 'John o£ Fulda has a poem on the respective merits of Vergil and Ara- 
 tor, to the great disparagement of the former : 
 
 vs. 13 Virgilius paleas, frumentum prebet Arator j 
 Hie mansura docet, ille caduca refert. 
 
 Poet. Lat. Aev. Carol. I, p. 392. 
 'Manit. p. 57 und zwar nicht nur in dieser frlihen Zeit, sondern auch 
 fast wahrend des ganzen Mittelalters.. 
 ■"Cf. Lorenz (Slee), p. 284. 
 
THE ATTITUDE OF ALCUIN TOWARD VERGIL. 381 
 
 Some consistency, therefore, as well as acerbity, he does show 
 later in trying to prevent the young monks from reading the 
 " lies of Vergil " (vita, ch. 10, Mon. Ale, p. 24) : legerat isdem 
 vir Domini libros iuvenis antiquorum philosophorum, Virgiliique 
 mendacia, quae nolebat iam ipse nee audire, neque discipulos 
 suos legere, sufficiunt, inquiens, divini poetae vobts, nee egetis 
 luxuriosa sermonis Virgilii vos pollui facundia. Sigulfus at- 
 tempted deception, but was detected and severely reprimanded.' 
 Various expressions in the letters support the biographer's rep- 
 resentation. A conspicuous case is the reproof of Richbodus, 
 Archbishop of Treves (Ep. 216, Mon. Ale. p. 713 f.): Flaccus 
 (i. e. Alcuin) recessit, Virgilius accessit, et in loco magistri nidi- 
 ficat Marc ? . . . Utinam euangelia quattuor, non Aeneades duo- 
 decim, pectus compleant tuum. Compare also Ep. 243, p. 783 
 haec (sc. sapientia) in Virgiliacis " non invenietur mendaciis, sed 
 in euangelica affluenter reperietur veritate; Ep. 119, p. 485 
 quamvis magis nobis adtendendum sit euangelicis praceptis quam 
 Virgiliacis^ versibus; Ep. 239, p. 764 et (sc. ut) impleatur Vir- 
 
 giliacum ' illud 
 
 Dat sine mente sonum 
 
 et non euangelicum. To Angilbertus (Ep. 252, p. 803), who has 
 asked for the gender of rubus, Alcuin cites a line (Eel. Ill, 89) 
 from Vergilius, baud comtempnendae auctoritatis falsator. Sim- 
 ilarly he speaks again ol falsi Maronis ; cf. the verses prefixed 
 to his commentary on the Song of Solomon (Carm. LXXVIII, 5 
 ff., Mon. Germ. Hist. I, p. 299 
 
 Has, rogo, menti tuae, iuvenis, mandare memento : 
 
 Cantica sunt nimium falsi haec meliora Maronis. 
 
 Haec tibi vera canunt vitae praecepta perennis, 
 
 Auribus ille tuis male frivola falsa sonabit. 
 
 The expression iuxta Virgilii vestri propheiiam, Ep. 98, p. 
 410, in quoting Eel. IX, 51 ff., is doubtless a playful allusion to 
 Vergil's fame from the fourth Eclogue, since in Ep. 54, p. 282, a 
 line from Ovid' is humorously applied as a prophecy to Angil- 
 
 ' Cuius satisfactionem benigne plus pater post increpationem accepit, 
 monens eum ne ultra tale aliquid ageret. 
 
 'No further occurrence of this formation has been noted. In Ep. 119 
 it follows euangelicus and may be due to the suggestion from that word, 
 which, it will be noted, is in the context of the other two examples, Virgilii 
 mendacia is the phrase of the vita, ch. 10. 
 
 s A. A. II, 280 si nihil attuleris, ibis, Homere, foras. 
 
382 OMERA FLOYD LONG. 
 
 bertus, and Alcuin adds : hoc de te tuoque itinere prophetatum 
 esse, quis dubitat ? Si Christum Slbilla eiusque labores praedixit 
 venturum, cur non Naso Homerum eiusque itinera praececinit ? 
 
 Further references and quotations in the letters have been cur- 
 sorily noted : Ep. 70, p. 324 quid enim auri insana cupido non 
 subvertit boni? Aen. Ill, 57; cf. also Ep. 160, p. 597 sed quid 
 non efficit auri sacra fames ; Ep. 98, p. 408 tarditas aselli, Ge. 
 I, 273 ; ibid. Entellus senior, Aen. V, 437 ff. ; ibid, frigidus circa prae- 
 cordia recaluit sanguis, Ge. II, 484; ibid. p. 410 iuxta Virgilii 
 vestri prophetiam. Nam 
 
 saepe ego longos 
 Cantando puerum memini me condere soles. 
 Nunc oblita mihi tot carmina; vox quoque FlaccuDi' 
 Ipsa fugit, 
 
 Eel. IX, 51-54; ibid. p. 413 et Virgilius Augusto scribens: 
 tu sectaris apros, ego retia servo. 
 
 Eel. Ill, 75; Ep. 116, p. 478 quid ad haec? 
 
 sit Tityrus Orpheus, 
 Orpheus (in silvis) inter delphinas Arion, 
 
 Eel. VIII, 55 f.; ibid. 
 
 Omnia vel medium fiant mare. Vivite, silvae, 
 
 dixit amans spernenti se. Idem in eodem poeta : 
 Invenies alium, si te hie fastidit Alexis, 
 
 Eel. II, 73; Ep. 119, p. 485 legitur quendam veterum dixisse poe- 
 tarum, cum de laude imperatorum Romani regni, si rite recorder, 
 cecinisset, quales esse debuissent, dicens: 
 
 Parcere subiectis et debellare superbos, 
 
 Aen. VI, 854; Ep. 121, p. 491 lupus gallo" tulit vocem, Eel. IX, 
 53 f-; Ep. 132, p. 520 fama per multorum ora volitans resonat, 
 Ge. Ill, 9, Aen. XII, 235; ibid. p. 521 et more senis Entelli sal- 
 tare . . . . et Daretem Hispanicum vincere, qui gloriatur in 
 fortitudine iuvenilis aetatis, Aen. V, 369 ff.; Ep. 147, p. 559 en erit 
 ilia dies, ut liceat mihi etc., Eel. VIII, 7 ff.; Ep. 194, p. 679 lacri- 
 mis dictavi obortis, Aen. Ill, 492, IV, 30, etc.; Ep. 216, p. 713 
 amor Maronis tulit memoriam mei? O si mihi nomen esset Virgi- 
 lius, tunc semper ante oculos luderem tuos, et mea dicta tota 
 
 ' With substitution of Alcuin's scholastic name, cf. c g. Ep. 78 ; 216. 
 = Referring to Adalhardus to whom the letter is written. 
 
THE ATTITUDE OF ALCUIN TOWARD VERGIL. 383 
 
 pertractares intentione, et iuxta proverbiutn illius essem apud te 
 
 Tunc felix nimium, quo non felicior ullus, ' 
 Aen. IV, 657, IX, 772; Ep. 252, p. 803 
 
 Mella fluant illi, ferat et rubuB asper, 
 Eel. Ill, 89; Ep. 293, p. 881 o si mihi vox ferrea esset et omnes 
 pili verterentur in linguas, Ge. II, 43 f. 
 
 In his poems Alcuin does not try so often to point a moral with 
 his Vergilian reminiscences; these are, therefore, more genuinely 
 imitations for the sake of embellishment, due to study of Vergil as 
 a model.' Ovid,' Horace, Propertius, Lucan, Persius and Calpurnius 
 Siculus are also represented, but the Vergilian reminiscences num- 
 ber more than twice as many as all the rest combined. Compare 
 the following: I,* 11 dona ferentes, Aen. 11,49; 46-49 est antiqua, 
 potens bellis et corpore praestans, Germaniae populos gens inter 
 et extera regna, Duritiam propter dicti cognomine Saxi. Hanc 
 placuit ducibus regni conducere donis, Aen. I, 531 ff.; 76 iam 
 nova . . . sceptra, Eel. IV, 7 ; 84 peregrini cultor agelli, Mor. 3, 
 (cf. Eel. IX, 3); 98 verbisque adfatur amicis, Aen. II, 372; 99 quae 
 te dura coquit, iuvenum fortissime, cura, Aen. VII, 345 (cf. Enn. 
 Ann. X, 5, p. 51 Vahl.); 103 imperium latum tibi terminal undis, i 
 Aen. I, 287; 127 nee rapit arma furor, Aen. I, 150; 140 f. solis 
 ceu lucifer ortum Praecurrens tetras tenebrarum discutit umbras, 
 Ge. II, 357 ; 155 namque erit ille mihi solus deus omne per aevum. 
 Eel. I, 7 ; 243 bellorum vivida virtus, Aen. V, 754 ; 255 f. ut leo 
 cum catulis crudelis ovilia vastat Et pecus omne ferus mactat man- 
 ditque, trahitque, Aen. IX, 339 ff. ; 258 per tela, per hostes, Aen. 
 II, 527; 321 amoenavirecta, Aen.VI, 638; 346 f. eontigit ut subito 
 flammis volitantibus altum Ignis edax oilmen raperet, Aen. II, 
 758; 525 imbribus exundans torrens ceu montibus altis Sternit 
 agros segetesque rapit silvasque recidit, Aen. II, 304 ff. ; 655 dis- 
 
 » Alter, Vergil. 
 
 » Cf. Ebert, AUgem.Gesch. d. Lit. d. Mittelalters, Leipz. 1880, 11, pp. 26, 36. 
 > Ovid leads in this list with about a dozen passages; one o£ these, A. 
 A. Ill, 62 ff. 
 
 Eunt anni more fluentis aquae. 
 
 Nee quae praeteriit, iterum revocabitur unda. 
 
 Nee quae praeteriit, hora redire potest, 
 
 makes a good text some halt dozen times: XLVIII, 26; LXII, 146; 
 
 I.XXVI, 20, etc. 
 
 4 The numbering of Duemmler, Poetae Lat. Aev. Carol., Berl., 1881, is 
 followed. 
 
H 
 
 384 OMERA FLOYD LONG. 
 
 cutiens tenebras, Ge. II, 357; 896 vivo equidem, Aen. Ill, 315; 
 1253 dives opum terrae, Ge. II, 468; 1350 non hodie effugies, 
 Eel. Ill, 49; 1418 spes tanta parentum, Aen. II, 281; 1440 solis 
 lunaeque labores, Ge. II, 478 (of. Aen. 1,742); 1588 vitae spes 
 maxima nostrae, (cf. Aen. XII, 168); 1590 te duce, Eel. IV, 13; 
 1592 dum sol noxque sibi cedunt, dum quatuor annus Dividitur 
 vicibus, crescunt dum germina terris; Sidera dum lucent, trudit 
 dum nubila ventus. Semper honos nomenque tuum, laudesque 
 manebunt, Aen. I, 607 ff.. Eel. V. 76ff.; Ill, 2, 20, 30 accipiens cali- 
 cem pleno se et proluit ore, Aen. I, 739; 21, i est antiqua, potens 
 muris et turribus ampla, Urbs Treveris, Aen. I, 531 f.; 30, 7 sperare 
 salutem, Aen. II, 354; 31, 2 nervi vix ossibus haerent. Eel. Ill, 
 102; 12 per membra cucurrit, Aen. XII, 447; IV, 19 tua laus 
 mecum semper, dilecte, manebit. Eel. V, 76; 23 puppis potiatur 
 harena, Aen. I, 172; 28 ab orbe Britanno, Eel. I, 67; 30 data 
 copia verbi, Aen. I, 520 ; 61 f. nunc tamen banc ederam circum 
 sine timpora sacra Serpere, Eel. VIII, 12 f. ; 64 and 70 heia age 
 . . . fuge, rumpe moras, Aen. IV, 569; VII, 210 decus omne tuis. 
 Eel. V, 34; VIII, 12 sic male sacra fames, Aen. Ill, 57; IX, 5 
 per varios casus, Aen. I, 204; 45 quis teneat lacrimas, Aen. II, 8; 
 67 inclita bello, Aen, II, 241 ; 84 ignis edax rapuit, Aen. II, 758 ; 
 103 strato . . recubabat in ostro, Aen. I, 700; 105 oculos atra 
 caligine claudit, Aen. XI, 876; 109 subito vox faucibus haesit, 
 Aen. XII, 868; 113 vix ossibus haeret, Eel. Ill, 102; 155 sic tan- 
 dem vobis clipeus descendit ab alto (cf. Aen. VIII, 664) ; XIV, i 
 pergite, Pierides, Eel. VI, 13; XVIII, 19 Orpheus aut Linus, 
 nee me Maro vincit in odis. Eel. IV, 55 ; XXVI, 23 f. quid faciet 
 tardus canuto vertice Drances Consilio validus, gelida est cui dex- 
 tera bello, Aen. XI, 336 ff.; XXXII, i saevis ereptus ab undis, 
 Aen. I, 596; 4 o Corydon, Corydon, Eel. II, 69; 31 f. rusticus est 
 Corydon, dixit hoc forte propheta' Virgilius quondam: "Rus- 
 ticus es, Corydon," Eel. II, 56; XL, i nix ruit e caelo, gelidus 
 simul ingruit imber, Aen. XII, 284 (possibly a play on Aen. VIII, 
 369); 8 earmina non curat David, nee Delia curat. Eel. II, 6, 
 Eel. VIII, 103; XLII, I roseis Aurora quadrigis, Aen. VI, 535; 
 19 sint patris Entelli memores iuvenisque Daretis, Aen. V, 368 ff.; 
 XLIV, 45 omnia vincit amor. Eel. X, 69 ; XLV, 67 erige sub- 
 iectos et iam depone superbos, Aen. VI, 853 ; L, 33 velivoli pelagi, 
 'Aen. I, 224; LV, 3, i hos ergo versiculos (cf. "hos ego versieu- 
 
 ' Compare Epp. 54 and 98. 
 
THE ATTITUDE OF ALCUIN TOWARD VERGIL. 385 
 
 los") ; LVII, I Dafnin dulcissime, (cf. Ecll. V, VII, VIII); 2 rapuit 
 saeva noverca, Ge. II, 128; 4 incipe tu senior, quaeso, Menalca 
 prior, Eel. V, 10; 29 en tondent nostri librorum prata iuvenci, 
 Ge. I, 15 and 289, Eel. VII, 11 ; 39 si non dura silex genuit te, 
 Aen. VI, 471 (cf. IV, 366) ; LVIII,' 8 his certamen erat cuculi de 
 carmine grande,' Eel. VII, 16; 13 turn glaeialis hiems, Aen. Ill, 
 285; 45 desine plura, Hiems, Eel. V, 19 (ef. IX, 66); LIX,' 25 
 improbus ille puer. Eel. VIII, 50; LXI, 21 vino somnoque sepul- 
 tos, Aen. II, 265 ; LXV, 4 a, 13 haec erit, haec requies vestri 
 iam eerta laboris, Aen. Ill, 393; LXIX, 11 mens conseia recti, 
 Aen. I, 604 ; LXXIV, 14 omnia vincit amor, nos quoque vineat 
 amor. Eel. X, 69; 19 f. iudiee te nullum, si numquam fallit imago, 
 lam metuens fugiam, Eel. II. 26 f.; LXXVI, i, 25 aceipite haec 
 animis, Aen. Ill, 250; LXXXV, i, 13 ad sidera tendit, Aen. V, 
 256 ; XCIII, 14 postquam Tondenti in gremium Candida barba 
 cadit. Eel. I, 28; C, 3, i frigidus hiberno veniens de monte 
 viator. Eel. X, 20; CII, 11 incipil ille prior. Eel. V, 10; CIV, 
 6, I urbibus egregiis, quarum nova eulmina surgunt, Aen. I, 437. 
 
 In minor points of diction, too, Vergil's influence is seen: cf. 
 navita I, 29 (de Orthograph.,* G. L. VII, 305, 17; Ge. I, 137; 
 372, etc.); relliquias, according to Duemmler's text, I, 361 ; 366; 
 483; 1317, etc. (Orthograph., p. 308, 31 reliquiae per unum 1, 
 licet Vergilius . . . , " relliquiae Danaum"); veh=£t\, 1179 and 
 frequently, is found in Vergil, though it is common in Ecclesiastical 
 writers, cf. Georges s. v.; altaria circum IX, 201, ef. Eel. VIII, 
 74 (Orthograph,, p. 298, 24 circum in quibusdam post ponitur, ut 
 Vergilius 'maria omnia circum '), certain archaisms, such as ast, 
 foret, the infinitive in -ier, Aleuin may have justified by Vergil's 
 usage. 
 
 Aleuin's use of Vergil, therefore, far exceeds his abuse, precisely 
 as in the case of many of his predecessors ; and it is not surprising to 
 find him making the same defense of his borrowings though his 
 
 ' The conception of this really good poem, Conflictus veris et hiemis, is 
 in direct imitation of Vergil's amoebaean Eclogues, even a Falaemon set- 
 tles the contest. 
 
 2 Note the use oigrande for Vergil's magnum ; cf. Korting, Latein.-roman. 
 Worterb., s. v. 
 
 'Cf. vs. II fas idcirco, reor, coraprendere plectra Maronis. 
 
 * Aleuin's intimate acquaintance with Vergil is an easy inference from 
 his grammatical works alone j in the brief Orthographia out of 22 references 
 to classical and preclassical authors, 17 are from Vergil. 
 26 
 
386 OMERA FLOYD LONG. 
 
 apology does not cover the whole ground; cf. Ep. 147, p. 561 
 litterulas aliquas admonitionis vestrae scribere venerandae 
 auctoritati temerarium duxi, nisi legerem, beato Hierony mo dicente, 
 aurum in sterquilinio inventum lavandum esse et thesauro 
 dominico inserendum. Nam beatus apostolus Paulus aurum 
 sapientiae, in stercore poetarum inventum, in divitias ecclesiasticae 
 transtulit prudentiae; sicut omnes sancti doctores, eius exemplo 
 eruditi, fecerunt. 
 
 Northwestern University, OMERA FlOYD LoNG. 
 
 EvANSTON, III. 
 
NOTES ON LUCIAN'S SYRIAN GODDESS. 
 
 The authorship of the Ionic piece in the corpus of Lucian, De 
 Dea Syria, has never been thoroughly established. The majority 
 of scholars in the early part of the last century believed in its 
 Lucianic composition. See Mees, De Luciani studiis et scriptis 
 iuvenilibus, 1841 ; and Planck, Quaestiones Lucianeae, 1850. 
 But such scholars as Bekker, Dindorf, Sommerbrodt oppose this 
 view. Croiset, La Vie et les Oeuvres de Lucien, 1892, p. 63, says : 
 " Quant au morceau Surla d^esse syrienne, je le considfere comme 
 une habile et plaisante contrefa9on d'Hdrodote, dont I'^crivain 
 imite non-seulement le langage, mais toutes les habitudes d'esprit 
 jusque dans leurs moindres particularitds. L'intention, dans ce 
 cas, ne serait pas douteuse; sous une forme un peu plus dis- 
 simulge, I'objet de I'ficrit est le mSme que celui de VHistoire 
 vraie, montrer combien il est ais6 de rendre vraisemblables, par 
 un air de sinc6rit6, des choses qu'on tire de son imagination en 
 les mfelant ^ quelques details exacts. Ainsi compris, ce morceau 
 ne me semble pas indigne de I'auteur de VHistoire vraie, et il se 
 relie naturellement k cette s6rie de compositions satiriques que 
 nous venons de passer en revue." The last writer I have noticed 
 on the subject, Bolderman, Studia Lucianea, 1893, accepts it as 
 Lucian's and answers Dindorf's arguments, the principal one 
 being the dialect, the other its superstitious character. This 
 latter point has been treated by Dr. AUinson in the American 
 Journal of Philology, 7. 203 ff.: " In the d. d. S. the hand of 
 Lucian is suggested for the following reasons: i. There is sup- 
 pressed satire running through the piece. 2. The imitation of 
 Herodotus is in many places decided enough to imply an author 
 as familiar with Herodotus as we know Lucian to have been." 
 As Croiset finds the same general type of narration in the d. d. S. 
 as in True Histories, so Dr. AUinson collects under his first 
 point a number of illustrations which are decidedly Lucianic in 
 character. 
 
 One of the most striking parallels between this work and parts 
 of Lucian's accepted works is the class of stories which remind us 
 
388 DANIEL A. PENICK. 
 
 of accounts given in the Holy Scriptures. We are reminded of 
 Jonah by Lucian's marvelous fish story in True Histories. The 
 Syrian from Palestine who cast out evil spirits (v. Philopseudes i6) 
 reminds us of Christ, and again we think of Christ's miracle in 
 connection with the man who took up his bed and walked (v. 
 Phil. ii). The same determined, satirical seriousness with which 
 he tells these stories, the same spirit which leads him to begin 
 one work by saying that he is going to tell as many and as big 
 lies as possible, and another by asking why a man should lie 
 deliberately when he is to gain no practical advantage, is manifest 
 in the account of the deluge in the d. d. S., §§12, 13, where the 
 grave statement occurs, that all the water from the deluge ran 
 into a small hole, an account referred to by Dr. Allinson as a 
 comic imitation of Hdt. 
 
 It is along the line of Herodotean imitation that I would study 
 Lucian and the d. d. S. Dr. Allinson speaks of this point in 
 general terms as follows : " Lucian's own expressions of contempt 
 for those who affect Ionic, do not militate against the probability 
 of his having tried to beat them at their own game, while at the 
 same time he made good his opportunity for ridiculing the piety 
 of the old historian as well as the superstitions of his own time. 
 He has himself (Luc. XXI i), apprised us of his admiration for 
 Herodotus as a writer, and he certainly would have been as 
 capable of imitating him as would any other writer of the second 
 century A. D." 
 
 After citing a number of passages where imitation is clearly 
 apparent, Allinson then gives a comparison of the Ionic forms and 
 the deviations from the lonism of Hdt. that appear in the d. d. S., 
 the De Astrologia, and Arrian's Historia Indica. My contribution 
 to the subject is a short study of particles and the structure of the 
 period, also a few remarks about verborum ubertas and whether 
 opdoTtje or jrXaywir/xdr is preferred. I confine myself to the d. d. S. 
 
 Let us then begin with the understanding that the d. d. S. is an 
 intentional imitation of Hdt. Prof Gildersleeve (A. J. P. 1.47) 
 says that Herodotos " is more or less closely imitated " in the d. d. S. 
 and the De Astrologia. The point at issue is, can we detect the 
 character of imitation here that has been established for Lucian? 
 I shall use the method and follow the order of investigation 
 'employed in my study entitled " Herodotos in the Renascence." 
 
 'It is in the direction of Herodotos' greatest perfection, his most 
 
NOTES ON LUCIANS SYRIAN GODDESS. 389 
 
 distinctive characteristics, that Lucian has imitated him, particu- 
 larly in narrative passages. This perfection is designated by 
 Aristotle as Xf Jts flpo/iivt). Parataxis is also used, not the parataxis 
 of mere juxtaposition, but co-ordination by the use of co-ordinating 
 particles and conjunctions, loose connections "with many phrases 
 for the purpose of introducing, recapitulating, or repeating a 
 subject," phrases characteristic of oral discourse. Even a casual 
 reader of the d. d. S. would notice on the part of the author an 
 effort to write paratactically by means of paratactic particles. 
 The frequency of koI places polysyndeton very much in evidence* 
 This effect is decidedly more marked in the d. d. S. than else- 
 where in Lucian, but much less pleasing, as there is almost a total 
 lack of that ease and variety exhibited in the nairrative of 
 Herodotos and present, though to a less degree, in other works of 
 Lucian. Notwithstanding the frequency of r«-(tat' (72 occurrences 
 in 22 pp.), the skill of Hdt. is not present, and koI is often written 
 where Hdt. would have written rt. But the great abundance of 
 these particles does not exclude niv and di, nor even asyndetic 
 parataxis. Let the following sentences illustrate these points. 
 
 D. d. S. 24 (3- 47^/' /'"■a be TrapeovriDV ol Tan <f)i\iav, ot Ka\ Tore 7r«/x;ro- 
 ftfv<o rm Kofi^d^to napeyivovTO, irapayayav is fiiaov (taTijyop«ii» apxtTo Kai ol 
 fiot)^tjirjv re Kai aKoXatTLJjv TrpoCcjifpe ' Kapra de deivoiradecdv Trltrrtv T€ Ka\ <j)t\irjv 
 aveKaXetro Xeyav rptiraa Ko/ipdfiov abmitiv ii.oi)(6v Tt i6vTa Ka\ e's irlariv 
 iPpltravra Ka\ is 6f6p dae^fovra, rrjs iv r^ ^pyf Toiabt tnpti^e', 25 (3- 47^) • 
 /xfToi 8t fifyaXi; Sioperi am^erai )(pv(T6s Tt noWit Kai Spyvpos SnXtros Kai 
 iadfiTts 'Aaarvpiat xal ittttoi ^acriX^iol ', 17(3" 4^4) • ^ ^* ^i* M**" 3XX<»i» 
 iaiovTtDV navTav iv fipf/iiji ptyaKri ?jv, ias ie 7 /ii/rpuiij airiKtro, nji* Tt XP"^'!" 
 ijWd^aTO Ka\ iBp&etv ap^aro Kai Tpnfua ^x"*" ""^ 4 Kapiit] artnaWero' to Si 
 yiyvofifva ifujiavia rm fijrpm rbv ipara iiroiet ', ib. I (3. 45')' 8o»e«i Si pot, 
 ToSe TO ovvopa ovk &pa rjj jroXi oixeo/wcg iyivero . . , ib. 28 (3. 475) • 
 doKc€t 8' &v /lot, Kai ofic is ixflvov ;ii/ii/(rii> toO (vKtuov avSpos avipxerai. 
 
 With the last two passages, cf. Luc. Somn. i6 (i. 21): ravra 
 
 fiepvrjpai I8a>v avTiirais (Tt &v, ip-ol SoKel, iKTapax6cts itphs t4i» tSi/ irKrjy&v 
 
 <f)6fiov. Sommerbrodt remarks upon this passage that ipol SoKtlv, 
 ipol SoKfi, fioi SoKfiv, p^i SoKcl are often used parenthetically in Lucian 
 as here. See Lehmann on the same passage and cf. Charon, c. 11. 
 The last two passages are rightly compared with Herodotean 
 usage by the editors and the d. d. S. is cited, where these expres- 
 sions abound. Cf. § i (3. 450. 8 (3- 456), 17 (3. 464), etc. 
 
 Kalinka, Dissertationes Philologae Vindobonenses, 2. 145, has 
 
390 DANIEL A. PENICK. 
 
 pointed out Herodotos' partiality for yap, which he, Grundmann, 
 and others emphasize as a paratactic particle, when used as Hdt. 
 has used it. I have called attention to the fact that Lucian in his 
 narrative pieces makes frequent use of ydp after the Herodotean 
 fashion. The great number of polysyndetic particles in the d. d. S. 
 has diminished the number of yap's. The proportion is slightly 
 over one per page, this being less than half the average 
 of Hdt. and Lucian's typical narrative. But even here, if we can 
 add strength to our assumption that the d. d. S. is a conscious 
 imitation of Hdt. by calling attention to the massing of particles 
 in combination with ydp, a practice of Hdt., we strengthen the 
 relationship between the d. d. S. and Lucian, who on this point 
 is very close to Hdt. The especial Herodotean 'combination yap 
 Sfj, which is also the most common combination in Lucian, occurs 
 5 times in d. d. S., and always in still greater combinations, e. g., 
 Koi yap 8q (i6), yap 817 Stv (6, lo, 56), Kai yap Sq &11 (33). This heap- 
 ing of particles seems to indicate an exaggeration of Hdt., who 
 has great numbers of /sal yap, yap Sfj, bq Sjv, and this exaggeration 
 corresponds to the unusual abundance of itai's and re's. Similarly 
 the author of the d. d. S. is no less fond of Ka\ yap, and oi (oiSe, oCi-e) 
 yap, which are so frequent in Hdt. and Luc. The most striking 
 instance of Herodotean influence on Lucian in the use of this par- 
 ticle is the important parenthetic ydp. It occurs in the same way 
 
 in d. d. S. Cf. 26 (3. 47 2) titra Se aiTqadiifvoc eKTekttrai to \elirovTa t<o 
 •")¥ — arekia ydp piv d;roXe\oi7ree» — oSrif tirtpirtTO, With this compare 
 
 Other examples of ydp very nearly related, 25 (3. 472) : oi ydp poi 
 
 rairqs diToKoyiqs iSeev, 2"] (3. 473) : <rvv€Vflx6q ydp oi Kai rdSe. 
 
 A^ is another Herodotean particle mentioned by Kalinka that 
 demands attention. The same conditions as to the use of fiij 
 exist in the d. d. S. as in the narrative of Lucian, whose use of 
 the particle I have attributed to the influence of Herodotos for 
 reasons which need not be stated here. Suffice it to say that 
 the combinations of 8^ with other particles, such as koi, ydp, p.iv, 
 are strikingly analogous in the three works. Here again is 
 exemplified the same tendency to heap up particles, a tendency 
 due to conscious imitation, which does not exist in Lucian's 
 natural narrative, where his familiarity with the prince of story- 
 tellers comes out in unconscious imitation. 
 
 • This is not the place to treat subordinate clauses, but one or 
 two statements as to final particles will not be amiss, "iva, Herod- 
 
NOTES ON LUCJAN'S SYRIAN GODDESS. 39I 
 
 otos' favorite particle, which is also fairly frequent in Lucian and 
 largely with the subjunctive, as in Hdt, is entirely wanting both 
 in Lucian's typical narrative, True Histories, and in the d. d. S. 
 ir, which is such a favorite with Lucian, is wanting in his True 
 Histories and also in the d. d. S. 
 
 The points made above concerning co-ordination and the use 
 ol co-ordinate particles are a most important factor in the study of 
 periodic structure. We found that the constructions in the d. d. S. 
 parallel those in Lucian's narrative, which conform to the Hero- 
 dotean standard. In like manner, in both, the sentences are 
 comparatively short and have the same general " rosary " or 
 " strung-on " effect, without any approach to Isocratean periods 
 and cola : e. g., d. d. S. 32 (3. 478): to St 8ij ju^ovos \6yov a^iov, toSto 
 
 aTrriyt](roftai' \idov tvl TJj KKJja^jj (pophl, \v\v\t xaXccrni, ovvofia ti ol tov 
 cpyov t] (Tui'rujfiij. ani tovtov iv vvkt\ atkas itoXKov aTToXa/iTreroi, vito hi 
 ol 6 vrjos Saras oXov viro Xixyoiari (fyaeivtral ' iv ^fiipjl 8e to itiv (piyyof 
 
 diT0(viti. ISeriv te ex«t Kcipra KvpmSea. Such passages abound in the 
 d. d. S. and, stripped of the dialect, might easily find a place in 
 Lucian's ordinary narrative. The great abundance of co-ordi- 
 nating particles in d. d. S. is really an over-abundance, and often 
 at the expense of participles. Here is where the piece falls short 
 of both Hdt. and Luc. At no place can it be called polymetochic 
 or even eumetochic, though a few sentences can be cited like 27 
 
 (3. 473) ■ ?*'*''/ yvvf) f r travrjyvpw airiKojievr] Ibovara KaXo'x t« invra Kal fvdrJTa 
 (Ti avdprjirjv f^oma eptari [itydXa fa^erOf fiera de p.a6ov<Ta oxiKta iovra 
 
 iavTrjv Siftpyatraro. Sentences of this kind that do occur, however, 
 are alternated with ametochic passages, just as they are in Hdt. 
 and in Lucian's narrative. Such an arrangement is hardly 
 accidental. When a man is imitating intentionally, especially 
 if he is struggling with a dialect not his own, the tendency is to 
 overdo the imitation, as has been done in the d. d. S. in the effort 
 after Herodotean co-ordination. When Lucian is writing natural- 
 ly, as in his narrative pieces, the narrator, whose works he has 
 conned so thoroughly that they are almost entirely assimilated, 
 leaves an undeniable yet all unconscious impress. 
 
 This greater ametochic effect in the d. d. S. would allow more 
 opportunity for Gorgianic figures, but very little, if any, difference 
 is perceptible. By the side of pure paronomasia we find some 
 15 examples of the \6yov \eytiv group. Cf. Hdt. i. 14: avi6t)Kt 
 avadtjiiaTa. Repetition is on a par with Hdt. and Luc; also pari- 
 
392 DANIEL A. PENICK. 
 
 son. Paromoion is naturally a little more frequent, owing to the 
 large number of co-ordinate finite verbs. The Xdyov \iytiM group, 
 another over-imitation in keeping with the general spirit of 
 ridicule in the piece, may be taken as evidence bearing upon 
 
 verborum ubertas. Add §29 (3. 475): « hi nr ro'8e /iev oix onaiviv, 
 iitimt he (jjoiviKofiaTeovras, Cf. Hdt. I. 24: ariivTa ex roiai eSa>Xio((ri 
 
 aelaai' deioas he vrrediKfTo. Here should be mentioned a most 
 interesting point of agreement between the d. d. S. and Lucian's 
 narrative, a practice evidently Herodotean, viz., the sum- 
 marizing of preceding facts with /liv and opposing the summary 
 to something which follows introduced by Se. Cf. 8 (3. 456): 
 
 6 fiiv fioi Bv^Xios ToaavTa dirriyceTO with Luc, Ver. Hist. I. 36 (2. 99): 
 ToiauTij fiiV r] }(a>pa iazlv' ifias he ^PV opav onas . • . Add d. d. S. 12 
 (S- 459) • ^ 1^^" ^evKoKiavos nept "EWrjves laTopiovai \ 1 3 (3. 459) : o ntv 
 &v dpxoios avroio-i Xdyor dp<f>l toS ipoO TowaSe eart; 2J (3. 473) : Ko/jL^d^ov 
 fiev fioi ne'pi rocrdhe etpijirBa) ; 17 (3. 4^5) i ^3 (3- 47'^^- 
 
 As is to be supposed from the foregoing considerations, opddtris 
 is the type of periodic structure in the d. d. S. rather than 
 v\ayi.a<rp6s. Almost every sentence from the beginning to the 
 end is an illustration, and naturally, inasmuch as opddrijr and 
 co-ordination are congenial associates. 
 
 The d. d. S. also shows a tendency to over-imitate Hdt. in 
 the use of anastrophic ittpi, showing 15 examples of iripi. to 3 
 of TTtpl. Lucian does not show this extreme tendency, but it is 
 decidedly interesting to note that where he calls up Hdt. in the 
 De Domo 20, he makes him talk Ionic and use nepi. 
 
 In §§ 25, 31, 33, 50, 54 of the d. d. S. are examples oi oihe used 
 after an affirmative sentence for Ka\ oi, another Herodotean con- 
 struction, used also by the poets. Kriiger has already pointed 
 out that later writers followed the same practice, and his state- 
 ment is reinforced by du Mesnil, Grammatica quam Lucianus 
 in scriptis suis secutus est ratio etc., Stolp, 1867, p. 48, so that 
 the point would not amount to much for our purpose, if special 
 mention were not made of Lucian, and if Lucian did not use it in 
 passages decidedly Herodotean, such as Dial. Mar. 8. i. 
 
 Finally, as Herodotos is careful to leave the impression that he 
 must not be held responsible for all the statements he makes, so 
 Lucian in the preface to his True Histories states that he is not 
 going to utter one word of truth, and then, like Hdt., apologizes 
 for remarkable stories. Similar expressions abound in the 
 
NOTES ON LUCIAN'S SYRIAN GODDESS. 393 
 
 d. d. S. Cf. 7 (3. 455); II (3. 457); 13 (3. 459): iyH, Bi Kal tA 
 Xdafia elSov, ko! eartv vno rm i/i/y Kapra ixiKp6v: 28 (3. 474); 29 (3. 476) ; 
 39 (3. 484) ; 45 (3. 484) ; 48 (3. 485) : aXX' iyii tout€«i' n-f'pi <xa<j,(, 
 ovfiei/ fxa ilirtlv' ov yap ^\dov airbs ov8c evretprjSriv rauTijr rijs i&otnoplrjs' tcl 
 Sf iXdovTfs wouovatp, ttiov Koi airtjyijtrofuu ; 60 (3. 490) : Koi Sifle nouovai. 
 
 In fact, such expressions are too common. Here, as elsewhere, 
 the feeling is that the imitation is overdone. 
 
 To further illustrate this principle of over-imitation in the d. d. 
 S., one or two strong Herodotean peculiarities not common in 
 Lucian's narrative may be mentioned. Note the extraordinary 
 frequency of oSe in all of its forms, and of the article used as a relative 
 in such expressions as tS,v tuxtit ISnev, 2 (3. 452). This is very 
 much overdone. Then we find prepositions used independently 
 or adverbially, especially tV and nerd. Cf. 38 (3. 482), 39 (3. 482), 
 49 (3- 485). Again mpra which is found to an appreciable extent 
 only in Hdt. and tragedy abounds here. Cf. Luc. Calumn. 3 
 (3. 128). This fact, that there are in the d. d. S. instances of 
 decided imitation which do not appear in Lucian's best narrative, 
 has no weight in arguing against the Lucianic composition of the 
 d. d. S., but rather tends in the other direction. It is far more 
 natural that he should have emphasized by over-imitation Herodo- 
 tean peculiarities, whether they represent the best Attic or not, 
 rather than pass over those peculiarities for others which he has 
 found most useful in his best narrative. In his Attic narrative 
 Lucian has been influenced more or less unconsciously by 
 Herodotos in those things which go to make the best, the most 
 interesting and the most attractive narrative. In the d. d. S. 
 Lucian has tried to give a literal imitation of Herodotos in every 
 detail, in a spirit of ridicule, without much care or regard for 
 general effect. In consequence he is natural in the one and un- 
 natural in the other. 
 
 These considerations strengthen my own belief in the Lucianic 
 composition of the d. d. S., whatever its defects may be both as a 
 work of Lucian himself and as an imitation of Herodotos. 
 
 University of Texas. DANIEL A. PeNICK. 
 
THE GREETING IN THE LETTERS OF CICERO.^ 
 
 In modern letter-writing there is a great variety of forms 
 in use for the address and subscription of a letter, and each form 
 represents more or less exactly a definite idea. We recognize 
 instinctively the feeling which each expresses, and can classify the 
 various forms into groups representing in a general way different 
 degrees of intimacy between the correspondents. We are in the 
 habit of employing different forms for our different correspondents, 
 and of varying them as our relations change. The address and 
 corresponding subscription are harmonious in spirit, and often 
 form a safer basis for determining the feeling of the writer towards 
 his correspondent than the contents of his letter. The letter may 
 be a business one and colorless in tone, but the address and sub- 
 scription will indicate the true or pretended feeling of the writer. 
 
 The greeting at the beginning of the Roman letter corresponds 
 in meaning to the address and subscription of the modern letter, 
 and exhibits an equally large variety of forms. It is the purpose 
 of this paper to classify the forms of greeting in the letters of 
 Cicero into certain groups, and determine the feeling that each 
 group expresses. 
 
 Nearly all the letters in the collections ad Atticum and ad 
 Brutum have a uniform greeting (Cicero Attico Sal. and Cicero 
 Bruto Sal.), which suggests the possibility of later editing. Throw- 
 ing out these and all instances due to conjecture in the edition 
 of Baiter and Kayser we have the greeting in 374 letters to 
 consider. 
 
 The greeting in each case consists of the name of the writer in 
 the nominative, the name of the person addressed in the dative, 
 and some form of salutation expressed or implied. Either name 
 may be given in full with the three parts, praenomen, nomen and 
 cognomen, or with only. one or two parts. The form of the 
 
 • Babl, De Epistularum Latinarum Formulis, 1893, pp. 17-18, barely 
 touches upon the subject of this paper. Peter's Der Brief in der r6m. 
 Lit., Teubner, 1901 1 know only from the title given in the list of new books 
 in a recent number of the Woch. f. Klass. Phil. 
 
396 E. M. PEASE. 
 
 greeting may be varied by the addition of the father's name, by 
 both the father's and grand-father's, and by a free use of titles. 
 There is also equal variety in the form of the salutation ; it may 
 be omitted, or may be expressed by the abbreviations S., Sal., 
 S. D., S. P. D., suo S. P. D., suo dulcissimo S., etc, or it may 
 be written more or less in full. 
 The following is a series of representative forms of greeting : 
 Cicero Varroni. 
 Cicero Varroni Sal. 
 Cicero S. D. Paeto. 
 Cicero Cassio S. 
 Cicero Servio S. 
 Tullius'S. D. Terentiae suae. 
 Tullius Terentiae suae Sal. Plurimam. 
 Tullius Tironi Sal. 
 Tullius Tironi suo Sal. 
 Marcus Quinto Fratri Salutem. 
 M. Cicero S. D. Curio. 
 M. Cicero S. D. C. Furnio. 
 M. Cicero S. D. D. Bruto Imp. Cos. Desig. 
 M. Cicero S. D. C. Antonio M. F. Imp. 
 M. Tullius M. F. Cicero S. D. Cn. Pompeio Cn. F. Magno 
 
 Imperatori. 
 M. Tullius M. F. M. N. Cicero Imp. S. D. C. Caelio L. F. C. 
 N. Caldo Quaest. 
 From this list of typical examples one can form some idea of 
 the many possible varieties. 
 
 Comparing the relation of the names alone in the letters of 
 Cicero, i. e., taking no account of the salutation, I have noted 39 
 different types. If then we consider the form of the salutation 
 and its relation to the names, we shall find the number greatly 
 increased. The various types, however, fall more or less dis- 
 tinctly into five or six groups. There are five different combi- 
 nations which Cicero employs for his own name : Cicero, Marcus 
 Cicero, Tullius, Marcus, Marcus Tullius Cicero, in the order of 
 frequency. The nomen cognomen (Tullius Cicero) and the prae- 
 nomen nomen (M. Tullius) never occur. For the name of the 
 recipient he uses six forms, viz.: Cognomen, Nomen, Praenomen 
 cognomen, Praenomen nomen, Praenomen, Praenomen nomen 
 cognomen, and avoids the form Nomen cognomen. The form 
 
THE GREETING IN THE LETTERS OF CICERO. 397 
 
 Praenomen nomen (M. Tullius), which Cicero avoids in the case 
 of his own name, but uses frequently for the name of his corres- 
 pondents, is often necessary because of the lack of the cognomefl, 
 once the mark of nobility. 
 
 We have seen that there is a great variety of forms in the 
 Romaft greeting, and it is reasonable to suppose, from the ati' 
 alogy of modern letters, that they express an equally wide range of 
 meanings. There is perhaps sufficient proof of this in the greef- 
 ings themselves. In the first place there is an evident attempt to 
 maintain a perfect balance between the forms of the two names 
 which in itself suggests that each form has a certain significance 
 or feeling. In a way the name of the sender corresponds to the 
 subscription of the modern letter and the name of the recipient 
 to the address of the modern letter. A glance at the lists of 
 greetings will show that the harmony in the form of the two 
 names in Latin is as marked as in the address and subscription 
 of the modern letter. Furtheriiiore, it may be noted that the 
 greeting varies in a conspicuous way with different correspondents, 
 and usually only slightly, if at all, in a series of letters to any one 
 person ; that in some of the few cases where there is a marked 
 difference in the form of greeting to a particular person the 
 change coincides with some known change in feeling. A third 
 proof that the greeting is an essential part of the letter and indic- 
 ative of the feeling existing between the correspondents is the 
 fact that whenever Cicero encloses a copy of a letter in the one he 
 is writing, whether his own or one he has received, he is always 
 careful to preserve the greeting. There is also noticeable harmony 
 between the form of the salutation in each greeting and the form 
 of the names. The forms indicative of friendship or intimacy are 
 found only with certain forms of the names which we may assume 
 to be familiar forms, e. g. Tullius S. D. Terentiae Suae ; Tullius 
 et Cicero Tironi suo S. P. D. Again, the use of the father's 
 name, grandfather's name, and titles, is found only with certain 
 other forms of the name, and helps us to determine and grade 
 the more formal types of greeting. 
 
 After recognizing that each form of greeting expresses some 
 definite feeling or degree of intimacy, we can classify the various 
 forms into certain natural groups, and ascertain the meaning of 
 the characteristic forms in each group from our knowledge of the 
 intimacy existing between Cicero and the well-known correspond- 
 
398 E. M. PEASE. 
 
 ents, and from incidental hints in the literature. This I have 
 attempted to do for the letters of Cicero, but space will permit 
 the consideration of only certain typical cases and the statement 
 of the results. 
 
 Cicero uses his praenomen (Marcus), which corresponds to our 
 Christian name, only in addressing his brother Quintus. Marcus 
 and Quintus were the familiar names of their boyhood, and it is 
 but natural that they should retain them in their correspondence 
 of later years— always, however, with the term "frater" added, 
 thus "Marcus Quinto Fratri Salutem." The only other corres- 
 pondents whom Cicero addresses by the first name are Servius 
 Sulpicius Rufus and Appius. In the 17 letters of Sulpicius, 11 
 have only the praenomen " Servius." We know him to be one 
 of Cicero's dearest friends. They were both of equestrian rank, of 
 about the same age, and had been playmates and school-fellows 
 together. They continued their studies abroad together and re- 
 mained firm friends throughout life. Sulpicius' beautiful letter 
 of condolence to Cicero on the death of Tullia is evidence of their 
 lasting friendship. It is not strange that Cicero should continue 
 to address Sulpicius by the name of his boyhood. The only 
 other use of the praenomen is the brief, colorless letter ad Fam. 
 X. 29, with the greeting "Cicero Appio S.", and it is said to refer 
 to some other Appius than Appius Claudius, the elder brother 
 of the notorious Clodia. We can safely say that if the principle 
 which this paper seeks to establish is true, there was no Appius 
 of the Claudian family whom Cicero would think of addressing 
 by his praenomen. Some late MSS read "Ampio" here, and 
 there was a Titus Ampius Balbus whom Cicero in ad Fam. VI. 
 12 addresses thus: "Cicero Ampio S. P.", employing the same 
 greeting as here, if we change Appio, the praenomen, to Ampio 
 the nomen. Good evidence can be brought forward in favor of 
 this change. 
 
 Cicero uses his nomen "Tullius" only in addressing the mem- 
 bers of his family, and Tiro his freedman. In his 24 letters to 
 Terentia and his children, 23 begin with Tullius, and one has no 
 nominative, the greeting being simply "suis S. D." This use 
 of " Tullius " ' corresponding in form with Terentia and Tullia 
 
 ■ Among the letters of Cicero's correspondents there are four cases in 
 which the author uses his nomen. In three oL these the author has no 
 cognomen, so far as we know ; Curius (M.) Ciceroni Suo Sal., Fam. 7. 29 ; 
 
THE GREETING IN THE LETTERS OF CICERO. 399 
 
 seems clearly familiar, and an appropriate form for expressing 
 the intimacy of the family and for those for whom the praenomen 
 would be inappropriate. To Tiro also, who was always regarded 
 a member of his family and as dear as his own son, Cicero used 
 this form in 20 out of 21 instances. Cicero's son writing to Tiro 
 addresses him Cicero Filius Tironi suo dulcissimo S. 
 
 The use of the nomen in the dative was often used by Cicero 
 in connection with the cognomen in nominative. This combina- 
 tion is more familiar than cognomen and cognomen. Yet it is in 
 some cases necessary when addressing those who have no cog- 
 nomen. This use of the nomen (i. e. cognomen and nomen) is 
 found in the 17 letters to Trebatius, Cicero's young friend and 
 prot^g6, the brilliant young lawyer whom Cicero twits on his 
 cowardice in battle, but in whose company he delights to discuss 
 knotty problems in law over his wine cups. Of the fifteen other 
 correspondents whom Cicero addresses with the nomen in the 
 dative 1 1 had no cognomen, so far as we know. Five of his 
 7 letters to Q. Cornificius were thus addressed. He was a good 
 friend of Cicero, and his colleague in the college of Augurs. 
 Cicero dedicated one of his rhetorical works to him. M'. Curius, 
 to whom three letters were addressed with this form, was very 
 intimate with Cicero, as is known from the many references to 
 him, and from the fact that in his will he left Cicero considerable 
 property. Two of the three letters to C. Memmius are of the 
 same form, and there are several passages in which Cicero speaks 
 of him in friendly words of praise. There are two letters to 
 Ligarius with this form, the man whom Cicero defended so vigor- 
 ously in the extant speech. In the same way we find Cicero address- 
 ing Cn. Domitius Ahenobarbus, the son of that haughty aristocrat, 
 who aided Cicero so successfully in his canvass for the consulship. 
 The letter is a sympathetic appeal for Domitius to yield to the 
 will of Caesar and to accept pardon after the utter defeat of the 
 Pompeian party. The other letters with this form of greeting 
 are for the most part also to those whom we know to have been 
 intimate with Cicero. 
 
 The use of the cognomen for the name of the writer is by far 
 
 Trebonius Ciceroni Sal., Fam. 12. 16; Matius Ciceroni Sal., Fam. 11. 28; 
 the fourth is Caelius Ciceroni Sal., Fam. 8. 1-17. They are all intimate 
 friends of Cicero, tut in no case do they address him by his nomen. 
 
400 E. M. PEASE. 
 
 the most frequent form, occurring i8i times; and the combination 
 cognomen and cognomen is also the commonest formula, 
 occurring 93 times. It represents a friendly relation between the 
 correspondents, and is used in social letters and in letters between 
 friends doing business with one another. This form of address 
 is used in the 5 letters to M. Brutus in the collection ad Fam. 
 (also in the collection ad Brut.); in the 12 to his good friend 
 Paetus; in 15 of the 17 to Plancus, the friend of his adversity, 
 whom he afterward befriended ; in 6 of his 7 to his son-in-law, 
 Dolabella; in the one to his would-be son-in-law, Crassipes; in 7 
 of the 8 to the great scholar, Varro ; and so on in the letters of his 
 less famous friends. 
 
 The formula praenomen cognomen is second to the simple 
 cognomen in point of frequency, occurring 129 times in the first 
 part of the address and 60 times in the second. The number 
 is smaller in the second part because of the lack of the cognomen 
 in many names, praenomen nomen often taking the place. The 
 formula praenomen cognomen and praenomen cognomen has 
 a business tone and is found in 11 of the 12 to Appius Claudius, 
 in the three letters to Cato, in the 14 letters to D. Brutus, in the 
 letters to Metellus Nepos, in 2 of his three letters to Pompey, 
 in I of the 7 letters to Dolabella, in one of the letters to Plancus, 
 his friend, and so on with a large number of his political associates. 
 
 The use of the praenomen nomen in the second part is 
 more familiar, or else due to lack of cognomen. It occurs in such 
 letters as the 4 to Marius, 6 of the 17 to Servius Sulpicius, 2 of the 
 3 to Trebonius, in the 9 to Caelius. The full name praenomen 
 nomen cognomen in both parts was decidedly formal and official, 
 and in all but three cases was supplemented with the name of the 
 father (sometimes the grandfather also), or with titles, or both. 
 Cicero sometimes used the praenomen cognomen for his own 
 name and the full name in the second part, thus making the whole 
 slightly less formal and paying the compliment to his corres- 
 pondent. 
 
 Three hundred and fifty-five of the 374 greetings may be 
 reduced to the following five general classes,^ which with the 
 
 ' The feeling of these five classes may be represented in a general way 
 
 . by the following English forms of address: 1. My dear Charles. 2. My 
 
 dear Walker. 3. My dear Mr. Walker. 4. Mr. Charles H. Walker, Dear 
 
 Sir. 5. Hon. Charles Hadley Walker, Superintendent of Public Works, 
 
 Dear Sir. 
 
THE GREETING IN THE LETTERS OF CICERO. 401 
 
 intermediate ones are arranged in order according to the degrees 
 of familiarity they represent. The number of occurrences is 
 given for each in parenthesis : 
 
 I 
 
 {_ „ _ , . ") Close friendship, of long 
 
 Praen. & Praen. (20) f standing, perhaps from 
 
 (a) Nom. & Praen. (20) j boyhood. 
 
 f Nom. & Nom. (24) ) . .^he intimacy of the fam- 
 
 ■ 1 («) Cogn. & Nom. (55) [''y', ^"^ t^^^ friendship of 
 
 ^ ^ ' » ''>'•''' J maturer years. 
 
 /■°^"rocrn°I"pripn'^Nnn, (^\ \ Cordial and friendly, but 
 
 not personally intimate. 
 
 ( Cogn. & Cogn. (93) ■) 
 
 . -j (a) Cogn. & Praen. Nom. (7) y 
 (. \b) Cogn. & Praen. Cogn. (ii)) ' 
 
 (a) Praen. Cogn. & Praen. 
 
 Nom. (54) 
 Praen. Cogn. & Praen. Cogn. (50) 
 {b) Praen. Cogn. & Praen. 
 
 Nom. Cogn. (4) 
 
 Merely business or polit- 
 ' ical acquaintance. 
 
 5-{ 'Nom.Sgn.^(5f • "^ '"'"• } ^^^ '^'-^' ^"^ °*"^'- 
 
 The familiar forms may be made more cordial by the use of 
 plurimam, or suo, or some adjective ; and the more reserved ones 
 may be made more formal by the addition of titles, father's name, 
 etc. The remaining 19 instances are somewhat irregular and fail 
 to give a proper balance to the two names. They are represented 
 by the three forms : 
 
 Cogn. & Praen. Nom. Cogn. (2) 
 
 Praen. Cogn. & Nom. (10) 
 
 Praen. Cogn. & Cogn. (7) 
 
 One of the places to which we may apply the principles of this 
 paper is in the greeting of the letters to Atticus. The form 
 Cognomen & Cognomen (Cicero Attico Sal.) is the most common 
 of all, and the one an editor would be likely to use if he sought 
 uniformity ; but inasmuch as the greeting is indicative of feeling, 
 Atticus himself would probably be the only editor who would 
 venture to change the original forms, or desire to reduce all to a 
 common level ; and of course there are good reasons for believing 
 that he prepared the collection for publication. This friendly 
 but somewhat business-like formula is not the one that we should 
 
 26 
 
402 E. M. PEASE. 
 
 expect to find occurring so frequently in Cicero's letters to 
 Atticus, certainly not so uniformly; especially when we consider 
 that a continued correspondence in the case of others usually 
 shows some variety, and that in the body of the letters to Atticus 
 Cicero shows variety in the form of address, using in order of 
 frequency the forms Atticus, Pomponius, Titus, and Titus Pom- 
 ponius. The one exception of moment to the standard formula is 
 the playful address in III. 20 (Cicero S. D. Q. Caecilio Q. F. 
 Pomponiano Attico, quod quidem ita etc.), which is an essential 
 part of the letter and could not be changed by the editor.^ 
 
 • Since this paper was read by title before the American Philological 
 Association July, 1895, an interesting article has appeared in the Classical 
 Review, 1898, p. 438 ff. by Cora M. Porterfield, in which the author 
 would prove the traditional greeting, Cicero Attico Sal., genuine. Against 
 the charge of uniformity she cites as instances of variety the form in III. 
 20, six omissions of Sal., 3 occurrences of S. D., one of Sal. Die, and one 
 of Salutem Dicit, and refers to instances of approximate uniformity in 
 the letters to certain other correspondents. 
 
 Unfortunately Miss Porterfield proves too much. The variations S., 
 Sal., Salutem, etc., are unessential and none of the editors are careful to 
 follow the MSS. Even Mendelssohn is careless in this particular. Among 
 the instances cited as examples of uniformity she fails to notice that only 
 two of the ten greetings in the letters to Lentulus are genuine, and that 
 they are not uniform in the MSS, that only 7 of the 14 cases for Corni- 
 ficius are genuine and they also differ, that in the case of the other authors 
 cited the number of variants from the standard type is larger than is 
 supposed, as no account is taken of letters to the same correspondents to 
 be found in other books than the ones mentioned. This part of the argu- 
 ment breaks down completely on a careful examination of all the cases. 
 The numbers cited for the various lists differ materially from mine, but the 
 only one that I have attempted to test is in the statement concerning the 
 letters to Tiro where it should be stated that one and not nine of the 26 
 greetings correspond to the type in the letters to Atticus. On second 
 thought one would see that there is little point in citing the name of Tiro, 
 for Cicero could hardly employ any other name for his freedman. 
 
 The arguments from the use of the forms of address in the letters 
 (Tite, I, Pomponi, 8, and Attice, 19) may be turned about and used in sup- 
 port of the theory of later editing. If I may trust my own index of 
 proper names for the letters ad Atticum there are 33 instances of the form 
 Atticus (including the vocative and other cases), 7 of Pomponius (usually 
 with mi expressing marked intimacy), 3 of T. Pomponius, and 2 of Titus. 
 • The other arguments are also equally forceful in support of variety in the 
 original greetings and of later editing. 
 
THE GREETING IN THE LETTERS OF CICERO. 403 
 
 There is a somewhat important question of interpretation in 
 Latin which we are now in a position to consider. Here and 
 there throughout the literature names are used in the vocative of 
 address, and there is no agreement among scholars as to the 
 meaning suggested by the different forms. One may notice the 
 various views held on such passages as Hor. Sat. 2. 5. 32, 
 ■" Quinte," puta, aut " Publi " (gaudent praenomine molles Km\- 
 c\Aa.Q),"thepraenomen ticklesthe sensitive ear" ; Hor, Sat. 2. 6. 37, 
 Pers. V. 79, Cic. Fam. VII. 32, and many others. For example, 
 Orelli on the first passage in Horace maintains that the praenomen 
 belongs to freemen, and is used among relatives and friends. 
 Gildersleeve on Pers. V. 74 also says that only freemen were 
 entitled to the praenomen. Tyrrell on Cic. Fam. VII. 32 takes 
 exception to the view of Orelli and affirms that it was the omission 
 of the praenomen that was a mark of intimacy in the time of 
 Cicero, and quotes the following from the beginning of the letter: 
 
 Quod sine praenomine familiariter, ut debebas, ad me epistolam 
 misisti, primum addubitavi num a Volumnio senatore esset, quo- 
 cum mihi est magnus usus, deinde eirpan-tX/a litterarum fecit, ut 
 intellegerem tuas esse. 
 
 Reid on this same passage differs with both in holding that the 
 address by one name only was the familiar style. Any one who 
 has read thus far in this paper can see how there is some truth in 
 each of these views, and how no one fully expresses the principle. 
 A study of the greetings makes the subject perfectly clear. 
 But to turn to this passage from Cicero again, which has never 
 been properly interpreted, it is probable that the letter to which 
 Cicero refers was addressed on the outside simply M. Tullio (cf. 
 M'. Curio, ad. Att. VIII. 5. 2, and M. Lucretio, on a Pompeian wall 
 painting), and that the greeting read, Volumnius S. D. Tullio, a 
 form expressive of close intimacy ' (sine praenomine familiariter). 
 Cicero in order to introduce a delicate compliment says that with 
 the praenomen omitted he was in doubt whether the letter was 
 from him, P. Volumnius, or the Senator L. Volumnius, with whom 
 he was on intimate terms, until the spicy style of the letter itself 
 revealed the writer. He then assures Volumnius that this form 
 of address was much more acceptable than a formal one, meaning 
 perhaps P. Eutrapelus M. Tullio S. D. 
 
 • See class 2, page 401 above. 
 
404 E. M. PEASE. 
 
 Space will not permit me to do more than mention other 
 questions to which the principles of this paper may be made to 
 apply. They may be used in testing the large number of greet- 
 ings that have been introduced by conjecture, in determining the 
 value of various emendations that have been made in others, in 
 correcting certain errors in the tradition of the MSS, and with the 
 aid of complete indexes of proper names in establishing the text 
 of the letters in regard to proper names, and in distinguishing men 
 of the same name. We are also in a position to form some idea 
 of the relative esteem in which Cicero held many of his acquaint- 
 ances, and in some instances where almost nothing is known of a 
 correspondent we can learn something of Cicero's feeling for him 
 from the greeting alone. 
 
 Leland Stanford Jr. University, ■C'. M. "EASE. 
 
ORATION XI OF DIO CHRYSOSTOMUS, 
 
 A Study in Sources. 
 
 Dio Chrysostomus' Oration XI, TpaiKos iirep toS 'iXtoK /u^ 
 i\&vai, is the centre of his sophistic studies upon Homer. It is 
 the sole surviving treatise which preserves, in organic sequence, 
 traces of the adverse Homeric criticism of preceding centuries. 
 The fact that modern scholars have differed widely as to its real 
 purpose and date^ should not be allowed to obscure its undeni- 
 ably sophistic character." It is not necessary, however, to assign 
 it to Dio's distinctively rhetorical, that is, pre-exilic, period. 
 It is very probable that he wrote it even in the midst of the 
 sober efforts of his philosophical period, as a burlesque upon 
 the methods of the Sophists, the professional truth-teachers, 
 and with the express purpose of so treating a preposterous 
 theme as to beat them on their own ground. Its tone, therefore, 
 is much the same as that of Isocrates' Bovo-ipir and 'E\ivi)t 
 «'yKiin»oi'.' The abuse which the oration heaps upon the Soph- 
 ists and their methods is manifestly Isocratean' in tone, though 
 in language it is an imitation of Plato.* 
 
 The framework of Oration XI is the application of Aristotle's 
 theory of to iIkSs and ri avayxaiov, as laid down in the Rhet- 
 oric, Bk. I, ch. 2, §§ 14, 15. Dio, however, has done exactly 
 what Aristotle forbids, and has applied the theory to the events 
 of an artistic creation. He rejects the limiting dictum of the 
 Poetics, ch. IX, §1, 145 1 a 38 : ou t4 ri ywSfuva \iyuv, Tovro ttoiijtoO 
 ipyov iariv, a\\' ola di> ytcoiro xal rh hwark Karck rh tliAs ^ ri avayKoiov^ 
 
 ' See Hagen, Quaestiones Dioneae, Kiel, 1887, pp. 42 £., £or resume o£ 
 opinions o£ Casaubon, Burckhardt, DUmmler, von Wilamowitz-Mflllen- 
 dorfi. 
 
 « See von Arnim, Leben und Werke des Dio von Prusa, Berlin, 1898, 
 pp. 166-169. 
 
 3 Cf. Jebb, Attic Orators, Vol. II, pp. 93 £f. 
 
 * C£. Or. XI, §§ii, 16, 18, 19, 23, with the Helen, §§2-13, and with the 
 Kord rav ao^iarov , §§ I, 2. 
 
 s C£. the Republic, Bk. X, 595 B, C. 
 
406 WALTER A. MONTGOMERY. 
 
 Cf. also ch. XXIV, §IO: Trpoaipeia-dai Te 8ei dSivara (lnora paWov i/ 
 Swara amdava. Cf. also ch. XXV, §17, 1461 b IO-13: oXmr 8e to 
 aSifOTOV fih rj irpbs rfjv jroii/(r£v ^ Trpos tA jSAtjoi/ ^ Trpos Trjv So^av Set 
 avdyeiv. jrpos re yap Tfjv iroii/o-ii' aipertircpoK mSavov abivarov tj aiciOavov 
 Kill hvvarov. . . • irpos ■<S'> a cj)a<Tiv, raXoya. ovtio tc koI oti ttote ouic 
 oKoyov i(TTlv' eixAr yap (cal vapa ri eZKor ylveirdai. Similarly, each Step 
 
 in the argument of Oration XI is a perversion of some Aristo- 
 telian principle of Homeric criticism. 
 
 These principles of Aristotelian and Peripatetic criticism upon 
 Homer are, as is well known, represented only in the Scholia 
 upon Homer, and chiefly in those which bear the name of Por- 
 phyry. The adverse side of this criticism represents the labors 
 of the eva-TaTiKoi, from Zoilos down; the explanatory and de- 
 fensive, those of the \vTiKoi. It is the purpose of this paper to , 
 show, from close parallelisms between these Scholia and Oration 
 XI, that Dio's sources were Porphyry's as well, and consequently 
 to indicate Aristotelian sources and influence for Oration XI. 
 
 Dio sets it as his task to show in what points Homer has 
 misrepresented the story of Troy, and to refute him from his 
 own poems, — a manifest perversion of the Aristarchean maxim, 
 
 °Ojxr]pov i^ 'Oprjpov aacprji'lifiv, 
 
 1. According to the universally accepted tradition, Homer was 
 a beggar. It is not probable that beggars in his day were more 
 trustworthy than they are at present. Nor do even his admirers 
 maintain that he was free from falsehood. This is Aristotelian ; 
 
 cf. Poetics, ch. XXIV, §§8, 9. to 8e BavprnaTov rjBi' arjpiiov fie" irdvTcs 
 yap irpoariBivTis dvayyiWovaiv tor xapi^ofiivoi, BeSiSaxev 6e paXitrra '0;uijpoj 
 
 Ka\ Toiis aWovs ij/ev8rl \eyeiv iis Set. In Spirit this point is Platonic; 
 cf. the Republic, Bk. II, 334. B. 
 
 2. Dio dismisses as commonplaces Homer's false and scan- 
 dalous representations of the gods,' and maintains that even 
 on minor points Homer is a liar. Homer reports scenes and 
 conversations among the gods of which it was impossible that 
 he should have knowledge. He even pretends to know the 
 language of the gods, — a manifest absurdity.' But not even 
 
 1 The language is a close imitation of Plato, Rep. Bk. II, 378 D ; III, 386 
 A, B. 
 
 ^ C£. for the language, the Cratylus, 391 D. For Dio's o priori argument, 
 cf. Isocrates, Kara tcjv ao(ptaTa>v j § 2, ov ttjv SKeivuv [to)v i^cwv) yv^fiT^v eii5<^g^ 
 a/\/l' ^fxif evdEi^ao'&ai fiovXdf^evog bri toIq av&p6)xoig £v tovto TOiV adwaTov eariv. 
 
ORATION XI OF DIG CHRYSOSTOMUS. 407 
 
 Homer, with all his effrontery, dares vouch for these stories, but 
 resorts to the device of putting them in the mouths of his char- 
 acters.' 
 
 3. Homer's starting-point and conclusion seem chosen utterly 
 at random.' 
 
 4. The Homeric account of Helen's abduction is totally false. 
 It is unreasonable that Alexander should have become enamored 
 of a woman whom he had never seen, and that she, in turn, should 
 have been persuaded to leave all that was dear to her, in order to 
 follow a man of alien race. It was because of this aXoyla, and in 
 order to aid Homer in his embarrassment, that men had to fashion 
 the myth of Aphrodite's assisting Alexander in return for his 
 decision in favor of her beauty.' Every circumstance points to 
 Helen's having been given in legal marriage by her father, who 
 had power * to bestow her as he pleased. Even if Alexander 
 himself had wished to pursue such a course as Homer ascribes 
 to him, it is not probable that his discreet brother Hector would 
 have allowed it at first, or, having allowed it, would later have 
 
 ' Such is Dio's perversion of the well-known Adffif e/c toO npoa&KOV. Cf. 
 also the Poetics, ch. XXIV, § 7 : "O/aipo^ . . . afiof iiratvElaBm, ... 874 fidvo^ 
 rav jroiTjTdv ovK ayvoel 8 del ■Koitlv avrdv, avrbv yap del rbv ■noiitrifv eWaxwra 
 'kiyeiv. ov -yap iari Kara ravra /u/ijjr^g. . . . d Hi oTdya fpoifiuiai/tevo(, ei-&vg eladyei 
 avSpa fj yvvaiKa fj aXKo Ti, Kai ov6hi arj^eg, akV tx"'"^"- V^V. 
 
 ' C£. Porphyry, Schol. to A i : Sia r'l airi tuv reTi^vraiuv fjp^aTO, Kal fi^ and 
 Tav npiiTuv 6 TrouiT^f ; and further, on the poet's beginning with the unlucky 
 word lifjvii: inMiovai Si avTO ol irepl 2jiv6Sotov ovtuc; bn Trpiwov earl rfj rrot^aei 
 rd -n-pooifuov, rbv vovv rav aKpoarav SLsyelpov Kal •KpocexeoTipovi; wotovv, el 
 fitXlei iroXl/iovc Kal ^avarovg daiyela-&ai. Cf. also Porphyry on M 127: 
 Kal yap ovto( elf rpdirog ep/i>p>eia(, Ik tUv vcTcpov ap^&fievov avadpafielv sif to, 
 izpura Kal n61w avvdipai. ravra Tolg varipotg. . . , ovrug yap (4 ■noniTTig) eiidvg Kar^ 
 apxag rijv /lijvw elirav Ktifia'kavaSag, baav KaKav ahia ytyme Tolg "EMi/aiv, varepov 
 knl TO (uTia avarpixei rahrm to' eire^epyd^eTai Si' bTu^g T^g iroiijaeug to kot' out^v. 
 Aristotle is the ultimate source ; cf. Poetics, ch. VII, 3 ; XXIII, 3. 
 
 ' Cf . Porphyry on A 51, where the defence of Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite 
 is set forth : eimpeirij ^mMfievog wepiSelvat avrr/ (*Hpii) Tifii alHav Tijg bpyijg 
 6 voa)ri)g xal ovx fjv d /ivOog avaw^rrei ktX 
 
 < For the same word, Kvpiog, cf. Arist. Rhet. II, ch. 24, 1401 b 35: 
 dAPlof (rdwog) vapa Tijv lUefftv tov irdre Kal irog, ohv brt diKaiag 'AXt^avSpog eTMJie 
 Tf/v 'MMvTjV alpeaig yap avrr) edddij vapa tov irarpSg, . . . ov yap ael laog, iXKa to 
 irpaToti. Kal yap d jror^p /tixpi' roiiTov Kiipiog. Aristotle may have had reference 
 to an 'ATie^dvSpov iyK^/tiov that was probably composed by Poly- 
 crates, Isocrates' rival. 
 
408 WALTER A. MONTGOMERY. 
 
 reviled him for this very reason.' Further, it is improbable that 
 Alexander could have managed the abduction in so leisurely 
 a manner, as to carry off not only Helen, but many household 
 goods, and, strangest of all, Helen's handmaid, the aged and in- 
 firm Aethra, the mother of her former abductor, Theseus.' 
 
 Most conclusive of all, Helen's father and brothers, alone of the 
 Achaean chieftains, took no part in the expedition. It was for 
 the purpose of anticipating criticism on this point that Homer 
 represented Helen as wondering where her brothers were." Even 
 granting that they had originally accompanied the expedition, 
 why did they delay ten years * in making preparations for it ? 
 
 Agamemnon's ambition and power placed him at the head of 
 the expedition.* He was incited by Menelaus' reproaches for 
 having allowed Alexander to win Helen's hand ; and he, in turn, 
 used as arguments to the other chieftains the rich booty to be 
 obtained in Asia, and the aid his Asiatic kinsmen would render 
 the expedition." A formal demand was made upon Priam for the 
 
 ' Porphyry on V 16-49 shows that the justice of the abusive terms had 
 been extensively discussed: ^iSdpov yap iridoc rb fterd evvia irr/ dq Toiavrag 
 h>cdopiac envlirTeiv, , . . vvv de 6ta ri ravra npoifiipti ; ov -yap Si) liidTrep "O/xt/pog 
 np&TTpt ji&xv TaiiTTiv it^loTarat h voiiiati, koX raif akiflelaif trpSrti tjv, Iva TJryov 
 Ixv i rov 'EKTopoc ovei6ia/i6;, ei fii) TMlSopov ipa iinSel^ai povTiercu mi bpy'Aov 
 aXKuc Tov ''EnTopa, Further on in Oration XI, Dio, using Aristotle's Xiotf 
 £/c TOV Kaipov, accepts the scene as an actual occurrence. 
 
 ' This also was a fruitful theme for disputation. Cf. Porphyry on P 144: 
 adlivardv faat rrjv MBpav in f^v Kal a/iftndlov t&^iv ix^iv ict?i,. 
 
 3 Porphyry's long note on T 236 shows this point to have provoked 
 probably a greater amount of discussion than any other single one : dia ri ttjv 
 'EMvTiv -ireiroiT/iiEii ayvooiaav ittpX rav aSOi^ov &n oil Tvapfjaav, StKatrovQ tov 
 voXifiov 6vTog Kai aXxfiaUTuv noXkSyv yevopivuv; liTMyov ydp. in 6^ kuI el r/yvdei, 
 aW ovK ijv avaymiov fwiiadijvai Toinuv, omi parrjOclaav . . . wepl avrav aide yap 
 vpoc Triv ■Kolriao) izpb ipyov rjv ij rofcruv /iv^/i?. Several Woeif are ascribed to 
 Aristotle . . . Tiiyei, 6i 'VLpas3i.elSrK 6ti iihayov ipi Svtuc tovto d dtaTeXeaavTini kv rj 
 Tpoif iravTiM "EXkijvuv twia ir? iirjSiv Trepi tov aSeWt^ov iaxtv 'W^htj 'Xiyeiv. , . . 
 ajhyv ovv &Ti vpooiKovo/icl 6 irotiiT^i povXdfuvo; e'lwelv t^ afiveiav avrav. 
 
 *Cf. Porphyry on Helen's ietKooTbv irof (Q 765). It was made the 
 basis of a legend, entirely unknown to Homer, of a former expedition of 
 the Greeks against Troy, when they landed by mistake in Mysia, and had 
 to return to Greece to re-assemble their forces. 
 
 ' Cf. Thucydides, Bk. I, ch. 9 : 'Aya/ii/ivav tc /iot Sontl rav TdTe Swd/ici 
 ^pohx^v ml (A ToaauTov Totg Twdipea bpKoig mTU^/^fievovi tovs "E?.ivtis ftvJioT^pag 
 ayav Tbv aTbhjv ayelpai. 
 
 « For the Asiatic origin of the Atridae, cf. Thucydides, Book I, ch. 9. 
 
ORATION XI OF DIO CHRYSOSTOMUS. 409 
 
 surrender of Helen— a demand which the Trojans, conscious of 
 innocence in obtaining her, indignantly refused. Otherwise, who 
 of them would have submitted to the woes thus imminent, when 
 they could have saved the city and themselves by surrendering 
 Helen ?> 
 
 5. The Achaeans were repulsed on their first attempt to land. 
 Homer admits that Protesilaus was killed, and his ship burned ; ' 
 but the losses of the Achaeans were far more serious than this. 
 They returned under cover of night, and, constructing a camp at 
 the ships, fortified it with a wall.' They occupied no territory 
 besides their camp, as is proved by two facts, which Homer 
 mentions : Troilus, a mere boy, was in the habit of running for 
 exercise so far from the city as to be ambushed by Achilles ; and 
 the Achaeans cultivated the Chersonese, and brought wine from 
 Lemnos.* Their situation grew more desperate, day by day, — 
 a fact which not even Homer could conceal. The successes of 
 the Trojans at this period are set forth with much truth, though 
 unwillingly. It is when Homer comes to flatter" the Achaeans 
 that he is plainly guilty of falsehood. The apia-rt\a\. of the 
 Achaeans are all fruitless, and are full of the most absurd and 
 even impious inventions. 
 
 6. It was thenceforth impossible that men so decisively beaten 
 
 ' Both argument and language are Herodotean ; cf. Bk. II, ch. izo. 
 
 ' Cf. Porphyry, Schol. to O 701 £f. ; ll^^^ai did notav alrtav fi&vriv rr)v 
 YlpuTeaMov wapiSaxe pavv Kaw/iivTfV. jntriav oJrv hri ijdiaOri 6 '0/iJipo; einelv 
 iiiirpjjaal Tiva tov Qinirav, fi^na^ avavSplav oirow T(f 66^1) KarayiviiaKUV. , . . 
 cvnptTra^ etti t^v TomiiTrfV vavv ijyaye rdv 'Enropa, ^f obre rdv ^e/idva iii/iijiaaSiu 
 ivTjv ft^ K(M)aavTa rijv olxelav vavv i/mnrpaiitviiv, 
 
 ^ Cf. for this tradition that the wall was made necessary by defeat, 
 Thucydides, Bk. I, ch. 1 1. Cf. also Porphyry on M 10 and 25, whose general 
 idea is identical with Aristotle's (see Strabo, 13, i, 36), viz. that this wall 
 was a pure invention of Homer. Cf. also Porphyry on K 194, where is 
 set forth Aristotle's airopia as to why the Achaean council was not held 
 inside the wall, — if any such wall existed. 
 
 'Cf. Thucydides, Bk. I, ch. 11. 
 
 ' For this as a principle of composition, cf. Porphyry on A i : ^T/rovai 
 d(5 rl anb ttj^ /t^idoc ^p^aro ktX. . . . Iva ri lyK^/jita rav 'BAAi^wv mBaviyrepa 
 iroii;ai}. inel 6i i/ieXXe vmSjvTa; airo^lveiv tov; 'EM^as, ewdruf ov KaraTptx^h 
 a^ioTrtoTdTepov ck tov jjlt) irdvra x'^P'^^"^'^^ '''V iiteivav eiralv<i). So everywhere 
 throughout the apcoTclai. Cf. Porphyry on E 7 and 20, where Zoilos is 
 quoted as chiding Homer for having portrayed certain details Viav yETiotac 
 
4IO WALTER A. MONTGOMERY. 
 
 should turn back the tide of fortune.^ The strength of the Myr- 
 rnidons alone — granting them to have hitherto held aloof from 
 war — was not adequate to accomplish this, and it is incredible that 
 the mere shouting of the single individual Achilles should have 
 done so." Often must he have engaged in the fight before — else 
 how could he have had any renown at all ? — and yet nothing 
 remarkable is recorded of him. The true story of his combat 
 with Hector is exactly the reverse of the Homeric version. How 
 could Achilles have been so avo-qros as to send Patroclus forth 
 to fight, bidding him to avoid Hector, as if one could choose his 
 adversary in a battle?" Yet it was to this one, known to be Hec- 
 tor's inferior, that Achilles entrusted his armor and steeds. How 
 is it possible that Patroclus could have worn the armor, and yet 
 been unable to wield the spear ? * Furthermore, Achilles himself 
 does not go, as Homer is careful to emphasize, because of a cer- 
 tain prophecy to the effect that he would fall. This is nothing 
 less than a direct accusation of cowardice. The prophecy is 
 deficient, also, in that, though coming through his mother,' it told 
 him nothing of the fate which awaited Patroclus. And yet Homer 
 says he loved Patroclus as himself, and on his death, no longer 
 cared to live. In a word, this whole account of Patroclus is full 
 of inconsistencies. Patroclus is manifestly a supposititious" 
 
 ' Cf. Porphyry on O 56-77 : . . . -irapa/nideiTai rbv aKpoaTtjv . . . on ol ra 
 Tomvra irp&^avrcg (ol TpSsf) KpaT-rfirjaonnai vore. 
 
 ' Cf. Porphyry on 2 230 : amdavdv 0aff( koI ifierpov rb t^c vKspPoTi^g. C£. 
 also Porphyry on X 205 : iro; yap {fijai, Meyofc/leM^f) Toaaiirac fivpcd6a( vev/iart 
 'A;t;(A/l,Eiif aTriarpcfev; Cf. also Schol. A (Dindor£)to 2 217. 
 
 3 Cf. Porphyry on 2 22 (Achilles' grief at the tidings of Patroclus' death) : 
 . . . ZuUof 6i ^rjniv irovov viv elSivat rbv 'AxMia • vpotidhai re yap kxpffv ^ri 
 Koivol ol nole/iiKol kIvSwoi, t6v ts divarav ovu ixpv" isivbv VTroXafi^dveiv. 
 
 * Cf. Porphyry on II 140 : 61a. ri ovv /i6vov to Il7i?.iuTtiibv avT<^ avapjiuarel Sdpv, 
 Tuv aXKuv ap/ioadvTuv bwXav; MeyanXeidTK h devript^ nepl 'O/iripov irpoomom- 
 jitiaBal (ji^aiv "Ojirjpov t^v 6K?ioKoitav, ktX. 
 
 ' Cf. Schol. A (Dindorf) to S 10, 11 ; na; di, (paat, tovto mnvajitvoQ napd r^f 
 /irirpb; inefine rbv TidrpoiOMv eif Tbv ■Kd'Ksfiov ; 
 
 » While it is nowhere distinctly enunciated, there are adumbrations of 
 this in the immense mass of adverse criticism which is known to have been 
 directed against 2 and X. In the scholia on these books the names of 
 Megaclides and Crates are especially prominent. Cf. Porphyry on V 
 1^54 : &Ti (5e £/c Tav bnlav ivfjv ir^avTjd^vai. roiif airb rav b-K^w ari/xaivo/iivovg 
 iKaoTov, dr)7iOl to inX tov UarpSKlov, 8c ivdiiaaaBat to 'A.xM.iai birla eSer/dr/, ktA. 
 oiiTO; OVK fjv Tbv divb tov bn?i.av Tivd So^d^uvTa ijSji Kai bvTac yiv&aKuv aiirdv. Cf. 
 
ORA TION XI OF DIO CHR YSOSTOMUS. 4 1 1 
 
 personage — un-ciiSXjjT-ot — invented by Homer merely to rob 
 Hector of the glory of having slain the mighty Achilles himself. 
 7. The details of the combat, as given by Homer, are incredible. 
 Achilles, single-handed, checks the Trojans, while all the rest of 
 the Achaeans look on, as if at a theatrical performance.' Now he 
 fights with the river, and though well-nigh exhausted," is not con- 
 quered; now he impiously threatens Apollo, and pursues him" 
 in order to punish him for favoring the Trojans. Though called 
 the swiftest of mortals, he yet cannot overtake Hector,* who, in 
 turn, acts most unreasonably, refusing to heed his parents' prayers 
 that he should enter the city, and then, stricken with panic fear, 
 fleeing around it." Athena comes forth from the wall in the like- 
 ness of Deiphobus, deceives Hector, and steals his spear.' In 
 short the entire narrative is like that of absurd dreams.' 
 
 also Porphyry on A 611 : Sia ri rbv UdrpoicAop 6 'A;|;<XXeif iri/iirei ; jitjTiov ovv 
 on Kar' o'tKovo/i'mv, . . . aare npo(i)Kov6/jitiae tovto 6 Trof^rij; ofiruf, Iva 'Axi^^a 
 c!e«f7) fier' eiiUyov irpo^doeuf cJf rbv n6Xe/iov k^dyovra rbv Il&TpoKkov. Cf. Por- 
 phyry on O 56-77 (prophecy of Zeus athetized by Zenodotus): (jiaal dk Kai 
 bri, 6 [M.aTMni/r'l Z. to e/c tov Hdrpoic^ov . . . "B/CTwp . . . ea; tov XiaaofiivTi . . . 
 'Xxt^^ia lEAptrndeliii Myu iomivat npoXdyif, a^eXaq •KpoaxBtvra koX eif ovdiv 
 eSfov dipt/yrifiaTtKac Cf. Porphyry on S 192 : f^reiraj did tI to TlaTpdK^ov (87r/la) 
 oi Tiajipdvu, el Kal rd avToii ciceimj) ^p/ioaev, Tivic, ^vloxov Xiyovrcf elvat rbv 
 TldrpoxXov, faal fii) Ix^iv avrbv oirAa. . . . Kpdrri;, &Tt rd IZdrpditAow AvTO/ddav 
 elx^v, 57r«f iaady rb d<5o{ Kal Sd^oaiv elvai 6 /liv 'Axi-^^vs d di Hiir/ooK^f. 
 
 ' Cf. Porphyry on X 36 : d^iov (TjT^aca;, ira; dirdvTo; 'A;t;t^^tof ft^delc KoX^/iei 
 'EKTopi . . . MeyaK^eld^c di ^Bi Tama irdvra nXda/iara clvat, Cf. also Schol. 
 B (Dindorf) to 4> 269 : b^v rb Trediov Trttayof yeytv^/Uvov iitb tov irora/wv 
 idct^Ev HnTE Kal tov; a/iov; eirtKXv^civ tov 'AxOJiiu^' koI irpb( /ihi aM/detav Tavra 
 ov ■KiBava — tI yap enpaTTero wept Toii; d?2ov; aTparUiTog ; dnWavov yap fiduov Tbv 
 'A;i;iA^o iiTrb tov woTa/iov rauro wdaxeiv — oif di ev noiijau vapddeKTa, 
 
 * Cf. Porphyry on X 165 ; nal if>aaiv ol fikv kviT^des avrbv turd Toii noajrov 
 KaTaTTEirovijadai iroA/l^ 7rdvii> irpdrepov, iv' (nairep h Bedrpii) vvv /ififovn Kivijai) wddri 
 
 KTTi, 
 
 ^ Thought and language are close imitations of Plato ; cf. the Republic, 
 III, 391 A. 
 
 * Cf. Porphyry on X 165: Tuf di, <l>aalv, 6 noduKtararo; Trdvron) oil KaTa^M/ipdvei 
 Tbv 'ExTopa ; . . . wpdxecpov piv oiv Tb Xiyeiv bTt d /liv 'AxM^Aq dpiOTds ioTi, tt^^ 
 K^Kfi^Kev vnb SdvdoVf ktX. 
 
 » Cf. Scholium A (Dindorf) to X 141, where (anonymous) dissatisfaction 
 is expressed at the inconsistency of his heroic firmness in vss. 92-97 with 
 his thought of surrender and final flight. 
 
 * Cf. Porphyry on X 231 ; oToirdv (paai ^ebp ovaav irTiavdv tov 'EKTopa. 
 
 ■I These aKop^/iaTa all go back ultimately to Aristotle's distinction 
 between the canons of artistic construction for epic and those for dramatic 
 
412 WALTER A. MONTGOMERY. 
 
 Achilles could not have conquered Hector, because, by Homer's 
 own showing, he could have had none of the virtues claimed for him . 
 Besides being senseless (di/dijTot), impious (dcr«j3)/r), and even 
 without his boasted speed of foot — as has already been shown — 
 he was also inconsistent (dj-a/iaXor)' in his excessive grief; 
 irascible (opyiXoi);* and even cowardly (d*i\c5r).° 
 
 A brief portion of Oration XI is concerned with extra-Homeric 
 events. As this portion is beyond the scope of this paper, it is 
 sufficient to say that Dio concludes that these also prove the failure 
 of the Trojan expedition. The Achaeans selected the winter 
 season for their return voyage ; they returned singly, or in small 
 groups ; and almost every one encountered either unfaithfulness 
 in wife or disloyalty in subjects. The Trojans, on the contrary, 
 were able to send forth the well-known expeditions of Aeneas 
 and Helenus, — a sure sign of increase in numbers and wealth. 
 
 Walter A. Montgomery. 
 
 poetry. Cf. the Poetics, ch. XXIV, 1460 a 14 i{.: /laXlav 6' hSexerai tv Tjj 
 inonoda rb a?u>yoif . . . did rb /i^ dpdv cif rd** TrpdrrovTa, etrel rd nepl tt/v "'EKTopog 
 cSi'ufiv, em aariinji ivra, ythiia hv (/laveli)- ol /iiv, iaraTeQ naX ov Sc^kovtes, 6 6e, 
 avaveiiav. Cf. also ch. XXV, 1460 b 26 ff. The criticisms of the combat 
 on the side of the supernatural are probably from Megaclides, the pupil 
 of Aristotle and elaborator of some of his principles of criticism. 
 
 ' Cf. Porphyry on 2 98. 
 
 « Cf. Arist. Rhet. Bk. II, 3, 1380 b, 94. Cf. also the Poetics, ch. XV, 8, 
 1454 b, 12-15, where Achilles, as delineated by Homer, is taken as the type. 
 
 ^ For the view that his inactivity was due to cowardice, cf. Porphyry on 
 A 1 and H 229; and see Schol. B (Dind.) on H 228. Cf. especially Schol. 
 A (Dind.) on X 188 : atifiuaSet in ftSvoc 'Ofuipd; ^^ai /iovo/iaxv<"'^ ^bv 'E/cto/jo, 
 oi 6e h)moi irdvrec ivc6pev6^ai imb 'AxM^i^i. 
 
 Doubt as to Achilles' pre-eminence is as old as Xenophanes. Plato, 
 Zoilos, Antisthenes, Crates, and Persaeus (cf. Porphyry on A 62) especially 
 contributed to it. Aristotle, in Bks. II and III of the Rhetoric, has many 
 references to Achilles that sound as if taken from sophistical i/idyoj. 
 
THE USE OF ATQUE AND AC IN SILVER LATIN. 
 
 As early as 1563, Gabrielle Faerno,* in a note to Cic. pro Place. 
 3, commented upon the difTerence in the use of atque and ac. 
 Two centuries later Burmann and Drakenborch again took up 
 the discussion, and from that time to the present, treatise after 
 treatise has appeared. It is now generally agreed that ac is only 
 a shortened form of alque* and that the a of ac is short.' 
 
 As ac is a shortened form of atque, it follows, of course, that 
 atque is the older form, and that it was only by degrees that ac 
 secured a firm foot-hold in the language. The usage of Plautus 
 and of Terence shows its growth: Plaut. (Goetz and Schoell) in 
 four plays, containing 5000 lines, uses atque 211 times (Amph., 
 51, Capt., 37, M. gl., 51, Ps., 72), while ae is used only seven times 
 (Am. 443, 755; Capt. 636; M. gl. 619, 997, 1252; Ps. 558); Ter., 
 on the other hand, uses atque 210 times and ac 66 times.' From 
 this starting-point ac became more and more widely used, until, 
 during the Silver Age, it occurs nearly twice as often as atque (cf. 
 p. 414,1). In the classic period the use of ac, as is well known, 
 was restricted.' 
 
 A number of instances of ac before a vowel are to be found in 
 some of the Christian writers.' In Elegiac poetry the use oiac was 
 restricted to certain formulae, as simul acJ Landgraf (1. c.) says 
 that Cicero uses ac before c in five passages (all before the syl- 
 
 ' Cf. Zumpt, Lat. Gram.' p. 263 (Schmidt's transl.). 
 
 'Cf. Stolz, Formenlehre,' §§46 and 49; Lindsay, Lat. Lang. p. 598, 
 Chap. 10, § 2 ; Georges, Lex, d. lat. Wortf., s. v. 
 
 « Luc. Mueller, De Re Melr.' p. 426, however, regards the a as long. 
 
 < Cf. Elmer, Am. Journ. Phil., VIII, p. 459. 
 
 » Landgraf, note 408 to Reisig's Vorles. Uber lat. Spr., cites but five 
 examples of ae before a vowel ; moreover, two of these are extremely 
 doubtful. In Plin. N. H. XVI, 266 Mayhoff reads aut alio ; in Gell. 16, 8, 
 16 Hertz has atgut. Georges, Lex. d. lat. Wortf., cites Liv. 21, 24, 8 and 
 42, 13, 3 — both incorrectly for 41, 24, 18 and 42, 10, 3 — but even here the 
 latest editions eliminate ac. 
 
 • Cf. Luc. Mueller, De Re Metr.' pp. 426 and 502. 
 
 ' Cf. Haupt, Observ. Crit. p. 355 and Schulze, R5m. Eleg.' p. 283. 
 
414 EMORY S. LEASE. 
 
 lable con-) and once before^. C. F. W. Mueller, vol. II, i, p. cii, 
 however, says: "Ciceronem ac ante c,g, q posuisse non credo." 
 Caesar, according to Kraner and Doberenz (note on B. G. i, 44, 
 3), uses ac before c only three times, before g but once. 
 
 The object of the present investigation is to determine the 
 exact use, range, and sphere of these two particles in Silver 
 Latin, and, with this object in view, nine of the leading writers 
 of prose and nine of poetry were examined, the latest Teubner 
 text being used in each case and the text variants noted.' 
 
 The general usage of prose as contrasted with that of poetry 
 may be seen from the following table: 
 
 PROSE. POETRY. 
 
 Atque. Ac. Atque. Ac. 
 
 Veil. Paterc 58 122 Phaedrus 10 2 
 
 Val. Max 155 302 Seneca 46 109 
 
 Seneca 119 728 Persius 9 6 
 
 Petronius 61 67 Lucan 82 57 
 
 Plin. mai 529 932 Val. Flacc 145 79 
 
 Qulntilian 322 421 Sil. Ital 403 315 
 
 Tacitus 312 893 Statius 222 107 
 
 Plin. min 74 172 Martial 59 i 
 
 Suetonius 217 627 Juvenal 156 59 
 
 Total ........ 1847 4264 Total 1132 735 
 
 In the Silver Age atque occurs 2979 times ^37.3^ ; ac, 4999 times :^ 
 62.7%. 
 
 1. The figures just given show that during the Silver Age ac 
 occurs about twice as often as atque. 
 
 2. Atque, however, is the favorite form in poetry (60.6^), a fact 
 which is possibly due to metrical convenience, since it shows the 
 obvious gain of a short syllable. On the other hand, the wider 
 use of ac by the writers of prose (69.8^) may have been influenced 
 by the greater frequency, in writers of this age, oinec, the corres- 
 ponding form of neque. The preponderance of ac in prose is all 
 the more striking in view of the fact that, while atque may be 
 used before either vowels or consonants, ac is not found before 
 vowels or gutturals. 
 
 Seneca is the only poet that shows a smaller number of occur- 
 rences of atque (29.7^) than of ac (70.3^). This is doubtless to be 
 
 *'It is unfortunate that a complete apparatus crtticus for every writer 
 of the Silver Age is not available. In an investigation of this sort, the 
 knowledge of all variations in text tradition is an obvious necessity. 
 
THE USE OF A TQ UE AND AC IN SIL VER LA TIN. 41 S 
 
 explained by his large employment of iambic rhythm, which 
 is closely allied to prose. 
 
 3. Several prose writers show a marked preference for the use 
 of ac} No prose writer of this period shows more examples of 
 atque than of ac. 
 
 4. The two earliest prose writers in Silver Latin, Velleius and 
 Valerius Maximus show about the same percentage for these two 
 particles, but in Seneca the break occurs With the use of atque 
 14^ to ac 86^. 
 
 5. Of all the writers of poetry, Martial was most fond of atque, 
 using ac only once (9, 22, 15), cutque 59 times. In the other eight 
 poets investigated, the opposite extreme occurs in Seneca, ac 
 70.3^, followed by Silius Italicus, ac 43.9^, and Lucan, ac 41^.' 
 
 Prose usage presents some interesting contrasts from the point 
 of view of the letter which follows. Thus atque occurs before b 
 twice, g (it o 77, c 85, p 70, d 45, a 239, e 269, and i 548 times. 
 In poetry atque occurs before g twice (Stat, and Mart.), 
 i (cons.) twice (Mart.), b 4 times (Stat. Mart. Juv. twice), 
 11 6 (Val. Flacc. Sil. Stat. Mart. Juv. twice), u 91 times and e 96 
 times. Phaedrus does not use atque before e and u, nor Persius 
 before i and o. Of the consonants, alque is most frequently found 
 before 5 (25 times), ni (20), d (13), of the vowels, before i (284), 
 a (254), and (133 times). 
 
 In prose ac occurs least often before^ (4 times), c (49 times; 
 Plin. mai. alone has 30-35 examples, cf. p. 422 f.).' Ac is found 
 most frequently before p (698), s (685), m (443), n (413). and d 
 (409 times). 
 
 In poetry ac occurs least often before^ (once), c (3), b (3 times), 
 and most frequently before 5 (121),/ (112),/ (84), and »« (83 times). 
 The usage of poetry shows a practical agreement with that of 
 prose in that ac is most frequently used before the same three 
 consonants/, J and m. 
 
 The attitude of the writers of the Silver Age toward atque 
 before vowels and consonants may be seen from the fact that 
 
 '^ Ac ranges from 86* in Seneca, 74.3* in Suetonius, 74.1* in TacitUs, 
 to 56.7® in Quintilian and 52.3* in Petronius. 
 
 ' Sen., atque 46, ac tog ; Sil. Ital., atque 403, ac 315 J Lucan, atque 82, ac 37; 
 Tersius, atque I), ac 6 ; Val. Flacc, a^?«« 145, ac 79 J Stat., atque 222, ac 107 ; 
 Juv., atque 156, ac 59; Pliiedr., atque 10, dc 2. 
 
 ' For its use before vowels, cf. p. 421, b. 
 
41 6 EMORy B. LEASE. 
 
 they use atque 2319 times before vowels and only 662 times be- 
 fore consonants. In other words, they used atque about three 
 and one-half times as often before a vowel as before a consonant. 
 The prose usage should also be contrasted with the usage of 
 poetry: in prose, atque before consonants occurs 498 times (27^^), 
 before vowels (including K) 1349 times (73^); ' in poetry, on the 
 other hand, atque before consonants is found 164 times (14^), 
 before vowels (including K) 970 times (86J1J). Hence atque is 
 used before consonants twice as often in prose as in poetry. 
 
 The following is a tabular exhibit of the frequency of atque 
 before vowels as compared with its use before consonants : 
 
 FROSE. 
 
 Vowels. 
 
 Velleius Faterculus 51 
 
 Valerius Maximus. 130 
 
 Seneca iii 
 
 Fetronius 54 
 
 Flinius maioi .... 300 
 
 Quintilian 225 
 
 Tacitus 246 
 
 Plinius minor 72 
 
 Suetonius 160 
 
 POETRY. 
 Consonants. 
 
 7 Phaedrus 
 
 Vowels. 
 10 
 
 • 38 
 
 8 
 
 . 74 
 118 
 
 . 389 
 
 . 202 
 
 • 31 
 . 100 
 
 Consonants. 
 
 
 25 
 8 
 
 Seneca 
 
 8 
 
 Fersius. 
 
 I 
 
 7 
 229 
 
 97 
 66 
 
 
 8 
 
 Valerius Flaccus., 
 Silius Italicus. .... 
 Statius 
 
 27 
 12 
 
 2 
 
 Martial 
 
 28 
 
 57 
 
 Juvenal 
 
 60 
 
 Total : vowels, 2319 ; consonants, 662. 
 
 From this table it will be seen that in prose atque occurs 
 least frequently before consonants in Plin. min. (2.7^), Seneca 
 (6.7^), and Petronius (11.5;^), and most often in Plin. mai. (43.3^ 
 Quintilian (30.1^), and Suetonius (26.3^); in poetry, atque before 
 consonants varies from no occurrence in Phaedrus, 3^ in Silius 
 Italicus and 9^ in Statius to i8.6j^ in Valerius Flaccus, 37.5^ in 
 Juvenal, and 47.5^ in Martial. 
 
 The detailed usage of atque and ac before the various letters is 
 as follows : " 
 
 A. Atque and ac before consonants : 
 
 ' This is a marked departure from the usage of Sallust, who uses atque 
 184 times before consonants and 186 times before vowels. Cf. Alfred 
 Kunze's Sallustiana, 1892, a summary of which is found in Archiv f. lat. 
 Lex. VIII, p. 152. 
 
 « For the usage of Cicero, Caesar, Sallust and Livy cf. P. Stamm. Ac 
 nnd atque vor consonanten, Jahrb. f. phil. u. paed. 137 (1888), pp. 171 ff. 
 and for Curtius, ibid. pp. 711 f. 
 
THE USE OF ATQUEAND AC IN SILVER LATIN. 417 
 
 b: prose, aique 2, ac 63; poetry, aique 4, ac 3 times. Several 
 writers never use atque-} Velleius (i), Valerius Maxinius (5), 
 Seneca, prose (18), Petronius (i), Quintilian (6), Suetonius (5), 
 while Plinius mai. uses atque once, ac \2 times, Tacitus atque i, 
 ac 15 times. Atque does not occur in poetry before Statius (i); 
 elsewhere, Martial (i) and Juvenal (2); ac only in Seneca, Lucan 
 and Silius Italicus, once in each author. 
 
 c: prose, atque 85, ac 49; poetry, atque 15, ac 3 times. Plinius 
 mai. takes a conspicuous position among all Latin authors from 
 the large number of times that he uses ac before c (cf. p. 422 f.). 
 Quintilian uses ac before c twice, atque 19 times, the former usage, 
 as in Cicero, occurring before the syllable con- (cf. p. 422, a). 
 
 d: Here the contrast is marked; prose, atque 45, ac 409; 
 poetry, atque 13, ac 51 times. Valerius Maximus, Seneca (prose 
 and poetry), Petronius, Plinius mai., Phaedrus and Persius never 
 use atque. 
 
 f: prose, atque 39, ac 273; poetry, atque 12, ac 45 times. 
 Velleius uses ac 12 times, Plinius min. twice, Seneca (poetry) 7 
 times, never atque. Seneca in his prose uses atque once, ac 12 
 times ; Quintilian, atque 3, ac 28 times, and Tacitus atque 7, ac 
 53 times. 
 
 g: prose, atque 6, «c 4; poetry, atque 2, ac once." 
 
 i (conson.) : prose, atque 11 (15$^), ac 62 (855^); poetry, atque 2 
 (8^), ac 23 (92^). Atque before i (conson.) occurs only in Martial. 
 Tacitus uses atque once, ac 16 times ; Seneca (prose) and Suetonius 
 each use ac 10 times, atque never ; Quintihan uses atque before 
 ieiunam, i, 4, 5, ieiuni, 2, 25, i, ieiunum, 2, 8, 9, but has ac ieiuni, 
 ID, 2, 17. 
 
 /: prose, atque 36 (11.3^), ac 281 (88.7$^); poetry, atque 16 
 (25.8^), ac 46 (74.25^). In prose, then, ac before / is far more 
 common than atque ; atque, on the other hand, is used more than 
 twice as often in poetry as in prose. The following authors never 
 use atque:' Velleius (6), Plinius min. (6), Lucan (3), Silius 
 
 'The number of occurrences of ac is placed in parentheses after the 
 name of each author. 
 
 2 Neue, Formenlehre', II, p. 955, cites 7 passages from Cicero and 4 from 
 Caesar. For occurrences in the Silver Age, see p. 423. 
 
 'The same plan of placing the number of occurrences of ac in parenthe- 
 ses after the name of each author is followed in the discussion of each 
 letter. 
 
 27 
 
41 8 EMORY B. LEASE. 
 
 Italicus (28). Seneca (prose) uses aique only once, at 51 times, in 
 his poetry atque but once, ac 7 times. Tacitus' preference is no less 
 clearly marked: alque but 3 times, ac 74 times. Juvenal and 
 Martial, however, use aique before / more frequently than ac: 
 Juvenal, aique 8 times, ac twice, Martial, atque 4 times, ac never. 
 In Petronius we find aique used 3 times, ac twice. The ratio in 
 Plinius mai. is as 19:71, in Quintilian, 5:28, in Suetonius, 3:28, and 
 in Persius, 1:7. 
 
 m: prose, aique 31 (6.5^), ac 443 (93.5$^); poetry, aique 20 
 (19^), ac 83 (81^). In poetry atque is used about three times as 
 often as in prose. The following authors never use «/^?<f: Velleius 
 (8), Petronius (18), Plinius min. (10), and Silius Italicus (32). 
 Seneca (prose) shows a marked fondness for ac before m, using 
 it 90 times, while we find aique only 3 times. This is also true in 
 the case of Tacitus who uses ac 103 times, atque but twice. 
 Plinius mai. uses aique 15 times, ac 96 times; in Quintilian the 
 figures are 8:36, in Suetonius, 2:61, in Valerius Flaccus, 7:9, in 
 Statius, 3:13, and in Juvenal, 4:11, 
 
 n: prose, atque 37 (8.2^), ac 413 (91.8^^); poetry, atque 6 
 (8.7^), ac 63 (91.3^). The usage of poetry and that of prose 
 nearly balance each other. The following authors never use 
 aique: Velleius (7), Petronius (15), Plinius min. (32), Suetonius 
 (97), Seneca, in poetry (7), Persius (i), Lucan (9); the following 
 use it but once: Seneca, in prose (31), Tacitus (79), Valerius 
 Flaccus (9), Silius Italicus (31). The fact that Quintilian uses 
 aique 4 times, ac 29 times, Tacitus aique once, ac 79 times, and 
 Suetonius atque never, ac 97 times, indicates the marked prefer- 
 ence for the use of ac before n which is noticeable in all the writers 
 of the Silver Age. 
 
 p: Here the contrast is again marked: prose, aique 70(9.15^) 
 ac 698 (90.9^); poetry, aique 8 (6.7^), ac 112 (93.3^). Both 
 prose and poetry decidedly prefer the use of ac before p. This 
 preference is further emphasized by the fact that the following 
 authors never use aique, while they employ ac with great fre- 
 quency as the figures in parentheses indicate: Valerius Maximus 
 (47), Seneca, in prose (100), in poetry (12), Petronius (9), Plinius 
 min. (39), and Silius Italicus (47). The ratio of aique to ac in 
 Plinius mai. is 36:144, in Quintilian, 15:63, in Tacitus, 6:156, in 
 -Suetonius, 9:119, in Lucan. 1:5, in Valerius Flaccus, 2:11, in 
 Statius, 1:27, in^Martial, 1:0 and in Juvenal, 3:10. 
 
THE USE OF ATQUE AND AC IN SILVER LATIN. 419 
 
 r: prose, aique 17 (6.6^), ac 240 (93.4^); poetry, atque 14 
 (30.4^), ac 32 (69.6^). In prose therefore, ac is preferred before r. 
 The following writers use only ac, the figures in parentheses 
 showing the number of occurrences: Velleius (7), Valerius 
 Maximus (14), Seneca, in prose, (43), Plinius min. (9), and Lucan 
 (3). Plinius mai. uses atque 5 times and ac 73 times, Quintilian, 
 atque 8, ac 31, Tacitus, atque once, ac 33, and Silius Italicus, atque 
 3, ac 15 times. The preference for ac is marked in every writer 
 of this age except Valerius Flaccus, atque twice, ac twice, Statius, 
 ac once, atque once, and Juvenal, who reverses the usage, 
 employing atque 6 times and ac 4 times. 
 
 i : A similar preference for ac occurs with this letter, the excess 
 being even greater than with r ; prose, atque 35 (4.9$^), ac 685 
 (95-1^); poetry, atque 25 (17^^), ac 121 (835^). Prose writers 
 prefer ac to atque before s in the ratio of 95 : 5. Atque is never 
 used' by Velleius {18), Seneca, in prose (117), in poetry (15), 
 Petronius (6), Plinius min. (45), and Persius (2). Valerius Maxi- 
 mus uses atque but once, ac 31 times ; in Plinius mai. the ratio is 
 15: 144, in Quintilian, 11: 76, in Tacitus, i: 132, in Suetonius, 
 7 : 1 16, in Lucan, i : 8, in Valerius Flaccus, 4 : 18, in Silius Italicus, 
 2:58, and in Statius, 3:16. Martial and Juvenal are the only 
 exceptions to this rule, the former using atque 7 times, ac but 
 once, and the latter atque 8 times, ac 3 times. 
 
 t: prose, atque 41 (11.3$^), ac 322 (88.7JO; poetry, atque 12 
 (12.5^), ac 84 (87.5^^). As with n and r the usage of prose and 
 that of poetry almost balance each other, each showing a prefer- 
 ence for ac before /. Atque was never used by the following 
 writers : Velleius (8), Valerius Maximus (^32), Seneca, in prose 
 (60), in poetry (15J, Petronius (6), Persius (i), Lucan (11), Silius 
 Italicus (26). Plinius min. uses atque once, ac 13 times, Sueto- 
 nius, atque oace, ac 39 times, and Statius, atque once, ac 12 times. 
 Atque before t does not appear in prose before Plinius mai. who 
 uses it 17 times, ac 58 times. Following Plinius, Quintilian uses 
 atque 5 times, ac 25 times, Tacitus atque 17 times, ac 80 times. 
 Atque in poetry appears as early as Seneca who uses it twice, ac 
 20 times, and reappears in Valerius Flaccus who uses it 3 times, 
 ac 8 times. Here, again, Martial and Juvenal depart from the 
 prevailing usage, the former | using only atque, and but once, 
 
 'The figures for ac are given in parentheses. 
 
420 EMORY B. LEASE. 
 
 while in the latter author the two almost balance, atque being 
 used 5 times, ac 6 times. 
 
 v. prose, atque 33 (9.1^), ac 328 (90.9^^) ; poetry, atque 11 
 (14.35^), ac 66 (85.7). The preference for ac before v is more 
 decided in prose than in poetry. Atque was never used by Va- 
 lerius Maximus (23), Petronius (4), Phaedrus (2), Statins C12), and 
 only once by Velleius (11), Seneca, in prose (56), in poetry (11), 
 and Valerius Flaccus (10). Plinius mai. uses atque 9 times, ac 
 70 times; for Quintilian the proportion is 9:44, for Tacitus, 4:76, 
 for Plinius min., 3:9, for Suetonius, 6:35, for Silius Italicus, 2:19 
 and for Juvenal, 3:7. Martial alone uses «/jw£ more frequently 
 than ac, though he uses atque only twice and does not employ ac. 
 
 What was the factor that determined whether atque or ac 
 should be used? Was it an inherent difference in the significa- 
 tion of these two forms or did the consonant which followed settle 
 the question ? It need hardly be said that the usage of prose alone 
 should be considered and this speaks in no uncertain tones. The 
 exact usage of the leading stylists of this age may be gathered 
 from the following statements : 
 
 Seneca (prose) never uses atque before the following conso- 
 nants:' before b (18), d (8g), p (100), r (43), s (117), t (^66).' 
 Tacitus, before ^,has atque once, ac 15 times, before m, atque twice, 
 ac 103 times, before n, atque once, ac 79 times, before p, atque 6, 
 ac 156 times, before r, atque once, ac 33 times, before s, atque 
 once, ac 132 times. Plinius min. never uses atque before d (12), 
 « (32), p (39) and s (45). Velleius before j has only ac, 18 times. 
 Valerius Maximus never uses atque before d (44), p (47), t (32), 
 V (23). Suetonius never has atque before consonantal i (10), or n 
 (97). In view of these results and the additional fact that in the prose 
 of this period atque is used 45 times before d, ac 409 times, 36 
 times before /, ac 281 times, and that before n, atque occurs in 8.7^^ 
 of the cases, before p, in 9.1$^, before ;-, in 6.6$^, and before s, in 
 only 4.9^, the conclusion seems to be sufficiently clear that the 
 choice of atque or ac was determined by the consonant which 
 followed. In the case, however, of monosyllabic conjunctions, 
 adverbs, and prepositions, ac alone was used. Atque non is found 
 first in Plinius mai.;" atque si occurs in Sen. Ep. 102, 12 (245). 
 
 • • The number of occurrences of ac is given in parentheses. 
 ^ Before/ he uses ac 62 times, atque once. 
 ^ Cf. Schmalz, Lat. synt.' p. 340. 
 
THE USE OF ATQUE AND AC IN SIL VER LA TIN. 42 1 
 
 B. a) Atque before vowels : 
 
 1. Atqiie in prose was used most frequently before the vowel 
 i (548 times) ; before e it occurs 269 times, before a, 239 times, 
 before u, 130 times and before 0, 77 times. 
 
 2. In poetry also atque was used most frequently before the 
 vowel i (284), then before a (254), o (133), e (96) and u (91). 
 
 3. Atque was used by Plinius mai. 59 times before e, 37 of the 
 cases occurring before eiiam. 
 
 4. In prose, atque occurs before h 85 times, in poetry, 112 
 times.' 
 
 5. In every prose writer except Plinius min. atque was used 
 most frequendy before i. In this writer e leads with 31 instances, 
 followed by i with 21. 
 
 6. Plinius min. is the only prose writer who does not use atque 
 before o, Persius the only poet." 
 
 b) Ac before vowels : 
 
 Here but one certain example occurs in Silver Latin : Plinius 
 mai. II, §174 has ac ardua with no variants. In XVI, §226, 
 Detlefsen reads ac in, but Mayhoflf writes aut with D.' In 
 XXIX, §50 again, Detlefsen reads ac una, Mayhoff denarii una. 
 In Seneca two bracketed passages occur, N. Q. 2, 31, i ac in- 
 laesis and Dial. 7, 22, 2 ac amisso. Neue, Formenlehre, II,' p. 
 956, cites Quint. 12, 10, 77 ac orator em. This is the reading of 
 Spalding, but Halm reads nee and Meister, following Haupt, 
 omits the conjunction. 
 
 C. Special consideration of ac before c, g and q ; 
 
 The writers of the Silver Age used ac before gutturals much 
 more frequently than the writers of the best period,' but as early 
 as Livy we find exceptions to the classical rule. H. J. Mueller* 
 says that Livy in the first decade uses ac before gutturals 43 
 
 '^ Atque occurs only once each in Phaedrus, Persius, and Martial. 
 
 " As «■ and ^ are both palatal vowels and the e of atque short, and as Quin- 
 tilian IX, 4, 34, in speaking of the " vocalium concursus " says, " minima est 
 in duabus brevibus offensio," one would expect atque to be used more fre- 
 quently before i and e than before the guttural vowels and «. The results 
 of my investigation substantiate this theory, for in prose and poetry atque 
 was used 832 times before i, 365 times before /, in all 1197 times, on the 
 other hand zio times before and 221 times before «, in all 431 times or 
 approximately one-third as often. 
 
 3Cf. p. 413- 
 
 * Cf. H. J. Mueller, Z. f. d. GW. 1888, XIV, 102 flE. 
 
422 EMORY B. LEASE. 
 
 times, of which 19 are before the syllable con, and in the other 
 books 5 times, all with the same syllable.' 
 
 I. Ac before c. 
 
 Lucian Mueller, De Re Metr.' p. 502, cites ac cevet in Juvenal 9, 
 40, but Friedlaender, Jahn-Buecheler and Weidner all read et 
 cevet. Seneca has but one example. Dial. 8, 3, i ac con-; Quin- 
 tilian two, 5, 14, 31" and 10, i, 48, each before con-\ Tacitus five, 
 Agr. 10, 6 ac caelo, 31, 6 ac con-, 40, x\ ac com-, Hist. 4, 18, 23° 
 ac caeco, Ann. 12, 47, 12; Suetonius (Roth) five, Caes. 49 ac 
 Curio, Aug. 40 ac comUiis, Cal. 17 ac conchylii, ib. 50 ac circa, 
 Claud. i\ ac centurionibus.^ 
 
 Plinius mai. is conspicuous among all writers of Latin literature 
 in the number of times that he uses ac before a word beginning 
 with c. His works show 17 certain, 13 probable and 5 doubtful 
 examples. 
 
 a. The 17 certain examples (without variants) are : H. loi ac 
 Castori ; VH. 168 ac ciborum ; XI. 220 ac ciborum ; XH. 4, 3 ac 
 cypiro; XV. 77 ac comitio; XVI. 60 ac colore ; 71 ac Cytoriis ; 
 76 ac Candida; XVII, 253 ac cinere ; XVIII. 59ac cicer; XIX. 42 
 ac contumacem; XX. 15 ac coxendicum; XXX. 117 ac celerius ; 
 XXXV. 5 ac circumferunt ; 80 ac curare ; XXXVI. 79 ac cepas ; 
 XXXVII. 4 ac colore. 
 
 ' In the 3rd decade, however, Livy uses ac before con- 3 times, 22, 30, 4 ; 
 38, 11; 47. 3; before gl- 22, 12 4; before gr- 27, 17, 10 (M. M.) ; 28, 
 42, 19; before eel- 26, 27, 16. 
 
 ^Omitted by Neue, Formenlehre, IP, p. 956. 
 
 'In Hist. 4, 81, 23 Halm* reads ac caeco, but in his 4th edition he has 
 changed this to at caeco, which is the reading of Meiser in the Baiter- 
 Orelli edition. In the two other uncertain passages, Ann. i, 8, 10 Nipper- 
 dey reads ac cohortes, Halm* aui cohortes, Ann. 11, 4, 3 Nipperdey ac 
 causa. Halm* at causa. 
 
 'As is well known the text of Suetonius is in a deplorable condition. 
 Through the kindness of Professors Smith and Howard, of Harvard Uni- 
 versity, I am able to give a conspectus of the readings in the above pas- 
 sages : Caes. 49 oc V» V' V* Par. 5801, ad A, at Par. 6116, a Par. 5801 ; 
 Cal. 17 ac V» Par. 61 16, Par. 5801, at A, Par. 5802; Cal. 50 «<: V » Par. 
 5801, orf A, at Par. 6116, Par. 5802; Claud. 11 ac V" A Par. 6116, Par. 5801, 
 Par. 5802. (Here A=Par. 6115 (Memmianus) saec. IX Extr., Par. 6ii6 
 saec. XII, Par. 5801 saec. ?, Par. 5802 saec. XIV; V»=Vat. Lat. i860 saec. 
 XIV in.; Vi=Vat. Lat. 7310 saec. XIV in.; V*=Vat. Lat. 1904 saec. XI- 
 XII, but extending only to p. 120, 14 of Roth's edition.) 
 
THE USE OF ATQUE AND AC IN SIL VER LA TIN. 423 
 
 b. The probable examples (read by both Detlefsen and May- 
 hoff) are: VIII. 223 ac conchylia; X. 120 ac cibis; XI. 231 
 ac cetera ; XIV. 45 ac Corinthum ; XV. 10 ac cellis ; XVIII. 305 
 ac Cerinthi ; XXV. 119 ac ceteris; 141 ac contrahit; XXX, 55 
 ac cute; XXXIV. 128 ac Cadmeae; 160 ac compescit; XXXV. 
 Ill ac concinnus ; XXXVII. 173 ac contra. 
 
 c. Read by Detlefsen alone : II. 219 ac circumcisura, Ac D ', 
 a, r v.; XI. 222 ac cervorum D', ad MR, at Mayhoff; XVI. 103 
 ac coactae ED.hae Mayhoff; XXVIII. 187 ac Cinere V, Mayhoff 
 omits connective ; XXXII. 24 ac calcularum BS, et Mayhoff. 
 
 In Plinius min. Pan. 30, Keil in ed. min. reads ac dementi, but 
 in ed. mai. changed the reading to ac detinenti. 
 
 In poetry there are but three examples, all with text variants ; 
 Seneca Troad. 850 ac carens {ac Both., au a), Valerius Flaccus 4, 
 411 ac caeci (Saevi V), Statius Theb. 12, 33 ac ceteri (ac P, ai a). 
 In each case ac is read in the latest Teubner text. 
 
 Summary: ac before c in prose: Seneca once, Quintilian twice, 
 Tacitus 5 imes, Plinius mai. 30-35 times, Suetonius 5 times ; in 
 poetry: Seneca once, Valerius Flaccus once, and Statius once; 
 prose 43-48 times, poetry 3 (?) times. 
 
 2. Ac before g-.^ 
 
 This occuis 4 times in prose, once in poetry: Seneca Ep. 13. 3. 
 9 (ac gr-), Plmius mai. II. 135 (ac gelida), XXXIV. 114 (ac ge- 
 narum, Detlehen, Ma.yhoff ei with C), Tacitus Ann. 12, 64, 13 (ac 
 Gnaei), and Slius Italicus 10, 363 (ac geUdis). 
 
 3. Ac befort g.'' 
 
 Plinius mai. has 4 examples with no text variants, II. 200 (ac 
 quinquagies), 236 (ac quicquid), X. 157 (ac quaedam), XXXIII. 
 29 (ac quod) ; h XXV. 31 Detlefsen reads ac quale, but Mayhoff 
 aui with NC One example occurs in poetry, Valerius Flaccus 
 7, 267 (ac queml. 
 
 D. The usage of Tacitus shows some noteworthy phenomena: 
 
 i) Atque before consonants.* 
 
 While Tacitus uses atque most frequently in the Annales (41 
 
 Harper's Lat. Dct. says : " Before^, ac does not occur." 
 
 'Before q, ac dois not occur," is quoted from Harper's Lat. Diet. 
 8 Plinius mai. usei atque also before q in II. 38, XXII. 95, XXXIII. 46, 
 XXXVI. 8. Tliese,with Martial n, 71, 3, form the only citations of the 
 usage from Silver Litin. 
 * Gerber and Greel lex. Tac, omit Ann. 3, 16, 4 (before rf) and 4, 10, 5. 
 
424 EMORY B. LEASE. 
 
 times out of i8o), in the Historiae he uses it but once 5, 12, 8, 
 and in his minor works only 3 times, Agr. 16, i in the formula 
 "his atque talibus," Dial. 15, 3 and 18, 25. In the following 
 table, the preponderance of ac (76^) is noteworthy: 
 
 atque ac 
 
 Annales 180 389 
 
 Historiae 62 300 
 
 Germania 7 48 
 
 Agricola 27 102 
 
 Dialogus 15 54 
 
 Total : atque 291, ac 893. 
 
 2) Atque before vowels occurs before z, 129 times (Ann. 
 8i, Hist. 31, Germ. 3, Agr. 7, Dial. 7), before a, 50 times 
 (Ann. 23, Hist. 16, Germ, i, Agr. 6, Dial. 4), oefore o, 
 strange to say, 24 times (Ann. 13, Hist. 5, Germ, i, Agr. 5), before 
 e, 21 times (Ann. 10, Hist. 6, Germ. 2, Agr. 2, Dial, i), before u, 
 II dmes (Ann. 7, Hist. 2, Agr. 2) and before h, 11 times (Ann. 5, 
 Hist. I, Agr. 4, Dial. i). 
 
 3) Ac occurs most frequently before p, 156 times (Ann. 74, 
 Hist. 54, Germ. 9, Agr. 13, Dial. 6), before 5, 138 times (Ann. 57, 
 Hist. 44, Germ. 6, Agr. 21, Dial. 10), and before m, 102 times 
 (Ann. 50, Hist. 26, Germ. 4, Agr. 17, Dial. 5). It is found least 
 often before g, only once (Ann.), before c, 5 times (Ann. i, Hist. 
 I, Agr. 3), and before b, 14 times (Ann. 5, Hist. 4, Germ. 3, 
 Dial. 2). 
 
 4) Ac occurs most frequently in the Annales, Historiae, and 
 Germania before/ and s, in the Agricola before s (2:) and m (17), 
 and in the Dialogus before i (10) and v {\6),p behg third with 
 6 occurrences. 
 
 5) Gerberand Greef say ofac: "longe frequentiisima est parti- 
 cula ante liquidas et litteras s, v." A more exact s;atement is that 
 ac occurs most frequently before p (156 times), before s (132), 
 before m (103), before t (80), before n (79), be'ore v (76) and 
 before I (74). 
 
 Summary : 
 
 i) In the Silver Age, atque -.acw 37.4 : 62.6. 
 
 2) Atque in prose: atque in poetry :: 62 : 38. 
 
 3) In Seneca (prose) ac comprises 86^, inTacius 74.1^, in Sue- 
 tonius 74.3^, in Plinius mai. 63.8^, in Plinius min. €9.9^, in Quintilian 
 56.7^, in Petronius 52.3^, in Velleius 67.8^, and in Valerius 
 Maximus 66.1^. 
 
THE USE OF A TQ UE AND AC IN SIL VER LA TIN. 425 
 
 4) In Martial ac is used but once, 9, 22, 15, and in Phaedrus 
 ac comprises 16.7^, in Juvenal, 27.4$^, in Statins, 32.55^, in Valerius 
 Flaccus, 35.3^, in Persius, 40^, in Lucan, \\<f, in Silius Italicus, 
 43.9^, and in Seneca, 70.3^^. 
 
 5) In prose ac occurs most frequently before p (698), ^ (685), 
 and m (443); in poetry, before s (121),/ (112), t (84), and m (83). 
 
 6) Ac before c : a) in prose : Seneca once, Quintilian twice, 
 Tacitus 5 times, Suetonius 5 times, while Plinius mai. shows the 
 extraordinarily large number of 30-35'; b) in poetry: Seneca, 
 Valerius Flaccus and Statins once each. 
 
 7) Ac before ^: Seneca (epist.), Tacitus and Silius Italicus once 
 each, Plinius mai. once or twice. 
 
 8) Ac before g : Plinius mai. 4 times, Valerius Flaccus once. 
 
 9) Of ac before a vowel there is but one certain example 
 (Plin. mai. II. 174), though Detlefsen writes it in two other 
 passages of Pliny. 
 
 10) Aique was used three and one-half times as often before 
 vowels as before consonants. 
 
 11) Atque was used most frequently before i (548) and e (269) 
 in prose, and before 2 (284) and a (254) in poetry. 
 
 12) The choice of aique or ac before consonants was deter- 
 mined by the character of the consonant which followed. 
 
 The College of the City of New York. EMORY B. LeASE. 
 
 ' See p. 422 £. 
 
INDICATIVE QUESTIONS WITH m AND ipa y.^} 
 
 The first half of section 1603 of Goodwin's grammar reads as 
 follows: "The principal direct interrogative particles are Spa 
 and (chiefly poetic) ?. These imply nothing as to the answer 
 expected ; but Jpa oh implies an affirmative answer and 2pa /uj a 
 negative answer." The form of these statements leads one to 
 believe that &pa ixf) is a common prose construction, and, conse- 
 quently, that the number of examples of ipa n^ in classical 
 prose exceeds the number of ?'s, whereas just the reverse is true. 
 In section 1015 of Hadley-Allen the sentence ipa /u) iia^dWea-dai 
 8d|etr; is cited withouta hint as to the extent of the use oiipa jtti; either 
 in prose or poetry. Kiihner, 587, 11, speaks only of /»4 and has 
 only three words on this : " erst seit Aeschylus," though to be 
 sure, in 587, 14, he says that ipa occurs " erst in der nachhome- 
 rischen Sprache." All other grammars, both German and English, 
 are as silent on this subject as Kiihner. The lexicons either 
 furnish little information or are misleading. (Cf. Amer. Journ. of 
 Philol. Ill, 515 and XIX, 233.) Commentaries show as little 
 sense of proportion in respect to the usage of these interrog- 
 ative particles as the grammarians. 
 
 Dyer on Apology 25 A remarks that " questions with p^ take a 
 neg. answer for granted," and on Crito 44 E " ipa pfj looks for a 
 neg. answer, but it may also convey an insinuation that in spite of 
 the expected denial the facts really would justify an affirmative 
 answer." There is no intimation of the limitations of both pri and 
 ipa prj. Onipa prj in Memorabilia 11,6, 34 Winans has nothing to 
 say; on IV,2, 10 he refersto the grammars of Goodwin and Hadley; 
 and or.! prj in IV, 2, 12 to Goodwin's Moods and Tenses 46 n. 4, 
 
 •My attention was firgt directed to this subject by Dr. C. W. E. Miller, 
 who pointed out to me the rare use of nil (ipa pii) as an interrogative 
 particle in Classical Greek, and told me that as the result of observations 
 in this direction he felt certain that, with the exception of perhaps a solitary 
 example in Demosthenes, the construction was not found in the Attic 
 orators, and that Plato was about the only prose writer that employed it to 
 any noteworthy extent, — J. E. H. 
 
428 
 
 /. E. HARRY. 
 
 where, he remarks, " another interpretation is given, however, 
 reading Swo/xat with Kiihn. and several MSS." But Goodwin 
 reads Svnaiiai in the edition of 1890 (268). 
 
 With the exception of three examples in Xenophon, &pa n^ does 
 not occur in prose outside of Plato ; and in the 2442 pages of 
 the extant works of this author (Teubner text) only ten examples 
 of the construction are found, two of these being in spurious 
 dialogues (Anterastae and De Virtute). The Phaedo contains 
 three of the remainder ; two of these may be counted as one — 
 64 C, where ipa i>fi SWo n ^ is used and then repeated in toto in 
 resuming the question; the third is found in 103 C. The remain- 
 ing five are distributed as follows: Crito 44 E, Parmenides 163 C, 
 Charmides 174 A, Lysis 213 D, Republic 405 A. The indicative 
 is used in all the examples except the second one of Phaedo 64 C, 
 which has the subjunctive, like the examples of simple ^1/ in 
 cautious questions.' 
 
 The frequency of occurrence of the interrogative particle 2pa, 
 alone and combined with ov, ye, olv and prj, in the dialogues of 
 Plato may be seen from the following conspectus : 
 
 
 &pa &pi 
 
 i ye Sp oSv 
 
 ap ov 
 
 Total. 
 
 Eipa 
 
 Euthyphro' 
 
 7 
 
 I 3 
 
 4 
 
 14 
 
 , , 
 
 Apology 
 
 2 
 
 . . I 
 
 , . 
 
 3 
 
 . , 
 
 Crito . 
 
 3 
 
 I I 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 I 
 
 Phaedo . 
 
 ^3 
 
 9 
 
 13 
 
 33 
 
 3 
 
 Cratylus 
 
 II 
 
 2 12 
 
 19 
 
 41 
 
 
 Theaetetus 
 
 25 
 
 II 
 
 II 
 
 44 
 
 
 Sophistes . . 
 
 15 
 
 6 
 
 29 
 
 48 
 
 
 Politicus . 
 
 13 
 
 I 8 
 
 17 
 
 38 
 
 
 Parmenides . 
 
 13 
 
 2 20 
 
 26 
 
 55 
 
 I 
 
 Philebus . 
 
 18 
 
 . . 21 
 
 28 
 
 65 
 
 
 Symposium . 
 
 5 
 
 I 3 
 
 . , 
 
 9 
 
 
 Phaedrus . 
 
 I 
 
 I 6 
 
 9 
 
 13 
 
 
 Alcibiades I . 
 
 17 
 
 13 
 
 6 
 
 34 
 
 
 Alcibiades II . 
 
 2 
 
 3 7 
 
 5 
 
 16 
 
 
 M 
 
 ' Goodwin (M T 268) and Weber cite all the examples except Cratylus 
 429 C /i^ yap ovSe tovto av y, rb tovtov (pdvai ''Epfwyiiiri eivai, el jjiTj iariv ; 
 ' ' ip' oiv ov (14 D) is counted twice. Hence the apparent mistake in the 
 total column. So also in Leges and De Virtute. 
 
INDICATIVE QUESTIONS WITH n AND &pa ^l^. 429 
 
 
 Spa 
 
 2pd ye 
 
 ip' ovv 
 
 ip' ov 
 
 Total. 
 
 3pa 
 
 Hipparchus . 
 
 4 
 
 . . 
 
 2 
 
 , , 
 
 6 
 
 
 Anterastae 
 
 I 
 
 , . 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 Theages . . 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 
 4 
 
 8 
 
 
 Charmides 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 II 
 
 I 
 
 Laches . . 
 
 4 
 
 . . 
 
 
 I 
 
 «; 
 
 
 Lysis . 
 
 9 
 
 I 
 
 10 
 
 2 
 
 
 21 
 
 I 
 
 Euthydemus 
 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 13 
 
 2 
 
 30 
 
 
 Protagoras . 
 
 II 
 
 , , 
 
 7 
 
 8 
 
 26 
 
 
 Gorgias . 
 
 27 
 
 . . 
 
 22 
 
 I 
 
 50 
 
 
 Meno . 
 
 II 
 
 , , 
 
 5 
 
 6 
 
 21 
 
 
 HippiasMaior 
 
 4 
 
 , , 
 
 8 
 
 6 
 
 16 
 
 
 Hippias Minor 
 
 2 
 
 . . 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 
 Ion . 
 
 2 
 
 , , 
 
 , , 
 
 , , 
 
 2 
 
 
 Republic 
 
 42 
 
 4 
 
 95 
 
 81 
 
 190 
 
 I 
 
 Timaeus 
 
 I 
 
 , , 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 6 
 
 
 Minos 
 
 I 
 
 . . 
 
 2 
 
 2 
 
 5 
 
 
 Leges . 
 
 29 
 
 4 
 
 33 
 
 59 
 
 "3 
 
 
 Epinomis 
 
 I 
 
 • , 
 
 
 3 
 
 4 
 
 
 Epistolae 
 
 2 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 
 4 
 
 
 De lustitia 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 , , 
 
 6 
 
 8 
 
 
 De Virtute . 
 
 3 
 
 , , 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 6 
 
 I 
 
 Deniodocus 
 
 I 
 
 , , 
 
 I 
 
 
 2 
 
 
 Sisyphus 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 3 
 
 2 
 
 II 
 
 
 Alcyon 
 
 ■ • • 
 
 I 
 
 
 • , 
 
 I 
 
 
 Eryxias 
 
 10 
 
 4 
 
 5 
 
 
 19 
 
 
 334 
 
 36 342 360 994 
 
 10 
 
 It will be seen from the table that ipa, ip oZv and 2p' 06 nearly 
 balance each other ; there are nearly twice as many examples of 
 ^pa as o(hp' oil, and only one out of every hundred of the Spa's is 
 followed by ^iij. 
 
 There are 104 examples of Spa in the orators (including both 
 genuine and spurious speeches). Of these 22 are followed by ov. 
 *Apd yt appears 17 times and ip' oSv 23. Demosthenes has a 
 greater number of Spa's than all the others together (64); half of 
 them are found in orations XVIII-XXIV ; and ten are followed 
 by ov. There is little variation in the figures for the rest of the 
 orators (except Antiphon, in whom the particle does not occur), 
 
430 /. E. HARRY. 
 
 Andocides having two examples (both without ov), Lysias seven 
 (one negative), Isocrates five (one neg.)i Isaeus five (one neg.), 
 Lycurgus six (three negatives), Aeschines five (one neg.), 
 Hyperides four (all neg.)i Dinarchus four (no negatives). 
 
 In the historians Spo hardly makes its appearance — twice in 
 Herodotus (2pa III, 50 ; Zp' ov IX, 27) and only once in Thucyd- 
 ides (I, 75, I, where 2pa = 2/ oi, as in Sophocles, O. C. 753, 780, 
 Aristophanes, Birds 797). 
 
 Xenophon has 90 examples of Spa [36 of simple 2pa, 15 of 2p' oi, 
 2 of 2pa /i^, 26 of 2p' olv (including one 2p' olv ... /i^), and 1 1 of 2pa 
 yt]. More than half of these (48) occur in the Memorabilia. The 
 rest appear as follows: Anab. 4, Cyropaed. 18, Hellen. i, minor 
 works 19. Of the 15 examples of 2p' oi, eight belong to the 
 Memorabilia, three to the Anabasis, one to the Cyropaedia and 
 three to the minor works. Ten examples of the combination 2p' av 
 (followed by the optative) are found in the Cyropaedia alone. 
 The references for the three instances of 2pa ^ij are Mem. II, 6, 
 34; IV, 2, 10; and Anab. VII, 6, 5. 
 
 Interrogative tu\ occurs neither in the orators ' nor in the his- 
 torians. Even ytStv, which is commoner in Plato than /x^ and must 
 be regarded as differing from /i^ olv (/jSk p), ii&v'ov and fiSiv o3v are 
 not rare), does not appear in the orators, historians or Xenophon. 
 
 There are twenty-four examples of iitj interrogative in Plato. 
 Of these the greatest number is in the Republic (6) ; the Protag- 
 oras comes next with five ; two each are found in Euthydemus, 
 Gorgias, Meno, and Apology ; one each in Phaedo and Hippias 
 Major, and three in the Theaetetus (not counting the repetition 
 
 in 146 E). In Meno 89 C (^9 roCro ov Ka\as i>fio\oyrjaafi.iv)) oil and 
 
 KoKas coalesce, as does 06 and Toiauri;i/ in Protagoras 312 A /xij oi 
 
 ToiavrTjv {nTo\aii^aviis vov T^v iia6r)iTiv iatadai ; (which, however, 
 
 Goodwin considers declarative). Over against these 24 examples 
 of ^^ there are 83 instances of /iSv, which include 28 occurrences 
 of iiaiv ov, 5 of iiav firf, and i8 of jufii/ oSv, this last embracing 8 
 instances of puf oSv ov. 
 
 •There is an example oi fi^ with the past indie, in Dam. XX, 160 (n; p^ 
 Kal TO /liXTiovT' {fcf ;), but the passage is possibly corrupt. The form of the 
 rhetorical iirofopi immediately following indicates that the preceding 
 question was not put as it appears in our MSS. Many readings suggest 
 themselves, c. g. tI del Kal ra plAAovr' ^dti ; 
 
INDICATIVE QUESTIONS WITH m AND ipa ^^. 431 
 
 All the questions introduced by ^^ in Xenophon occur in 
 Memorabilia IV, 2, 10 (except one in III, 11, 4 ^1) x^porixi'ai rtvhO, 
 and the four found here are merely a continuation of Socrates' 
 
 question *Apo ^f, laTp6t (so. jSoiJXei, or eVi«v/ie<r, ytviaBai) ; ' yL&v, as 
 
 has been stated above, does not occur in Xenophon. 
 
 So much for the classical prose writers. Let us now direct 
 our attention to the poets. Though tipa iir, is, as we have seen, 
 rare in prose, it is still rarer in poetry, there being only three 
 examples in the whole range of epic, lyric and dramatic 
 literature. No instance can be cited from Homer ; none from the 
 melic poets; none from Aristophanes. It appears twice in 
 Sophocles (El. 446, Ant. 632) and once in Aeschylus (Septem 
 2083. As for Sp' ou, Aeschylus has not a single example, Sophocles 
 but three, Euripides five, whereas Plato has 360. Simple &pa 
 occurs ten times in Aeschylus ; there are 38 examples in Sophocles 
 and 52 in Euripides— just 100 in all. There are 48 Spa's (seven 
 of these followed by oi) in Aristophanes, but, as has been stated, 
 not a single ipa fir/. 
 
 Simple firi (without a preceding interrogative particle) is not 
 found before Aeschylus, and in all the tragic poets occurs but 
 six times, four of these being in Aeschylus (P. V. 247, 959, Pers. 
 344, Suppl. 295), one in Sophocles (Trach. 316),' one in Euripides 
 (Hipp. 799). In Aristophanes there is but one example, and that 
 is found in the brogue of the Scythian archer (Thesm. 11 14 
 
 a-Ktylrai to kuctto" /i^ r» iukt6v naivtrat]). The compound fiav, on 
 
 the other hand, (used only by the Attic writers), can not be 
 classed with ^7, for, although it is not employed by any prose 
 writer except Plato, the particle occurs frequently in comedy (27 
 examples in Aristophanes) as well as in tragedy (41 examples). 
 The fact that pUp occurs 33 times in Euripides and only five and 
 three times in Sophocles and Aeschylus respectively (together 
 with its use in comedy and its absence from the orators and histo- 
 rians) seems to indicate that it belongs to the sermo familiaris. 
 
 'There is another example in the Oeconomicus (XII, i }ifi ae KaraicoXia 
 imdvat ijdti PovTidfievav ;). This may, however, be taken as a hortatory sub- 
 junctive, and so Holden explains (although in his text the sentence is 
 interrogative), translating "let me not detain you," and referring to Goodwin 
 253 (1344). Ktthner and Dindor£ regard the sentence as a question. In 
 Mem. IV, z, 12 lit) oiv , , . ov ihvofiat tcri. the mood is the subjunctive. 
 
 ^ The verb in this passage is unexpressed. 
 
432 / E. HARRY. 
 
 mSk alv is found twice in Aeschylus and once in Euripides ; /tSv ov 
 occurs but twice in the tragic poets (Eur. Med. 733, Troad. 714), 
 liatv fiT] not at all. 
 
 The interrogative ^ occurs, of course, much more frequently 
 in the tragic poets than in prose (25 times in Aeschylus, 61 times 
 in Sophocles, and 74 times in Euripides). Aristophanes again 
 comes near the prose norm with hardly a dozen examples. 
 
 If I can trust to a rapid reading of Aristotle, neither ^ij nor ipa 
 /ifi appears in his writings. The same may be said of Callimachus, 
 Apollonius Rhodius, Lycophron, Theocritus, Bion, Moschus, 
 Polybius, and Diodorus Siculus (2043 Teubner pages).' 
 
 In Theophrastus &pa /nij does not occur at all and /xi; is found 
 but once, and that in one of the Characters (licpi Aoyo7roiias)i where 
 the author is giving a sample of ordinary small talk, and puts 
 in the mouth of his character the words ^117 Xdyerai Katvorepov; Im- 
 mediately thereafter Foss would read /ui) dyadd ye eVn to Xeyopepa ; 
 but the MSS have koI p.ijv instead of /xi). 
 
 Yet in spite of the fact that in the whole domain of Greek liter- 
 ature, from Homer down to the time of Christ, a period of one 
 thousand years. Spa p.!] appears but three times in poetry and 
 II (13) times in prose, a celebrated scholar (Blaydes) desires 
 to emend a perfectly intelligible sentence in Sophocles ipd pov 
 
 pipvr)crde; (O. T. I401) SO as tO read 2pa pi) pfpvjja-Be; 
 
 When we come to the New Testament we have a diflferent story 
 to tell : p^ in questions is common — eight times in Matthew, four 
 in Mark, six in Luke, twenty-one in John, four in James, eight in 
 Romans, fourteen in I Corinthians and four in II Corinthians. 
 All of these are with the indicative. The sum total, then, of ques- 
 tions with pri in the New Testament is sixty-nine, a greater number 
 than in all the prose and poetry of the ten centuries preceding. 
 
 All the examples of /.^ in the New Testament are found in eight 
 books, the four gospels containing more than half of the whole 
 number (39). About one-third of the number (21) are in John 
 alone. In about one-half of the cases (32) the verb is one of the 
 
 'Not unlike the behavior of ipa pf/ is that of aXh) tc and &^JU> tl f). These 
 phrases do not appear to any extent outside of Plato. There is not a single 
 example in the orators except Lysias (two instances only, one of these in 
 a genuine speech and supporting the thesis that the phrase belongs to the 
 language of everyday life, the other in a spurious speech) and the un- 
 rhetorical orator, Andocides. 
 
INDICATIVE QUESTIONS WITH t>.^ AND ipa fi^. 433 
 
 three that are most common in the speech of everyday life (de, 
 can, have). An even dozen of the /u^'s appear in the form of ^iij rt. 
 The double negative /i^ ow is found in Romans x, 18. The nega- 
 tive 06x1 is very frequently the introductory word of a sentence; 
 and Tipi. yt is found in Acts viii, 30. 
 
 The behavior of the particles in later Greek is similar to their 
 conduct in the pre-Christian period. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, 
 who sought to revive a true standard of Attic prose, has not a 
 single example of either. In Plutarch (3670 pages in the Teubner 
 text) Zpa /ip/ does not occur (though Tipa alone does), /j^ only once, 
 Alexander XXVIII ^^ n au toioCtoi' 6 toC Aidr; 
 
 In the sophist Dio Chrysostomus we find two examples of Spa /uj 
 
 and six of ^^ : XXXII (683 R) h.pa yi. firi AaKcbatiioriovs /ii/xeio-flf ; LVII 
 (296 R) ipa iir) a\a(6va neTToiijKt Tov Nt'cTTopa; IX (294 R) pfi oSv 
 6avfui^ov<Tiv avTov', X (306 R) fifi yap (Kftvot f\v<re tA aiviypa', XIV 
 (438 R) /iij otv ai fl>jjc (Xddfpov di/ai t6v avhpa tovtov ; XXX (548 R) 
 aXXa pi] Ti ipas (\v7rt1', XXXII (676 R) pll ra &Ta e'lroXijXiirrai rap 
 cKu; LVIII (301 R) p^ oiv avTot ye alpii'^ 
 
 Even Lucian, in spite of the fact that he wrote the best Attic 
 prose that had been written for four hundred years, is not fault- 
 less. He uses /xij for oh] but this should not surprise us, as he was 
 a man free from affectation and would naturally use the language 
 as it was spoken, so far as he could without being rude.' But 
 Lucian is not fonder of the pf) construction in questions than Dio 
 Chrysostomus, and in the 1301 pages of the Teubner edition not a 
 single example of Zpa pi) can be found, pr) occurs only eight 
 (really seven) times, as follows : pr) ovtipav vTroKpirds nvat ^pas 
 
 v7rciXi;0ei> ; (^Evinviov I, 22 R.), 'AXXa prjivtipos Kai ravra eVrirl ('Ovtipoi 
 II, 706), oil Si pj) Ka\ t6v 2<»Kpa7-i;i» ovtAp koI rAc ItKarapa eiStt cp Toir 
 pcKpois; (0iKo\jrevSqs III, 52), 'aXXo pf) 'Eppa<f>p6tiTos €?; ... pfj oSp Kal 
 (TV rotouToi' Tt irfTTOpdas; ('EratpiKoi Aoyoi III, 291), P') Tt tAv iraidorpt/Sijv 
 AiilTtpop Xeyeir; (Ibid. 305), p^ ti dirjpapres ^aXmv; (*'eu8oCTO<^iaT^r III, 
 
 571), and one in the Pseudo-Lucianic dialogue ^iKonaTpU (111,597), 
 ^17 T^v TfTpaKTvp (jjfjS Trjp Uv6ay6pov; The particles pS>p, ipa and 2p' 
 oSp are found occasionally. 
 
 ' Dindorf brackets the passage in which ipa pf/ with the subjunctive 
 occurs (XXVI, 524 R). Dio does not write as good Attic as Niebuhr 
 would have us believe. See Amer. Journ. of Philol. I, 48, 50, S3> 57. 
 
 « See A. J. P. I, 47. 
 
434 /. E. HARRY. 
 
 Of the writers of the third century A. D. I selected Plotinus 
 and Philostratus for investigation. The chief representative 
 of Neo-Platonism uses 3pa, Spd ye and ip oh, but never /iij or ipa 
 fiTj. In Philostratus are found /xSv, ipa, ip' oi and ^ ; and two ex- 
 amples of /i^ : Ap. V, 33 /H17 /JLU^ov Ti TOVTCoii; V, 34 prj n Tols elpTjpevoK 
 
 npocrTidrji; In the thirty-ninth epistle another question (Mijfie ypd(f,eii> 
 (pvydSa avi^xi)) might be added to the number. 
 
 University OF Cincinnati. J. ^» ilARRY. 
 
RIME-PARALLELISM IN OLD HIGH GERMAN 
 
 VERSE. 
 
 As is indicated in the first part of the title, Old High German 
 verse here means rimed verse, embracing in addition to Otfrid the 
 following minor monuments: Ludwigslied, Georgslied, Petrus- 
 lied, Christus und die Samariterin, Psalm 138 and De Heinrico. 
 The date of composition of most of these minor poems is less 
 certain than that of Otfrid's Evangelienbuch. They probably, 
 however, all follow the latter in point of time, ranging from the 
 Ludwigslied of 881-882 to the De Heinrico of perhaps 984 
 (Koegel). In regard to length also the shorter poems are at a 
 considerable disadvantage as compared with Otfrid, the latter, 
 inclusive of the acrostics, numbering 7416 lines,' whereas the 
 longest of the minor poems, the Ludwigslied, has only 59 lines, 
 and the shortest, the Petruslied, barely nine lines. 
 
 By rime-parallelism is meant the joining in rime of words that 
 are from a morphological point of view, more especially in respect 
 to endings of declension and conjugation, parallel forms. Adverbs 
 in -Oy while strictly speaking not falling under this rubric, have 
 also been included. To illustrate the nature of this parallelism I 
 cite' a passage from Otfrid, HI, 25, 15-26. 
 
 ,, So quement Romani ouh ubar thaz, nement thaz lant allaz 
 
 joh ouh thes giflizent, iz italaz lazent; 
 
 Mit wafanu unsih thuingent, oba sies biginnent ; 
 
 mit kreftigera henti duent unsih elilenti. 
 
 Wanent sie bi notin, thaz wir then urheiz datin, 
 
 joh wir thes biginnen, thaz widar in ringen." 
 
 Gab einer tho girati thuruh thaz heroti, 
 
 bihiaz sih ther thes wares, ther biscof was thes jares. 
 
 „ Ni bithenket," quad, „ in wara unserero alio zaia, 
 
 joh ir ouh wiht thes ni ahtot ouh drof es ni bidrahtot, 
 
 Thaz baz ist, man biwerbe, thaz ein man bi unsih sterbe, 
 
 joh einer bi unsih dowe, ther liut sih thes gifrowe." 
 
 'The figures of Wilmanns, ZfdA. xvi, 117 are not altogether correct. 
 'Quotations from Otfrid are from Erdmanu's large edition. 
 
436 BERT JOHN VOS. 
 
 This is evidently rime in a most rudimentary state. In relation 
 to rime proper — be it stem- or suffix-rime — it is a veritable pons 
 asinorum. Did the poet realize this and did he attempt to count- 
 eract the effect by including in the rime the root-syllables of the 
 words in question, in addition to the suffix-syllables ? This could 
 only be determined by computing the proportion that parallel 
 rimes in which the rime embraces more than one syllable bear to 
 such as are non-parallel.' There is, however, no likelihood that 
 there was such an effort on the part of the poet : the frequency of 
 the phenomenon would in itself seem to preclude such a view. 
 While, therefore, the underlying principle is to a certain extent 
 the same as that on which the use of identical rime in classical 
 Middle High German poetry is based, there are yet decided 
 differences: i. In the case of rime-parallelism complete identity 
 of sound does not necessarily, or even customarily, follow. 2. It 
 is not a mere makeshift, but is characteristic of the verse. 
 
 Granted that parallel suffix-rime represents rime in a rudimentary 
 state of development, and that is characteristic of Otfrid's verse 
 
 'If additional evidence that rime-parallelism is a real factor in the 
 make-up of Otfrid's verse is demanded, it may be gathered from an exam- 
 ination of individual rime-groups. Rimes in -it afford an example. There 
 are 324 such rimes (162 rime-pairs) in Otfrid. Of these, forms of the third 
 person singular constitute the larger part: 219 altogether. Now 172 of 
 these latter are found joined in parallel rime, and in the case of two other 
 rime-pairs we find a third person singular linked with quit, which on 
 account of the difference in quantity has, as noted below, not been classed 
 as parallel rime. In other words, of 219 forms of the third person singular, 
 there are only 43 rimes that are each joined in rime with one of the remain- 
 ing 105 forms in -it. Similarly in the case of the weak uninflected past par- 
 ticiples. We find 70 of these in rime position, 32 being linked in parallel 
 rime, 38 riming each with one of the remaining 254 forms. An examination 
 of rimes in -an yields similar results. There are 422 such rimes, made up in 
 part of 124 infinitives (exclusive of mi-yeihs), 80 past participles and 67 
 accusatives singular. Of the infinitives 74 are parallel, of the past par- 
 ticiples 46, and of the accusatives 40, leaving 50 infinitives, 34 past 
 participles and 27 accusatives, with rime facilities respectively of 298, 342 
 and 355. For the completeness of these statistics I rely upon Ingcnbleek's 
 Keimlexikon zu Otfrid, QuF. xxxvii. 
 
 It is also interesting to note that parallel rimes otherwise uncommon, 
 when once occurring, are apt to be 'bunched'— an evidence of the psycho- 
 'logical element involved in the phenomenon. For examples see Otfrid I, 
 4, 68 &.; 11,4, 62 and 64; II, 4, 92 and 96; IV, 18, 27 ff.; V, 6, 36 ff. 
 
RIME-PARALLELISM IN OLD HIGH GERMAN. 437 
 
 in so far as the latter is suffix- and not stem-rime, some light 
 would seem to be thrown on the much mooted question of the 
 origin of rime in German. If end-rime in German is, in respect 
 to its origin, as ancient as alliterative rime, and if at the time of 
 Otfrid it had passed through centuries of growth and cultivation, 
 how is this primitive condition to be explained ? 
 
 There are a number of difficulties encountered in determining 
 just what constitutes parallelism of rime. If our theory as to its 
 nature be correct, then such parallelism is to be assumed wher- 
 ever in the mind of the poet the forms were regarded as parallel. 
 This involves, however, practically a reconstruction of the declen- 
 sional and conjugational groups of Old High German Grammar, 
 a reconstruction in which the psychological element must needs play 
 an important part. In addition, the question of rimes betweenshort 
 and long vowels is of some consequence. Whether e. g. such 
 forms as zellen and farin are to be considered parallel when 
 linked in rime, depends upon whether we believe with Zarncke 
 and Koegel that quantity plays no part in Otfrid's rimes, or with 
 Wilmanns, Paul and Zwierzina that long and short vowels are in 
 the Evangelienbuch not joined in rime indiscriminately. I am 
 of the latter opinion and I should therefore not regard zellen and 
 farin as constituting parallel rimes.' 
 
 Two kinds of parallelism may be distinguished. In the first 
 of these the riming words conform merely from a morphological 
 
 ' The grouping adopted in determining what is parallel in the doubtful 
 noun-classes is as follows : a) Masculine -a, -ja and -wa stems ; mascu- 
 line -i stems (sing.), neuter -a and -wa stems, b) Masculine -ja stems and 
 neuter -ja stems, c) Feminine -3 and -j6 stems. ■ 
 
 Masculine and neuter nouns have consistently been kept apart from 
 feminine nouns. Neuter -o stems and -jo stems have also not been 
 classed as parallel. Personal pronouns (i, 2, 3 person and reflexive), in 
 view of the identity of stem and ending in a majority of the forms, have 
 likewise been ruled out. As indicated above, forms known to differ in 
 quantity have in no case been accounted parallel. Different cases (nom. 
 and ace. pi., etc.) and different persons (1 and 3 person, singular and plural) 
 have been kept separate. Adjectives (possessive pronouns, demonstrative 
 pronouns, participles) have been regarded as parallel with nouns of iden- 
 tical case, case-ending and number. This does not include such forms as 
 min, thin, etc., but only those that clearly show a case-ending. Where 
 the endings of adjective and noun essentially differed, the forms have not 
 been classed as parallel, even though the final vowel was the same. 
 
438 BERTJOHN VOS. 
 
 point of view, in the second there is syntactical as well as mor- 
 phological agreement. The former of these is by far the more 
 common. Where syntactical correspondence exists, it is, of 
 course, possible that a distinct stylistic effect has been aimed 
 at, and at times this does seem to be actually the case, although 
 the instances are comparatively rare.' There is some ground, I 
 think, for finding a connection between the principle of variation 
 as observed in alliterative verse and this latter form of syntactical 
 rime-parallelism." 
 
 It is natural to inquire whether a study of parallel rime in Otfrid 
 throws any light upon the order in which the different portions 
 of the work were composed. The complete statistic, giving the 
 percentage of the parallel rimes to the total number of lines in 
 each chapter, is as follows : 
 
 L, 21.9; S, 22.9; H, 23.8. 
 
 I. I, 33-3; 2, 27.6; 3, 24; 4, 32.6; 5, 31.9; 6, 33.3; 7, 17.9; 
 8, 32.1; 9, 22.5; 10, 25; II, 37.1; 12, 17.6; 13, 45.8; 14, 25; 
 15,30; 16.35-7; 17.26.9:18,17.4; 19,28.6)20,38.9; 21,18.75; 
 22,24.2; 23, 35.9; 24,30; 25, 16.7; 26, 21.4; 27, 34.3; 28, 15. 
 Average, 29.1. 
 
 II, I, 42; 2, 28.9; 3, 22.2; 4, 28.7; 5, 32.1; 6, 34.5; 7, 38.2; 
 8, 26.8; 9, 29.6; 10, 50; II, 32.4; 12, 41.7; 13, 42.5; 14, 26.2; 
 15,25; 16,32.5; 17,29.2; 18,33.3; 19,17.9; 20,35.7; 21,29.5; 
 22,35.7; 23,-]6.7; 24, 26.1. Average, 31.4. 
 
 111,1,36.4; 2,28.9; 3-28.6; 4,39.6; 5,13.6; 6,32.1; 7,31.1; 
 8,32; 9. 30; 10, 21.7; II, 43.75; 12, 38.6; 13, 29.3; 14, 37.5; 
 15, 36.5; 16, 33.8; 17, 32.9; 18, 31. i; 19, 23.7; 20, 28.5; 21, 30.6; 
 22, 32.4; 23, 30; 24, 28.6; 25, 45; 26, 32.9. Average, 32. 
 
 IV, I, 35.2; 2, 41.2; 3, 12.5; 4,38.2; 5,33.3; 6,42.9; 7,30.4; 
 8,35-7; 9.38.2; 10,37.5; 11.19-2; 12,20.3; 13.25.9; 14.27.8; 
 15, 23.4 ; 16, 33.9 ; 17, 43.75 ; 18, 19 ; 19, 31.6 ; 20, 32.5 ; 21, 19.4 ; 
 22, 20.6; 23, 13.6; 24, 18.4; 25, 35.7; 26, 32.7; 27, 30; 28, 37.5; 
 29. 32.8; 30, 19.4; 31, 13.9; 32, 33.3; 33, 30; 34, 19.2; 35, 43.2; 
 36. 45-8; 37, 32-6. Average, 29.7. 
 
 V, I, 35-4; 2, 16.7; 3, 40; 4, 28.1; 5, 13.6; 6, 30.6; 7, 28.8; 
 8, 20.7; 9, 32.1; 10, 33.3; II, 42; 12, 23; 13, 33.3; 14, 16.7; 
 
 ' See the refrains, Oifrid II, i, 16, ff., and V, 15, 9; 21; 35. 
 
 ''For the connection between parallelism of expression in Otfrid and 
 variation in alliterative poetry see P. SchUtze, Beiir'age zur Poetik Otfrids, 
 Kiel, 1887. 
 
RIME-PARALLELISM IN OLD HIGH GERMAN. 439 
 
 15,26.1; 16,30.4; 17. 30; 18, 18.75; 19, 15.2; 20, 33.6; 21, 19.2; 
 22, 18.75; 23, 31.2; 24, 18.2; 25, 30.8, Average, 28.5. 
 
 Average for the whole Evangehenbuch, exclusive of the 
 acrostics, 30.2. 
 
 It will be seen that taking each book as a whole the differences 
 in percentage are very slight. Individual chapters show consid- 
 erable variation, the range being from 12,5 in IV, 3 to 50 in II, 
 10. There are twenty-five chapters with a ratio below twenty, 
 and fourteen with a ratio of forty and over. It is to be observed, 
 however, that nearly all the chapters that show an abnormally 
 low percentage are extremely short, only four out of twenty-five 
 containing forty lines or over.' This observation does not, in the 
 same degree at least, apply to the chapters showing a high ratio : 
 seven out of fourteen contain forty lines or over. 
 
 In view of these facts, it is manifestly impossible to base on this 
 single criterion a new theory as to the order in which Otfrid's 
 work was produced. Nor can the test be made use of to corrob- 
 orate, to any extent, the results arrived at by others. To take, 
 for example, the theory expounded by Erdmann on pages 
 Ixv-vi of his Introduction. He there distinguishes four groups : 
 
 A. Friiheste Versuche (noch ohne merkliche Beziehung auf 
 das Gesammtwerk). 
 
 B. Allmahlich durchgefiihrte Ausarbeitung des Evangelien- 
 buchs. 
 
 C. Selbstandige Stiicke . . . zur Abrundung und Ausfiillung 
 in das Werk aufgenommen. 
 
 D. Letzte, bei der Schlussredaction hinzugefiigte Stiicke und 
 Anhange. 
 
 Without attempting to distinguish B and C from each other 
 or from A and D, we should at any rate expect to find a differ- 
 ence in ratio of parallel rimes between groups A and D. Such 
 is not, however, the case. In the nine (entire) chapters which 
 Erdmann groups under A, the range is from 17.9 to 35.7, in the 
 twelve (entire) chapters under D, from 18.2 to 42.9. 
 
 I do not believe, therefore, that any theory of order of compo- 
 sition can be based on this statistic, any more than on that 
 of Wilmanns, ZfdA., XVI, 117, for stem-rime. Wilmanns there 
 computes for the different books the proportion of rimes in which 
 
 ' The average length of a chapter is about fifty-one lines. 
 
440 BERT JOHN VOS. 
 
 at least one rime-word is a root-syllable to the total number of 
 couplets and finds it varying from 20.4 in Book I to 30.3 in 
 Book III. His percentages are as follows: I, 20.4; II, 29.8; 
 III, 30.3; IV, 28.9; V, 26.8. From this Wilmanns concludes 
 that Books I and V were composed first. It would seem, how- 
 ever, that first of all no importance can be attached to the slight 
 difference in percentage between Books IV and V, 26.8 (more 
 correctly 26.9) and 28.9, when none is attached by Wilmanns 
 himself to that between the 28.9 of Book IV and the 30.3 of 
 Book III. Furthermore, the whole argument begs the question 
 whether books or chapters constituted the unit of composition. 
 Erdmann, as we have seen, practically assumes the latter, and 
 this would seem to be the only sound method of procedure, as 
 long as the opposite has not been proved. In the third place, it 
 does not appear why rimes extending over more than one syl- 
 lable should be classified as suffix-rime rather than as stem-rime. 
 As Wilmanns gives only the sum-total of his figures there is no 
 way in which his grouping can be altered. The subject of 
 stem-rime and suffix-rime will again be touched upon below. 
 
 How do the results for Olfrid compare with the technic of the 
 minor poems? The poem entitled De Heinrico does not come 
 in for consideration on account of its mixture of German and 
 Latin. Nor is any importance to be attached to the extremely 
 short Petruslied, consisting as it does — exclusive of the refrain — of 
 some six lines. The tabulated results are as follows : 
 
 Otfrid 30.2 
 
 Ludwigslied . . . .22 
 Georgslied' .... 42.1 
 Petruslied .... 16.7 
 
 Christus u. d. S. . . . 12.9 
 Psalm 138 . . . .5.7 
 
 The arrangement is a chronological one. To do away with 
 a possible element of subjectiveness, Koegel's conclusions as 
 
 ' In judging the result for the Georgslied the presence of a refrain (selbo: 
 Gorio), which in slightly varying forms occurs four times (6, 11, 48, 55), 
 must perhaps be borne in mind. Not counting these the ratio would be 
 35.1. The poem has, however, also numerous refrains without parallelism 
 (*6, 21, 26-8, 33-s, 41-3), so that after all it can perhaps not be considered 
 a factor that affects the result. 
 
RIME-PARALLELISM IN OLD HIGH GERMAN. 44 1 
 
 regards dating have been followed. The general trend is unmis- 
 takable : a gradual decrease in the use of parallel rimes. The 
 Ludwigslied and the Georgslied are grouped by the side of the 
 Evangelienbuch as opposed to Christus u. d. S. and the Psalm. 
 This difference may be brought out still more forcibly by an 
 examination of the passage in Otfrid's work (II, 14, 1-60) which 
 treats the same theme as Christus u. d. S. We find that Otfrid 
 here uses 33.3 per cent of parallel rimes, whereas the other poet, 
 treating the identical subject, uses but 12.9 per cent. 
 
 It is interesting to notice that this decrease in the use of rime- 
 parallelism is accompanied by, and finds a partial explanation in, 
 an increased use of stem-rime. For Otfrid I am here dependent 
 upon the statistic of Wilmanns. As indicated above, in the sense 
 that Wilmanns attaches to the term, stem-rime includes the rime 
 of root-syllable with root-syllable, as well as of root-syllable with 
 inflectional syllable. It does not Include rimes extending over 
 two syllables. While I do not believe this classification to be the 
 best that could be made, I have yet followed it in the case of the 
 minor poems, in order to make a comparison with Otfrid possible. 
 The figures are : 
 
 
 Stem-rime. 
 
 Suffix-rime. 
 
 [Parallel rimes.] 
 
 Otfrid. 
 
 27-5 
 
 72.5 
 
 [30.2 
 
 Ludwigslied, 
 
 45-8 
 
 54-2 
 
 22 
 
 Georgslied, 
 
 4I.I 
 
 58.9 
 
 42.1 
 
 Petruslied, 
 
 50 
 
 50 
 
 16.7 
 
 Christus u. d. S. 
 
 , 51-6 
 
 48.4 
 
 12.9 
 
 Psalm 138, 
 
 60 
 
 40 
 
 5-7] 
 
 What is important to notice here, is that rime-parallelism 
 decreases far more rapidly than suffix-rime, and that the former 
 is therefore not absolutely conditioned by the latter. While in 
 Otfrid, the Ludwigslied, and the Georgslied the ratio of parallel 
 rimes to suffix-rimes ranges from 1.4 to 2,5, the ratio in Christus 
 u. d. S. is 3.8 and in the Psalm 7. 
 
 One other matter remains to be touched upon: the relative 
 frequency of the various grammatical categories in parallel rime. 
 In the subjoined statistic the term adjective is to be understood in 
 the wider sense, including inflected participles, demonstrative 
 pronouns, etc. 
 
442 BERT JOHN VOS. 
 
 Finite Past Part. Pr. Ptc. Pr. Ptc; Noun: Adv. 
 
 Inf. forms Strong Wealc (unin- -jo SlA). Adj. Noun Adj. in •£» 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 fleeted) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Otfrid I, 
 
 II 
 
 159 
 
 2 
 
 4 
 
 II 
 
 I 
 
 74 
 
 S4 
 
 25 
 
 20 
 
 n, 
 
 20 
 
 220 
 
 2 
 
 8 
 
 
 
 
 
 37 
 
 61 
 
 20 
 
 23 
 
 III, 
 
 27 
 
 272 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 71 
 
 96 
 
 17 
 
 14 
 
 IV, 
 
 24 
 
 263 
 
 6 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 43 
 
 86 
 
 22 
 
 19 
 
 V, 
 
 20 
 
 '95 
 
 12 
 
 4 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 42 
 
 109 
 
 22 
 
 14 
 
 LSH, 
 
 
 
 18 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 3 
 
 37 
 
 9 
 
 4 
 
 Ludwigslied 
 
 , 
 
 5 
 
 I 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 2 
 
 3 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 Georgslied, 
 
 8 
 
 2 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 S 
 
 4 
 
 S 
 
 
 
 Petruslied, 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 Chr. u. d. S. 
 
 . 
 
 3 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 1 
 
 
 
 
 
 Psalm, 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 I 
 
 
 
 
 
 What is striking in this statistic is the relatively large number 
 of present participles found in Otfrid I, about twice that found in 
 the other four books together. In view of the other stylistic 
 peculiarities found in this book,' which are usually explained as 
 due to an earlier date of composition, this feature may perhaps 
 be held to further strengthen this position. Nearly half (5) of 
 these rimes occur in a chapter (I, 4) which Erdmann classes 
 under A, and in which Koegel discovers four alliterative lines. 
 The numerous infinitives in the Georgslied are also noteworthy, 
 there being one in every seven lines as compared with one in 
 every seventy-three lines in Otfrid. That the acrostics should be 
 abnormal in the ratio that the nominal forms bear to the verbal 
 forms is explained by the fact that the former have a greater 
 variety of endings and are therefore better adapted to this 
 artificial kind of verse. 
 
 Johns Hopkins tJNivERsiTY. BERT JOHN VOS. 
 
 ' More especially rimeless verses and the use of alliteration. See Koegel, 
 Deutsche Litteraturgeschichte, I, ^, 23 and 40, and PG.^ II, 116. 
 
DID EURIPIDES WRITE aKV-" HIPP. 1276? 
 
 Investigations in the Kynegetikos ascribed to Xenophon have 
 for some years led the present writer to observe with attention 
 the position of the dog in, various periods of Greek h'fe, and 
 in various departments of Greek letters. The following paper has 
 been prompted by the Tragic Dog. 
 
 There are two curious tales that have come down to us, perhaps 
 the mere symbolic expression of a passing fancy, perhaps sug- 
 gested by an actual tradition. Of Sophokles it is said (Diog. 
 
 L.aert. 4i 20), Kara riv Km/UKiv ri noir'jfiaTa avT^ kvav tu tSoKtt (TVfirroiew 
 
 MoXorriKof ; while of Euripides Haigh (Tragic Drama of the Greeks) 
 quotes among others Sotades (Stob. Flor. 98, 9), Kvvts 0! koto 
 
 BpaKTjv Evptm&rjv erpayov. 
 
 Euripides, if any poet, challenges close investigation; his syntax 
 has the precision of a foreigner; point after point is made by strict 
 attention to his language; he himself was an unflinching critic 
 
 of minutiae (Ar. Ran. 801 6 yap EipimSris | Kar cirot ffaaavutv <j>r)<n 
 
 Tar tpaymSlat' cf. 826 sqq.). One may claim pardon then for going 
 into details ; but — to avert the omen — we shall take up only two 
 plays, the Hippolytos and the Bakchai, the other plays containing 
 for the most part only unimportant passages bearing on the case, 
 or points of negative value such as the impression created by 
 isolated expressions (^etjpiveiv etc.) combined with the absence 
 of sustained allusion. 
 
 The Hippolytos (b. c. 428) one might reasonably expect to 
 show signs of interest in the chase more striking than those 
 of a landscape painter, for daopa (52-3) 
 
 OTCixovra 6ijpa( /i6x0ov eK7ic?/)m6Ta 
 'InTrdTiVTtyv. 
 
 K5>p.or XeXa/cfx (vs. 55) is expresslve enough of a troop of huntsmen, 
 X. being used of Skylla and her voice Sar) o-cuXaKor veoyi\^s (cf. 
 hymn, in Herm. 145 ou8e Kvptc XtXaKovro), Eur. also uses the verb 
 (it is a specialty with him) in Alk. 345 sqq. oh yap ttot' oSt' &v 
 
 pap^tTov Siyoip,' en | oSr hv <f>pev' e^aipoipi npos Ai'jSuv XaKfiv | av\6v. 
 
444 HENRY N. SANDERS. 
 
 Perhaps in thus belittling his attempts at music Admetos but 
 shows a reversion to type when the social hand of his model wife 
 was no more in evidence. 
 
 Vs. 109 TepTTvov CK Kvvayiat \ rpairfCa wX^'pijr (cf. Bakch. 339, Soph. 
 
 Ai. 37) is a truism needing as httle poetic imagination as ex- 
 perience. 
 
 V. 215. Phaidra. iri/iireTi /i' c'lc i/ioc el/it irpbi vhiv 
 Kal napa TrevKai;, Iva Oijpoiji&t'oi 
 arei^ovfft niveg 
 
 Trpbt; BeCiv, Ipafim aval Baikal 
 Kal napa xairav ^av&av ^'njiai 
 QscaaXbv bpnaK", tTz'iKoyxov ixava^ 
 
 Nurse. H ttot', <1> tckvov, T&Se K^paiveif, 
 ri Kwrfyealuv kuc oot fteMrTj ; . . . 
 
 eyxpipiTT6pevai is HOt particularly appropriate. Baiaaa is more 
 applicable to the voice of the dogs. Sophokles (Ai. 308) uses it 
 in Tekmessa's description of Aias in his woe, naiaas mapa '6a>v^ev, 
 
 but cf. O. C. 1623 (jiBtypa 8' i^aitfivtis Tivis \ Oav^ty avTov, &<rre navras 
 opdias I (TTTjirai <j)6^tf ielfravras i^al(^vris rplxat, and doubtless 6a>vaaa 
 
 might convey the impression of ydgerlatein on the stage. At 
 any rate the speaker was not a sporting character, and the last line 
 of the quotation will not be insisted on. The opTri;^ apparently 
 formed a handy instrument for relieving the feelings upon an ox 
 (Hes. Op. 468), nor dare we press the hand that holds the t'ni\oyxov 
 /SfXor without caution. Kvvijytaiov is frequent in Xen. Kyn. and a 
 fellow-demesman of Xenophon uses the word in a passage that 
 recalls at once the preamble to the Kynegetikos and its versatile 
 author (Isok. vii, 45). 
 
 V. 1 1 27. (!) Spv/ibQ ipeo(,oBi KwCyv 
 
 UKVirdSav fiha ^^paQ kvaipev 
 AtKTWvav ap(pL GE/ivdv, 
 
 reminds one of * 485 sqq., where Hera addresses Artemis with 
 
 the words: 5 toi piXTepAv ian Kar oOpea 6ijpac ivaiptiv \ ayporipas r 
 (\a(f>ovt 5 KpeiVo-oo-ii' ttfii pax,f(rdai — q. V. and cf. Bakch. 984 with 
 
 2488. 
 
 Now it may be subjective criticism, but to our mind none of 
 these passages strike the genuine note of the opening of Soph. 
 Aias; they are artistically appropriate in a play like the Hip- 
 
DID EURIPIDES WRITE aKvfivav HIPP. 1276? 445 
 
 polytos, they are a literary necessity, perhaps, but they bear the 
 stamp of a iour de force. 
 
 V. 1274. BiXyei d' (pu(, i^ /iaivo/ilvf Kpailf 
 
 jrravdf k^op/i&ay xpvao^fiaiji, ^aiv t' 
 ipeaKduv oKi/ivuv ttc^jW 0' baa re ya rpiipet, 
 riv a'i86/ievoc aXiog depKerai, 
 avdpa; tc. 
 
 The reading is that of v. Wilamowitz for MS aKv\dKa>v. But just 
 as one would think twice about attempting solvere phaselon with 
 Euripides to show him how, so I doubt if Euripides knew enough 
 as a dog-man or cared enough as a liltirateur to distinguish 
 the two. 
 
 Euripides (cf. Jebb, Soph. Ai, 591) is apt to echo contempo- 
 raries — a frequent occurrence among Greeks and Grecians, and 
 useful as a foundation upon which to build a superstructure of dates 
 although the experiment is dangerous. He sometimes impreg- 
 nates himself with predecessors (cf. Aisch. P.V. and Eur. Bakch.) 
 He is essentially literary. Given sufficient materials and leisure 
 one might show instance after instance of borrowing or acceptance 
 of suggestion. Many of his hunting metaphors have a prototype 
 in Homer or Aischylos — but often to his own detriment just as 
 Euripides' Cyclops has not the other side to his character as had 
 the author of 1 447. 
 
 Eur. I. T. 284 ital |3a^ Kvvayo! &c, \ IIv\(iBtj, bebopKas r^v&t ; etc., is 
 
 obscured, to say the least, by what follows, yet it reminds one 
 somehow of the poet's friend Sokrates. Plato has many queer 
 hunting expressions, but then Sokrates is whimsical and is not 
 above bewildering the object of his cross-examination by talking 
 about dogs with which Glaukon was intimate, and meaning the 
 while something transcendental (Rep. 459 A yd/roit re ko! n-aidoTrou'air ; 
 TO no'wv, e(t»i\)- Plato moreover reproduces the man who would not 
 venture beyond the city walls — the opening of the Parmenides 
 (126 E-127 C) shows a return to more vigorous pursuits. 
 
 A few scattered instances of metaphor and simile occur in 
 Med. 1374 (see Verrall jS.ifii'), Hek. 1172, 1265, and in I. T. 
 I. A. confines itself practically to 959 ^ tS>i> ydfiai> Ukuti fivpiat Kopai | 
 
 BripSta-i XiKTpov Tovfiov, 1 1 62 anaviov 8e Bripfvp,' dvbpX ToiauTijv Xa3«i' | 
 
 Sdfiapra, reminding one of Hel. 63 Sr^p^ yafitiv ne, Hel. 314, 545, 
 where the occurrence of Sripav, etc. (in isolated instances) shows 
 perhaps the • dominant note ' of Theoklymenos. 
 
446 HENRY N. SANDERS. 
 
 On the other hand the Bakchai, written in Macedonia at the 
 close of the poet's life and exhibited in Athens about 406, is full 
 enough of reminiscences of the chase. 
 
 Whatever critical sentiments we may have as to the author- 
 ship of the Kynegetikos, this much may be said: the nature of 
 the dog as the product of the fancier, with a fancy price and a 
 fancy utility, compels the writer on the subject, if it be congenial 
 to him, if he be a sympathetic writer, to adopt a peculiar style 
 that will strike the uninitiated of any age as sophistic. This is all 
 the sophistry that there is in the Kynegetikos. The author knew 
 his subject at first hand even if as an amateur he is at fault at times 
 (probably in the time a bitch carries her puppies) and passes on a 
 story that would grace a Forsier's hut, yet the list of appropriate 
 names (7, 5) does not touch on literature or mythology, although 
 both might suggest good, sharp names for a hound. As to the 
 age at which the author wrote it — suppose the author of the 
 Kynegetikos to have become acquainted with Sokrates at 15, he 
 would feel decidedly old at 30 and would take pains to dedicate 
 his treatise to the young; still on the other hand an old man with 
 a hobby may write as youthfully as an Indian officer retired on 
 half-pay and golf-links. If Attica was depleted of hares during 
 the Peloponnesian war, Macedonia (Kyn. 11) afforded plenty 
 of game not so far beyond its borders (5th century), the main 
 difficulty being to find a man (dpKuaptit) who spoke Greek (Kyn. 
 2, 3) and not a wretched patois. The point of view in t6v K-ittov 
 rhv vnep T^t MaKtSovlas (ii, i) is interesting as a date — 
 
 Bakch. 337. 6p^i rbv 'AKTal(Jvog iBhov /j.6pov, 
 bv afiSaiToi OKiXoxEf a; cdpiijiaTO 
 dteaTTaaavro Kpeiaaov* ev Kvvaylaig 
 'ApTifiiSo( elvai Kop-vaaavT' in bpyaaiv 
 
 are verses which prepare for the dominant note in the play in its 
 connection with mythology, with the theatre of action, with 
 possibly ever so slight a touch of real tlpavda, and ipydaw sounds 
 the keynote to Kyn. 9, 2. aKvXaKcs has its sporting gender. 
 
 Passing over 434, 435 aKpat>6' apiifia-a/xev would be interesting 
 if one could banish from mind Aisch. Cho. 882 axpaira ^ufa, where 
 ^dCa, is the language of the dog but SKpavra not necessarily (cf. 
 6^p for dt)piov). 732 (TrttrBi /io» is all right if poi is ethic (Kyn. 
 6, 19). 848 els jSdXoi/ KaOiaTarai perhaps echoes literary antecedents. 
 
DID EURIPIDES WRITE ^Kifivav HIPP. i2-j6f 447 
 
 V. 862 (cf. El. 859). i.p' h navvvxioiq xopok 
 
 7r(5(J' ava^aKx^vovaa^ depav 
 eif aWi/ia dpoaspov 
 pliTTova'', (if veppb; x^o^P^H 
 efinai^ovaa Xel/zaico; ^Sovaii, 
 ^/vIk' av fopepav (phyri 
 t d^pav l^a <j)V?.aKac 
 EvirX^KTti)v virip apuvuVf 
 
 avvTEivTj 6p6fir!fia itwCiv • 
 
 fidxSoi^ t' i>Kvdp6/ioic aeX- 
 
 Xaf 6pi)aKEt nedtav [or aiX?UU(] 
 
 TrapaTvoTaiiiov^ ^dofikva 
 
 ppoTciv ip^/ilm; 
 
 aKLapoK6fiov r' kv Ipvtatv vAaf, 
 
 The picture is good and very complete. If we turn to Kyn. 9, 
 we may see in apia rp ijy^fp? (3) ^^^ reason for Spoartpov, and Xel/iaKos 
 suggests opydSer (2) and X«/i5>/er (ii). On the other hand " Der 
 Gegensatz von " fiSovais . . . fioxdots . . . fiSo/iha " allein wiirde 
 geniigen, um Aristipp als den bekampften Gegner zu erkennen" 
 (cf. Hermes 25, 584), but apparently it doesn't. ttcSioc ■napanoTap.inv : 
 
 cf. Kyn. 9, 11, n^pi roir Xfiiiwvac Ka\ to ptWpa, where iv Tois epyois 
 
 also suggests Pporav eptipLiais. But the peculiarly Euripidean trait 
 comes out in (mep apKvojv, for they did not use nets to catch pf^pois 
 nor e\d(f>ovs either, although the presence of the apKvapds (9, 6) 
 possibly misled Euripides — in a passage that is an artist's trans- 
 lation of the chapter into verse. 
 
 Of course one has to be cautious in advancing any theories, or 
 rather hypotheses ; and if one insists on reading weighty philo- 
 sophic and eristic matter into the Kynegetikos, one must decide 
 against rhetoricians and Arrian, and not allow Xenophon or even 
 a contemporary to have exhibited this somewhat naive side (sed 
 quam nulla consequi affectatio possit) to his character. But 
 where earthquakes are expected true caution is shown in building 
 lightly. 
 
 Pentheus is discovered couchant on the limb of a tree; so it is 
 decided, v. 1142, that he must be a lion ; that was enough to ex- 
 asperate the most long-suffering of dogs — 
 
 " e'ladKE 6^ dalfiav Fjiipmliri eiiper' 62,fSpov 
 'Afiftptov arvyvov avndaavn Kvvav." 
 
 Thb McGill Univ., Montreal. HeNRY N. SANDERS. 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 
 
 In the introduction to his Grammatische Sludien zu Apollonius 
 Rhodius, Wien, i8j8, Rzach, after speaking of the value of 
 Merkel's Prolegomena for our knowledge of the vocabulary of 
 Apollonius, called attention to the lack of a systematic presenta- 
 tion of the grammar of this foremost representative of the 
 Alexandrian Epos. In these Studies the questions relating to 
 phonology and morphology received such a treatment at Rzach's 
 hands, but even at the present time a similar presentation of the 
 syntax is still wanting, although such a work would prove of value 
 not only for the text, interpretation and literary appreciation of 
 the poet, but also as a contribution to the Historical Syntax of the 
 Greek language. In addition to this it may be hoped that it would 
 occasionally, at least, afford glimpses of the state of the Homeric 
 text before Aristarchus and of the syntactical views of his prede- 
 cessors, — though from the nature of the problems the results in 
 this line, and in the line of textual criticism, cannot be expected 
 to prove as numerous and as valuable as those obtained from the 
 study of the poet's morphology. 
 
 Even for detailed treatment of single chapters of Apollonius' 
 syntax, I am able to cite only Wahlin, De usu modorum apud 
 Apolloniutn Rhodium, Lundae, i8gi, and Apollonius Rhodius, 
 His Figures, Syntax, and Vocabulary, JohnsHopkins Disser- 
 tation, Baltimore, 189 1, by Chas. J. Goodwin, in which the syntax 
 of the final, conditional and temporal sentences receives such 
 consideration. The results are of interest as showing a general 
 faithfulness to Homeric usage combined with "a tendency to 
 develop the more unusual forms," and the occasional intrusion 
 of later usages, sometimes, as in the case of i^pa with the past 
 tenses of the indicative, with incongruous results. The parallelism 
 of this and the similar results that will be obtained in the syntax 
 of the participle with the poet's morphological usage will be noted 
 and I hope to show also cases of imitation of isolated syntactical 
 phenomena that may be compared with Rzach's observation, 
 Studien, pp. 9 f-, in regard to ipyofitvrjv and ftpyf, so that the con- 
 
450 GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 elusion is, I believe, justifiable, that Apollonius' knowledge and 
 imitation of Homeric syntax was in general not inferior to his 
 knowledge of Homeric morphology. In connection with his 
 method of work two other questions may be raised, whether he 
 did not sometimes, when conveniently possible, avoid constructions 
 not infrequent in Homer because they happened to coincide with 
 later prose usage, and whether, on the other hand, he did not 
 sometimes employ constructions borrowed from lyric or tragic 
 poetry. Apparent examples of both of these phenomena will be 
 cited below, though the passing of final judgment on their cause 
 must be reserved until we have a complete syntax of Apollonius' 
 work. 
 
 In comparing the usage of the participle in Apollonius with that 
 of Homer we may begin with the consideration of the frequency 
 of its occurrence as indicative of its stylistic effect. The facts for 
 Apollonius are shown in the following table : 
 
 
 No. of Lines. 
 
 
 No. of Part. 
 
 Part. 
 
 , per 100 Lines. 
 
 
 Narr. Speech. Total. 
 
 Narr. 
 
 Speech. Total. 
 
 Narr. 
 
 Speech. Total. 
 
 I. 
 
 I 100 262 1362 
 
 422 
 
 68 490 
 
 38.3 + 
 
 22.1+ 35-9 + 
 
 II. 
 
 867 421 1288 
 
 339 
 
 116 455 
 
 39-1 + 
 
 27-5+ 35-3 + 
 
 III. 
 
 S63 542 1405 
 
 341 
 
 159 500 
 
 39-S + 
 
 29-3+ 35-7 + 
 
 IV. 
 
 1323 456 1779 
 
 513 
 
 126 639 
 
 38-7 + 
 
 27-6+ 35-9 
 
 4153 1681 5834 161S 469 2084 38.8+ 27.8 35-7 + 
 
 A comparison of this table with that given for the Iliad in my 
 dissertation, The Participle in Hesiod, Washington, iSgy, Re- 
 printed from the Catholic University Bulletin, Vol. Ill, pp. 421- 
 4'ji, will show that in this respect Apollonius has varied but little 
 from his great model. That this variation should be a gain in quan- 
 tity is not surprising, for the use of the participle as the abridgment 
 of a temporal, causal, or conditional clause, has increased in Apol- 
 lonius. The typical difference, however, between the speech and 
 narrative is still retained, and still more noteworthy is the uniform- 
 ity of the usage throughout the whole of the Argonautica. In 
 the Iliad this is not the case — the books with the highest and 
 lowest percentage differing by nearly 25 per cent in the narrative 
 and 15 per cent in the speeches. In contrast with this the striking 
 uniformity revealed by these statistics for the different books of 
 tRe Argonautica is the indication in one element of the aequalis 
 mediocritas of his style of which Quintilian, X, i, 54, speaks. 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 45 1 
 
 The difference between the Homeric and the Attic use of the 
 participle may be stated in general by saying that the use of the 
 participle as the conscious abridgment of a finite clause is still 
 undeveloped in Homeric times, that the use of the genitive abso- 
 lute is neither so frequent nor so free as in Attic Greek, and that 
 the constructions of the supplementary and the adjectival participle 
 are not so widely extended. A consequence and at the same time 
 an indication of the non-development of the participle as the equiva- 
 lent of the finite verb is seen in the difficulty of its combination 
 with the negatives 06 and /lij. This state of affairs is on the whole 
 reflected by ApoUonius with considerable faithfulness — with how 
 much consciousness it is difficult to determine. That it is not 
 altogether the unconscious result of an effort to reproduce 
 Homeric modes of thought and expression is shown most clearly 
 by the treatment of the future participle which is confined within 
 limits considerably narrower than those of Homeric usage. The 
 image is, however, somewhat disturbed by ApoUonius' lack of 
 appreciation of quantitative differences — note especially the Geni- 
 tive Absolute — and by the intrusion of constructions of later 
 development that had the merit of convenience. 
 
 The facts upon which these statements are based are presented 
 in the following sections. The order followed is that of the disser- 
 tation already cited, to which I must refer for the details of 
 Homeric usage. ApoUonius has been cited by Merkel's Teubner 
 edition of 1897, in addition to which I have employed his large 
 edition of 1854, and that of Lehrs, the Didot edition of 1862. 
 
 Adversative Participle. 
 
 The examples of the adversative participle in which no particle 
 is added either to the participle or to the main verb are as follows: 
 I 140, 445, 602, 1037, n 73, 247, HI 54, 682, 1069, IV 491, 
 791, 800, 1006, 1558, 1650. The adversative relation is then 
 merely an inference from a contrast suggested by the context, 
 and the examples are not always especially cogent. 
 
 In the following examples the adversative relation is indicated 
 by a Trep that emphasizes the participle itself or one of its modi- 
 fiers: I 99, 299, 896, 1199. 1340. II 27, 252, 260, 541, 1112, 
 
 III 92, 408, 428, 584, 661, 782. 948. 1343. IV 813, 1146, "66, 
 1527, 1647, 1674, 1734. Similar examples with koi' are III 719, 
 
 IV 31. 443, 834, 1252, 1456. Ka\ ... w€p occurs I 484, 950, IV 
 65 ; Kai irep Only III 525 ; oiSe ntp 111 520. 
 
452 GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 In the following examples the particles that indicate the adver- 
 sative relation qualify the main verb :' kqJ mr III 790; t^n-ijs I 314, 
 IV 797 ; tfiTta. I 792. In some of the examples cited above a 
 double strengthening both of participle and main verb is found. 
 
 So I 299 T&c fioipav Kara Oviiov avia^ovaa ntp tfvnr\s | tKtjBi (j^fpeiv (cf. Ill 
 782) and IV 65 rerXadi 8' efiirrji \ Kal ■nivvri) irep iovaa (cf. I 4^4)' '■^ 
 IV 1 146 is found iax^ 8' i<uaTijV I albi)t Upevxjv tiep Spos eVi X^P" 
 ^oKiadai, where G has 6pS>i, and so in III 948 peXnoph)): nep Spas, 
 
 where L has 6pas. 
 
 Comparing these examples with the Homeric usage we find 
 that the construction does not occur quite so frequently in Apol- 
 lonius as in Homer in proportion to the bulk of the poems, nor is 
 the relative distribution between speech and narrative the same. 
 In Apollonius the two nearly balance — 26 of the examples occur- 
 ring in the speeches and 29 in the narrative — while in the Iliad 
 about two-thirds of the examples and in the Odyssey five-sixths 
 are furnished by the speeches. This is partly due to the fact that 
 speeches do not constitute as large a proportion of the bulk of 
 the Argonautica, but in part also it is stylistic, indicating a greater 
 amount of lameness in Apollonius' speeches. 
 
 In the more frequent employment of the particles we find a 
 significant agreement with the Epic as against the Attic usage, 
 the proportion being but little different from that found in the 
 Odyssey. Of the different particles vep has about the same large 
 predominance that is found in Homer, but koX ... nep instead of 
 being equal to mi is only half as frequent. The single example 
 of KQi jrtp in imitation of the isolated Homeric example i; 224 is a 
 syntactical phenomenon in line with Rzach's remarks on epyopevrjv 
 and e'pye, 1. c, pp. 9 f. 
 
 The examples of Spas can hardly be employed to strengthen 
 the reading of that particle in X 565 as the order of words serves 
 
 rather to recall Hesiod, Op. 20 ^i re Km diraXapSv irep Spas inX cpyov 
 
 tyeipei — an example, to be sure, that contains no participle. Note- 
 worthy also is the post-Homeric epna that our poet has borrowed 
 from a lyric or a tragic source. 
 
 As in Homer the present (43) and the perfect (7) largely 
 predominate. The aorists are such as approach the perfect in 
 
 ' References, however, in all cases are to the line containing the participle 
 in question. 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 453 
 
 meaning (see Gildersleeve, Syntax § 248), the examples being 
 eavovTi II 260, and its synonyms (pdi/ievn III 790, Korai^eiiiivoio III 
 782, airo(t>dinfvos IV 1527, and in addition avijjBtU I 1340 — all 
 of which conforms closely to the Homeric usage. 
 
 The Temporal Participle. 
 
 In a few cases the stress on the element of time that is apt 
 to be present in the tense of the participle is rendered clear 
 by a parallel or a contrasted clause. The examples are III 653 
 
 rJToi OT Idvaeifv epvKf fuv ivSoBev aiSms ' \ alSoi 8' epyo/itvtjv Bpaavs inepos 
 
 oTpiiviOKfv and IV 784, 1048. Sometimes such a force is suggested 
 by the concatenation of the participle and a preceding word, as in 
 the example just quoted and I 447, II 449, 498. More frequently 
 the presence of a word of temporal meaning — whether connected 
 with the participle or the main verb — causes its temporal force to 
 spread throughout the whole clause. This is plainest in those 
 cases in which a particle qualifying the main verb resumes a tem- 
 poral clause, as tcqis I 516 (the passage, however, is emended 
 by Merkel), avTUa II 562, 626, t6t' Inena III 898 (following 
 the punctuation of Merkel's editio maior), en I 513, IV 926, ?« 
 vvv I 644. To these may be added the cases in which ?« qualifies 
 the participle itself: I 195, II 433, 709 (bis). III 134, IV 38, 
 1381. Similar examples are: with ^8ij III 1384, with wok (wtov) 
 I 125, 1003, III 690, 1383, IV 54, with (o«)jro) II 116, IV 678 
 (bis), with Tore II 721, zrdpos III 182, to irpiv I 497. A similar effect 
 is sometimes produced by words that may be called temporal in 
 a wider sense, as by atyj/a I 15, IV 681, Srjvawv III 589, XoiVdia IV 
 
 472, npo (in Trpo . . . nj)iiav6ivTa<t) IV 558, Tanpara I I2I2. In SOme 
 
 cases also the meaning of the participle itself, e. g. riPri<ras, is such 
 as to suggest the temporal meaning. 
 
 The treatment of ne,T<TT)yv(^s) calls for separate mention. In 
 Homer it has, even in i; 195, only local meaning, in ApoUonius it 
 undoubtedly has sometimes a temporal signification. The clearest 
 
 example is IV 579 airiKa 8' n^vo) 1 iaxev avSpopiji ivtmrj fietrffijyii 6f6vTa>v 
 
 I alhrifv yXafpvpijs vrios Sopv. Here the poet seems to have en- 
 deavored to turn the Attic construction of pera^i with the partici- 
 ple into Epic form. Similar examples with the present participle 
 are III 307, 665 (but cf. p. 463), 723. The same use seems 
 to be found with the aorist in II 337 and III 929, which is 
 
454 GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 perhaps no more surprising than the Attic use of S^ia with the 
 aorist participle. However, as other juxtapositions of fueaatjyi 
 and an aorist participle (II 269, III 1316) are clearly not temporal, 
 it is perhaps better to explain /leo-o-ijyu in II 337 as local, and refer 
 it in III 929 to the general situation. In a similar way the Attic 
 construction of iidis with the participle is represented in I 688 by 
 np6K.a though a variant reading in L, Ka\ nepireWo^ievov, is also 
 reported. 
 
 As examples of the temporal participle may be cited besides: 
 
 I 160, 378, 413, 892, 906, II 385, 416, 513, 751, 915, 1098, III 
 68, 264, 405, 741, 859-60, 876, 974, 992, 1079, 1383, IV 90, 358, 
 1 161, 1555, 1759. To these are to be added a number of tempo- 
 ral expressions cited under the head of the Genitive Absolute. 
 The use of the participle as a substitute for a temporal clause 
 developed early on account of the element of time in the tense 
 of the participle, and examples are by no means infrequent in the 
 Iliad. The chief difference between the use of Apollonius and 
 that of Homer is in the particles that are employed to emphasize 
 the temporal relation. 
 
 The Causal Participle. 
 A case in which the parallel constructions unmistakably show 
 
 the causal relation is III 620 tov ^civov 8' iSoKtjatv i^eaTd/iecai TOV 
 ae&kov I o0rt /xaX dpfialvovTa depos Kpioio Kop-laaai | ov be Ti Tolo cktjtl fjL€Ta 
 
 nriXiv AlrjTao \ eXdtpiep, S(f>pa fie xrX. Other instances in which the 
 poet seems to have wished his readers to infer a causal relation 
 are: I 314, 840, 1161, 1179, 1252, II 235,419,873, III 596, IV 
 51, 1401, 1565. More doubtful examples are: I 103, 1241, 1286, 
 
 II 919, 1061, III 333. 
 
 Of particular interest are two passages in which are (IV 1439) 
 and Ota (IV 1722) are added to the participle to mark the causal 
 relation in a way that is at variance with Homeric usage. 
 
 At this point may perhaps be mentioned the construction of the 
 participle with particles expressing a comparison, which some- 
 times appear to approach a causal value. In Homer are found 
 mr, S,s Tf, it (I, i>s u re; in Apollonius none of these occur. But 
 there are found instead : as . . . irip 1 764 (formed probably by 
 
 some such proportion as Kalnep: koI . . . wep = So-jrep : w: . . . trep); 
 
 ^uj-e III 461, IV 1737 (^qire Kovprj approved of by Ziegler and read 
 by Lehrs has not sufficient MS authority although in my opinion 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 455 
 
 either reading might be defended); olov tc II 306, IV 997; o'd re 
 I 991, III 618, IV 196, 318, 400. None of these words are 
 combined in Homer with a participle. The supposed approach 
 of such constructions — cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses § 874— 
 towards the causal construction arises from the fact that in some 
 instances either view of the situation would be logically appropriate, 
 but the particle indicates clearly which concept the writer pre- 
 ferred. In a single passage Apollonius couples a participle with 
 an instrumental dative. The example is II 325 (cf. T 336), and 
 may be recorded here. 
 
 The Conditional Participle. 
 
 The clearest instances of this construction in Apollonius are 
 those in which we have two possible contingencies expressed 
 by contrasted participles. The examples are: IV 1104-5 '^"p- 
 
 OfViKriv fiev eovaav i^ airo Trarpl Ko/iiairai | IBipa' XeKrpov 8e (ruv avipi 
 nopaalvoxurav | oil fiiv iov noaios voiT<j)iaaopai, whicll is repeated with 
 
 some variation IV 1116-7; and III 614-5 *"* ^^ H-^" 'o-X">'« 
 
 dvfiov, I fiTj nws f/e nap' alcrav iraaia ixtiKl^aiTo \ narpis aTv^opevt)v oXooi' 
 XpKoVy 7]e XiT^aiv \ ffrnofieprjp dpL^r]\a Kai apfjyaba tpya TTcXoero. Of a dif- 
 ferent type is IV 402 avroi 8e arvyepm Kev oKoipeOa jrdvTts oKedpa \ 
 
 fiL^avTfc 8ut pfeipar. Here it is the optative with kcv that suggests 
 the possibility of the resolution of the participle into a conditional 
 clause. A similar suggestion is felt with greater or less force in 
 I 470, II 147, 805, III 703, IV 389, 501. In IV iioi and 1748 
 it is probably best to make the resolution as Lehrs does, but I see 
 no reason for following him in the resolution of IV 113 — cf. IV 
 182 — nor should I resolve I 765-6 nor IV 428-9, which are the 
 only other examples in which I can see the slightest possibility 
 of suggesting such a construction. 
 
 There remains II 192 oi de tk ?tXi; | ftfi Koi 'KevKavltiv &e (jjopeipevor^ 
 dW ano Ti)\ov \ ecTTi/wr, which if conditional (oi fif K€V erXijs would 
 
 rather have been expected) is the only example of n^ with the 
 participle in Apollonius (for the possibility of another interpreta- 
 tion compare p. 462). In no case is the conditional relation 
 indicated by the addition of particles nor by a parallel clause 
 with «' and the finite verb, and while the construction is much 
 more frequent than in the Iliad, still, from the examples of the 
 negatived construction collected by Gallaway, On the Use of p.r] 
 with the Participle in Classical Greek, Baltimore, i8gy, pp. 49 fT., 
 
4S6 GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 it may easily be inferred that the poet has not allowed himself 
 all the freedom of Attic usage, an inference that would be 
 strengthened if a complete collection of the examples of the 
 participle as the equivalent of a conditional clause were available. 
 
 Participle of Purpose. 
 
 The difference between the Epic and Attic use of the participle 
 is clearly marked in this category. For in the early Epic the use 
 of the future participle, especially in conjunction with it, as a form 
 of oratio obliqua is conspicuous by its absence, and the future 
 participle is confined almost entirely to the use with verbs of 
 motion. It is evident from ApoUonius' work that he was conscious 
 of this difference, and also evident that he limited somewhat too 
 narrowly the Epic usage. For in the Argonautica the future 
 participle is used only with verbs of motion. Parallels for the 
 adjectival use of iaaofievot are wanting, nor are there any for the 
 use of the future participle with so-called ellipsis of the article, 
 
 such as 2 309 Kal T« Kravlovja KOTtKra,^ * 379 eVijSijao/ifVOto-tv iiKTjjV, 
 \ 608 aUi j3uXeoi/j-« eoixms, or Hes. S. 215 anoppi'^oiiTt e'oiKwr. AlsO 
 
 without parallel is the use E 46 = n 343 t6i' ... vv^' mnav cm- 
 
 ^rjaofieiiov, for the form aK^^oufvov in IV 549, <«"' f"*" ^Trecfivov I MevTopts, 
 aypavXoia-iv aXe^on^vov nept ffova-tv, which Lehrs translates by opilu- 
 laturum, is clearly a present in IV i486 aKe^6p.(.voi KaTirti^vcv and 
 in the only passage in which it occurs in Homer, t 57 aXe^oVtvoi 
 /ieVo/xev. This may be taken as an indication that ApoUonius 
 considered the form lm^x\aap.ivov in these passages as aoristic — a 
 view which is supported by the context and against which there 
 is nothing to be urged except the evidently future sense in * 379. 
 For ApoUonius' use of sigmatic aorists with thematic vowel, cf. 
 Rzach, p. 144. 
 The examples of the nominative with verbs of motion are as 
 
 follows: with avTiaa IV 859; (p.€Ta)^alva IV II75, II81 ; etpi W 
 197, 740; {iieT)e\ee'iv II I49, III 482; (d<Ta4i')iKdv<o III 351, IV 541; 
 (K(5^))i> I 12, III 539; pLeraKiado IV 531, k'lov II II73, Keddmivfu II 136; 
 
 vavTiWofiai III 62; o-TcXXo/uai II 1198. But a single example of the 
 
 ' The examples are too numerous to warrant Monro's remark, p. 58 n., 
 that the use is " hardly to be defended ". It may be noted, however, that 
 the examples come only from the latest parts of the Iliad, the Odyssey and 
 Hesiod. 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 457 
 
 accusative occurs III 1172, where the participle is in agreement 
 with the subject of an infinitive, and it would seem not impossible 
 that this restriction was intentional on the part of ApoUonius, 
 and rests on too narrow a conception of the Homeric usage. Of 
 
 particular interest is IV 11 13 o-Iyn 8' khv K^pVKa KoKeaaafiivrj irpoaUmev \ 
 pcriv iTri^poaivjiiTiv iirorpwiovfra fuyrjiiai \ Al<rovi8t]v Koipu, which is in 
 evident imitation of T 120 airij 8' dyye\fov<ra Am Kpovlmva irpoaiivSa, 
 
 the future participle being justified by the motion implied in each 
 case in the context. Different is IV 248 Kal 87 to pfv, Saaa evrjKriv \ 
 
 Kovprj nop(Taviova-a TiTvo-KiTo, (xijt« tk lormp | eiij quae Sacrificium pUClla 
 
 instructura paravit, for which should be read ttopaaivovaa. The 
 reading of G IV 817, 1535, irprjarovra, np^a-ovTos, which is adopted 
 by Merkel and Lehrs, also affords impossible syntax. Lehrs' 
 translation shows in the second example (the first can afford no 
 indication) a present participle. Merkel at IV 817 ascribes this 
 reading to the influence of Herodian; what ApoUonius wrote he 
 considers uncertain, perhaps nprjaa-ovTa the reading of L. In IV 
 1535 either a present or an aorist participle is possible so that the 
 simplest emendation would be wpriaavros, but in IV 817 a present 
 participle is (cf. p. 467) required. May it not be best to cut the 
 knot and read npfjBovra even though the present stem occurs only 
 in the compound ivinpriBov II. 9 589. 
 
 There remains the question as to whether the present participle 
 is ever used by ApoUonius in this construction instead of the 
 future. Of this no example occurs in the Iliad, nor is the sin- 
 gle example in Hesiod, Op. 85, very satisfactory. A number of 
 passages in ApoUonius have been interpreted in this way but 
 unnecessarily, e. g. IV 147 1 t^r) 8i(fjpevos 'Apya>, abierat quaesi- 
 turus Argo (Lehrs); cf. II 697, IV 1 150, and IV 483 16 a^m 
 ■aap6fviKr\ TeKfiap iiertovaiv aeipfv. The fire need not be a signal for 
 them to return (accessuris) but rather a beacon for which to steer 
 as they return. So also IV 455, o 8' is Xoxov jjev 'itjaojv \ hiyfuvos 
 "Ai/^uprov, the lying in wait for Absyrtus is conceived not as the 
 purpose {excepturus Absyrtuvi) but as commencing with the 
 going into ambush. Two more examples remain, I 209 ^/lor 
 
 e^ij TivSa hk deoirponias epeeivmv vavTi.\iris, which should be rendered 
 
 "in quest of oracles " rather than " oraculum consuliurus", and 
 703 opa-o pot, 'i(f)iv6Ti, T0O8' dve'pos dvTwaa-a, " exi . . . rogaiura, in 
 which such an explanation is inadmissible. The form dvrioa is, 
 however, used by Homer not only as a present but also as a future 
 
458 GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 (cf. La Roche, Einleitung § u, Monro § 63, Vogrinz p. 133), so 
 that here and in III 879 I should assign the participle, against 
 Rzach p. 153, to the future and add the example to those cited 
 above. 
 
 Genitive Absolute. 
 
 This is the construction in which Apollonius varies most from 
 the Homeric usage. The reason is that the difference between 
 Homeric and later usage is largely a matter of quantity, and 
 hence could hardly be expected to find reflection in Apollonius. 
 Differences that are more easily observed, such as the exclusion 
 of the future participle from this construction, are maintained and 
 hence there can be no doubt that the solitary example IV 1535 
 is to be emended. The reading of the scholiast <f>vaS>vTos toO avefiov 
 shows that he was dealing with a present participle, though to 
 read npriaavToc would be palaeographically the simplest correction. 
 
 No less than fifty-four examples are found in the Argonautica 
 that must be interpreted as genitives absolute — a number which in 
 proportion to the bulk of the work is about five times as great as 
 the number of occurrences in the Homeric poems. The examples 
 are as follows: Of the present participle, I 314, 452, 521, 588 
 (the scholiast gives a different but impossible interpretation), 651, 
 688, 757, 925, 1015, 1360, II 140, 147, 153, 195, 451, 496, 571, 
 753. 795. 805, 932, 963, III 864, 1385, IV 75, 241, 579, 835, 
 1 157, 1214, 1462, 1535, 1580; of the perfect, II 905; and of the 
 aorist, I 456, 470, 513, 607, 1063, 1152, 1159, II 468, 642, 
 729, III 850, 1358, 1398, IV 163, 501, 668, 926, 1401, 1406, 
 1629. KfKkoiJievos II 642, IV 163, has been classed here although 
 the occurrence of xexXo^iat II 693 and KCKXerai I 716 renders the 
 classification doubtful. 
 
 The next question to arise is as to how those passages are to be 
 interpreted in which there is more or less possibility of finding a 
 word upon which the genitive may depend. In view of the number 
 of certain examples cited above I am of the opinion that the abso- 
 lute construction is to be accepted for Apollonius when the depend- 
 ence is at all strained and that it is by no means certain that even 
 
 such an example as II 1080 011; 8e K\ayyfi fin'ou irAei «| SfidSoto \ av8pS>v 
 
 Ktvviitnay— although Composed in imitation of such passages as K 
 523, X 605, 1 412 and K 556, in which the genitive is undoubtedly 
 dependent — was not felt by the poet to contain a genitive absolute. 
 Instructive in this respect is II 107 toO &' So-o-ov Uvtoc | Sf^tTfpg 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 459 
 
 (TKai^r vitfp 6(l>pvos rjXaire x^'P'- To make the genitive depend on 
 6(j>pios is to my mind out of the question. The notable thing is 
 the ease with which an absolute construction might have been 
 avoided by writing t6v a' luraov Uvra \ xrX. And so, while in Ho- 
 meric poetry in a passage like II 594 eneyvdiiTtTovTo fit kSttoi | ^ut« 
 Kafinv\a ro^a, Pia^ofifvav r)p&wv the genitive would be dependent, 1 
 should consider it in ApoUonius a genitive absolute as Lehrs 
 translates it, and the same applies to I 934, III 782, IV 211 and 
 555. In I 544 the interpretation turns upon the meaning of rtuxea. 
 Lehrs interprets it as armamenta navis, but as it is difficult to un- 
 derstand how the poet could say of this arpajTre 8' vw' ijfXia <^Xoyi 
 
 ciKcXa, we must refer Tfix,(a to the armor which each hero had on 
 the seat by him (cf. 530), and the xijor loitrrft is genitive absolute. 
 The scholiast also refers Tii)(ea to armor. Less certain are III 
 709 and 805, while in I 1304 and II 572 (scholiast 6 toO Kiparos 
 a^po'r) it seems best to accept the dependence of the genitive. 
 In IV 1459 Lehrs rightly recognizes a genitive absolute and 
 
 1 should do the same also in I 260, II 11 14 and IV go6. 
 
 In the last four passages the subject is omitted, but indisputable 
 examples of this will be cited below from ApoUonius. This inter- 
 pretation of IV 1459 is strengthened by the parallel II 451, and that 
 of IV 906, by I 513. These last two passages, however, are of 
 especial interest. Both refer to the minstrel Orpheus, IV 906 
 
 o^p' iifivbis KkoviovTOi iiri^popeavrai aKoval | (cpeyfim, I 5 '3 toI 8' apoTOV 
 
 \fi^avTos en. npoixovTo Kiipriva, and it can hardly be a mere coincidence 
 that the most satisfactory example of the construction in Homer, 
 
 2 606 = 819 poXiT^s i^apxovTos (sc. aoiSoi), also comes from the sphere 
 of music. The similar position in the verse and the fact that 
 X^^avTos and i^apxovros are exact opposites strengthen this belief. 
 Its importance for the Homeric text is that it confirms the state- 
 ment (Athen. V, p. 181°) that the reading before Aristarchus was 
 iiapxovTos whereas our MSS have f^apxavres with Aristarchus. 
 
 There remain a few passages in which there is the possibility of 
 the genitive depending on the verb of the sentence. These cases 
 are difficult to decide in the absence of any monograph to show 
 the use of the cases in ApoUonius and especially the syntactical 
 influence possibly exerted upon him by the tragic poets. Thus 
 
 in II 73 we find ^ 8' . . . aXuo-K« | Upevov <f>opU<T6ca ia-a Toixoto KKiSavot, 
 
 Parallels for aXwafcfw- nv6s can be found in Soph. Ant. 488, El. 627, 
 but the epic construction is the accusative. Similarly in IV 834, 
 
460 GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 Kv/iarof . . . vr\a aaa(T€\ievai. might be Compared with Soph. Ant. 
 wb'Zaatras . . . e'xdpav . . . x^o'"" (cf. Phil. 919), but Homeric Usage 
 requires a preposition. The use of n-eWo/iai with the genitive is 
 found in Eur. I. A. 726, is disputed at Thuc. 7, 73, 2, admitted for 
 Herodotus and said to occur as a variant in K 57. It seems nec- 
 essary to admit this construction in HI 308, though whether it 
 should be ascribed to the influence of Euripides, or taken as a 
 confirmation of the age of the variant at K 57, must remain an 
 open question. I should prefer to interpret HI 1054 as a genitive 
 absolute rather than as an ablatival genitive, though the absence 
 of earlier examples of the verb dvaaraxva must make the interpre- 
 tation doubtful.' 
 
 The addition of these examples raises the number of the occur- 
 rences of the genitive absolute to 71, comprising 47 presents, 2 
 perfects, 22 aorists. The proportion of present to aorist is prac- 
 tically the same as that found in the Homeric poems — a result 
 that is surprising when contrasted with the use of the tenses of the 
 participle after verbs of seeing. 
 
 The 'last step' in the development of the genitive absolute 
 is the omission of the subject. The occurrence of this for Homer 
 has been denied. The examples at best are rare, La Roche 
 citing only 2 606 = 819 and A 458 (cf. also Spieker A. J. P. VI, p. 
 317). The genuineness of the first example is disputed and the 
 last could possibly be removed by reading a-irdaaavTi, the per- 
 missible hiatus being the cause of the corruption. In marked 
 contrast is the use of Apollonius. Cf. I 260, 513, II 153, 451, 
 642, 1114, III 709 (??), 782, 805 (??), IV 211, 579, 906, 1406, 1459. 
 
 Other departures from early Epic usage may be noted in the 
 use of the relative as the subject in II 195, and in the fact that 
 the genitive absolute is somewhat more freely employed in other 
 than temporal relations. For the examples compare the preceding 
 sections. Noteworthy also is the use of /leo-aijyu, n-pdica, m to mark 
 the temporal relation. 
 
 ' Since writing the above I have succeeded in obtaining a copy of the 
 dissertation Dt Apollonii Khodii castium syntaxi comparato usu Homerico, 
 Lipsiae, 1887, by Linsenbarth, which brings evidence o£ the influence of the 
 tragic poets on Apollonius. The author would apparently consider these 
 passages genitives absolute, as on p. 6 only examples of oMiaKeiv with the 
 accusative are cited, and on p. 43 only III 1127 is given as an example 
 of aaomi with the genitive. There is no mention of mi-^o/iai with the 
 genitive nor of dvaaraxvo). 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 46 1 
 
 At this point may be cited the examples in which a participle 
 is employed in a case different from that of the pronoun with 
 which it might agree, as these are in imitation of passages in which 
 some would see the origin of the absolute construction. In three 
 passages, III 371, 1009, IV 170, the ethical dative o2 is followed 
 by a genitive, and in another, II 393, we have a shift from the 
 accusative subject of an infinitive to a dative depending on ;(p«<a 
 
 eVxi, as follows : dXXi ri ^ fit ToKiv x/>c«^ aKvriadai | . . . €^€VfirovTi ; 
 
 where Merkel, editio maior, and Lehrs follow G and the corrected 
 reading of L i^fviiravra, the original reading of L being a compen- 
 dium. Cf p 555, ^ 206, the passages cited there by Ameis- 
 Hentze, and Monro §243 d. 
 
 In I 396 is found an example of the so-called nominative abso- 
 lute (cf. also IV 200). More interesting are the approaches to 
 a dative absolute, as, for example, IV 977 vvkt\ b' loian as compared 
 with vvKThs loia-rit, but here I 1080 and II 942 point rather to 
 a temporal dative. Other examples are II 679, 728, 973, 1003, 
 1231, III 166. For Homeric parallels cf. Monro § 246. Of the 
 accusative absolute there is an example IV 417 « kc'v nas K^pvxat 
 
 antpxofxivovs ireiriOoipi | ol63ev olov ifioitri awapSp^irat iirieaa-iv. As the 
 
 construction is hardly admissible, the passage needs emendation. 
 The reading of G dntpxa/iffri and the scholiast's unfortunately free 
 <l>iKtav trpis airov avvBtiievt] suggest a feminine participle such as 
 nepnofUvrj. But as that would destroy the caesura it is perhaps 
 best to read KfjpvKOi iittpxapevov with but slight deviation from the 
 manuscripts. 
 
 Negative with the Participle, 
 
 Originally the participle, like other adjectives, was negatived 
 by composition with a negative prefix while the particles ov and 
 pj], or rather the predecessors of these particles, were employed 
 only with finite verbs. The retiring of this first method of 
 negation in favor of the second goes, as Delbriick has shown, 
 Vergleichende Syntax II 531, hand in hand with the approach 
 of the participle towards the nature of the finite verb. That this 
 process is but beginning in the early Epic poetry I have endeav- 
 ored to prove, and have found in this fact one of the strongest 
 reasons for believing that the participle was not felt by early 
 Epic poets as an equivalent of a subordinate clause. 
 
 I have also attempted to show that at a still earlier period the 
 
462 GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 particles av and /xij were brought into contact with the participle 
 as the result of a process which we may term with Paul displace- 
 ment of the syntactical distribution, so that as a corollary of this 
 it must be admitted that the main verb of the sentence exerts an 
 influence on the negative of the participle— an explanation which 
 is sufficient (cf. Gildersleeve, A. J. P. XVIII 244) to account for 
 all cases of /i^ with the participle in Epic poetry. 
 
 That this should be faithfully reflected in the work of ApoUo- 
 nius is hardly to be expected. What is merely external— the 
 rarity of examples of /iij with the participle— he has grasped and 
 imitated. For the construction there can be cited at most but two 
 passages in the Argonautica and of these examples one is not 
 
 satisfactory. This is IV IOI9 'lara 8' Upav cl>dos "HeX/oto I . . . uf) 
 fiiv iyaiv idfKovaa aw av&paaw aWobairoiaiv \ Kei6iv atjtiopfiJjBrjv. The 
 
 negative belongs logically to e6eKovaa but formally to a(j>a>piir]dr)v, 
 otherwise we should have had the adhaerescent negative.' 
 
 The other passage is II 192 koI h' iin iivSaKirjv oS/i^i' x«'°''' "" ^^ 
 
 Tis ctXi) 1 pri Ka\ \evKaiiirjv be (popeifjitvos aX\ ajro tijXou | caTTjas. Lehrs 
 
 renders pfj koI . . . aXX' by nedum . . . adeo, giving it the sense of 
 lit) oiras . . . aWa, for which I know no parallel, and making the 
 participle supplementary. One who is willing to introduce into 
 Apollonius a case of p.^ with the participle as the equivalent of a 
 negative protasis of' a conditional sentence — a construction not 
 found in Homer — may interpret ov bi th trkt) as an apodosis with 
 Ktv omitted (for other examples cf Goodwin p. 24, where this 
 passage is not included), although it seems to me that the poet 
 would rather have written in that sense oi he icev trXijr. In either 
 event it is intended to match the one apparently real example of /nij 
 with the participle in Homer, namely 8 684. 
 
 Of the examples with oi a number might be explained away as 
 due to displacement of the syntactical distribution (I 840, 1341, 
 II 873, III 84, 388), others as adhaerescent (I 1217, 1219, IV 491, 
 636, 983, 1564), but the number of examples that remain (I 1191 
 (bis), II 990, 1026, III 839, IV 670) especially with the adversative 
 (III 54, 520, 1221), the temporal (II 116, IV 676,678), and the 
 causal participles (II 235, III 620), are out of all proportion to the 
 
 ' In T 262 loru . . . /i^ /liv ly£) acApij BpiCJiiSi x^'P' ^^iveixa | oiir' eiin^; 
 ■nit6i^aaiv Kexpif^^""? oiire tev oXTmv the participle seems added as an after- 
 thought and the force of the oath has not carried the negative /17 through. 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 463 
 
 Homeric usage and show how the syntax of ApoUonius has been 
 influenced by the post-Homeric development of the participial 
 constructions. 
 
 The Supplementary Participle. 
 Verbs of Perception. 
 
 Subdividing according to the different senses and beginning 
 with the sense of sight, we find in ApoUonius the following 
 instances of the supplementary participle after opaa and its 
 compounds: 
 
 Present: I 241, 323, 552, 633, 814, II 431, 562, 1035, III 77, 
 490, 729, 827, IV 129, 185, 861, 973, 1193, 1245, 1478, 1719. 
 
 Aorist: II 1255, III 702, 1378. 
 
 Perfect: I 1056, II 1148, III 673, IV 1624. 
 
 After voka and Aovoia, which, as in Homer (cf. La Roche at M 
 335), are used without any difference in meaning, are found the 
 following examples of the Present: I 322, 1230, II 1261, IV 
 872, and the following aoristic forms: ^akovaav IV 724, XiTroVres 
 I 1283, -i!\o\>.fvos III 127, 1149, Kiiav IV 752. In meaning, however, 
 Kiiiv is certainly a present. Cf especially Ap. I 391, ^ 574, rr 156 
 and A 284, S 440, 6 286. -n\o\i.tvos is an isolated form, the aoristic 
 force of which (cf.J'i/uKrl (tiniKofikva with vvk.t\ lovarj) may not be fully 
 felt, while the example in I 1 283 is not a case of actual perception. 
 To these examples should most probably be added III 665 : tiJi; be 
 
 Tir a(j)Vtt) I nvpofifpriv fiecrcniyvs iirinpofioKovir ivorj^ev \ bixtoawv, though 
 
 it is also possible to consider the participle as temporal and 
 depending directly upon imirpofioKoviTa. After drjiopai are found the 
 following examples of the present, I 437, 438, 776; after Sokcum 
 is found the present in III 1055. 
 
 So far there is a close parallelism with the early Epic usage. 
 But no examples occur with either a6pfa or Xeuo-tro), and on the 
 other hand we find no Homeric parallel to IV 318 0X6. re 6rjpas \ 6a-- 
 <r6p.ei>oi TTovTov pLfyaKryrios e^aviovras, this verb not being used in 
 Homer of actual perception, nor to the examples after SepKOfiai, IV 
 567, 864, 1047, which tend to show a loss of feeling for the original 
 meaning of the word and the employment of it merely as synony- 
 mous with Spaa. In the case of nanraiva, however, this has not 
 happened and the examples of the participle after the verb, 1 342, 
 n 35, 611, III 924, are not to be classed as supplementary, 
 though the last example approximates to such a usage. Finally 
 
464 GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 I 1360 ot fle pjfloj'or fl(Tave\ov<Tav \ aierriv ck k£Kitoio /idK' iipetaii tcnSeaSai 
 
 I ^patT(raiievoi, Kanijaiv a/i ^cXiu f7reK(\trav may be interpreted as 
 supplementary rather than adjectival. The closest Homeric paral- 
 lels are * 453 (jipaaaaro h' timov dpinpenfa npoCxovTa, which La Roche 
 
 correctly interprets as e^oxoi' in opposition to the npoTpixovra of the 
 Paraphrast and K 339 rhv fie (ppda-aTo wpoatdvra, where La Roche 
 makes the equation (ppiaaro = Mrjaev. There is, however, no 
 reason for giving up the distinction between these verbs. Cf. La 
 Roche at <Se 450. 
 
 In Homer these verbs of seeing are used only of actual percep- 
 tion. This is generally the case in Apollonius also, but we have 
 one instance of voea> denoting intellectual perception, I 1283 ififios 
 Toui y ivitjarav Mpfirjiri \iir6vTes — where the use of the nominative also 
 is a construction that developed in post-Homeric times — and one 
 
 example after tlaopda, 111 77 °f*''o fi' dvTopivrjv'aprjv eSev iiaopoaaa, 
 
 which must be classed as intellectual perception since Hera has 
 expressed her request only in words and evidently without assum- 
 ing the posture of a suppliant. In the use of the tenses there is 
 quite a noticeable departure from the Homeric usage. The exam- 
 ples of actual perception in Apollonius include 34 present, 6 
 aorist and 4 perfect participles. Two out of the 6 examples of 
 the aorist are the isolated -TrXopevos forms but even including these 
 the present participle furnishes in round numbers four-fifths of the 
 instances of this construction as against three-fourths in Homer, 
 while the aorist participle instead of being nearly twice as frequent 
 as the perfect is only one and a half times as frequent. That is, 
 Apollonius has made no attempt to imitate the chief Homeric 
 peculiarity in this construction — the frequent use of the aorist 
 participle. In this respect his poem stands about on the level 
 of Attic poetry, which also employs the aorist participle to a 
 limited extent. Of the four examples of the aorist apart from the 
 two of -7rXo'/i€>'oj, two are forced on the poet — virepnTdpevov, II 1255, 
 by the metrical impossibility of vjrepireToitevov, Siappatadevras, III 702, 
 by the lack of a corresponding perfect, for Siappmopenovs would 
 express an entirely different idea — but the third, di^avra III 1378, 
 is deliberately chosen as diWon-a would have fitted both metre 
 and sense. The passive of this construction is found in the use 
 of^aivopai with the participle: II 6go, 1044, III 819, 956, IV 1601. 
 Under the verbs of finding we have the following examples : 
 after evpiaKa II 781, IV 661, 850, 1122; after zirp^ 1 908, III 249 (as 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 46S 
 
 emended), 1275, 1276, IV 537; after 8i}<o IV 1458. To these may 
 be added IV 1484, with which p 134 and w 254 are to be com- 
 pared. The tense employed is always the present except for one 
 occurrence of the perfect, III 1275. The corresponding passive 
 
 construction, which occurs I 491 ^pdfeo 8', oifnas x<'P<"s £>ar o-o'or 
 f^oKemo, | XP"^ dfanl^atv ixeTa/imviov rj ( = £?) K€V AXcftfs, is without 
 
 parallel in Homer. 
 
 As in Homer the verbs of hearing are used both of actual and 
 intellectual perception. The examples of actual perception are 
 all in the genitive, viz., after awva I 278 (aorist), 1260 (present) 
 and after cttixXvu I 1240 (present); the examples of intellectual 
 
 perception are III 352 aiav efie0ev fiiya SviTfieveovTas \ Saupofiarar and 
 914 "'■' 'l^l T>jvSe Ka(riyvriTB>v icraKovaev \ r/epijjv 'Ekoti;? ifp6p fitra vt]iv 
 
 lovaav, and being both in the accusative show that in this con- 
 struction Apollonius has followed the Attic distinction of cases (cf, 
 Goodwin, Moods and Tenses § 886), which is at variance with 
 the Homeric usage. 
 
 Verbs of hearing or seeing may become verbs of knowing or 
 learning by hearsay or by sight and still figuratively retain the 
 construction of actual perception. The examples of this after 
 aKoia, aia, flaopda and voea have already been noted. But this 
 opens the way for the analogical extension of this construction to 
 a variety of verbs denoting "to perceive," "to know," "to learn," 
 "to think." Thus we find the participle after tVaia I 1022, II 
 195, after o?8a I 135, II 66, III 175, IV 1317, after ytyv&aKa III 
 972, after Sa^irofiai IV 235 (following Merkel's punctuation) and 
 TrpoSarjvai I 106, after douo-crot III 954, and after iiavBdva IV 1204. 
 
 Of these verbs Homer employs in this construction only aKoia, 
 oiSa and yiyvaa-Ka, and in addition to these ntiSoiiai with which no 
 participle is found in Apollonius. The construction is not only 
 more frequent in Apollonius in proportion to the bulk of his 
 work — 15 examples occurring in the Argonautica to 12 in the 
 Iliad and 21 in the Odyssey — but the use of the nominative (II 
 66, III 175, IV 235, 1204) is a marked variation from Homeric 
 usage. 
 
 Also without parallel in Homer is the further extension of 
 this use of the participle to verbs of "showing" IV 1415, and 
 
 " reminding" III 11 15. In I 1086 inl 6ta-iriCovtra \ X^|ii< opivopivav 
 
 aviiiav the construction is avoided in a way that may be compared 
 
 with Homer's oaaofuvov . . . avep.av . . . Ki\ev6a. 
 30 
 
466 GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 AANeANSl TYrXANQ *eANQ. 
 
 Noteworthy is the fact that the ordinary prose construction with 
 xvyxava — of which but a single example | 334=7 291 is found in 
 Homer — does not occur in Apollonius. Nor does he employ -rvx^fi 
 which is not found in Homer, except in the sense of "hitting" — a 
 sense in which Apollonius would have had little occasion to use it. 
 
 With \avdava and <^6aivtt> the typical construction is identity of 
 tense and from this type there is no real variation in Homer. This 
 is also true of the examples with <^6ava in Apollonius I 1209, II 
 587, IV 307, and of the following examples with Xavdava, II 539, 
 755, III 737, 779, IV 49. But in addition to these we have III 
 
 212 oi^pa \a6oiiv I KdX;^mi> /ivpiov tdvoc ec Ai^rao Kidpres, whlch showS 
 
 a rather mechanical treatment of kiuk according to its form rather 
 than its meaning (contrast tt 156 oiS' Sp' 'ABrjvrjv | \fi6fv dn6 aradpoio 
 iciui< kt\.). Also in II 226 we find the aorist combined with the 
 
 perfect participle — aWa Kt pua | alris iphv XeXd^oi^i vo'oi' doprroio 
 
 jue/uijXur I 5 Kcivas — a combination that is unavoidable, as either the 
 
 perfect of Xavdava or the aorist of /leXu would be un-Homeric. 
 
 The reverse construction occurs — always with coincidence of 
 
 tense — in III 280 Xadav, II43 vno(t>ddiievov, IV 911 npo<j>6dptvos. 
 
 The construction o((p6dva with the infinitive is found I 1189, IV 
 1766, and although the occurrence of the construction in Classic 
 Greek is considered more than doubtful by Goodwin, Moods and 
 Tenses § 903, 8, still Apollonius has a single Homeric parallel 
 (n 861). 
 
 Verbs of Beginning, Continuing, Ending and Enduring. 
 
 Of the participle with these verbs Apollonius contains the fol- 
 lowing examples: e^dpxopai I 362, nipva, III 7, dvia I 6oO, fprjTia II 
 
 25 1) IV 1052, KaTeprjTva I 493, KaTfpvKa IV 1006 (possibly adversa- 
 tive), ^X'^ I 391, II 463 and 577, laxdva IV 108, Xijyeo II 84, piOiripi 
 
 IV 797, Xox^da IV 817 (but cf. p. 457), (IV 1416 is adjectival rather 
 than supplementary), rXdu II 192-3 (but cf. pp. 455, 462), Kdpvo IV 
 1326=11352. Periphrasis for avanvea (cf. A 801) is found II 476 
 
 ov 8e T«t ^£1/ dvdnvev(ns pLoytovTi, Similar is IV II 7 061 ■npiiTov 
 KfKfitjOTa yovvar eKapyjrev | varoiinv (f>op(av ktX. (cf. K 20I and Ameis- 
 
 Hentze at 1/ 187, Anhang). Here may be added: I 973 oi dt vv 
 
 n-o) TTaiSfvatv dyaKKoiievos ' pfpdprjTO (cf. I 646) and I I171 ;(«rp«s yap 
 'The scholiast reads ay6X?.eadai. 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 4^7 
 
 dq6eaov Tipeiitovirai. Worthy of notice also are I 1353, III 274, IV 
 192, in which we seem to have a contamination of this construc- 
 tion and a case construction (of. 12 475-6). 
 
 The list of verbs used varies considerably from the Homeric 
 usage, most noticeably in the avoidance of waia for which are 
 substituted ((eaT)ep>;ruo), KaTfpvKa, Xuc^do). The reason for this is 
 undoubtedly the fact that n-aia was also used in prose and that 
 Apollonius was seeking for what he considered more elevated 
 expressions. Notice, as a morphological parallel, the way in which 
 the late Epic poets avoid n-prfr except when driven to it by the 
 exigencies of the metre (cf. La Roche, Wiener Studien XXII, p. 
 49). Except for two present-perfects XeXoxi/t*'"" HI 7 ^^^ iirrrj&s 
 
 II 193 and one instance of kkoi' I 391, the participles, as was to be 
 expected, are all present participles. Hence II 230 ol «' tk oiSc 
 fiivvi/da ^poT&ii aviTxoiTo nc\d<T(Tas must be interpreted as circum- 
 stantial, " No mortal could approach and endure it even for a 
 little while." 
 
 Verbs of Emotion. 
 
 The distinction between the circumstantial and supplementary 
 participle is extremely slight in verbs of this class. When either 
 the participle or the principal verb in a sentence denotes a state 
 of the feelings an extra-linguistic inference of a causal connection 
 is in many cases rendered particularly easy, and even the cases 
 of the closest fusion of verb and participle amount to hardly more 
 than this (cf. Goodwin, Moods and Tenses, § 882). Still the fol- 
 lowing examples may be cited here, and classified according to 
 the case of the participle : 
 
 The nominative occurs with 6a\i.^ia I 322, 550, II 923, III 923, 
 
 IV 184, II90, 1361, trai^ov II 1040, afo/iot III 77, yj)6iei I 436, laivofiai 
 
 III IOI9, f'yytXdo) III 64, inexripa'To IV 55, alSeoimi IV IO47, avta^etrKov 
 
 III 1136, arvyea II II99, and 6\o<l)ipofiat IV 1737 if Lehrs' reading 
 llvTt Koipr, be retained. To these should be added II 583 ot 8' 
 
 eiTibovTfs I fjpvaav \o^oicn xapijaviv, and IV 170 iv Se ol ^rop \ xai'pei 
 
 ScpKo/icVijr KoXiv ireXas where the participle, although in the genitive, 
 qualifies the logical subject of the sentence (cf. Ill 1009); 
 
 With the genitive we find only adeplCo I 123, III 80, and the 
 curious passage IV 690 aptjxaveova-a Kiovrav " at a loss for their 
 coming," i. e., " wondering why they had come ". In II 642 & Si 
 (jtpemf Mov Idveri \ KeKKoplvav the participle is most probably a gen- 
 itive absolute. 
 
468 GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 With the dative are found laivofiai II 163, ayaiofiai III 1015, 
 
 p^oXdo/xui III 124. 
 
 With the accusative is used cXeaipa IV 736, 1306, 1421, ofiupo^ai 
 I 1066. 
 
 Besides these are found a number of phrases with aipia, €x<», 
 Xa/j/Sai/a that serve as periphrases for verbs of emotion. An ex- 
 ample with the genitive of the participle — unless it be considered 
 
 a genitive absolute — is IV 555 airov irov fieyaXaarl dtSouTToror 
 
 'AyjfipToio I zljva Biav fiaaiKija ^0X01 Xaj3ev. The dative occurs in II 775 
 &XOS S' ^Ev 'UpoK^Tji I Xtmo/ifva (changed, however, to the genitive 
 by van Herwerden; cf. Rzach, Bursians Jahresbericht 38, p. 16), 
 but more frequently the accusative: IV 1243 axor 6' eXev daopoavrat ; 
 so I 1054, II 19, 410, 577, 683, III 726, IV 582, 958. 
 
 Comparing these examples with the early Epic usage, the most 
 noticeable difference is the absence of x<"V"" (except in IV 170 
 which is raised far above the prose level by the periphrasis) and 
 Ttpnopm, which is on a line with Apollonius' avoidance of Traia with 
 the participle. In not using rjSoiiai the poet comes closer to 
 the Homeric usage which affords but a single example of this 
 construction. dSepiCa is also not employed by Homer with the 
 participle — nor is it construed with the genitive — but Apollonius 
 has given to it the construction of its synonyms. On the other 
 hand is to be noted the construction of the participle with alSe'opai, 
 the earliest example of which is Kallinos i, 3. 
 
 The Adjectival Participle. 
 
 The clearest sign of the degradation of the participle to an ad- 
 jective is the formation from it of comparatives or adverbs. Of 
 this we have in Apollonius only one example iaavpivas, which 
 occurs I 789, 1329, II 540, 896, 1174, 1248, III 840, IV 881, 1407, 
 1531. 1593- Next may be mentioned some words of a quasi- 
 participial nature— (cp«/<ai/ IV 1007, 1067 {^ossWAy =zfreydns; cf. 
 Brugmann, Grundr. II 404), Kptiovaa IV 572, fit&iovaa IV 915 (note 
 that it is construed like a noun with the genitive), ^a6vppuovra 
 
 II 661 (cf. 797), (ipii pfotrra II I264, "fXaSfti/a peovras III 532, irap^a- 
 voaarav III 1279 (cf. I 788), ivKTi/ifVijc I I355, evcjipopeovaa III 997, 
 
 acKoiiTi II 769 (cf. IV 1504) — which are used as adjectives. 
 
 The remaining instances of the attributive participle may be 
 • classified into those in which the simple participle is used to qual- 
 ify the noun, and those in which it is employed to form a complex 
 
THE PARTICIPLE IN APOLLONIUS RHODIUS. 469 
 
 that is practically the equivalent of a compound adjective. Of 
 the first class we find: Present, aXdotitvot'^ I 518, 1134, II 158, 
 
 III 848, IV 598, 923, 1416, 1719, fVai-dioffli/Tar III 519, (48td(»m II 
 371, Kma^\a>aK0VTi IV 227, KiKalav I 50I, IV 133, Koipaviovros IV 545, 
 KV\i.aivovri IV 609, Xa/xjreTiJai/ra III 1361, \aiiirofiei>ji<riv III I355, 
 lieXaivoixevtjv III 749, iivSoaaa IV I529, vevovrac II 1067, vrjiriaxovTos 
 
 IV 866, opivoiiivav I 1086, ir\ab6toirav II 664, n\ri6ovTot IV 1768, wpovxaiv 
 I 925. IV 1581, 1624, irvdofihouTiv IV 1403, tijko/mVc}) IV 1678, 
 Ti)\e5doi/ra IV I423, TV<l>6iitvot IV I39, 621, ^Xtytfloira III 14I, 
 ;(Knaoi<raf II 43. 
 
 Perfect: api/po^eViji' III 1335, (Jp^pAt I 1163, 11/ 1^2^, fit fiapri6Ta IV 
 1524. (e/()7fyn<»t I 208, 233, 719, 975, III 244, 364, 1074, e'aSdra II 
 35, ioiKora I II41, III 594, KCK/iijmr III I340, IV I16, MKon/oTt IV 
 1086, fxfiiopixtvov III 1 129, ireirpapfvi] II 817, TtrXrjoTts II 544, TtTp^ioTi 
 
 IV 156, TfTpiJX<Bt I I 167, III 1392, TtTpU/ieKO I 1174. 
 
 Aorist: SioKpivdhrts I 856, dai/di/ror / /J50, kapovrav II 1 276, 
 KaTa(f>6iiieDoio III I272, ouXofievor I 802, II 153, I187, III 436, 677, 
 
 IV 446, 1009, 1250, 1483. 
 
 Examples of the second class are: Present, I 34, 37, 49, 411, 
 546. 935. 1076, 1 191 (bis), II 739, 744, 1072, III 67, 410, 496, 
 839. 927. IV 221, 323, 788, 976. Perfect, I 52, 76, 147, 200, 508, 
 576. 595. 787. 938. II 26, 278, 552, 818, 1226, III 832, 1290, 1294, 
 IV 670, 675, 1463, 1559, 1583. 
 
 Of the participle employed as a substantive we have the follow- 
 ing examples with the article: III 174 6 Si o-iya v6ov ^ouX^y t antpvKcov, 
 
 III 406 roi. 'EXXdSi KoipaviovTa. In II I56, III 204, 421, avfjp (cf. 
 
 Gildersleeve, Syntax §31) takes the place of the article. Examples 
 without the article are more frequent: Trtptpaierdoirrfs I 229, 941, II 
 
 91 Ii aveyp6p.tPoi II 673. VTtp^ia fitixavoavrec III 583. "P/^fo IV 237. 
 887, napthpiiav II I04I. 8idv8i;^a vauraovTas III 990, irapiovras II 1026, 
 Kaai aytw xpioio ^c/xadror II I20I, Trvypa\iovTa II 785. f'ao'"''*"' (neuter) 
 
 IV 1507. viroTpeaaai/Tos IV 1505. davovTot IV 477. olxpiiivoKTi II 842. 
 (j)6infV0i<ri II 891, lovaiv III 9^7< i^fvOopivois IV 263, inivKraop.ivoKTtv 
 IV 281, n\a>ov<riv (?) IV 525. avTopivoKTiv (?) IV 1553. SaiophoK 
 (neuter) II 703. narrjc^tdiaxri I 461, poykovri I 739. fifve-novTi I ^(>^, 
 inataaovTi (neuter) II 170, nepiyvap\jfavTi II 364. 
 
 • When several examples in different cases occur the participle is cited 
 only in the nominative singular masculine, Italicissed examples contain 
 a parallel adjective. 
 
47° GEORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
 Of the participle used as a predicate with various forms of d\t.'i 
 the following examples occur: of the aorist only apfimov I 1290, 
 
 of the perfect eKyiyaares I 95^) f^P' • • • ea-K\t)S>Tes II 53, sXriXafitvov 
 II 231, /3€j3oX7)/ifi'ot II 4^'> 'npoTTifppa&ixepov III I3I4t TeriKeapevos HI 
 
 1406, MaTjfievoi IV 1276. In a number of other cases the copula 
 is omitted and the participle itself takes the place of the finite 
 
 verb: /Se/SoXij^uei)?) I 262, eoiKas I 7^4) KvXivSoiievov IV I52, ap^ecoi IV 
 1459- 
 
 The examples show no noteworthy departure from the Homeric 
 syntax. The most interesting fact is the disappearance of many 
 of the most familiar epitheta ornantia, but that is a matter that 
 concerns ApoUonius' vocabulary rather than his syntax. 
 
 Catholic Universitv of America. GeORGE MELVILLE BOLLING. 
 
Mfi FOR oi BEFORE LUCIAN. 
 
 The Greek negatives are ever a fair subject for discussion, and 
 the pages following will take up once more the 'AXojSavSmitor 
 iToXoiKiTiios as illustrated by the usage of ten authors from Polybius 
 to Lucian. The fxfi's that have trenched on the ground of oi in 
 these ten have for most of them been collected in various places, 
 whereby the labor of him who would trace the growth of this en- 
 croachment is facilitated. All these collections could not be 
 obtained, so that I have in the main made my own collection, 
 which has been checked wherever possible. The limited space 
 precludes much discussion, but this is not necessary, inasmuch 
 as the encroachments of /xi; on ov in Later Greek have been 
 treated by Professor Gildersleeve in the first volume of the Amer- 
 ican Journal of Philology (pp. 45-57). No one has as yet set 
 forth in order the development of the encroachments of /tri on 06 
 during the centuries preceding the full growth reached in Lucian 
 and the other Atticists. 
 
 Stephanus Byzantius (s. v. 'AXd/3ai/8o) says, 'AXa/3ai<8(aKac o-oXoi- 
 Kiafids wy itXd^ecoy Trjv '086(r<reiav i^tjyovfifvot, orav rj fifl anayopevirts niiTi 
 Trjc ov K€tTai, Mf tA /ii) 81' fVv" loTijra JloatiSdiav tvotrtx^av. And Schmid, 
 
 Atticismus ii 60 Anm. 78, supposes that its prevalence was due to the 
 Alabandian rhetoricians Hierocles and Menecles, whose influence 
 was exerted in the first half of the century preceding the Christian 
 era. Whether the credit for the name Alabandian as applied to 
 this solecism is due to these two citizens of Alabanda, or not. 
 Professor Gildersleeve has shown in the article already cited that 
 there was always a common border-land between ov and iirj, and 
 that the latter trespasses over this border-land by the extension 
 of usages at first legitimate. Brugmann, Griech. Gram.' p. 499, 
 adopts Professor Gildersleeve's view. To refer the encroachments 
 of iiij on ov to the desire to avoid hiatus shows little appreciation 
 of the problem, and does not account for the fii/'s that are not used 
 to avoid the yawn, nor for the authors who had no regard for 
 proprieties. 
 
472 EDWIN L. GREEN. 
 
 The encroachments in each author will be catalogued under his 
 name so as to indicate as much as possible the historical growth. 
 To begin with Polybius. 
 
 POLYBIUS. 
 
 For Polybius the figures of Birke are used, taken from his 
 dissertation De particularum ftrj et ov usu Polybiano Dionysiaco 
 Diodoreo Straboniano, Lipsiae, 1897. Birke's interpretation of 
 an encroachment is faulty, as he often disregards the context. 
 
 r. /Hi/ can be legitimately employed after a verb of saying, the 
 utterance striving to make good the statement. And the only 
 two instances of ^1/ thus used in Polybius would be explained, were 
 his Greek classic. The two are after ^ij/ii, ii 49, 7 ; xiv 9, 9. 
 Xe'yo) is followed by a negative only in the on av construction. 
 The verba cogitandi, vo/itCa (xi 3, 6) and oio^at (i 37, 7), with fit} 
 are to be explained, the former by a preceding aa-re, the latter as 
 depending on Self. Soksi c/ioiyc, ix 36, 2 = vofiiCa, A. J. P. i 49. 
 
 2. Two examples of the simple relative with /ii/ are cited 
 by Birke, x 32, 9 and xviii 31, 7, the former being explained by 
 a preceding 8(1. /xi/ after Saoc (i 51, 12; x 35, 3; xvi 12, 6; 34, 11) 
 is not to be counted as an extension in Polybius. In general, /ui/ 
 is more and more used after Saos, oi avoided. 
 
 3. The most certain intrusion of /«/ into the sphere of oi is with 
 the participle, most widely with the causal participle, which is an 
 extension of the conditional. Four such participles are cited : iv 
 24, 6 (o. o.); xii 16, 9; xviii 7, 5; 30, lo. But purely causal are 
 those with StC. V 48, 10 (ore fiijSfcor KuXijoiTor) ; 67, 11; viii 19, 
 9. Once a concessive-adversative participle takes /i^, iii 26, 4. In 
 xviii 31, 5 we have an adjective followed by a participle with /ifj, 
 
 ^iKSiVf rrpos de tovtois firjdei/ t^otfToiv. 
 
 Philodemus. 
 
 Philodemus, vihose floruit is set at about a century after that of 
 Polybius, and after the supposed influence exerted by the Alaban- 
 dian rhetoricians, shows the Alabandian solecism well developed. 
 I. Among the verba dicendi with /ii/, ^r\tj.i, as might be ex- 
 pected, leads the way : tt. p.)rop.*t^f (cited by page of the Teubner 
 text) i 91 ; 153; 188. Others are 4,aaKa^, n. pr,T. i 223; Xe'yu, ii 226, 
 ^o; oKeiSifM, supplem. ii 5; dn-oSeixi/u^ai, ibid, ii 2,32. General 
 oratio obliqua {oratio obi. without any special introductory word) 
 
M.J FOR 06 BEFORE LVCIAN. 473 
 
 with fij] is found in w. ixovaiKijs p. 17. The verda cogiiandi are 
 represented by yo/xifo>, tt. pijr. i 22, 147; doxm (= videor), ibid. jk^/. 
 ii 18, 54. 
 
 2. Causal oTt /i^ is not employed, but iirtibt) /i^ is found once, 
 without oratio obliqua, jr. piyr. ii 264. 
 
 3. The following three simple relatives with /iij are extensions 
 of juij' into the domain of oh : it. pr\r. i 79 (S /i^ n-ou trvit^efiriKtv) ; 
 326 fr. 7 ; supp. ii 48. 
 
 4. The oratio obliqua participle with y.(\ is found after t^aivo^ai, n. 
 fiova-. 6, ovS' i(j>awoiiTo iifj oSaai. Examples of causal participles 
 with n^ are, tt. pijr. i 302 ; supp. ii 31 : of temporal, /iij Svprfdfvn, 
 ibid, i 342. (be fi^ with a participle deserves notice, ibid, ii 105 
 
 fr. 12, i>s lifi Kar' apx\_ac] tiBeas cvSoKt/iovvrar. 
 
 DiODORUS SiCULUS. 
 
 1. The few years from Philodemus to Diodorus find in the latter 
 a large increase in the number of /ii/'s with an oraUo obliqua infini- 
 tive. The verba dicendi are the following: <^r\ni, heading the list, 
 i 24, 2 ; 43, 4 ; 84, I ; 89, 2 ; ii 30, 1 (/117 interchanged with ou) : 
 
 Xe'yw, i 94,4; ii 16, 3; aito^alvonai, iii 18, 5; xii I4, 2: throv, Xvii 
 
 114, 2: (OTopS, ii 38, 6: iivBoXoya, iv 64, 3. Of general oratio 
 obliqua there are 49 examples in the first five books, iv 9, 3 (jif) 
 and ov interchange); 45, 3; xiii 94, 3, etc. The verba cogitandi^Tt 
 
 vofiiCa, xi 8, 4 ; V 24, I ; xiii 32, 2: fiynvnai, i 78, 2 : iwoXan^dpa, ii 26, 
 
 9; xvi 45, 4: SiaXa/i/Scii/o), ii 50, 6: SokS, XV 34, 2; xi 82, 3: f'Wfm, 
 XV 51, 4: Sia\oyi(oiiat, XX 12, 5. n-w^aco^at, a verbum sentiendi, 
 not seldom takes /i^, xii 33, 4; 49, 2; xix 43, 2, etc. on /17 does 
 not occur. 
 
 2. The simple relative with fifi is found only in oratio obliqua 
 after 0i)^ii, or Xe'yo> : i 24, 5 ; 45, 3. 
 
 3. Oratio obliqua participles with fit) are used after 6pS>, xi 17, i ; 
 XV 93, 2 ; xviii 59, 4: dtapS), xiii 78, 3; xix 64, 5: yiyvaaKa, xviii 
 64, 3 : olha, xix 9, 2 : 0aiVo/iai, i 39, 8. Examples of the large 
 number of causal participles with ,11) are : i 6, 3 ; 8,5; 23, 4 ; 29, 
 6; 30, 8. Concessive-adversative are ii 16, 4; 18, i; v 69, 5 ; 
 XV 81, 4. Temporal are ii 10, 6; v 14, i ; xi 64, 4 ; 84, 3. • 
 
 at 11^ c. part, is found once (v 69, 3), but in connection with 
 an infinitive after aro>ro», so that it does not count. 
 
474 EDWIN L. GREEN. 
 
 DiONYSius Halicarnaseus. 
 
 Dionysius contemporary with Diodorus does not in point of 
 number approach the latter, which is perhaps due to his stricter 
 Atticism. But on ^^ (in o. o.) and eVtiSi? /ji} occur in the rhetorical 
 works, which are cited for convenience' sake by Rhet. from the 
 old Tauchnitz edition. 
 
 1. The following verba dicendi take ^4 with the oratio obliqua 
 infinitive; ^ij^ii, Antiq. ii 60, 4; 69, 3; Rhet. v [149J, 291: Xeyw, 
 Ant. iii 29, i : anoKplvoiiat, Ant. iii 23, i : airocfjalvoiiai, Rhet. vi 194. 
 General oratio obliqua with /uij occurs in Ant. v 71, 3; vii 17, i; ix 
 28, 4. The verba cogiiandi are ijyou/xai. Ant. ix 54, 3: oio/iai, 
 Ant. ii 43, 4 ; vi 35, 2 : fioicS, Ant. viii 67, i : fidfav napix<'> -^nt. 
 
 ix 23, i: ei/tdfo), ^W/. i, 10, 2: eoiKa, Ant. ii 56, 6: Xoy/fo/iai, 
 
 .<4m/. V 70, 3. Dionysius has one verbum sentiendi, ■nvvdavo^iai. 
 Ant. V 52, 2. 
 
 2. Sri /uij in oratio obliqua is found once in the rhetorical works 
 
 after <j>iKoao<f>(t: on iir)bev etrri, (fiiKoaocjiet, V [l54J- 
 
 3. The rhetorical works also contain two causal sentences intro- 
 duced by eiTfl fiij and cVetdj; fiTi'. lafitv • • • ovK cVcifi^ firj Trpoa/JKii . . • 
 aXX cVci lirj irdvTav Kaipdt, V 225. 
 
 4. Relative sentences with /ii/ are not restricted to oratio obliqua, 
 as in Diodorus: Ant. ii 19, 5; 26, 6; v 24, 2 ; ^Atf/. v 61; [212]. 
 One local sentence occurs in the Antiquities, i 40, 6, ivBa /jij 
 ruyxa"") ^"d One temporal sentence in the De Lys. lud. v 252, 
 
 ore lit) naiTiv i^ijv, 
 
 5. Oratio obliqua participles with fuj are found after 6pS>, Ant. vi 
 40, 3 : o'Sa, vii 53, 3 : thpia-Ka, Rhet. vi 226. Causal participles 
 with jiij Ave: Ant. i 52, 4; ii 59, 4; J?Aif/. v 88, [132]; temporal are: 
 Ant. ii 42, 2; iii 67, 5; adversative-concessive are: Aiit. ii 71, i ; 
 xi 52; Rhet. vi 176. ola hfj p/ is found with participles: Ant. 
 v 28, 2; 67, 5; and iy /ii/ similarly: yiw/. iii 3, 4; ix 22, 6; ^^f/. 
 V342. 
 
 Strabo. 
 
 I. Oratio obliqua infinitive with /x^: after verba dicendi ^ij/xc, 
 i 29 B; 30 D; ii 77 A (often): X.y«, vii 301 D: t'Troi-, i 48 A: 
 fKtyxa, xiv 677 A: vTriaxvovjiai, V 222 D: general oral. obi. i 23 C ; 
 31 C; ii 76 B, and often. These are the verba cogitandi: voniCa,, 
 1 22 B ; 38 D : inoXafi^ava, i 29 D : fiVafo), i 23 B ; vi 274 C : SokS, xi 
 491 D — rare in comparison with the preceding class. 
 
Mij FOR ov BEFORE LUCIAN. 47 S 
 
 2. Oratto obliqua as (if, (c. opt.) is found twice, xv 715 A (al- 
 ready orat. ob.), vi 265 B (after \6yci). 
 
 3- M^ occurs twice in causal sentences: after ind, ix 401 A {orat. 
 ob., if not corrupt); after fV«8i}, vi 271 C. 
 
 4. Relative sentences with ^.i} that show an intrusion of this 
 negative into the realm of oi are few : i 13 C; vi 286 C; xvii 730 B. 
 Local sentences with nf, are two in number, vi 285 B; ii 73 D 
 
 (ojrov firf), 
 
 5. Participles with ;jij in oratto obliqua are used after 6pa, xvi 
 785 B : ol&a, i 28 D : KaravoS,, xvi 741 A. Of the others with iif, 
 the most numerous are the causal: i 38 C; 44 D; iii 144 D, 170 
 A, etc. The temporal are i 45 C; 56 B; vi 274 B, etc. Con- 
 cessive-adversative are ii 104 C; 121 A; xi 491 D, etc. is ^lr, 
 c. part, is found at i 8 C; 28 C; 43 A. 
 
 New Testament. 
 
 The New Testament which is placed here after Strabo presents 
 fewer instances of iii) wrongly used than would be expected in 
 the march of the development of ^i^'s intrusion on oi, except that 
 /117 holds almost undisputed sway with the participle. 
 
 1. Oratto obliqua infinitive with /if Striking is the entire 
 absence oi^rnu ntf. Xeya is found three times. Matt, xxii 23; Mark 
 xii 18; Acts xxiii 8. Besides these we find also avrt^eya, Luke xx 
 27; anoKpivofiai, Luke XX 7; airapvftaSm, Luke xxii 34. The verba 
 cogiiandi with /i^ are Xoyi'fo/iae, ii Cor. xi 5; KaTaXanPava, Acts 
 XXV 25. 
 
 2. One on /irj causal is found in John iii 18, ^817 xeVpirai, on /ii? n-en-i- 
 (TTevKev. fVfl /!)/ TTore in Heb. ix 18 is explained as interrogative, 
 Blass, Gram. d. neutest Griech. 75, 3. 
 
 3. There are four simple relatives with /i^ : Titus in; ii Pet. i 
 9; i John iv 3; Col. ii 18 (which does not really count, being after 
 an imperative). 
 
 4. Oratio obliqua participles with /ji/ are found only after StapZ, 
 Acts xxviii 6, and fvpiaxa, ibid, xxiii 29. Numerous above all are 
 causal participles with fitj: Matt, xviii 25; xxii 25; Mark ii 4, etc. 
 Examples of concessive-adversative participles with /xfi are John 
 vii 15; Acts xiii 28; i Cor. ix 20. The following pij's are with 
 temporal participles, Luke ii 45; John viii 10; Acts xii 19. Less 
 defined are not a few : Luke vii 30 ; Acts v 7 ; Phil, i 28 ; i Pet. 
 
476 EDWIN L. GREEN. 
 
 iii 6. iir \i4 c. part, is represented by two examples: i Cor. iv i8; 
 ii Cor. X 14. Three times we have an adjective and \>.i] -f- par- 
 ticiple : fiiKaior Uv Koi fiij BiKav, Matt, i 19 ; Heb. vii 3 ; Jude 19. 
 
 Plutarch. 
 
 In Plutarch's Lives there is a great increase of ^^ for oh. 
 
 1. Oratio obliqua infinitives with f«/: diit&r verba dtcendi, ^i;/ii, 
 Thes. 13; Rom. 29; Num. 9: X«ya>, Thes. 31; Rom. 9; Pop. 6: 
 
 anoKplvojiai, Cam. I3; Tim. 6; Agis lo: itirov. Ale. 7: alnloiiat, 
 Thes. 29; Brut. 40: avTanou, Cam. 29: lo-ropw, Caes. 63: Kara- 
 fif/Kponai, Pomp. 76 : aird^ij/i(, Alc. 23 ". ypa<fia. Ant. 22 : atrnfjiavS), 
 
 Arat. 8: dKoito, Galb. 13. General orai. obi. with /i^ is common: 
 Thes. 23; Rom. 28; Aem. P. 19; Flam. 21. nwBdvofiai fiij is also 
 found, Alc. 7; Cat. Min. 72. Plutarch yields the following verba 
 sentiendi: vofiiCai, Alc. 37: ijyo?/iai, Cras. 2: Ajrifu, Luc. 9; Eum. 
 15: So)c£, Alc. 18; Cor. 33: oio/iuj, Rom. 27: KaWairl^eirQai, Marius 
 
 30: eiKafo), Brut. 51 : ?OKca, ThcS. 14: rcK/tai'po/iai, Phoc. 4: Xoyifo/iui, 
 
 Cleom. 25. 
 
 2. oTi /III/ after verbs of emotion, corresponding to quod c. conj. 
 in Latin: Bviiovfiai, Dion 9: ayavaKra, Pop. 2: xo^ff'"'''"! Otho 7. 
 
 ort fir; after Xeym in Pomp. 36, OTI /i^ j3aXX«t, is due to SavimoTon. 
 
 3. Two causal on ju^'s were found, Demet. 52; Galba 17, and 
 the same number of fVcl /tij's, Thes. 28; Pyr. 10. 
 
 4. The following are instances of relative sentences with /iij for 
 oil-. Lye. 9; Sol. 29; Cor. 22; Tim. 36. Two local sentences are 
 Peric. 28 (orrou); Luc. 39 (o5). oTt /i^ temporal-causal is found 
 once, Ant. 5. 
 
 5. Oratio obliqua participles with pij are found after these verbs : 
 
 (fiaivoiiai, TheS. 27: opa>, Sol. 8; Cor. 12: crmopa, Sol. I9: nvvBavoiiai, 
 Alc. 35: KaraXa/i/Savco, Aem. P. I9: ataBdvo/iai, Syl. 4: ai'e;(o/iQ«, Syl. 
 6: i\fyxa>, Ages. 22: fvpiiTKa, Ages. 24: oida, DcniOS. 13: yiyvaxricm, 
 
 Demet. 49. Examples of causal participles with ji^ are, Thes. 15; 
 Rom. 16; Lye. 8; Numa 16, and often: of concessive-adversa- 
 tive, Thes. 20; Sol. 7; Pop. 5; Alc. 10: of temporal, Pelop. 30: 
 less defined. Them. 23; Lye. 22; Alc. 16. The following parti- 
 cles are found, wt p), Rom. 6; Lye. 5; Them. 9, and often: 
 mairep pri, Cor. i; Galb. 7: are pfj, Rom. 14; Lys. 11; Luc. 11; 
 Nic. 23. Plutarch also uses an adjective with fiij + participle, 
 
 Alc. 14 (n-aXi/i/3(iXous ... (tot prjSev . . . ijKovTas) ; Pelop. 28; 
 
 Brut. 15. 
 
M^ FOR ol BEFORE LUCIAN. A77 
 
 Dio Chrysostomus. 
 
 Dio Chrysostomus presents nearly the same condition of affairs 
 in regard to ^ij as does Lucian. 
 
 1. Oratio obliqua infinitives with /iij: after verba dicendi, 
 <prjiil, iv 75 (page of Teubner text); vii 130; xi 180: Xfya, xi 
 
 178; xxi 301: avriXiya, vi lOI : (jida-Ka, vii 135: d/ioXoyS, xi 171 : 
 
 07700011/0), xxxi 367: Karanrivva, lix 187; general oraiio obliqua, vi 
 95; 98; 100, and often: after verba cogitandi, i/o/i/fu, xxx 345: 
 
 2. 3ti |uij as an oratio obliqua construction has spread much be- 
 yond Plutarch's few verbs. It is found after tfnu/idf<», vi 102: 
 
 6avii.a(rr&v, XXxi 382 : axSofiai (Sidn /iQ, XXXviii 75: Xoyifo/ia«, iv. 80: 
 Kpiva, xvi 270: (v6viioviuu, XXxi 357: eVvooOftoi, xvi 27 1 : 6/ioXoyu, xlv 
 121: cmtrraiiai, XXxi 357: olSa, ibid. 359: Xt'ym, Ivii 182: «Veii', XXxi 
 
 352; ('n-idct/cfv/ii, xxxiv 24 : 6pS>, ibid. 34: &ia(f)fptt, xxxi 348: fi^Xov, 
 ibid. 350: if>avtp6v, xxxviii 79: roiro, xxxiii 71, cf. xvii 275. Some 
 of the above fiij's are explainable by the complex (condition, im- 
 perative, etc.) in which they occur. 
 
 3. Not only causal or» p-ii but also 8iot« fifi is used by Dio. on nt) 
 causal is found in xxxi 365 (after tO ; 376; 379; xxxiv 23: iicin ixf,, 
 cf. SxBopat (1. c). The number of p^'s for oi's in the 31st oration 
 is worthy of remark. Neither e'nti nor eVeiflv with p^ occurs. 
 
 4. The following places may be cited for simple relatives with 
 pr/-. vi loi ; 103; xxix 326; xxxi 344. Local adverbs with pf, are 
 Siroi, xxxi 374: ojTov, xxxi 385: evBa, Ixxx 288: temporal, 6irdKtt, 
 xlix 145. 
 
 5. Oratio obliqua participles with pr\ are used after 6pa, vi 102; 
 xi 175: o'Sa, xxxi 358: iyvoS,, xiii 245. For causal participles 
 with pi may be cited vi 102; x 157; xi 209; xxvii 317; xxxii 416: 
 for concessive-adversative, vii 115; xi 192; 202: for temporal, 
 xxxi 350: less defined, xi 189; 198; xxxi 395. An example 
 of &rf pi) with part, is vii 132: of m pi,, xxx 332. For an 
 adjective with pr, + participle the following passages will suffice: 
 iii 44; vii 134; Ivi 225. 
 
 Arrian. 
 
 Arrian has few passages in which pr) has been wrongly placed 
 for ov. This may perhaps be explained by the relation borne 
 by his works to those of Xenophon. 
 
478 EDWIN L. GREEN. 
 
 1. Oratio obliqua infinitive with /xi}: after verba dicendi, \iya, 
 Cyn. 24, 2; aTTOKpivofiai, Anab. i i, 2 ; SijXS, ibid, vii 18, 2 : general 
 o. o. Ind. 7, 3 ; Anab. v 28, 3 : after verba cogitandi, 5ok5, ibid, i 
 
 25. 5- 
 
 2. Causal on /x^ occurs five times, Cyn. 36, 2; Anab. v 8, i; vi 
 6, 3; 1 6, i; 21, 3. «V«Si7 /i7 is found in or at. obi. after </)i;(ii in 
 Cyn. 36, I. 
 
 3. Relatives with ^^ are represented by Anab. ii 6, 6, x^po") »« 
 /iijTf lykvi-ro. JcoTTtp /i^ is found at Anab. v 23, 6. 
 
 4. Once an orat. obi. participle is used with fj.r\, after op£, Anab. 
 vii 2, 3. Concessive-adversative participles have /jij in Anab. v 
 14, 3; vi 9, 5: others less defined are Cyn. 15, i; 20, 2; Anab. iv 
 II, 9. These make the sum total of participles with ^^ that were 
 collected as fair examples, and they form a surprisingly small 
 number. Cyn. 4, 4 contains an adjective with ^1/ + participle. 
 
 Justin Martyr. 
 
 Justin Martyr's misuses of /i^ have been collected and arranged 
 by Professor Gildersleeve in the index to his edition of the 
 Apologies. 
 
 1. Oratio obliqua infinitives with ^17 are: after verba dicendi, 
 <t>rifii, A 4, 18; 28, 16: X^ym, A i8, 22: L7ri(rx>'0''/"". A 5, 2: after 
 verba cogitandi, yo/xifm, B 10, 14. 
 
 2. Oratio obliqua Sri pLrf is found after cyxaXu, A 24, 9: (k(yj(a, B 
 
 3, 16: eTvlarafiai,, A 26, 35. trtlBa takes ur firj at A 26, 21. 
 
 3. A simple relative with /xi/ is found once, B 3, 5 (characteris- 
 tic; see note of the editor). 
 
 4. For the oratio obliqua participle we have A 44, 30; 63, 45, 
 both after iXtyxa. Causal participles with /ii/ are A 5, 4; 29, 10; 
 36, 11: concessive-adversative, A 24, 2; 28, 9; 54, 31: less de- 
 fined, A 53, 36. An example of it /xi/ c. part, is A 4, 19: of an 
 adjective with /xi/ + part., A 9, 4. 
 
 Summary. 
 
 The basis for the encroachments of /ii/ on oi is to be found in 
 the earliest Greek, and their growth is an extension of legitimate 
 usages. The first certain extension of fuj is in the direction of 
 the causal and of the concessive-adversative participle. In the 
 course of the next century fitj has in Philodemus enlarged its 
 sphere well into the oratio obliqua with the infinitive (in the line 
 
M^ FOR oi BEFORE LUC I AN. 479 
 
 of the stronger expression), into the realm of the causal sentence, 
 and into that of the relative. The negatives with the participles 
 have, however, remained almost as in Polybius. But in a {t.'fi 
 years the oratio obliqua infinitives with /«/ have become numerous 
 in Diodorus ; and likewise the number of participles with ^?/ has 
 enlarged. The oratio obliqua participle with jui/ appears for the 
 first time. Mi/ with simple relatives is confined to oratio obliqua ; 
 but after Diodorus there is no longer a similar restriction. Di- 
 onysius Halicarnaseus has restricted the number of jui/'s for ov's, 
 but two causal sentences with /«/ are found in the Veterum Cen- 
 sura. The Ars Rhetorica has an oratio obliqua on ^7'. Strabo 
 does not differ much from the two preceding writers, except that 
 he has two oral. obi. ir ^;/'s. In New Testament Greek fii) has 
 become the usual negative with the participle. There is one 
 causal on fu/. Oratio obliqua infinitives with ^ij are much re- 
 stricted. Plutarch has made a long stride. He uses on /»>/ after 
 verbs of emotion and the causal on /ii/. In Dio Chrysostomus 
 the categories are full, there being an increase of on ^ij's. Arrian 
 shows comparatively few encroachments of /ii/ on oi in any line, 
 and Justin Martyr, likewise, has no large number in comparison 
 with his heathen contemporary Lucian. 
 
 South Carolina College. EdWIN L. GrEEN. 
 
A TRAGIC FRAGMENT OF ION. 
 
 Plutarch, Comparison of Alcibiades and Coriolanus, Teubner 
 Text, vol. I, p. 458, lines 21 ff., has this phrase : dXX' opy^ x''P^i°t^"">fi 
 
 nap fit ovSeva <J3ri(riv 6 AiaK airoKa^fiv X^P^"- Removing the WOrds 
 
 (prjah 6 AiW, and then writing the phrase in direct discourse, 
 we have opyij xa/M^ofcvor, nap' ^r oi8«it xdpii/ | aireKaPe — a trimeter, 
 faulty only in that the main caesura is at the end of the third foot. 
 Likely the use of the words dpyg x"P^£°t^"">^ suggested to Plutarch 
 the rest of the verse, of which they were the chance beginning, 
 and the participle did not stand in the original verse, but some 
 other form of xop'^Cfo-Sai, which suggested the kindred word x^P^". 
 In a quotation from Menander (Stobaeus, Florilegium XX, 6"), 
 based on this passage, the imperative is used, and here also the 
 participle does not lend itself to gnomic expression, so that it is 
 probable that a negative imperative was the original form of this 
 
 proverb : opyij xapiCov pri8apS>s, nap' ^t X''P"' I 0"<5*''f aneKafit. The 
 trimeter is thus a perfect tragic verse, and but two changes have 
 been made in the prose of Plutarch, p^apifo/icvor having been 
 transferred to the imperative and a negative added. 
 
 This negative fiijSafiSr is thus used, after the caesura in the 
 third foot, by Aeschyl. Pro. 337, Soph. Ajax, 74, Eurip. Hipp. 
 611, Aristoph. Clouds, 1478, and frequently elsewhere. 
 
 The play on the words xap'f"" ^"^ X"'?'" 's exactly the same 
 as one found in Ion, Agamemnon, Frag. 2, Nauck, kok&v aniara 
 
 Bdvaros, i>i tdjl KaKO, where the turn is on KaKwv, KaKO. 
 
 The prose fragments of Ion, found in Miiller, F. H. G., II, pp. 
 44 flf., nearly all turn on some kindred word play, or contain some 
 point of humor. 
 
 The change from 6 8' "lav to 6 Ai'mc in Plutarch is a simple one, 
 and has an exact parallel in Pollux II, 88, where the editio 
 
 princeps (Aldine, 1502) has napa Atmi'i Se rmrpayiKif Iv ra eniypa- 
 
 4,oiuva Sui/eK8i;juijTiK« k. r. X. The phrase rm rpayiKa, and the evident 
 similarity of SuveicSjjuijTiKdr with Ion's 'EmBtnilat mentioned by 
 Athenaeus XIII, 603 E, and also with Ion's npta^euTixdr (Xdyor), 
 referred to by the scholiast to Aristoph. Peace 835, leave no doubt 
 that the true reading in Pollux is naph S' 'lan t^ rpayiKa, and that 
 «f before tw rpayiKw is redactional. So in Plutarch 8' 'lai/ has 
 
 31 
 
482 JOHN ADAMS SCOTT. 
 
 been falsely read & i^iav. The bi here in Plutarch needs no 
 other explanation than that it was the insertion of a careless 
 scribe, or due to the desire to avoid hiatus. The sentence just 
 quoted from Pollux shows a be falsely inserted after "imvi. In 
 Eurip. Medea 698, in the face of the meter, two manuscripts, 
 Vaticanus B and Florentinus c, have n-iorir S' ovk ?<^u. So in 
 Pausanias, III 24, 11, the reading of the Aldine and of some of the 
 
 older editors is tov 6e 'Oivcraia nphs 'AXkwovv TTf/jl tS>v iv "AiSou koX 
 aXKa biTjyoifKvov itai on Qr\iria be Ibeiv i6e\Ti<rai k>t^\., where the be 
 
 before Ibeiv seems to have no MS authority. Polybius II 24, i 
 has also a mistaken insertion of be. It seems quite reasonable, 
 then, to suppose that in the passage from Plutarch bt was similarly 
 inserted between and 'lav and then 6 8' 'lav became 6 AtW 
 exactly as in Pollux, II, 88. 
 
 It was a characteristic of the comic poets to appropriate and 
 modify the verses of tragedy. Ion was so used by Aristophanes, 
 
 Frogs, 1425, ;rofl« lih, e'xSatptt be, /SouXeTcii 8' exeiv, which passage 
 
 according to the scholiast is founded on the following verse of 
 
 Ion, aiya fiev, ex6alpa be, /SouXcrat ye fiTJv, 
 
 Menander's mode of adaptation of tragic passages is shown 
 by comparing Aesch. Prometheus, 377, 
 
 ovKOvv, npofiTjdev, TovTO yiyvuaKcir Sti 
 ^v)(ijs votrovarjs ela\v larpol Xoyoi^ 
 
 with Menander, Meineke, F. C. G., Vol. IV, p. 240, 
 
 Xu7ri;r larpds iartv avBp&ntois \iyos ' 
 V"'X^^ yap ofror ii6vos exei 6e\KTi)pia. 
 Now, if my contention as to the source of the citation in 
 Plutarch is correct, Stobaeus' quotation from Menander, 
 
 ''Ema-xes opyifi/^wor. 'AXXi /SouXo^ai. 
 ovbeXs yap opyjjs x^P^" avelXrj^ev, icarep, 
 
 referred to above, would also seem to be founded on a verse from 
 Ion, but Menander omits the play on xapiitirBat and xapiv, which is 
 the key to the verse in Ion. 
 
 My conclusion is that as the words in Plutarch so easily form 
 a tragic trimeter, they must be a poetic and not a prose quota- 
 tion, that an easy restoration is 
 
 °PyV X''P'i°" nrjbaixat nap' fjs x^P'-" 
 ovdeir direXa^e, 
 and that Ion was the author. 
 
 Northwestern Uhivbrsity. JOHN AdAMS SCOTT. 
 
THE METAPHOR IN AESCHYLUS. 
 
 Of the two classes, o-^'/fia™ X/fciu; and (rxiliara Stavolas, into 
 
 which the ancients divided all figures, the metaphor belongs to 
 the second. It permeates all literature from the earliest to the 
 most recent productions. From Homer to Tennyson poets have 
 been lavish in its use. Quintilian ' calls it translatio, and says : 
 Incipiamus igitur ab eo, qui cum frequentissimus est, tum longe 
 pulcherrimus, translatione dico, quae fitra^oph. Graece vocatur. 
 Volkmann says,' Der haufigste und schonste, dabei allgemeinste 
 Tropus, so dass sich die meisten ubrigen Tropen im Grunde 
 genommen als Unterarten desselben betrachten lassen, ist die 
 Metapher. It has been demonstrated by Bliimner' that the 
 metaphor grows from age to age with the progress of man and 
 the multiplicity of his inventions. Its possibilities are practically 
 unlimited. New and beautiful metaphors are constantly being 
 discovered. As the original color of all figures is apt to fade, so 
 many metaphors have lost the freshness of the first poetic color 
 and may now be regarded as simple colorless prose. It has been 
 well said that "language is a dictionary of faded metaphors." 
 
 The Greek rhetoricians devoted considerable time and thought 
 to the study of the metaphor. Cf. Spengel, Rhetores Graeci II, 
 254; III, 191, 208, 216, 228, 232, 245, 280; Aristotle, de Arte 
 Poetica 1457 b. Tryphon (III, 191) has given us perhaps the best 
 
 definition of the figure ; fitrat^opa eim Xe|ir it(Ta<f>fpoii(vri airo ToO Kvpiov 
 fVl TO fifj Kvpiov ep<f>d(rea>s fj ofioiaxreios fvtxa. He also divides the 
 
 metaphor into four classes {ylvcrai Se fj peTa(j>opa Terpaxm) as follows : 
 
 anb ip,^vx<av iir\ efi^vxa ' otto d^ux""" f tI ayjfvxa ' ano a^|fvxav firi S^^^u^a ' 
 
 an-A fiifixav f'n-J Afuxa. Several other rhetoricians make the same 
 divisions. Gregorius Corinthius (III, 217 Spengel) adds a fifth — 
 oTTc, irpd^ecis M npaiiv. The effect of metaphor is stated by Aris- 
 totle, Ars Rhet. 1405 a, 8, t& tra4)h koX t-4 ^8ii koI t6 |<vtKJi/ (X" l^aKto-Ta 
 
 1 Quintilian, Inst. Orat. VIII, 6, 4. 
 'Volkmann, Rhetorik der Griechen u. ROmer,' p. itj. 
 'BlUmner, Ueber Gleichniss o. Metapher in d. Attischen Komodie, 
 p. ix. 
 
484 JAS. T. LEES. 
 
 r, ,ji(Ta(popa. Cf. also Demctrius (III, 280 Spengel), oJtoi (ai /xcra- 
 
 <})opa)) yap iiaXiaTa Ka\ tjbovfjv o-Uft/SaXXoirat Toir Xo'yoir (tai fiiyeBos. 
 
 The dominant figures in Aeschylus belong to the o-x^^"";" 
 Siavoiai rather than to the ax^para X/|e6>r. The proportion is 
 about two to one in favor of the former. In this respect his lan- 
 guage is in marked contrast with that of Sophocles where the 
 axnpara Xe'^ecar lead in the proportion of three to two. The 
 metaphor is easily the leading figure in Aeschylus. He has more 
 examples of metaphor than of all the other crx'i/""''' S""""'"" 
 combined. All of his <rxtip''ra Xe'^eas fall short of the number 
 of his metaphors. However, in spite of his excessive use of the 
 metaphor it is never dull nor monotonous. The range of his 
 metaphors is as wide as life itself. Illustrations are furnished 
 from all experiences of man and from all of his environment; 
 from the winds, from the torrent, from the sea, from the farm, 
 from the ruler of the state to the lonely woman working at her 
 loom ; from the flowers that bloom, to the beasts that roam the 
 field. 
 
 The poet sometimes illustrates his point by introducing several 
 metaphors in quick succession. A good example of this is found 
 in the Sept. c. Th. 599-608, where in ten lines we find at least 
 five metaphors: 
 
 iv Travri irpayei 8 iaO ipiKias KaKijs 
 KoKiov oiSfv, Kapnis oi Kopiirrioi' 
 art]! Spovpa Bdvarov fKKapni^fTai. 
 i) yap (vvfKT^at irXoiov tiaefifjs avrjp 
 vavTaKTi dfppoie tv navovpyia rti'i 
 o\a>\ev av&pS>v oiip decmrvoTa yevet, 
 ff ^vv 9roXtraiff av^paaiv biKaios &>v 
 €Xdpo^€VOts Tt Ka\ OsSiv dfipfjpoaitf 
 ToiiTOV Kvpfjaas fvSlxas aypevparos, 
 irXijyclc 6fov paiTTiyi nayKolv(f 'dajuij. 
 
 The farm, the sea, the state, the chase, and again the farm. 
 Each figure follows closely upon the other as the scene unfolds 
 itself to the poet's vision. In such an aggregation of figures 
 Aeschylus may be compared with Homer who gives us such a 
 rapid succession of similes in II. B 455-476. 
 
METAPHOR IN AESCHYLUS. 485 
 
 The metaphors in Aeschylus may be divided into the following 
 classes:* A. Man. B. Nature. The metaphors from man, his 
 occupations and environment, easily lead in number, there being 
 a total of 450. These may be divided as follows : 
 
 I. The human body. In this division the Prom, leads with the 
 Agam. a close second. The best examples are the following: 
 
 Prom. 64 adafiaVTivov vvv a<f)rjVos avBdbt) yvddov. 3^8 narafioX itvpos 
 idirTovT€s dypiais yvddois. Ag^am. 306 (^Xoyor ftiyav niayava. 
 Choeph. 854 oSroi (/>p(V hi kXc^ccck aiifiaTon^vriv. Choeph. 934 
 i^SoKfiov o'kcov (if) 7Tavd>\tdpov Trtafiv. 
 
 II. The conditions and ads of body and mind. This division 
 outnumbers the preceding almost three to one. Here again the 
 Prom, leads with the Agam, and Sept. c. Th, not far behind. 
 First among these must be placed the well-known itovtIwv re 
 Kviidrav \ avr)pi6iiov yiXairiia (Prom. 90). In the Prom. Aeschylus 
 is especially fond of using koo-o? and v&<n\p.a metaphorically. Cf. 
 Prom,. 225 E«(rTi . . . rovTo rg TvpavvlSi | viaiffia, and his especially 
 
 bold doKaaaiav re y^y TtvdKTfipav vdaov (^Prom. 924}, as if pOOr old 
 
 mother earth were subject to chills. Another good example is 
 
 Prom. 685 votrrjiia yap \ a'(T\i<rTov tlvai <^il/it trvvBirovs Xdyovc. One 
 
 of the best of his " pugnacious" metaphors is found in Prom. 88 1 
 Kpabia hi <^dj3ai ^piva XaicTtfti. Among Other bold metaphors 
 of this class may be mentioned: Sept, c, Th. 155 alBrip iiripaivtrai. 
 
 Id. 247 iTTtvti w6\i<Tp.a (cf. 901). Suppl. 770 0«X« I fflSiva tIkthv 
 yv^. Agam. 276 aXX' 5 tr' firiaviv nr Snrepot (fidris; Id. 64O ttoXci 
 /ifv eXxor tv tA dif/iiov TV^tt". Choeph. iSj opx*trat ie KapSia ^60a. 
 197 Tovb' dnoiTTvaat w\6kov, £umen. 280 fipiCti yap afjua xai 
 ftapaipfTat X'P^^' 
 
 III. External circumstances, clothing, etc. There are com- 
 paratively few of these but they are generally very striking. One 
 of the best is the much admired " ' star-bespangled ' night," — 
 ff o lie t X f .> 4) K cul ( Prom, 24). When the chorus in the Persae fear 
 for the safety of the Persian army Aeschylus wraps their heart 
 
 with a black tunic — ptXayxirap <f>pfiv duvao-trai (pofita (^Pers, II4). 
 
 Another bold metaphor is found in Pers. 815 Koiiinm kok&v KpunXs 
 
 virecTTiv. Cf. also Suppl, 95 tknlhav d^' ifinvpyav, Agam. 839 
 ofuKias KaTOTTTpov, f'8a\ov aKiat, Choeph, 81I <«(t> Siio<j)tpat 
 KoX virrpar. 
 
 • In the classification of the metaphors of Aeschylus Bluemner has been 
 followed as far as practicable. 
 
486 J AS. T. LEES. 
 
 IV. Family and daily life. These are not so numerous as one 
 would expect in Aeschylus. The most of them are found in the 
 Prom, and the Agam. He is especially fond of using /hJtijp in a 
 metaphorical sense, as Prom. 90 irafi/i^rop re y^, Id. 301 t^k 
 
 aitripofiriTopa \ e\detv es atav, Id. 461 ^i'ij/u}i< dndpTtov, jiovarofi^Top 
 
 ipyaviiv. Obedience to rule (ntiBapxla) is the mother of well-being 
 (r^f iv-npa^ias \ p^Ti/p), Sept. c. Th. 224-5. A. very bold metaphor 
 is found in Pers. 614 where the poet says the pure wine is from a 
 wild mother (fjijTp A r aypmt an-o). He gives the traditional step- 
 mother a hard rap when he says the rough Salmydessian coast is 
 a stepmother oi ^\^% (ntjTpvta veS>v), Prom. 727. Cf. Hesiod 
 Works and Days 825 aWme Mijrpun? weXei fniepti. When a city is 
 captured plunderings are the sisters of pursuits — iprrayaX Se 
 SiaSpopav 6iiaiiioves, Sept. c. Th. 351. We may not consider it 
 quite 'elegant' to speak of smoke as the "flickering sister of 
 
 fire" — \iyvvv fifkaivav, aloKijv irvpos Kaaiv, Sept. C. Th. 494 — "^t 
 
 it is thoroughly Aeschylean. He also calls dust the sister of 
 mud! — Kdo-ir I TrijXoO ^vvovpos Ji^t'a k6vis, Agam. 495. When 
 sad cares touch the heart they are its neighbors (ytirovts Se 
 Kupdlas I peptiivai, Sept. c. Th. 288). In the Pers. (577) fish are the 
 dumb children of the sea, and (618) wreaths of flowers are the 
 children of earth. The beacon fire that flashed to the palace roof 
 of the Atreidae was the grandson of the fire from Mount Ida 
 (_<t>dos rod' ou(t airaiTiTov 'iSaiov irvpoc, Agam. 311). Wealth begets 
 children and does not die childless {jiiyav . . . 3X/3oi/ | nKvovadat. 
 pijS' anaiSa BvgaKtiv, Agam, 753-4). In the Eumen. 534 wanton 
 insolence is the child ol impiety (Suo-at^iar piv v/3/)»t tIkos). When 
 Agamemnon has been murdered by his wife the poet says the 
 victim filled a bowl full of evils and drained it to the dregs 
 (Agam. 1397-8). 
 
 V. The occupations of man. 
 
 I. The liberal arts. In this division the art of medicine occu- 
 pies very nearly the whole field, with a total of 18 examples— 9 in 
 the Agam., 6 in the Prom., and 3 in the Choeph. The following 
 are some of the best: Prom. 378 opy^r xoo-oucrijr daXv larpoX 
 
 Xdyoi. Agam. 17 virvovroh' avripoKnov ipripviov a/cor. Agam. 548 
 TO irtyav <j>dpiiaKov jSXd^iji txa- Agam. 848-5O Stio Si Kal Btt <f)ap- 
 ^ftaKav iraiaviav,\^Toi Kcavres }j rtpovTis (v(jip6vo)s \ Trtipaaopeada irtjp.' 
 dnoiTTpt'^ai v6a-ov. Agam. l622-^f^oxa}TaTai cl>pfvS>v\laTpopdvTtii . 
 Choeph. 471 Baipaaiv ippoTov \ r&vb' Skos. 
 
METAPHOR IN AESCHYLUS. 487 
 
 The Agam. furnishes 3 examples from art : (tdpr' ono/iovfrar l)a6a 
 
 y€ypafi.ne'vos (801), Srat raatt OpiyKairav 0/Xoir (1283), /SoXaIr 
 iypaaa-av air6yyos &\tatv ypa<j)riv (1329). Cf. also Agam. I34O, 
 Choeph. 503, Eum. 50 tli6v n-or' ^8ij tiviag ytypamiivas \ itinvoy 
 <l>(pov(rac. 
 
 2. The useful arts. This division is naturally a very numerous 
 one. It easily leads the whole list of metaphors, with a total of 
 about 170. The metaphors from husbandry are the most 
 numerous, with those from the sea-faring man not far behind. 
 Aeschylus seeks the type of natural prosperity in agriculture, and 
 that of avarice in commerce. Trade and commerce come in for 
 their full share of metaphors. The smith and the carpenter are 
 treated alike. Even the servant, the cobbler, the weaver, and the 
 executioner are not forgotten. The farm furnishes the poet with 
 some of his most striking metaphors, among which may be men- 
 tioned the following: Prom. 322-3 oCmui' ... vpls Ktvrpa k&Xov «- 
 Tfvtis. Prom, 6^ 2 intjvayKa^t vtv \ Aloe ;^aXti'ir irpir jSiavTrpairo'cii' Tad<. 
 Sept. C. TA. ^g^paStiav &\oKaSta<f>ptv&! Kapiroifttpos. Id. 601 oIti)c 
 Spovpa Bavarov exKapiri^crai. Agam. 1624 irpot Ktyrpa p.}) Xaxrifc. 
 Id. 1655 Tad i^aptftrat iroXX^ iiarrfvov 6ipot. Choeph. 25 oimp^or 
 cfXoKi vtm6piia. Id. 795 i.'oyivT iv ippatriv \ Trtjparav. Id. I044M^t 
 
 firiCivx^iis aripji \ i^ripji novrip^. Aeschylus is especially fond of 
 the metaphor of yoking oxen, using the noun or adjective 15 
 times and the verb 8 times. The sailor's vocabulary is made to do 
 good service, as we may expect. His sea metaphors are about 
 as numerous as his farm metaphors. He speaks of the gods 
 as 'helmsmen' of Olympus — otaxovd/toi «cparou<r' 'o\ipnov (^Prom. 
 149). The old familiar 'ship of state' is not forgotten — Sept. c. 
 
 Th. 2-3 iv irpvppji iriSXtor, | otaica vap&v. The young warrior 
 Parthenopaeus has a ' fair prow' — fiXairttjpa KaWitrpmpov (Sept. c. 
 
 Th. 533), as has also Iphigenia — oT&pm&i rt KaWinpifpov t^vKaxi 
 KaTaaxeiv | 4>B6yyov (^Agam. 235 ff.). The poet teaches his hearers 
 a moral lesson by a metaphor Sept. c, Th. 602 ff. Iwiur^ai' n-Xoiov 
 
 tia-tprit dvfjp | vairaKri Beppois (v iravovpyitf nvl | SKaiKfv. Cf. Horace, 
 
 Carm. Ill, 2, 26 ff., and the English familiar expression "in the 
 same boat." In the Sept. c. Th. 208 ff. Eteocles criticises the 
 timid maidens, who cling to the altars in their fright, as follows : 
 
 Ti oSi'; 6 i/auTijr Spa pr\ s np^pav (jyvyitv 
 irpvpyf}6(v t)vpt ptjxavrjy (rartipias, 
 vtat Kopovatir irovTim irpor Kvpart', 
 
488 JAS. T. LEES. 
 
 The Agamemnon contains some of the poet's most striking and 
 powerful metaphors. Cf. Agam. 1005 ff,, 
 
 Koi iTOTfios evBvTTopciv 
 
 av8pos erratacv n<l>ai'Tov epfia, 
 
 Koi irpo p.e» ri XPW^'^""' 
 
 KTrjaiav okvos jSaXoiv 
 
 (r<p€p8dvas air evfifTpov, 
 
 ovK e8v iTponas 86p,os 
 
 nrifiovac ylfiaiv ayav, 
 
 0V& iirovTKri oku^os. 
 
 Also Id. 1617 f , 
 
 ai) ravTa <j>av(is veprlpa irpoajj/itvos 
 Kun'17, KparoivTav rSiv eirX fuyp Sopot J 
 
 Even the heart is looked upon as a ship in a storm — Choeph. 
 390 ff., 
 
 irapoidfv Se Ttptfpas 
 Spifivs ai)Tai Kpatias 
 6vfi6s eyKOTov trrvyos* 
 
 Commerce and trade are associated with the sea and naturally 
 suggest many metaphors to the poet. In fact these are the most 
 numerous in his writings after those of the farmer and the sailor. 
 In the Sepi. c. Th. 545 the messenger thinks Parthenopaeus will 
 wage no 'petty peddling' fight — loi«i/ oi KaTnjXcvo'cti/ m^'xi''- 
 In the battle of Salamis, so the Persian messenger reports, an 
 'evil genius' (dalfiav nr) tipped the balance the wrong ■vi&y — 
 
 raXavra ^piaas oin laoppaitm tvxu (^Pers. 346). Man learns by 
 
 experience, but in this Aeschylus sees the scale descend — 
 A/ko Se Tois fiiv nadova-iv fiaBtiv cKippfirti (^Agam. 250). The image 
 of the scale occurs no less than a dozen times. It is especially 
 frequent where the poet treats of the fortunes of battle. Even 
 Ares likes to drive a good bargain— 6 xP''<f"M0'/3Ar 8' 'Apij? 
 aaiiaTtttv (^Agant, 437). In bitter irony Helen is called an ayoKfia 
 ivXovTov (^Agam. 741) to Troy. When Clytaemnestra has mur- 
 dered her husband the children are 'sold' as slaves — 7rc7rpa/i«i>oi 
 yap vvvyeirac a\a>iitBa (^Choeph, 132) says Electra in speaking of her 
 condition. Similarly Orestes says hi^as iirpaBriv i>v i\tv6epov irarpos 
 (^Choeph. 915). 
 
 - VI. The pleasures of man. — This division ranks second in 
 the whole list of metaphors. It yields only to the useful arts in 
 
METAPHOR IN AESCHYLUS. 489 
 
 numerical order, with a total of over a hundred. The palaestra 
 and the chase furnish three-fourths of the examples; races and 
 dice practically all of the remainder. In metaphors from the 
 palaestra the Agam. leads with ten, the Prom, following closely 
 with nine. The Choeph., Eumen. and 3*1?//. c. Th. run neck and 
 neck, with the Pers. and Suppl. bringing up the rear. In the 
 Prom. i6\ov is very frequently used. An especially good Aeschy- 
 lean metaphor is found in Sepi. c. Th. 441 — an-oyu/ivaCuv (rro/ia. 
 The metaphor — j3apvi | Ttoho'iv ivr{K\ov — in Pers. 516 may be 
 compared with that in Agam. 1175—Salnav virtpPapfit c>>r»- 
 Tpav, both being taken from wrestling. Another from the same 
 source is 'Aaio ...alvms f Trl yovu KfK\trai (Pers. 930), the cry of the 
 chorus after the defeat of the Persians, which may well be 
 
 compared with Agam. 63-4 voWa TraXaiV^aTa kqI yvio^aprj I 
 
 yovaros Koviaiaiv fp€inoiievov. When Zeus succeeded Cronus 
 the latter was thrice thrown by his victor — rptaKTijpos olxerai 
 Tvx&v, Agam. 172. In the midst of her misfortune and sorrow 
 Electra asks ovk arplaKTos Sra; (^Choeph. 339). Many have 
 'wrestled' with misfortune but Aeschylus alone has thought of 
 overcoming the old adversary by 'three throws.' When Orestes 
 admits that he killed his mother the chorus of Furies claims one 
 
 'fall' — tv piv To'fi' ^4ij tSiv rptmv TraXattrpdrav, Eumetl. 5^9* 
 
 When Orestes is on the point of avenging the death of his father, 
 by slaying Aegislhus and Clytaemnestra, the poet immediately 
 thinks of a wrestling ring or pugilistic encounter where one is 
 
 matched against two — roiivie iraXrjv povos i)V «(^e8por | buriroU 
 ftcWtt 6(ios 'Opiarrjt \ ayj/tiv, Choeph. 866 ff. 
 
 In metaphors from the chase the Agam. again leads. The 
 Prom, follows with the Eumen. a close third. In the Prom, the 
 poet seems especially fond of the verb iniBaiaaa, on which the 
 
 Scholiast {Prom. 73) remarks ij peracpopa an6 rav Kwrjyav. The 
 
 hunter's net furnishes its full share of metaphors. In the Pers. 
 99 the goddess Ate beguiles men into her nets — jrapaa-alvu \ Pporiv 
 tic SpKvast'ATa. When Troy is taken the poet thinks of this city 
 
 as caught in a net — M Tpoias jrvpyois f^aXes I trreyavov BiKTVov, wr 
 /ii/re... viTtpriKta-ai \ (ney" bovXtias | yayyapov, Agam.. 357 ff.; cf. also 
 
 1375-6. Cassandra's prophetic vision sees a net— a net of Hell, 
 — ri Tode ^aivtraf, rj b'lKTvov n y 'hibov, the net is Clytaemnestra 
 — pdX' &PKVS d ^iixvvoc, the Victim Agamemnon {Agam. 1115 f.; 
 cf. also Choeph. 998). In the Eumen. 147-8, when Orestes has 
 
49° JAS. T. LEES. 
 
 escaped from the Furies, it is the wild beast that has escaped the 
 
 nets — f^ dpKvav TTCTTruKev 0(;^crai 6 6 Brjp. vttko KpartjOtia ay pay 
 
 &\«ra. Just before this Clytaemnestra tells the drowsy Furies they 
 are pursuing their victim in a dream — Svap Siwittir 6!jpa {Eumen. 
 131). Of the more than three dozen metaphors from the chase 
 in Aeschylus the above are fair samples. 
 
 Fully half* the metaphors from the race-course are found in the 
 Agam. One of the finest of all the poet's metaphors is found in 
 Agam. 312-4. The beacon fires, first lighted on Mt. Ida to 
 telegraph to Argos the fall of Troy, naturally suggest a torch- 
 race. A lively and intensely interesting one it is. 
 
 TOiolbf Toi HOI \afiwabri(fi6pa>p v6fioi, 
 SWos Trap aXXov diado;)^atf likifpovptvoi' 
 nxi d 6 itpaTot icai TfXcvraior 8pa/i(ai>. 
 
 A few lines further on the voyage to Troy and return presents 
 itself to the poet as a " double course " race in which the return 
 
 course is yet to be run — iei . . . Kap^at diaiXov edrtpov KutXov 
 
 n-aXix {Agam. 344). Again in the Agam. 1245, when the chorus 
 cannot quite understand the prophecy of Cassandra they say 
 they are "off the track" — « ip6pov ntaav rptx<o. Cf. Prom. 883, 
 
 i^a Si dp6pov <f)(popai, and Chocph. 1022, &aKfp ^iv lirirois ^m- 
 
 oa-rpo<j>Siv dpopov \ t^aripa. The Same metaphor occurs also in 
 Choeph. 514. 
 
 Man's gambling propensity is not forgotten by Aeschylus. 
 The die furnishes several good metaphors. Even the gods are 
 not exempt from this weakness, as we see from Sept. c. Th. 414 
 %pyov 8' iv Kv/3otr''Apijr Kpivct. In the same play (v. 1028) Antigone 
 will 'risk a throw' (di/d Kivhwov fiaXSt) in burying her brother. 
 In the Agam. (v. 33) when the watchman sees the beacon fire that 
 announces the capture of Troy, it is a 'lucky throw' — rplr i^ 
 fia\oi<rt)s Tijabi poi <^pvKTaplas, Another 'lucky throw' is found 
 in Choeph. 696 — 'Opeori/r rfv yap cvjSdXur e^iav. 
 
 VII. War and law metaphors. Since Aeschylus was always 
 proud of the fact that he was a ' Marathon man,' and seems to 
 have belonged to a fighting family, we naturally expect many fine 
 metaphors from war and the battlefield. Here, however, the poet 
 is disappointing. We find barely two dozen metaphors from 
 fighting and none of these very striking. In Prom. 371 the lava 
 streams of Aetna are ' hot arrows ' — ivi^as i^avaiiau x<(Xo». | dtppoK 
 
METAPHOR IN AESCHYLUS. 49' 
 
 . . . &'c\tai. In Prom. 649 Zeus smarts from the 'arrow' of love 
 — Zeir yip \y.ipm fiiXti... ridaXirTai. In the Suppl. we find that the 
 tongue can shoot — yKSmaa TO^tvaaaa fil) ri Kolpia (446), and the 
 
 eye has its arrow — S/ifiOTot fl«\<(T^pioi< | riJf «t»fi(a) (1004). Cf. also 
 Agam. 240 f/3aXX (Kao-Tov . . . (t/x/iaror /3(\ci, and 74^ oii/iaTav piXot. 
 In Agam, 1194 Cassandra asks if her words have hit the mark — 
 ijltapTov, 9 Kvpm rt ro{(!ri;r rir £;; in the Chotph. 694 the Curse 
 shoots the family of Agamemnon with unerring arrows — rdfotr . . . 
 tio-Kon-oir. In the Eumen. 676, when the Furies have finished 
 their arguments in the trial of Orestes, they have shot their last 
 arrow — iffuv piv tJStj jtSc T<r<5Jeurai /3cXor< 
 
 The metaphors from the legal profession are not as numerous 
 as those in the preceding class. Nearly all of them are in the 
 Sept. c. Th. and the Agam. In the Sept. the poet is rather fond 
 of the word ^ep/yyuot (cf. 396, 449,470, 797). In the Agam. 
 41 Menelaus is Priam's adversary in a law suit — McvfXaor araf 
 (xe'yar ai/Tt'8iKor, and in v. 451 both Menelaus and Agamemnon are 
 
 viewed as such — aXyos ep>r«i irpoSixoir 'ArptiiaK, 
 
 B. Metaphors from the realm of Nature. Aeschylus is very 
 fond of metaphors from this source. Nature stands next to man 
 in suggesting metaphors to him. Many of his most powerful 
 personifications also come from the realm of nature. This division 
 contains nearly three hundred examples, which may be grouped 
 as follows : 
 
 I. The animal world. One-third of the whole number of ex- 
 amples from nature falls into this group. The hare is the type of 
 cowardice everywhere, so we may expect it as such in Aeschylus. 
 The bird, especially the bird in its flight, is the symbol of swift- 
 ness. The bite and snarl of the dog, the kick of the horse, the 
 bellow of the bull, all furnish the poet with excellent metaphors. 
 
 For the hare cf. Prom. 29 vuoitriiatiwv ^oXoi', and 960 utto- 
 ■K-rr^aanv Tt roiis i-eout Beois. The ' bird' metaphors are especially 
 numerous. The winds have swift wings — Prom. 88 raxiirrtpoi 
 wvoal; so also ships — Suppl. 734 v?jts . . . aieiirTtpot. Snow has 
 white wings — Prom. 993 XeuitoTrrepp hi w^oSi. Misery settles 
 upon one as a bird of evil omen — Prom. 276 ■ni\povi\ vpoaiiivti, as 
 does also a curse — Sept. c. Th. 695 'Apoi ... irpoo-ifaKti. Trouble 
 is never of the same ' plumage ' — Suppl. 328 n-dvov 8' ttoir hv oiiapov 
 rairiv irTtp6v. The locks of brother and sister— Orestes and 
 Electra— are of 'like feather' (Spinrtpot, Choeph. 174). The 
 
492 JAS. T. LEES. 
 
 children of Agamemnon are the brood of an eagle— Choeph. 247 
 
 Ihav hi yivvav diviv aeroC jrarpor, and a little later (v. 256) they 
 are nestlings — irarpos veoa-a-oiis Tovab' airo^Oelpas, and (v. 5°^) '^"'' 
 vioavovs Tovffd e(j)r][ievovs rdfpta. 
 
 Next to the bird the horse and dog suggest the most meta- 
 phors to the poet. In the Eumenides the horse leaps into prom- 
 inence by the poet's frequent use of the verb /caflin-irafo^ai 
 
 — Euinen. 150 Salnovas Ka0t7riraa-a, 731 KaSmnaCei /le, 779 and 809 
 
 vofiovs Kadinndtratrde. In the From. 1085 the winds 'leap' like 
 a young horse — oKipra 8' avifiav I irviiiiOTa. The maidens in Sepi, 
 c. Th. are 'fillies' in the eye of the poet — ita\iKa}v 6' \ ihoKitav 
 iirepKova topi iroT Wkana^ai. (454-5). In Atossa's dream the two 
 women, one in Persian the other in Dorian garb, become, in an 
 extended metaphor, a pair of horses which Xerxes yokes and 
 undertakes to drive. A runaway is the result, and Xerxes takes 
 a fall — Pers, 189-197 
 
 naXs h ffios fiadav 
 KarcT^c KarrpaCviv, apjiaa-iv 8 utto 
 (fvyvvirtv aira xai X<7ra8v in avxivav 
 Tl6qtri, XV M^** 'T^ envpyovTo aroX^ 
 €V fiptaiai T €i\(v tvapKrov ar6pa, 
 17 8 eir(jidSaC€, koI xtpoiv timj 8i(j)pov 
 Sta<J7rapd<T<T(it ical ^vvapira{(i ^ia 
 Svtv x"^'"^" Kal (vyiii 6pav€i {liaov. 
 miTTti 8 epos Ttails. 
 
 In the Agam. (1066) Clytaemnestra thinks that Cassandra is not 
 ' broken to the bit ' — x"^'""" *' """ <TiVraraj i^iptiv. The chorus 
 immediately recommends the captive to handsel her yoke — 
 
 Kaiviaov Cvyov, 
 
 The dog furnishes the poet with some fine metaphors. The 
 bark, bite, snarl, and wagging of his tail are all pressed into ser- 
 vice. The verb a-atna is especially common in a metaphorical 
 
 sense; cf. Sepi. C. Th. 383 aalvnv pdpov, Id. 704 tai (raivoipiv 
 oKidpiov popov, Pers. 97 napaaaivn ^porhv . . ."Ara, and Agam. 798, 
 
 Choeph. 194, 420. In Agam. 607 Clytaemnestra is the watch-dog 
 of the royal palace — bapdrav (cui-a, and a little later (v. 896) she 
 
 calls her husband the same — Xcyoi/x' ttv avhpa rdvb' iya araBpav Kvva. 
 
 In Agam. 1228 Cassandra speaks of Clytaemnestra as y\S>iraa 
 pKTTiTrjs Kvv6s. Thc avcuging Furies are hounds — Choeph. 924 
 
METAPHOR IN AESCHYLUS. 493 
 
 0vXa^ai foiTphs tyKorovs Kvvas, as also V. 1054. In the Opening 
 scene of the Persae the chorus cry aloud for their absent king 
 as a dog moans for his master— w'ok «' SvSpa Paiiti (v. 13). Cf. 
 also Ag-am. 449 rdSe alyd Tir /SaiJfee, 1631 »i,mW iXdyitairtv, and 
 1672. 
 
 The ox furnishes Aeschylus with a powerful metaphor in Agam. 
 36. The guard of the house knows a secret, which he cannot 
 tell, for— an ox is on his tongue, /SoCr eVl y\&(r<ra /*«yor [ ^ifiifKtv. 
 But here the poet has evidendy borrowed from the language of 
 the people, for the expression jSoOr cVl y\a<T<rji is designated by the 
 scholiast as a napoi/«'a. It would be hard to find a more powerful 
 figure in any writer than that in Agam. 11 25-7 where Cassandra 
 cries out 
 
 aa, Ibov l8ov' Sirt^t rat ^a^r 
 roi» Tavpov' iv ircirXov viv 
 (itXayKipot Xa/3o0(ra fitixavrntan 
 
 TUITTCI. 
 
 Ships in a storm are at the mercy, as it were, of a mad bull — 
 
 ai Se Kiporvnovitevai 1819 . . . ^\ovt' S<j}aVTOi, Id> 655-7. 
 
 In the Agam. 1224 Aegisthus is a cowardly lion— wotrar i^ij^i 
 ^ouXcveii/ rii/a | Xeoi/r' IlvoKkiv, while in 1258-9 he is a wolf, 
 Clytaemnestra a lioness and Agamemnon a noble lion — 
 
 XuKQ> \eoPTOs evy^vovs duovai^* 
 
 Aeschylus also makes good use of the serpent, although not as 
 often as we might expect; cf. Pers. 82 Xeucnrmv (poviov bepyiia bpa- 
 KovTos. An arrow is a winged serpent— Xa/SoCo-a n-Ti/vAi' dpy^a-rfiv 
 S(t)iv, Eumen. 181. The spider is also found, ^^faw*. 1492, 1516, 
 and even the wryneck or snakebird, Pers. 989. 
 
 II. The vegetable world. This division does not contain as 
 many metaphors as that of the animal world nor are they as 
 striking. Aeschylus prefers more pugnacious nature as the source 
 of his metaphors, rather than the quiet and peaceful life of the 
 vegetable world. About seventy examples, however, have been 
 found which may properly be classed under this head. The 
 SuppL, the Agam., and the Sept. c. Th.. have a strong lead in the 
 number of such metaphors. The remaining plays run an even 
 race, except the Persae which is slightly in the rear. Fully half 
 the metaphors are from the seed, flower, and fruit. The remain- 
 
494 JAS. T. LEES. 
 
 ing examples are distributed among the other parts of the plant, 
 such as root, sprout, stem, leaf, and bloom. 
 
 The metaphor of the seed (ffrr/p/ia) as applied to the offspring 
 of the human race is so common that it has become practically one 
 of the "faded metaphors." That of the flower is of brighter 
 color. The 'flower' of an army is common enough both in Greek 
 and in English. Aeschylus is very fond of it. Other examples 
 of the 'flower' metaphor are more striking. In Prom. 7 the 
 gleam of fire is a 'flower' — SvOos, navTcxfov nvpos atXas, The color 
 of the human body is a 'flower' or 'bloom' — Prom. 23 p^potar 
 a/ifi\/^«f avdos. In the Agam. 743 Helen is referred to as Sji^lBv/iov 
 eparos avBos, and in 954-5 the following words refer to Cas- 
 sandra — auTi) Se n-oXXSji ;^pi;^dT6)>' e^atperov | avBos. In the Agam. 
 
 1 144 the nightingale is 'in full bloom' ( = filled) with sorrow — 
 dficfudaXfis KUKOK. In the Choeph. 394 all-powerful, all-abounding 
 Zeus is aficjitdaXfis Zeis. Bad company is a 'fruit' that is not to be 
 plucked — Sepi. c. Th. 600 xapn-ir oh Ko/ua-Ttos, and in 618 of the 
 same play the poet says d xapirSs ean Ofo-cfxiToiin Aofi'ov. A curse 
 is the 'fruit' of a rash tongue — Eumen. 830-1 y\ataar)s paralas fit) 
 'k^oXjis eVi x^dva \ Kapirdv. Old age is a withered leaf — (^vWahos 
 ^8i) 1 KaraKapiftoiiivrjs, Agam. 79. The Stem is twice employed 
 with telling effect in the Choeph. 204 muKpov ySvovr hv a-irepfiaTos 
 
 fieyac trvBiitjv, and 260 o3r' ap)(tK6s aoi nas 08' aiaydels irvd/i^v \ 
 jSm/iOir dpij^ft. A child is a 'sprout' — Sepi. C. Th. 533 ^Xd<rri;/ia 
 
 KaWtTrpapov (a Strangely mixed metaphor), Agam. 1281 firirpoKTovov 
 <f)iTvita, Eumen. 661 eo-oxrcv ipvos. In the Sept. c. Th. 594 plans 
 'sprout' — /SXaoTTdcei ^av\tvp.ara, A fine Aeschylean metaphor is 
 
 found in Pers. 821 — ujSpw yap i^avBova' e Kdpjraa-e araxw | nrijr. 
 
 Cf. Agam. 756. 
 
 In the Prom. Aetna has roots — pifataix A?Tvamir in-o (365), 
 
 and so has the earth itself — x^dra 8' « irvBptvav \ alrais pifaty 
 
 irviviia Kpaialvoi (1046). The poet can even speak of a murder 
 
 as a flower bursting into full bloom — n-oXi'/ivaaToi/ enrjvdiira, alp.' 
 
 avmrov, Agam. 1459. So also calamity can be 'in blossom' — 
 iraOos avBfl, Choeph. 1009. The "irony of sorrow" can speak 
 of being 'decked with many woes' — ivoXKoU eiTavSta-avTss | ironoKri 
 yiviav, Sept. c. Th, 951. In the Suppl. 72 the chorus is plucking 
 
 ' flowers of sorrow ' yo«8i/o 8' avBtpiiopai (schol. ri avBai xav 
 
 ■f6av artobpenea6ai). The Sea 'blosSOms' with corpses — dpaptf 
 avBovv niXayoc Alyatov vtKpois, Agam. 659. 
 
METAPHOR IN AESCHYLUS. 49S 
 
 III. The elements. Metaphors from the elements (wind, fire, 
 winter, rain, etc.) are about as numerous as those from the veg- 
 etable world. In this division the Agam. is far in the lead, the 
 Sept. c. Th. next, the Prom., Choeph. and Eumen. close together, 
 while the Suppl. falls far in the rear. The metaphors from the 
 wind are by far the most numerous, as we should naturally ex- 
 pect. Heat, cold, and light also come in for a fair share. 
 
 One of the most powerful metaphors is found in the words 
 of the god-possessed Cassandra, 4^a»«. 1309 <^ivov Sd^oi nviovinv 
 
 ai/iarooToyv. Cf. also Choeph. 32 kotov nviav, 951 irveovir' iv 
 
 ix6pois KOTOV. Fortune is a 'fair wind' that gives a man a 'fair 
 
 S3.ll orav 8 d Sal/iav evpojj, rttiroiBivai \ rov avTov aUv avefiov 
 
 ovpielv ri)xr]t, Pers. 6oi-2. The Furies are asked to pursue 
 Orestes, but the language is highly figurative and fairly burns 
 with hot metaphors — Eumen. 137-139, 
 
 (Tu b alfiaTtjpop TTveSfi' etrovplaaa'a t^, 
 aTp,w KOTKr^vnivovtra, vijSvor wvpi, 
 cirov, fiapaive SfVTfpots Siay/iairiv. 
 
 In Sept. c. Th. 52 we find three metaphors employed with 
 
 6vp.ot — iron, fire, wind — tT\.hr]p6^pmv yap Bvphs aviptia <^\iyiav\ 
 
 eirvfi. Anxious cares are 'kindling fires' — pipifivai (anvpovai 
 TopPos, Id. 289. The heart is 'set on fire' by a message from 
 
 a beacon fire — (^\oyos napayylKpaaiv \ viols nv ptoBivra Kap&lav,Agam. 
 
 480-481. A bold Aeschylean metaphor is the following : prfrpos t-e 
 
 ■n\riyriv re'r KaTao-^eeret Si'iti/; Sept. C. Th. 584. It is not tOO bold for 
 
 Aeschylus to call a rash man 'hot' — yd^a hi iai^iav tV' avh^ 6(pp.a, 
 Eumen. 560. Cf. also Sept. c. Th. 603. The trumpet blast 
 'fires' the Greek fleet at Salamis — aaXmy^ 9' duTjj trdvr' iKtlv ini- 
 
 <ji\tyev, Pers. 395. Fear is a 'frost' — kokov p.( Kapdiav n TTtpimrvfi 
 
 Kpvos, Sept. c. Th. 834. Even bolder is the metaphor in Agam, 
 1512 iTax'"f KoupojSo'pffl napi^ti. An attack upon Thebes is a violent 
 'snow-storm' or perhaps a 'blizzard' — i/t^aSor | or' oXoar vi^o- 
 /livas /3/>d/ior iv irvXau, Sept. c. Th. 2 1 3. The winter and the 
 stormy sea also do their part — oidr at xtnLav koJ KaKav rpiKv^la | 
 ?n-««r' €i<f)vKTos, Prom. 1015. Clytaemnestra would address her 
 
 returning lord as KaWia-rov ^Itap tlaiStiv ex ^ei'/iaror, | oioiiropa 
 
 iiylravTi irtiyaiov pio!, Agam. 900-901. The curse in the house 
 of Agamemnon is a 'storm' — oi« roi ii{\a6pois toU PainXtiois | Tpkoc 
 
496 JAS. T. LEES. 
 
 aZ ;(et/*o)i' | TTveuffat yovlas ereKicrdii, Choeph, 1065-67. After the 
 
 'storm' of battle the 'ship of state' has fair sailing and has not 
 sprung a leak — Sept. c. Th. 795-6, 
 
 TToXlf h iv €v8ia Tt KOI KXvdoiI'lOV 
 
 TToXXaTffi wXijyair oi'tXoi' ovk (Si^aro. 
 
 The life-blood of Agamemnon is bloody ' dew ' — jSdXXei /*' fpe/ij-p 
 ylfOKaSi ^oiKi'ar Spoirov, Agam, 1390. His death is a 'shower' of 
 
 blood — ScSoiKa 5' ififipov KTvirov Soixocr<pa\ij \ riv ai/iaTtjpov' ^axas de 
 \riyti,Agam. 1533-4- 
 
 University OF Nebraska, J AS, I> L<EES. 
 
THE RELATION OF THE RHYTHM OF POETRY 
 TO THAT OF THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE WITH 
 ESPECIAL REFERENCE TO ANCIENT GREEK. 
 
 It is a matterof common experience with students of Greek that 
 have advanced far enough to read Homer to find that it is 
 impossible for them to read a single line of Homer rhythmic- 
 ally, and that this ability can be gained only by dint of hard 
 practice and by a thorough understanding of the structure of the 
 heroic hexameter. The difficulty is very much increased when 
 the student encounters the Comic trimeter, and it may be truth- 
 fully stated that many a fair Greek scholar never masters the 
 trimeter. Now if the English or the German student will recall 
 the experience of his boyhood, he will notice that there was no 
 such chasm between prose and poetry. Though he had barely 
 learned how to read he was able to render the ordinary rhythms 
 of his mother-tongue correctly when attempting to read a poem. 
 The most natural question, and the question that presents itself 
 to everyone that has had the above experience, is this : " Whence 
 this diversity ? Why could I not read my Homer or my Sophocles 
 correctly as well as my English or my German poem ? " 
 
 The traditional answer to this question is contained in the 
 assertion that Greek versification is a purely artificial product 
 of the poet's brain, or, at any rate, that the fundamental 
 principles of Greek rhythm are not based upon the rhythm 
 of the spoken language. So, for example, Westphal, in his 
 Griechische Metrik (1868), p. 2, after having on page i explained 
 the term ictus, makes the following statement: "Die Setzung 
 des rhythmischen Ictus auf die eine oder die andere Silbe ist 
 weiiigstens fiir die griechische Poesie lediglich^ die That des 
 Dichters in seiner Eigenschaft als Rhythmopoios, der in dieser 
 Beziehung^a«a/«VA/r«iiber das sprachliche Material gebietet." 
 And Christ, in the second edition (1879) of his Metrik der 
 
 'The italics in this and the following quotations are not in the originals. 
 32 
 
498 C. W. E. MILLER. 
 
 Griechen und Romer, p. 3, makes use of the following language : 
 " Das Natiirlichste ware daher gewesen, wenn der rhythmische 
 Ictus sich mit den langen und zugleich accentuirten Sylben 
 verbunden hatte ; aber damit batten sich die Dichter zu beengende 
 Fesseln angelegt ; sie legien daher dent Versbau nur eines von 
 jenen beiden Elementen, entweder die Quantit'dt oder den Accent 
 zu Grunde, indem sie zugleich bei der langen aber unbetonten 
 Sylbe die Tonstarke und bei der accentuirten aber kurzen Sylbe 
 die Sylbendauer kiinstlich steigerten." 
 
 The foregoing quotations plainly indicate a belief in the possi- 
 bility of a system of rhythms whose entire fabric rests upon 
 purely artificial principles and such as are entirely distinct from 
 those of the spoken language, and, as was pointed out above, 
 this represents the traditional view with regard to Greek versifica- 
 tion. The falsity of this view seemed so self-evident to the writer 
 of this article, that as early as 1884, in a paper read before the 
 Johns Hopkins University Philological Association, an abstract 
 of which was published in the Johns Hopkins University Circu- 
 lars, No. 32 (1884), pp. 125 f., it was quietly discarded by him, 
 and instead the principle was postulated " that the versification of 
 a language must be in accordance with the nature of the 
 language." But old beliefs die hard, and even in 1892, at the 
 close of a distinguished career in the field of Greek rhythmic and 
 metric, Westphal had apparently not gotten over the position he 
 held in 1868, for on p. 42 of his Allgemeine Metrik he speaks 
 thus : " Zum BegrifTe des Rhythmus gehort ein Zweifaches, ein- 
 mal die Gleichheit, zweitens die Hervorhebung dieser einzelnen 
 Zeitabschnitte als selbstandiger Gruppen durch den Ictus . . . 
 Beide Momente suchen. sich nun an die in der Sprache vorhan- 
 denen Eigenthiimlichkeiten anzuschliessen : die Ordnung in den 
 aufeinander folgenden rhythmischen Zeitabschnitten an die in 
 der Sprache bestehende Zeitdauer der einzelnen Sylben, der Ictus 
 an den in der Sprache bestehenden Wortaccent. Aber keine 
 Poesielasst gleichzeitig der Sylbenquantitat und dem Wortaccente 
 dieselbe Berechtigung zu Theil werden. Die griechische Metrik 
 unterwirft lediglich die prosodische Sylbenbeschaffenheit dem 
 Rhythmus und vertheilt den Ictus unabhangig von dem Wort- 
 accente nach einem freien kunstlerischen Principe, wahrend 
 die altgermanische Poesie ohne Beriicksichtigung der Sylben- 
 quantitat an dem Wortaccente als dem Trager des rhythmischen 
 
RHYTHM OF POE TRY e^ THE SPOKEN LANG UA GE. 499 
 
 Ictus festhalt . . . Es lasst sich aber auch denken, dass eine 
 Poesie die Sprache nach einem voUig freien Principe dem 
 Rhythmus unterwirft, bloss auf die Zahl der Sylbeti Rucksicht 
 nimmt und sich weder in der Zeitdauer der rhythmischen 
 Abschnitte an die Sylbenquantitat, noch im Ictus an den Wort- 
 accent bindet, und soniit wurde zu dem quantitirenden und 
 accentuirenden noch ein bloss sylbenzahlendes Princip der Metrik 
 hinzukommen." 
 
 It is perfectly clear, then, that in 1892 Westphal had not 
 abandoned the position he held in 1868, and as some such theory 
 as this is still widely prevalent, and even at the present day the 
 majority of the youth of the land are trained by their text-books, 
 or teachers, or both, to look upon Greek versification as based 
 upon purely artificial rules, it did not seem amiss, in view of the 
 fundamental importance of the principle involved, to take up the 
 question once more and treat it at greater length. 
 
 Before proceeding with our discussion, it may be well to issue 
 a word of caution. We will readily grant that it is possible to 
 conceive of poetry for which the author might choose a means of 
 artistic embellishment or a distinctive form other than that of 
 artistic rhythm. Alliteration, rhyme, equality or symmetry of 
 the length of the verses depending upon equality or symmetry of 
 the number of syllables, equality or symmetry that may be only 
 approximate, or some other device, might all of them, either 
 singly or in combination, serve as an artificial or an artistic means 
 of formally separating poetry from prose. But all such poetry 
 would fall outside of the scope of the present discussion. Our 
 contention is simply this — to state it a little more clearly than in 
 the Circulars — that under normal conditions, when a poet employs 
 an artistic form of rhythm as an artistic embellishment of his 
 poetry, such rhythm is not a purely artificial and arbitrary prod- 
 uct of the poet's brain, but is based upon the rhythm of the 
 spoken language, or, to put it more concisely. Under normal con- 
 ditions the rhythm of poetry is based upon the rhythm of the spoken 
 language. 
 
 We may without fear of contradiction venture the statement 
 that all serious art is meant by the artist to appeal to the 
 aesthetic faculties of others than himself. It is true that there is 
 a certain charm for the artist in the mere act of creating ; he may 
 also look forward with keen pleasure to the completion of his 
 
500 C. W. E. MILLER. 
 
 work, and he may even display an affection for the finished prod- 
 uct of his skill comparable to that with which a parent views his 
 offspring ; but his joy will be full only when his work has found 
 appreciative hearers, readers, or admirers, and when its merits 
 have been recognized and acknowledged by intelligent critics. If 
 this is true of the sculptor, the painter, the musical composer, and 
 other artists, it is certainly true of the poet. Take away the 
 reader, the hearer, the admirer, and poetry would soon practically 
 become extinct. Under normal conditions, then, poetry is meant 
 to be heard or to be read. But by whom ? The poet's mission 
 is ordinarily not confined to any single individual or class, but he 
 strives to reach everybody. Poetry is essentially of the people 
 and for the people, and our great poets speak to their country- 
 men at large without reference to social distinctions or intellec- 
 tual attainments. "He that hath ears to hear, let him hear," 
 saith the poet as well as the preacher. 
 
 It is evident, then, that if poetry — rhythm and all — is not in- 
 tended simply for the poet's own amusement but is primarily 
 designed for others than the poet himself, the rhythm must be 
 expressed in such a way as to be intelligible to the reader, just as 
 the thought must be clothed in a language that will be understood 
 by those to whom the thought is to be communicated, for without 
 an intelligible medium of expression neither thought nor rhythm 
 can be discerned. From the very nature of the case, then, just 
 as the poet is forced to employ the mother-tongue of the reader 
 or hearer as the vehicle of expressing his thoughts, so he is com- 
 pelled to use the rhythm of the mother-tongue of the reader or 
 hearer as the basis of his own rhythm ; for language is the com- 
 mon carrier of both thought and rhythm. In other words, when 
 the poet is writing iambic, trochaic, dactylic, or anapaestic 
 rhythm, the rhyihm that results when the reader reads such 
 poetry according to his natural way of speaking, must be iambic, 
 trochaic, dactylic, or anapaestic, as the case may be. 
 
 If the above be true, it follows that the adoption of a purely 
 artificial basis of rhythm, or the adoption of foreign principles of 
 rhythm, is altogether excluded. But for the sake of viewing the 
 matter in all its aspects, let us suppose that an English poet did 
 write an English poem which was based upon the principles of 
 rhythm of Ancient Greek, if such a thing were possible, or, if it 
 be preferred, let the laws of rhythm employed be those of the 
 
RHYTHM OF POE TRY G^ THE SPOKEN LANG UA GE. 50 1 
 
 French language ; it matters not ; the result would be the same 
 in each case : no English-speaking person would comprehend the 
 rhythm, if he followed the ordinary pronunciation of the Eng- 
 lish language, and if, by a previous knowledge of the poet's inten- 
 tion and by dint of extra effort, he should succeed in rendering 
 the poem in such a way as to bring out the intended rhythm, the 
 result would be gibberish and the reader would not be able to 
 follow the sense and much less impart it to others. So the result 
 of the experiment would be either a loss of the rhythm, and we 
 should have the case of a poet consciously undertaking a very 
 difficult, if not Herculean, task, all to no purpose, a thing which 
 it is scarcely possible to conceive as happening in reality ; or, if 
 the rhythm were maintained, the sense would be lost, and the 
 poet confronted with an alternative even more absurd than the 
 other. 
 
 Having shown that the principle enunciated by us is true on 
 a priori grounds, let us now look at some of the actual facts, as 
 far as we are able to observe them. That the principle holds 
 good for English, German, Norwegian, French, and Modern 
 Greek, all those that are conversant with the facts will readily 
 admit. Any English, German, Norwegian, French, or Greek 
 man, woman, or child that knows his mother-tongue and can read 
 with any degree of ease, whether he has any scientific knowledge 
 of rhythm or not, nay, even without knowing that there is such 
 a thing as rhythm, can and does without any eflfort bring out in 
 his reading the ordinary rhythms of his native poetry, and the 
 fewer the rhythmic licenses in which the poet has indulged, the 
 more exactly will the rhythm of the reading correspond with the 
 rhythm designed by the poet. 
 
 Though the writer of this article cannot speak from personal 
 observation and experience about other languages than those 
 mentioned above, yet there is sufficient variety in these to warrant 
 the inference that the same state of affairs as has just been 
 described prevails also in the case of all the other European 
 languages in which a well-defined rhythm is the concomitant of 
 poetry. If only the Teutonic group of languages were repre- 
 sented, one might be in doubt as to whether the principle would 
 hold good in any of the Romance languages, or in Modern 
 Greek ; but when three so dissimilar languages as the German, 
 the French, and the Modern Greek afford evidence of the truth 
 
S02 C, W. E. MILLER. 
 
 of the principle for which we are contending, the only safe 
 inference is the one presented above, and we can confidently 
 assume the validity of the principle for all the languages that fall 
 under the scope of the present investigation. 
 
 Before taking up the question of the applicability of the prin- 
 ciple to Ancient Greek, it may be well to state that the author, of 
 course, recognizes the fact that the truth of the principle in the 
 case of the more familiar modern languages must have been 
 apparent to many persons even before the author's publication of 
 his views, and that it must have appeared to others independently 
 since. So, for example, as early as 1871, Briicke in his Physio- 
 logische Grundlagen der neuJiochdeutschen Verskunst, p. 1, says: 
 " Ich glaube nicht auf den Widerspruch des Lesers zu stossen, 
 wenn ich von dem Grundsatze ausgehe, dass ein Vers um so 
 correcter sei,je weniger man sich beim scandiren desselben in 
 storender Weise von der prosaischen Aussprache zu entfernen 
 braucht." 
 
 Lanier's whole Science of English Verse (1880) is based upon 
 a recognition of this principle for English. Thus, on page 73 f. is 
 found the statement : " We have found, first, that an ordinary 
 English reader, in coming upon the line, 
 
 Rhythmical roundelays wavering downward, 
 
 would immediately recognize in it the rhythmic movement noted 
 in the musical scheme ... By what signs is this recognition 
 made ? " 
 
 " To this question there can be but one answer : The English 
 habit of uttering words,^rtfitf or verse (the italics are not Lanier's), 
 is to give each sound of each word a duration which is either equal 
 or simply proportionate to the duration of each other sound ; and, 
 since these simple proportions enable the ear to make those exact 
 co-ordinations of duration which result in the perception of pri- 
 mary rhythm, we may say that all English word-sounds are 
 primarily rhythmical, and therefore that the signs of those sounds 
 — that is, written or printed words — are in reality also signs of 
 primary rhythm; so that we may say further, Written or printed 
 English words constitute a sort of system of notation for primary 
 rhythm." 
 
 " But this is not all. We found, secondly, that an ordinary 
 •English reader, in coming upon the line, 
 
 Rhythmical roundelays wavering downward, 
 
RHYTHM OF POETRY Sr' THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE. S03 
 
 would recognize not only the simple relations in time among the 
 verse-sounds which suggest primary rhythm, but would also 
 recognize a certain grouping of these sounds which was intended 
 by the writer and which constitutes their secondary rhythm, 
 to wit, the grouping of the eleven syllables into four bars, each 
 bar equal in its time to each other bar, etc." 
 
 Compare also what the same writer says on page 117 of his 
 work : " (i) Primary rhythm is the result of simple time-relations 
 between individual verse-sounds. (2) The English habit of 
 utterance in current speech is to deliver the sounds in some sort 
 of primary rhythm. (3) The particular sort of primary rhythm 
 thus given varies with difTerent speakers, but only within such 
 limits as allow every speaker (the italics are not Lanier's) to pre- 
 serve without difficulty the larger time-relations of bar to bar in 
 secondary rhythm. (4) In consequence of the habit mentioned, 
 words have become so associated with their rhythms as to suggest 
 them when written or printed and thus to become a system of 
 notation for rhythm." 
 
 Even Westphal, when he is not brought face to face with the 
 perplexing problem of accounting for the seeming difference 
 between the pronunciation of Greek poetry and that of prose, 
 recognizes the principle at least for German ; for on page 116 of 
 his Allgemtine Metrik (1892) he expresses himself in favor of 
 Briicke's view as follows: "Oftmals genug kommt es vor, dass 
 unsere besten Dichter auch eine Flexionssylbe im Verse zur 
 rhythmischen Hebungssylbe machen. Nur muss man dabei mit 
 E. Briicke von dem Grundsatze ausgehen, dass ein Vers um so 
 correcter ist, je weniger man beim Scandiren der Verse in storen- 
 der Weise von der Aussprache der Prosa sich zu entfernen 
 braucht."' 
 
 But it is high time for us to direct our attention to Ancient 
 Greek. The same a priori reasoning that led us to accept the 
 principle in the case of other languages would lead us to accept 
 it also in the case of Ancient Greek. It may be well to note, it is 
 true, that music and the dance played a prominent part in Greek 
 
 "The above was written before the appearance of Chapters on Greek 
 Metric, by Thomas Dwight Goodell, New York, 1901. It is a source of 
 great satisfaction to the writer of this article to note that Goodell also 
 (pp. 19 f.) unreservedly recognizes, for English, German, and Ancient 
 Greek, the principle which this paper is seeking to establish. 
 
504 C. W. E. MILLER. 
 
 poetry. But as the Greeks employed no system of notation for 
 expressing the rhythm of the musical and orchestic accompani- 
 ment of their poetry other than that which was contained in the 
 language itself, and as the music and dance, if any, were simple 
 and were in general subordinated to the words, the conditions 
 in Greek, so far as the relation of the rhythm of poetry to that 
 of the spoken language is concerned, could not have been essen- 
 tially different from those which prevailed in other languages. 
 
 Furthermore, the overwhelming mass of the testimony of the 
 ancients themselves points in the direction of our theory. The 
 limits of this paper preclude the presentation of all this testimony 
 and it would be wearisome to quote even the familiar remarks 
 of Aristotle and of Dionysius of Halicarnassus. Among other 
 works that might be mentioned as presenting more or less of this 
 testimony, may be cited De vi atque indole rhythmorum quid 
 veteres iudicaverint, Breslau, 1887 (=Breslauer phil. Abh. I, 3), 
 by G. Amsel, who gives a formidable array of quotations and 
 references on the subject. Without stopping, then, for a detailed 
 discussion of these passages we shall content ourselves with 
 calling attention, on the one hand, to Plato's views regarding the 
 rhythm of poetry, and, on the other hand, to the important place 
 assigned to rhythm in the artistic elaboration of Ancient Greek 
 prose.' 
 
 The manner in which Plato, in the Republic, discusses rhythm, 
 and the importance which he, from an educational point of view, 
 attaches to the character of the rhythms employed, plainly show 
 that rhythm was a feature of poetry that was universally recog- 
 nized and whose effect was universally felt. It does not seem 
 reasonable to suppose that this recognition was made possible 
 only by the instruction received at school and that it was not 
 primarily due to the conformity of the rhythm of poetry with the 
 rhythm of the spoken language. On the other hand it is impos- 
 sible to conceive that Plato, Isocrates, Demosthenes, and other 
 Greek prose writers should have paid so much attention to 
 rhythm, and that the works or teachings of the Greek rhetoricians 
 should be fraught with such minute observations and explicit 
 
 ' For the proper appreciation of the part played by rhythm in the elabora- 
 tion of Greek prose, « study of Blass' Attische Beredsamkcit and of Nor- 
 dan's Aitliie Kunstprosa is indispensable. 
 
RHYTHM OF POETRY Q^ THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE. 50$ 
 
 instructions on this subject, if rhythm had not been intended for 
 artistic effect. Now this effect would have been entirely lost if 
 the rhythm had not been properly brought out in the delivery of 
 the works referred to, or had not been observed when these works 
 were read. But this would have been impossible unless the 
 rhythm had been based upon the rhythm of the spoken 
 language. For surely the orator could not possibly have pro- 
 nounced his oration on a rhythmical basis entirely distinct from 
 that of his ordinary pronunciation, and if, for the sake of argu- 
 ment, the possibility of such a feat might be granted, the audience 
 could but ill have understood him, if it understood him at all ; 
 and, on the other hand, it is preposterous to suppose that the 
 ordinary Athenian reader could have discarded his ordinary 
 rhythmical utterance of prose and adopted therefor a purely 
 artificial one for the sole purpose of enjoying, during his reading, 
 the beauties of a purely artificial rhythm. Hence, as the artistic 
 rhythm of prose was based upon the same principles as the 
 rhythm of poetry,' it follows that the rhythm of poetry must have 
 been based upon the rhythm of the spoken language. 
 
 But the same result may be reached in another way by simply 
 confining our attention to one particular feature of the testimony 
 of the ancients. It is well known that the employment in prose 
 of a verse of any of the ordinary rhythms, as, for example, an 
 iambic trimeter, or a dactylic hexameter, or a trochaic tetrameter, 
 was regarded by the ancient rhetoricians as a blemish. This fact 
 shows that such verses, if present in prose, must have been 
 noticed by the average reader or hearer, even when the reader or 
 hearer was unprepared for them, and this ability on the part of 
 the reader or hearer would be inconceivable unless the rhythm in 
 question had been a reflex of that of the spoken language. Now, 
 since it is perfectly certain that an iambic, trochaic, or dactylic verse 
 
 ' Compare Amsel, I. c, page 26: " Oratores autem quin suos numeros a 
 poetis quasi mutuati sint, in dubitationem Tocari nequit. . . . Sed cum 
 rliythmorutn in prosa oratione usurpatorum natura eadem sit atque metro- 
 rum, quibus carmina efficiuntur, consentaneum est indolem quoque eorum 
 fere esse parem. Quare non solum universa brevium et longarum sylla- 
 baram, rbythmorum aseendentium et descendentium vis eadem fere est in 
 orationibus atque in carminibus, sed etiam ubicumque de singulis pedibus 
 rhetores iudicium faciunt, animis eornm obversantur versus ex bis pedibus 
 contexti." 
 
5o6 C. W. E. MILLER. 
 
 in poetry differed in no respect from one that happened to be 
 employed in prose, except that the latter was unexpected, and since 
 the rhythm of the prose verse, as we have just seen, must have 
 been a reflex of the rhythm of the spoken language, we are again 
 forced to the conclusion that the rhythm of poetry was based 
 upon the rhythm of the spoken language. 
 
 It now remains for us briefly to discuss some of the reasons that 
 have prevented the proper recognition of the principle here advo- 
 cated, and that have made it possible, especially in the case of 
 Ancient Greek, for the traditional view to hold its own with such 
 a degree of tenacity. The first of these reasons inheres in the 
 very nature of the rhythm of poetry. For, after all, no matter 
 how artistically and how skilfully used, poetical rhythm serves as 
 an artificial restraint upon the language. Language does not 
 naturally run in uniform rhythms ; not all words are iambi, or 
 trochees, or dactyls, or anapaests. To secure a uniform move- 
 ment the poet has to resort to a process of selection and 
 re-arrangement, and in the course of this process of selection and 
 re-arrangement he at times does violence to the rhythm of the 
 spoken language as he does to the grammar and to the diction. 
 But as there is usually some excuse for the deviations in gram- 
 mar and diction, and, indeed, a portion of the poet's art may 
 consist in the skilful use of these very deviations, so there is 
 usually some excuse for the deviations from the rhythm of the 
 spoken language, and the rhythmical artist will show his supe- 
 riority also in the way in which he admits these variations. Some 
 of them may be survivals from earlier periods, which have become 
 a part of the rhythmical paraphernalia of the poet's workshop. 
 This is true notoriously of the employment of mute e in modern 
 French poetry in a manner that is largely at variance with the 
 usage of the spoken language. Other deviations may be so skil- 
 fully employed as to be noticeable only when the verse in which 
 they occur is taken out of its context, whereas in continuous 
 recitation or reading they escape observation. This becomes 
 possible by the momentum, if we may call it so, of the rhythm. 
 The type of the rhythm has been set up and the reader's mind, 
 in accordance with the law of inertia, unconsciously continues in 
 the same movement. This factor is one that is of the utmost 
 .importance, and it unquestionably played quite as prominent a 
 r61e in Ancient Greek as it does in modern languages. The fol- 
 
RHYTHM OF POETR Y &- THE SPOKEN LANG UA GE. 507 
 lowing lines of Tennyson's Princess may serve as an illustration: 
 
 A great broad-shoulder'd genial Englishman, 
 A lord of fat prize-oxen and of sheep, 
 A raiser of huge melons and of pine, 
 A patron of some thirty charities. 
 
 These lines, if read singly, and without a knowledge of the con- 
 text, would certainly not be suspected of being heroic verse, and 
 yet, when taken in conjunction with the preceding portion of the 
 poem, they are naturally read as heroic verse and one would not 
 at first sight notice that in prose they would be read otherwise. 
 
 Even those seemingly more serious variations that are brought 
 about by placing the rhythmical accent upon an unaccented' final 
 syllable may be concealed by a little manipulation, which consists 
 in a dissociation of the pitch and stress on the one hand and the 
 rhythmical accent on the other hand, the stem-syllable retaining 
 the pitch and stress elements of its normal accent and thus doing 
 partial justice to the language, whilst the requirements of the 
 verse are met by placing the rhythmical accent on the ending. 
 Thus, if in the following two verses from Tennyson's Idyls of 
 the King, 
 
 Darkening the world. We have lost him : he is gone 
 
 and 
 
 Wearing the white flower of a blameless life, 
 
 the words "darkening" and "wearing" are pronounced some- 
 what as the words "Thine are" in the fifth verse of Tennyson's 
 In Memoriam, 
 
 Thine are these orbs of light and shade, 
 
 the word "thine", because of the emphasis, receiving a higher 
 pitch and greater stress than the word " are", and the word " are " 
 receiving the rhythmical value demanded by the verse,' no per- 
 ceptible violence will be done to the language and we escape the 
 shock of the sudden transition from ascending rhythm in a number 
 of successive verses to descending rhythm in a single verse 
 followed by just as sudden a return to ascending rhythm in the 
 very next line. 
 
 •For a different view of the matter, see J. W. Bright, Publications of the 
 Modern Language Association, XIV (1899), pp. 364 ff. 
 
So8 C. W. E. MILLER. 
 
 But apart from all these deviations which are perfectly justifi- 
 able, there are others that are less so, and these are occasionally 
 indulged in even by poets that are distinguished for their fine 
 rhythmical feeling. So, for example, a verse like the following 
 from Tennyson's Princess, 
 
 Blacken'd about us, bats wheel'd, and onls whoop'd, 
 
 does not fall naturally into the movement of heroic verse, and any 
 large number of such verses would be fatal to fine rhythmical 
 effect. 
 
 Now all these greater and lesser, justifiable and unjustifiable 
 deviations have a tendency to obscure the true relationship sub- 
 sisting between the rhythm of poetry and that of the spoken 
 language, and it is, perhaps, not surprising, after all, that there are 
 found those who would deny the existence of any relationship 
 whatsoever between poetry and the spoken language in the matter 
 of rhythm. 
 
 The second great reason that has served to keep our principle 
 in the background arises from the physiological and mechanical 
 difficulties that are encountered in the analysis of the sounds of 
 the spoken language. Thus, whilst the average person will 
 readily admit that every musical sound possesses at least four 
 characteristics, viz., quality, quantity, stress, and pitch, and whilst 
 he may be able fairly well to distinguish these four characteristics 
 in the case of vocal music, few persons would, perhaps, feel per- 
 fectly safe in admitting the presence of these four factors in the 
 sounds of the spoken language, and very few, indeed, are there 
 whose ear is sufficiently well trained to enable them, in the case 
 of spoken sounds, to distinguish even roughly between the four 
 qualities, not to speak of measuring them. The truth is that the 
 human ear, though capable of the most marvelous development 
 in the matter of recognizing minute variations of quantity, stress, 
 and pitch, is at best an imperfect instrument, and so rapid are the 
 changes that take place in the quantity, stress, and pitch of the 
 sounds of the spoken language that even those who think they 
 have discerned certain relationships between spoken sounds 
 hesitate to express very positive views on the subject for fear of 
 being mistaken, and the average person, appalled by the difficul- 
 ties, is satisfied to leave the problem unsolved. Neither does 
 physics come to our rescue. For, wonderful as have been the 
 
RHYTHM OF POETRY S>^ THE SPOKEN LANGUAGE. 509 
 
 results obtained in the investigation of vocal sounds by the aid of 
 ingenious physical apparatus, no instrument has as yet been 
 devised that will simultaneously determine the absolute or relative 
 values of the quantity, stress, and pitch of the sounds of a sentence 
 of even moderate length. 
 
 But great as may be the obstacles occasioned by the physical 
 limitations described in the previous section and by the artificial 
 restrictions imposed on language by the very nature of rhythm, 
 greater still are the barriers to a proper understanding of the 
 subject under discussion that have been caused by the great 
 difference between the Teutonic languages and Modern Greek 
 on the one hand and Ancient Greek on the other so far as the 
 interrelationship of the elements of pitch, quantity, and stress is 
 concerned. Modern Greeks were the teachers of the western 
 nations in the study of Ancient Greek. As these teachers were 
 unable to read Ancient Greek verse without a great deal of 
 practice, the belief arose that Ancient Greek poetry was con- 
 structed according to an artificial system of versification. Now 
 the Teuton, while experiencing the same difficulty with respect to 
 Ancient Greek as did his Modern Greek teacher, found no diffi- 
 culty whatever in mastering Modern Greek rhythms, a Modern 
 Greek word being pronounced just as an English word that has 
 the same number of syllables and that is accented on the same 
 syllable as that which bears the Greek written accent. It was 
 quite natural, then, that the belief regarding the artificiality of 
 Ancient Greek rhythm should have found a firm lodgment in the 
 mind of the Teutonic scholar. 
 
 Furthermore, as Modern Greek rhythm is regulated principally 
 by the written accent just as English or German rhythm is regu- 
 lated by the so-called word-accent, and as the principal point in 
 connection with the writing of Classic verse was to know the 
 quantities of the syllables of the Classic languages, the versification 
 of these languages was said to be quantitative, whilst that of the 
 Teutonic languages and Modern Greek was said to be accentual. 
 Now as the word accent is used in a variety of significations it 
 became necessary, of course, to define the meaning of the word 
 accentual. Inasmuch as the accentual principle was supposed to 
 be radically different from the quantitative principle, quantity was 
 excluded ; everybody knew that the term did not apply to timbre ; 
 a slight knowledge of music was sufficient to show that pitch did 
 
5IO C. IV. E. MILLER. 
 
 not determine rhythm ; so the only thing left was to suppose that 
 accent was tantamount to stress} The inevitable result of this 
 false notion has been the growth of a belief in the existence 
 of two distinct kinds of rhythm, one based upon quantity, 
 the other based upon stress," and it is precisely this erroneous 
 belief that has to a large extent been the cause of the 
 
 ■This false view seems to have been perpetuated in the term expiratory 
 as applied to the accent of Modern Greek (Brugmann, Gr. Gravi.^ §I43) 
 and of the Teutonic and other languages (Hirt, Der Indogermanische Akzent, 
 pp.io and 47), though Hirt after accepting the current classification of word- 
 accent as musical and expiratory is careful to add that probably both kinds 
 of accent exist in every language, and he does not fail to call attention to 
 the existence in the modern Germanic dialects of a well-developed so-called 
 musical accent. The fact of the matter is that the current classification is 
 misleading, and any definition of the word-accent of any particular language 
 that fails to take into account the three factors of pitch, stress, and quantity, 
 fails to give an adequate idea of the nature of such accent. Now whilst there 
 is still a great deal to be learned in regard to the word-accent of English or 
 German, not to mention Ancient Greek, yet the most palpable difference, 
 as the writer sees it, between the word-accent of English or German and 
 that of Ancient Greek is this : The German, or the English, word-accent 
 contains in addition to the stress element a decided pitch element, and as 
 the word-accent is also the regulator of the rhythm, the quantitative 
 element must also be reckoned with, for without a symmetrical distribution 
 of time-values rhythm is impossible. It will be seen, then, that in English 
 and German there is a tendency to combine prominence of pitch, stress, 
 and quantity on one syllable, whereas in Ancient Greek there is often a 
 tendency to dissociate prominence of pitch from prominence of either or 
 both of the other two factors. To Christ (1. u., p. 4) belongs the credit of 
 having pointed out, as early as J879, the essential difference between the 
 accent of German and that of Ancient Greek. 
 
 * One of the latest adherents of this view is G. Schultz, who in Hermes 
 XXXV (1900), p. 314, uses the following language : " Man pflegt den Unter- 
 schied ira Versbau der antiken und der neueren Zeit so zu bestimmen, dass 
 man jenen als quantitirend, diesen als accentuirend bezeichnet. Die Verse 
 der Alten bauen sich auf der Lange und Kiirze der Silben auf, die unsrigen 
 auf der verschiedenen 7i>«iM?-i« (the italics are mine). Dieser Unterschied 
 ist, wie man meinen soUte, offenkundig und allgemein bekannt . . .Es giebt 
 in der antiken Poesie keinen Versaccent (the italics are Schultz's). Dieser 
 Satz beruht zunachst auf einer allgemeinen ErwJgung. Wo bleibt denn der 
 Unterschied zwischen accenluirendem und quantitirendem Versbau, wenn 
 auch dieser wiederum der Accente bedarf (the italics are mine)?" It is hard to 
 escape the conclusion that Schultz, in addition to limiting the German word- 
 acc'ent to stress and believing in a rhythm based on stress versus a rhythm 
 l>ased on quantity, is also confounding rhythmical accent and word-accent. 
 
RHYTHM OF POE TRY &^ THE SPOKEN LA NG UA GE. S 1 1 
 
 persistence of the idea as to a purely artificial basis of the 
 rhythm of poetry and that has blinded the eyes of scholars in 
 regard to the true nature of the rhythm of Ancient Greek. 
 
 Let us now rapidly survey the ground that we have covered. 
 In the first place, the principle was advanced that under normal 
 conditions the rhythm of poetry is based upon that of the spoken 
 language. Secondly, it was shown that the principle is probable 
 on a priori grounds, that it actually holds good for a number of 
 languages, and that therefore there is a strong presumption in its 
 favor in the case of all languages whose poetry is characterized 
 by artistic rhythm. Thirdly, it was pointed out that the same 
 a priori reasoning applies also in the case of Ancient Greek and 
 that our position is sustained by the overwhelming mass of the 
 testimony of the ancients. In the last place, some of the reasons 
 were pointed out that have kept the principle in the background 
 and that have made it possible, especially in the case of Ancient 
 Greek, for the traditional view to hold its own with such a degree 
 of tenacity. 
 
 It would seem high time, then, to abandon the view that 
 Ancient Greek rhythm was based upon principles that were 
 purely artificial and foreign to the genius of the language, and it 
 ought to be distinctly understood that the reason why the average 
 English or German student, in spite of a normally developed 
 rhythmical feeling, cannot read his Homeric hexameter or iambic 
 trimeter without special preparation and without a forewarning, 
 is that he is in the habit of pronouncing his Greek according to 
 the laws of English or German rhythm and not according to the 
 laws of Ancient Greek rhythm. 
 
 Johns Hopkins University. *-• ". li. MILLER. 
 
INDEX 
 
 Ablative of Quality, Tngenium in the, 301-14 
 Abstract gods, 45 
 
 ac and atque, Use of, in Silver Latin, 413-95 
 Accent, Classification and nature of, 509 f. 
 Motion of the voice in connection 
 
 with, 57-7^ 
 
 Accusative, Greek, 263 f. 
 
 Acropolis at Athens, 249-51 
 
 Ad Catull. XXX 4-5, 39-36 
 
 Adityas, Meaning and etymology of, 45 
 
 Adjectives in 'anus, -oirius, -?««j, 95 f., 99 ff. 
 Admelus, Character of, in Euripides* Al- 
 
 cestis, 33S-7 
 
 Adonic verse, 139 
 
 Adverbial use of prepositions in Homer, 
 
 183-4, '87 
 Adversative use of participle, 45^-3 
 
 aeiStiv (tfSetv), ai3 f., 216 ff. 
 
 Aemilius Paulus, 80 
 
 Aegui bonique /acere^ Syntax of, 135 
 
 Aeschylus, Pentapody in, 147 
 
 The Metaphor in, 483-96 
 
 Agora of Athens, 247-9 
 
 Alcaeus, Pentapody in, 142 
 
 Alcestis of Euripides, 329-38 
 
 Alcman, Pentapody in, 141 
 
 Alcuin's attitude toward Vergil, 377-86 
 
 Alexander, W. J., 169-80 
 
 Allinson, Francis G., 353"6 
 
 Alliteration in Shakspere's Sonnets, 368 f. 
 oAAo Ti (^1, Use of, in Plato, 43* 
 
 Ambrosianus of Terence, Pictures in, 277 
 Ameretat, 4^ 
 
 Anacreon, Pentapody ir, 145 
 
 Ancestors, Worship of, 87-94 
 
 Ancyranum, Monumcntum, 77, 8a 
 
 Andrew, ' f* 
 
 -anus. Use of, 95"'" 
 
 aoiSot, SIX* 313, ai8, 3a6 
 
 Aphrodite, Variations of name of, 44 
 
 Apollonlus Rhodius, The Participle in, 
 
 449-70 
 Apostolic Commission, The, 1-18 
 
 (Epa, Use of, in questions, 429 f* 
 
 4pa ft^. Use of, in questions, 437-34 
 
 Archilochus, Pentapody in, 137, 139 
 
 Singing of verses of, aar f. 
 
 Aristophanes, The Athens of, 241-52 
 
 -drius, Possessive use of, 104 
 
 33 
 
 Arnold, M., ' Balder Dead,' 19-28 
 
 Arrian, ^jj for ou in, 477 f. 
 
 Arsis, Accentual and rhythmical, 68-76 
 
 Musical signification of, 67 
 
 Assonance In Shakspere's Sonnets, 370 ff. 
 
 Assyrian Empire, Fall of, Z13-22 
 Athenian in his Relation to the State, 87-94 
 
 Athens of Aristophanes, The, 241-52 
 
 atgue and ac in Silver Latin, 413-25 
 
 Attica in Aristophanes, 24X-4 
 
 Augustus Princeps, 77-86 
 
 Automorphism (animism), 39 
 av from ov, 1 89-203 
 
 Bacchylides, Pentapody in, 146 
 Balder's burial, Arnold's version of, 26-7 
 Baptism, 11 f, 
 Barnabas, s^ 4 
 Barsabbas-Jiistus, Joseph, 3 f, ' 
 Bartholomew, i f. 
 Basors, John W., 273-85 
 Beginning, Verbs of, with participle, 466 f. 
 Bloomfield, Maurice, 37-48 
 BoLLiNG, George Melville, ^^^~^° 
 boni consulere , Syntax of, 134 
 Brahma, Origin of, 47 
 Brethren, Five hundred, 5 
 One hundred and twenty, 3-5 
 Briggs, Charles A., 1-18 
 Browning's view of Heracles in Euripi- 
 des' Alcestis, 337 
 
 cadere=decidere, 51 
 
 Caesareanus {-ianus). Occurrence of, 104 
 Caesarinus, Occurrence of, J03 
 
 Caesura in Shakspere's Sonnets, 372 f. 
 
 Carroll, Mitchell, 241-52 
 
 Case Construction of Verbs of Sight and 
 
 Hearing in Greek, 263-71 
 
 Cases, Greek, 263-6 
 
 Catullus, XXX, 4-5, 29-36 
 
 Causal use of participle, 454 ^' 
 
 Cenotaphium Fisanum, 84 
 
 Chiasmus in the Epistles of Cicero, Sen- 
 eca, Fliny and Fronto, 339-52 
 Christian writers' attitude toward pagan 
 
 literature, 378-80 
 
 Cicero, ad Fam. VII, 32, i. Interpreta- 
 tion of, 403 
 Chiasmus in, 340-2 
 
SH 
 
 INDEX, 
 
 Cicero, The Greeting in the Letters of, 
 
 395-404 
 
 Cicero Attico Sal., 401-2 
 
 Classical treatment of a Romantic sub- 
 ject, 19-28 
 
 claudere=concludertt S^ 
 
 Comedy, Relation of, to life, 374 f. 
 
 Condition, Ideal, On the theory of, in 
 
 Latin, 253-61 
 
 Conditional use of participle, 455 f. 
 
 Cynegeticus, 446 
 
 Dactylo-epitrite pentapodies, X38, 142 
 
 Dance, 205, ao6, an 
 
 Delbruck (6.) on the order of words, 
 
 230, 233 f- 
 Demes of Attica, 943 f. 
 
 Di certi, 47 
 
 AiKopos, 287-300 
 
 Die Cassius 53, i ; 57, 8, 85 
 
 Political vision of, 78 
 
 Dio Chrysostomus, /t^ for ou in, 477 
 
 Oration XI of, 405-12 
 
 Diodorus Siculus, fi^ for ov in, 473 
 
 Dionysius Halicarnaseus, /x^ for ov in, 474 
 Disciple, i, 5 f., ji f., j6 f. 
 
 ducere=educert, 5 1 
 
 Dunelmensis of Terence, Pictures in, 277 
 
 Ji, Use of, in questions, 
 Ebrling, Herman Louis, 
 Eiidalc story of Balder's burial, 
 Edwards, George Vail, 
 Elmbr, H. C, 
 
 Emotion, Verbs of, with participle. 
 Emphasis in connection with the 
 
 of words, 
 Epic poetry. Dramatic and lyric 
 
 cedents of, 
 Epyllia in Homer, 
 Etymological (verbal) gods, 
 Etymologies, 
 Euhemerism, 
 Euripides as a dramatic artist, 
 
 Hipp. 1276, 
 
 Interpretation of the Alcestis of, 
 
 Fentapody in. 
 
 Relation of, to the Cynegeticus, 
 Evil eye. 
 Expiratory accent, 
 
 Fairclough, H. Rushton, 
 
 Father-worship, 
 
 Fay, Edwin W., 
 /trre=safferre^ 
 _findere~di_^ndert. 
 
 Fingers, Use of, in gesture. 
 
 Folk-Lorc, 
 
 Fronto, Chiasmus in. 
 
 432 
 
 339-40 
 
 26-7 
 
 301-14 
 
 133-9 
 
 . 467 f. 
 
 order 
 
 330 if. 
 ante- 
 
 209 
 
 210 
 
 43 
 
 189-303 
 
 37 
 
 330 ff. 
 
 443-7 
 
 3»9-38 
 
 147 
 
 447 
 
 287 fr. 
 510 
 
 205-27 
 38 
 
 189-203 
 
 51 
 
 51 
 
 275 f. 
 
 287-300, 315-37 
 350-2 
 
 Genitive, Greek, 264 f., 268 
 
 Genitive of Quality, Ingenium in the, 301-14 
 Gentile adjectives, 106-xii 
 
 Gesture, Portraiture of, in MSS of Ter- 
 ence, 278 flf. 
 Glyconic verse, 139 
 Gorgianic iigures in Luctan, 391-2 
 Green, Edwin L., 47'-9 
 Greeting, The, in the Letters of Cicero, 
 
 395-404 
 Grudge, Origin of goddess, 46 
 
 Gyges, The story of, ago 
 
 haerert^^inkatrere ^ 52 
 
 Haggbtt, a. S., 181-7 
 
 Harry, J. E., 427-34 
 
 Haurvatat, 46 
 
 Hearing, Case after verbs of, 263-71 
 
 Hendrickson, G. L,, 151-68 
 
 Heracles, Character of, in the Alcestis, 337 
 H ero- worsh i p, 38 
 
 Herodotus and Lucian, 387-93 
 
 Homer, Dramatic and lyric elements in, 
 
 309 ff. 
 The Uses of the Prepositions in, 181-7 
 
 Homeric criticism, 405 ff. 
 
 Homeric Echoes in Matthew Arnold's 
 
 ' Balder dead,' 19-28 
 
 Homeric Hymns, 315, 318 
 
 Homophones in Later Greek, 353-6 
 
 Horace and Lucilius: A Study of Hor- 
 ace, Sernt. I, 10, 151-68 
 Carm. I, 2, 49, 86 
 Sat. II, 5, 33, The praenomen in, 403 
 Hymenaeus, The, in Homer, 309 
 
 -iSnus, Use of, 97 ff. 
 
 Ibycus, Pentapody In, 145 
 
 ID, The Etymology and Meaning of the 
 
 Sanskrit Rooti 357-61 
 
 Ideal Condition, On the theory of, in 
 
 Latin, 353-61 
 
 idinya. Use of, 360 
 
 Imitation of Homer in ' Balder Dead,' 19-27 
 Indicative Questions with ju.^ and Spa /x^, 
 
 427-34 
 Ingenium in the Ablative of Quality and 
 
 the Genitive of Quality, 301-14 
 
 Inheritance system of the Athenians, 87-^4 
 Intercalary verse, 319 ff. 
 
 -inus, Use of, 95-1 n 
 
 Ion, A Tragic Fragment of, 481 f, 
 
 Isaeus, Value of, for Athenian life, 87-94 
 
 Itacism, 353-6 
 
 James, 1 ff. 
 
 Jesus, Commands of, 10 ff., 17 f, 
 
 John, brother of James, i ff. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 5IS 
 
 JoHNsoNf Charles W. L,, S7-76 
 
 Johnston, Christopher, 113-22 
 
 Judas Iscariot, i ff., 16 f. 
 
 Jude, brother of Jesus, 4 
 
 Justin Martyr, /uij for oi in, 478 
 
 Kaibel (G.) on tlie order of words, 233 
 Kalevala, Absence of strophic division in, 219 
 
 Kara-Kirghiz, Epic songs of, 326 
 
 Kern, James W., 263-71 
 
 KiVricri! T^s c^uip^t, 57, 61, 64-8 
 
 Kirk, William Hamilton, 19-36 
 
 Knowledge, Plato's theory of, 169-80 
 
 Laing, Gordon J., 131-6 
 
 Lanier's view of quantity In English 
 
 verse. 
 
 502 f. 
 
 \av&a.via with participle, 
 
 466 
 
 Laiin Verbs of Rating, Notes on. 
 
 1 31-6 
 
 Lease, Emory B., 
 
 413-25 
 
 Lees, Jas. T., 
 
 483-96 
 
 Linus, The, in Homer, 
 
 210 f. 
 
 Lodge, Gonzalez, 
 
 253-6' 
 
 Long, Omera Flovd, 
 
 377-86 
 
 Lucian, ^^ for ow before. 
 
 471-9 
 
 Lucian's Syrian Goddess, Notes on. 
 
 387-93 
 
 Lucilius, Attitude of Horace toward 
 
 151-63 
 
 Lydus, dt mag. reip. Rom. I, 41, 
 
 165-6 
 
 Magic colors (red, white, black). 
 
 324 
 
 Magic in Theokritos and Vergil, 
 
 315-27 
 
 Mark, John, 
 
 16 
 
 Marriage among Athenians, 
 
 87-94 
 
 Mary, mother of Jesus, 
 
 4 
 
 mother of Mark, 
 
 16 
 
 Matthew (Levi), 
 
 I f. 
 
 Matthias, 
 
 3f. 
 
 ju^ for ov before Lucian, 
 
 47"-9 
 
 Use of, in questions. 
 
 4«7-34 
 
 Metaphor in Aeschylus, 
 
 483-96 
 
 Metre, 
 
 68-76 
 
 Military honors paid to dead heroes 
 
 23 
 
 Miller, C. W. E., 
 
 497-5" 
 
 Miniatures in the MSS of Terence, 
 
 The 
 
 Scenic Value of the. 
 
 273-85 
 
 Miraculous powers. 
 
 'S 
 
 Monodactylic logaoedic lines. 
 
 ■39 
 
 Monosyllabic verse in Shakspere's 
 
 Son- 
 
 nets. 
 
 367 
 
 Montgomery, Walter A., 
 
 405-13 
 
 Monumentum Ancyranum, 
 
 77.8a 
 
 Moon-colors, The, 
 
 32s 
 
 Motion of the Voice in Connection 
 
 with 
 
 Accent and Accentual Arsis 
 
 and 
 
 Thesis, 
 
 57-76 
 
 Murray, Augustus Taber, 
 
 329-38 
 
 Music and Poetry in Early Greek Litera- 
 
 ture, The Connection between. 
 
 205-37 
 
 Music, Ancient, 64-8 
 
 Mustard, Wilfred P., 19-28 
 
 Mythology a disease of language, 44 
 
 Nature-worship, 40 
 Ne emissts^ ne poposcisses, and Similar 
 
 Expressions, 1 23 -g 
 
 Nee [negut), ^t ff. 
 
 Negative with participle, 461-3 
 
 Ness, Jens A., 357-61 
 
 New Testament, ^^ for ou in, 475 f. 
 
 Objective gods, 47 
 
 Obligation or propriety expressed by 
 
 Latin Subjunctive, 123-9 
 
 Old High German, Rime-parallelism in, 
 
 435-43 
 Optative in Later Greek, On Causes 
 
 Contributory to the Loss of the, 353-6 
 Order of Words in Greek, Some Statistics 
 
 on, 229-40 
 
 Otfrid, Rime-parallelism in, 435-4" 
 
 Ovid's use of PuPula duplex, 287 
 
 Paean, The, in Homer, 209 
 
 Papyri, Magic, 316 ff. 
 
 irapaicaraiAoy^, 222 
 
 Parataxis in Lucian, 389 ff. 
 
 Farisinus of Terence, Pictures in, 277 
 
 Participial construction with verbs of 
 
 hearing In Greek, 268 f. 
 
 Participle in ApoUonius Rhodius, 449-70 
 Particles, Use of, in Lucian, 3^-9' 
 
 Patronymics in -t««f, 100 
 
 Paul, 3 ff., 15 
 
 Pausanias and Aristophanes compared, 251 f. 
 Pbasb, E. M., 395-4°4 
 
 245 f. 
 52 
 387-93 
 135-6 
 137-49 
 463-5 
 391 
 
 Piraeus in Aristophanes, 
 
 Pellere = txpellere, 
 
 Penick, Daniel A., 
 
 penst. Syntax of, 
 
 Pentapody in Greek Poetry, The, 
 
 Perception, Verbs of, with participle, 
 
 Periodology in Lucian, 
 
 Persius, The Use of the Simple for the 
 
 Compound Verb in, 49-55 
 
 Peter, x ff., 13, 15 
 
 Pherecratean verse, 139 
 
 Philip, I f. 
 
 Philodemus, /u,^ for oir in, 47a f. 
 
 Phonetic Sequence, An Erroneous, 189-203 
 ^BaVM with participle, 466 
 
 Pictures in MSS of Terence, 273-85 
 
 Pindar, Pentapody in, 146 
 
 Pisanum, Cenotaphium, 84 
 
 Plato, Aim and Results of the Theae- 
 
 tetus of, 169-80 
 
 Statistics of ipa. in, 428 f. 
 
Si6 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Plautinus, History of, loz 
 
 Plinius Maior, Use of ac in, 422 f. 
 
 Plinius Minor, Chiasmus in, 346-50 
 
 Plutarch, /u.^ for ov in, 476 
 
 Pnyx in Aristophanes, 346 
 
 Poetry, Connection of, with music in 
 
 early Greek literature, 203-27 
 
 The rhythm of, as related to that of the 
 
 spoken language, 497-511 
 
 Polybius^ /iij for ov in, 472 f. 
 
 PomPeianuSt Use of, 108 f. 
 
 Pompeius,/rr««/j civitaiist 80 f. 
 
 ponere^appontre^ProPoneret 52 
 
 Porphyry, Scholia of, 406 IT. 
 
 Possessive adjectives In-^KWf, 'drius^ 
 
 Ittus, 95 f., 99 flf. 
 
 Postposition of prepositions in Homer, 
 
 182-3, 186 
 Praenomen in vocative of address, 403 
 
 Premere == cotnPritnere^ 52 
 
 Prepositions, Uses of, in Homer, 181-7 
 
 Price, Thos. R., 363-75 
 
 Princeps, Augustus, 77-86 
 
 princeps iuventuiiSt 84 
 
 Princeps senatus, 78 ff. 
 
 Pro with verbs of rating, 131-3 
 
 Pronoun, Plural of, for singular, 39-31 
 
 Pronunciation of prose. Relation of, to 
 
 that of poetry, 497 fF. 
 
 Propriety, Subjunctive of, 123-9 
 
 Prose, Relation of pronunciation of, to 
 
 that of poetry, 497 ff. 
 
 Rhythm of Ancient Greek, 504 f. 
 
 Pupula Duplex. A Comment on Ovid, 
 
 Amores I, 8, 15, 287-300 
 
 Purpose expressed by participle, . 456-8 
 
 Quality, Ablative and genitive of, 301-14 
 Quantity in English verse, Lanier's view 
 
 oU 502 f. 
 
 Questions with /i^ and S.pa jlii}, 427-34 
 
 Quintilian X, i, 93, 164 
 
 raden ^ eradere, 53 
 
 Radford, Robert S., 95-11 1 
 
 raPere =^abripere , corripere, 53 
 
 Rating, Latin verbs of, 131-6 
 
 Red (Rohita), The god, 43 
 
 pa^pifSiiXf 2iOj 215 r, 224 
 
 Rhapsodists, 315 f., 223 ff. 
 
 Rhinthon, Connection of, with Roman 
 
 satire, 165 
 
 Rhyme in Shakspere's Sonnets, 370 ff. 
 
 Use of, in magical formulae, 318 
 
 ♦ Rhythm, 59.74-5 
 
 Rhythm of Poetry, The Relation of. to 
 
 that of the Spoken Language, 497-511 
 
 Rime-parallelism, 
 rumpere — dirumpere. 
 
 435-43 
 53 
 
 Sanders. Henry N., 443-7 
 
 Sappho, Pentapody in, 143 
 
 Satire, Roman, Greek sources of, 156, 163-8 
 
 Savage, Charles Albert, 87-94 
 
 <i\r\^o.Ta. Siavoias, 484 
 
 QX-i\ii.a.-Ta. Ke^eto^, 484 
 
 Schone's view of the Alcestis, 332 
 
 scindere = discindere 53 
 
 Scott, John Adams, 481 f. 
 
 senaiuSf lectio, 79 
 
 Seneca, Chiasmus in, 34^-6 
 
 Senses, 266-71 
 
 Sermo cotidianus in Persius, 50 
 
 Sermo vulgaris, Posscssiveadjectives in, 
 
 108 ff. 
 Servus currens, 285 
 
 Shakspere, The Technic of the Sonnets 
 
 of, 363-75 
 
 Ship burial, 26 
 
 Short (C.) on emphasis and the order of 
 
 words, 231, 234, 235, 237 
 
 Sight, Primitive conception of, 294 
 
 Sight and Hearing, Case-construction of 
 
 verbs of, in Greek, 263-71 
 
 SiHLER, E. G., 77-86 
 
 Silver Latinity, 49 
 
 Use oi atgue and ac in, 413-25 
 
 Simon, i f, 
 
 Simonides, Pentapody in, 145 f. 
 
 Simple verb used for compound in Per- 
 sius, 49-55 
 Singing of Greek verse, 
 
 312 f., ai6 f.,ai9 f,, 223 ff. 
 <JKvKaKiiiv, ^45 
 
 i7KVtivu>v, 4^5 
 
 Smith, Kirby Flower, 287-300 
 
 Solon, Elegies of, 330 
 
 Sonnets of Shakspere, The Technic of, 
 
 363-75 
 
 Sophocles, Pentapody in, 14^ 
 
 Specialist gods, 45 
 
 Spiekbr, E. H., 137-49 
 
 Spoken language. Rhythm of, 497-511 
 
 Steele, R. B., 339-52 
 
 Stesichorus, Hexameters of, 318 
 
 Pentapody in, j^^ 
 
 Strabo, tiij for ov in, ^74 f. 
 
 Stress, Relation of accent to, 507, 509 f. 
 
 Subjunctive of Obligation or Propriety 
 
 in Latin, 
 
 133-9 
 
 Suetonius, Revival of suffix -inus by, 106 
 
 Use of ac in, ^22 
 
 SuTPHEN, Morris C, 315-27 
 
 Symbolic gods, 37-48 
 
 Tacitus, Use of aigue i 
 
 423 f. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 517 
 
 tangere=aiiifigerf, 53 
 
 Temporal use of participle, 453 f- 
 
 tendfre=exiendere, 53 
 
 ienere=:coniinere, 53 
 
 Terence, The Scenic Value of the Minia- 
 tures in the MSS of, "73-85 
 Terpander, 918, aai, 324 f. 
 Thaddaeus, i f. 
 Theaetetus, Aim and Results of Plato's, 
 
 169-80 
 Thcognis, Elegies of, aao 
 
 Theokritos and Vergil, Mngic in, 315-27 
 
 Thesis, Accentual and rhythmical, 68-76 
 Musical signification of, 67 
 
 Thomas, 15 f. 
 
 Threnus, The, in Homer, 309 
 
 Tmesis in Homer, 183-4, 187 
 
 Tongues, Speaking with, 15 
 
 Trinitarian formula, 10 
 
 Tvyxa-vtii with participle, 466 
 
 tiju.coc, Derivation of. 
 
 Vaticanus of Terence, Pictures in. 
 Verb, Use of simple for compound. 
 Verbal (etymological) gods, 
 Verbs of rating, Latin, 
 
 210 
 
 277 
 
 49-55 
 
 43 
 
 131-6 
 
 Vergil, The Attitude of Alcuin toward, 
 
 377-89 
 Magic in, 3*5-27 
 
 Verrall's view of the Alcestis, 332 
 
 yerrinus, History of, 103 
 
 Versification, Quantitative and accent- 
 ual, 509 f. 
 Theory of, 68-76 
 Theory of English, 502 f. 
 Theory of Greek, 497 fF. 
 VirgiliacuSf Origin of the form, 381 
 Vocative of address, Praenomen in, 403 
 Voice, Motion of, in Connection with 
 Accent and Accentual Arsis and 
 Thesis, 57-76 
 vomere = evomere^ 54 
 Vos, Bert John, 435-4* 
 ivr. Correlation of, with ^id, 359 f. 
 
 Wallaschek on primitive music, 206-8 
 
 Way's view of Admelus' character, 332 f. 
 
 Weil (H.) on the order of words, 229 
 
 Werewolf, Norse superstition of the, 296 
 
 Wilson, Harry Lahgford, 49-55 
 
 Wish-gods, 46^ 48 
 
 Word-accent, 509 f. 
 
This preservation photocopy was made at BookLab, Inc., 
 
 in compliance with copyright law. The paper 
 
 is Weyerhaeuser Cougar Opaque Natural, 
 
 which exceeds ANSI Standard 
 
 Z39.48-1984. 
 
 1992