the atrium. He says: "Wie der Atrias am adriatischen Meer ursprünglich das Land der zusammenfliessenden Ströme (Athesis, Tartarus, Padus u. s. w.) und der Sammelplatz aller Gewässer Ober-Italiens ist: so ist das Atrium der Theil des Hauses, wo das Wasser, welches auf das Dach herabregnet, im compluvium und impluvium zusammenfliesst." See Beck. Gal. II. p. 251. This needs no comment; it is the conception of a poet or a Donnelly. Festus, quoted by Paulus I. 12, gives two alternatives. The first agrees with Varro, cited below, to which he adds: vel quod a terra oriatur, quasi aterrium. This also may be passed over. Isidor. Or. XV. 3, 4, says of it: dictum est atrium, quod addantur ei tres porticus extrinsecus. Aliis atrium quasi, etc., which may well be classed with the etymology proposed by Mueller. The other view which he proceeds to give is the same as that of Servius cited below. Varro, L. L. V. 161, says: Atrium appellatum ab Atriatibus Tuscis; i.e. from the Tuscan town of Atria, a suggestion which is plausible, although Casaubon ridicules it with others, loc. cit.: “Varronis aliorumque veterum notationes quis non rideat?" Varro's view, however, carries with it more than seems probable. If the etymology is correct, the Romans either had no atrium at all or none properly speaking until the Tuscan form of building was adopted. The first supposition is contrary to the natural development of the domus from the casa : in fact all building everywhere seems to have begun with the tent or hut or cave having a single common room to which others were added in the course of time. The second supposition restricts the application of the word originally to the Tuscanicum, which Mau (Marq. Privatl. d. Röm.2 I. p. 223, n. 4) believes to be the meaning of Varro. But this involves both the question of the date of the adoption of the Tuscan form of building, which Göll (Beck. Gal.2 II. p. 253) thinks may have become general after the burning of Rome by the Gauls (390 B.C.), and the name applied to the original living room of the early Romans before the Tuscanicum became common. It also leaves such expressions as atrium Vestae to be accounted for and presents other minor difficulties. Such questions as these, which may never be finally settled, manifestly cannot be included within the scope of the present paper. Servius, Ad Aen. I. 726, in speaking of the atrium, says: "Ibi et culina erat: unde et atrium dictum est; atrum enim erat ex fumo." Strangely enough, Becker (Gal.2 II. p. 251) says of this etymology: "Servius zu Aen. I, 730 leitet es gar vom Rauche ab:" but Servius plainly gives the word a history similar to that of the Greek μéλa@pov, and by so doing allows a very early origin for it. The extreme probability of the correctness of this view has now led to its general acceptance; see Marq. Privatl.2 I. p. 218. It is, moreover, a curious fact that Varro himself indirectly supports this etymology; for he derives the masculine form from the same stem. He says, L. L. VIII. 451: alia [nomina] a vocabulo ut ab albo Albius, ab atro Atrius. 4. The Problem of the Atriolum or the meaning of the word in Classical Latin, by Dr. H. W. Magoun, of Oberlin, O. The atriolum, so far as has been noted, is mentioned but twice in Classical Latin, and both passages are in Cicero: ad Att. I. 10, 3: praeterea typos tibi manata, fuas in textovna atriala possin vacature, et putabila ngata ime; and tat ** 11. I, 1, 2: pad der ve farmin de sortiere ttant at strikdam fiat, mihi, ut est, matiņa putzanta. Neque enim kotai aku talentar essa dorita, meque fere solet nax in his ethicals fieri, in qulins dit borcum nilai, nes itsere poterat adiuncta The word also occurs in an inscription, a few times in the LXX. and occasionally in the writers of mediaeval times; but these "assages b. not materially affect the questia. Buth of the citations occur in the Letters, and it may perhaps be inferred that the usage was coloquial. It appears from Capers's words that the room was aburned with figures on the walls; had a puteri, noua, etc.; and was in scurt very similar to an ordinary atrium. The natural aference is that it was merziv a second atrian of smaller size than the first. Metcalf concludes Beck. Gal. p. 253. that it served as an antechamber to a greater hall perzstvitum with a purtains." and that the arala were only to be found in large mansions." Margarit inds in Play, Eg. II. 17, an explanation of their character, and his posidon is accepted by Goil (Beck. Gal3 II. p. 246 as scund. He assumes Primatiehen 1. Kim. L. p. 223, n. 4 that the D-shaped portions with their included area formed the perityizum of Pliny's villa, and that the caquedium iure must have been identical with the tridium which Q. Cicero wished to join anlegen to the porticus. This notion that the D-shaped porticues formed the peristylium was suggested as early as 1832, Lib. of Entertaining Knowl., Pamperi, IL. p. 8, flctnote, issued by Soc. for Dufus, of Use. Knowl, and the suggestion seems plausible except that peristylia were regularly rectangular in shape, or at least their sides were straight. According to Vitruvius, VI. 4, they should be a third part longer than wide, and be placed transversely.) The resulting villa, if Marquarit be followed, would be of a very unusual construction: first, an atrium with its vestibulum; then, a peristylium whose area was very smail, parvula, a little bit of a one'; next, a small atrium; and behind this, a triclinium or decus. Nothing of the sort appears to have been found, and it is loubtful whether it ever will be; for an interior atrium, where there is an exterior one, seems to be an anomaly, and an atriolum is merely a small atrium. Of the twelve conjectural plans of the villa, which I have been fortunate enough to collect (Scamozzi, 1615; Felibien des Avaux, 1699; Castell, 1728; Marquez, 1796; Hirt, 1827; Haudebourt, 1838; Schinkel, 1841; Bouchet, 1852; Burn after Hirt, 1971; Cowan, 1889; Winnefeld, 1891; and Magoun, 1894) not a single one can be regarded as favoring the view of Marquarit; for in no case is the cavaedium represented as smaller than the atrium, which it must be. to be the atriolum cf. Cicero's statement), and four, including the two latest. regard the cavaedium hilare as a peristylium. Now it appears that there were porticoes in villas besides those in the peristylium; for Vitruvius, in giving the arrangement of a country villa, says, VL 8: ruri autem pseudourbanis statim peristylia, deinde tunc atria habentia circum porticus pavimentatas spectantes ad palaestras et ambulationes. Moreover, in the passage from Cicero upon which Marquardt bases his theory, no peristylium is mentioned. In fact the word does not occur in either epistle; but in the preceding section he says: villa mihi valde placuit, propterea quod summam dignitatem pavimentata porticus habebat : and again, in the other passage just preceding the citation above, he says: Signa .. velim imponas, et si quod aliud oikeîov . . . reperies, et maxime, quae tibi palaestrae gymnasiique videbuntur esse. Etenim ibi sedans haec ad te scribe nostra bam, ut me locus ipse admoneret. The conclusion seems plain that Cicero and Vitruvius refer to the same porticus (both pavimentatae), and, if so, the supposition of Marquardt falls to the ground; for the porticus in question had nothing to do with the peristylium, which was entirely distinct, and lay, according to Vitruvius, next the entrance, i.e. in the place of the atrium, which in turn took the place of the peristylium. The D-shaped porticus of Pliny may perhaps have stood in some such relationship to the atrium (the whole arrangement is apparently old-fashioned, and does not correspond to the rules of Vitruvius, who puts the peristylium first, as has been said), in which case the peristylium still remains to be accounted for, and should be in the position assigned to the cavaedium. It is probable that it was identical with it, as I have elsewhere endeavored briefly to show (Proc. Amer. Phil. Assoc., Dec., 1894, p. XXXIV f.). It is hardly to be supposed that a villa would be erected in which both styles of building were combined; that is too modern; and, if the new style were followed (peristylium first), and then a second atrium were added later as a sort of vestibule (he mentions the vestibulum distinctly, and a few have supposed that he uses the term as synonymous with atrium), it would be natural to suppose that this would be the atriolum rather than the one in the interior of the house (cf. Cicero's statement again). It seems more reasonable to believe that both atrium and atriolum should be banished to the rear, where that form of construction was used, and that both should be in the front part of the house when the regular form was retained, as must frequently have been the case. Two atria in one house were common enough to judge from Pompeii; but there they both opened upon a street. So far as I can discover, no interior room of this description has been found. It has been supposed that two atria in one building resulted from the purchase of an adjoining house which was then partially torn down and united. with the first (cf. Cic., De Of. I. 39); but it also held by Mau (Marq. Privatl.2 I. I. p. 221, n. 1) that two atria were sometimes built in a single dwelling intentionally, and the position seems reasonable. How, then, were the two distinguished in ordinary speech? At Pompeii, they lie side by side as a rule, though the house of Lucretius has its second atrium in a sort of aisle opening on a side street; each has its cubicula, etc., and one is always larger and apparently finer than the other. The peristylium generally lies beyond, and commonly extends along the inner end of the larger and a part of that of the smaller, though it sometimes lies between the two next the street, as in the house of Castor and Pollux (house of the Quaestor), which seems, however, to have been a double house. One atrium, the larger, seems to have been intended for clients; the other, for slaves and freedmen, though it may possibly have been part of a hospitium. What could be more natural than to suppose that the larger, with which the tablinum is regularly connected, was the atrium, properly so called, while the other was the atriolum, 'the little atrium '? Some such distinction seems inevitable, and it would apparently soon be easy to associate, in common speech, the term atriolum with a simple, plain atrium of small size, since the smaller of the two at Pompeii appears to have commonly been of this character. It often happened also that it was built in the Tuscan fashion, while the larger, or atrium maius, was tetrastyle or Corinthian in its construction; at least that is the case in several instances at Pompeii. Here then is the solution of the riddle, and Cicero says in effect that it is not customary to place an atriolum in houses [of the wealthy] unless they also con tain an atrium maius, or atrium properly so called; for the atria of men of Cicero's standing had become very fine in his day (cf. Cic. In Ver. I. 23 and 56), and to him and to his family an atrium of the common sort would be merely an atriolum. It is probable, therefore, that there is nothing strange or peculiar in the question at all. The atriolum was the smaller of the two atria often found; Cicero had two atria in his villa; and Quintus, having none (cf. villa of Diomedes at Pompeii), talked of putting a little one (the space was small) into his. (The porticus may have been arranged somewhat as the cryptoporticus in the villa or Diomedes at Pompeii was; see Guhl and Koner, L. of G. and R. p. 373.) He was then gently told by his brother that it was not good form to do so, unless he also had one worthy of his position in life (cf. Vitr. VI. 8); for that is practically what is meant by the implication that it would not be in good taste to have an inferior atrium (atriolum) unless there was also a main atrium (atrium maius), with which was connected the tablinum. When the position of the wealthy Romans of Cicero's day is remembered and the part which their elegant atria and tablina played in the politics of the time (cf. ibid.), it can readily be seen that to omit the fine atrium and insert a plain small one, would be regarded by them much as we should regard the plan of building an aisle and omitting the main house. 5. The Origin of the u form of ßra in Greek MS., by Dr. W. N. Bates, of the University of Pennsylvania. The development of the forms of the letters used in Greek minuscule writing is as a rule not very difficult to trace. The letters for the most part do not differ very greatly in form from the same letters written in capitals, so that the connection between the two either reveals itself at a glance or becomes apparent after a few moments of study. With one letter, however, such is not the case. I refer to the peculiar form of ẞîra found in Greek manuscripts of the eighth and ninth centuries which resembles our letter u printed in italics. This character has no resemblance to the early capital B or to the later minuscule ẞ and yet was the prevailing character for ẞra for several centuries. It is the object of this paper to show how this form of the letter originated. In the various works on Greek palaeography little or nothing is said about this form. Most of the writers simply record it without making any attempt at explanation. Wattenbach1 and Gardthausen 2 have made attempts to explain the form but the absence of evidence at the time when they wrote made their attempts at explanation little more than guess-work. In the Herondas papyrus, however, which was published in 1892, there are some interesting forms of ẞra which make it possible to supply the missing links and show how the form developed. Including the fragments the letter ẞra occurs in this manuscript 140 times, and in 117 of these cases the letter is perfectly clear. The forms vary greatly and are apparently used promiscuously, no one form being used alone in any one portion of the work. I have arranged them in what appears to be in a general way their order of development from the capital B. The figures in parenthesis 1 Anleitung zur Griechischen Palaeographie, 2d edition, p. 30. denote the number of times each form occurs; only letters which are perfectly distinct are counted. They are: 1. B (12); 2. B or B (9); 3. B (4); 4.☎ (16); 5. ► (12); 6. K (4); 7. (4); 8.0(10); 9.4(4): 10. (27); 11. (10); 12. (5). Numbers 8, 9, and 10 are closely related forms. No. 9 is simply a variation of No. 8, and No. 10 differs from No. 8 in having the two down-strokes start from two points side by side instead of from a single point. In No. 3 and more clearly in all the following forms we find the principle which explains how the u form originated. The scribe is trying to make a ẞra in two down-strokes. No. II, and still more plainly No. 12, is nothing more or less than the u of the minuscule alphabet, No. 12 being an exact counterpart of the earliest form of the letter in parchment manuscripts. Previous to the discovery of the Herondas papyrus no example of this form appears to have been known earlier than the sixth century. It is now proved to have been in use at least as early as the third century of our era and no doubt continued to be used along with the capital form until in the seventh century it began to be the prevailing one. The reason for the adoption of such a form is apparent. On papyrus a downstroke of the pen is much easier to make than an up-stroke, and the attempts of the scribes to make a ẞîra rapidly in two down-strokes resulted in the forms shown above. When the change in writing material was made from papyrus to parchment there was no longer the same need of a letter which could be made with two down-strokes, but this form had become established and passed into minuscule writing with the other letters of the alphabet. The fact that in the earliest minuscule manuscripts this letter had twice the height of the other letters seems to show that its origin had not at that time been forgotten and that the right-hand part of the character was still felt to represent the right-hand part of capital B. The five examples of U as ẞôτa in the Herondas papyrus occur in column 18, line 2; column 22, line 18; column 27, line 14; column 30, line 5; column 37, line 16. 6. Notes on Lucian, by Professor Francis G. Allinson, of Brown University. The edd.1 find this I. Lucian, Timon, § 18: ὥσπερ ἐκ κοφίνου τετρυπημένου. hard to explain. If kopívov be retained, may it not be here used in the rare sense of a liquid measure (see ad Strattis Kin. 1)? This interpretation has not before been suggested, possibly because the meaning 'basket' is so much the more usual one. It seems probable, however, that Lucian wrote KoσKivov. The reference to the jar of the Danaids immediately follows and it is probable that Lucian had the conventional imagery of the myth in mind as we find it in Plato, Gorgias, 493 B, where the Danaids carry the water in a perforated sieve to a perforated jar. Cf. the account Rep. 363 D, where also the sieve is used to carry. Lucian would thus have here the sieve (KÓσкɩvov) as well as the jar (Ti0os), both of which 1 e.g. Hemst. Vol. I. p. 374; "vix ac ne vix quidem intelligo." Williams, pp. 211, 212; "to this notion (ie. of a liquid) basket' is abhorrent." Mackie, p. 113: Η κόφινος = πιθος = a tub (sic!) with a hole in it." |