Графични страници
PDF файл

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 tablinun. 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 Bîra 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 connec

tion 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 Bota 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 B and yet was the prevailing character for Bara 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, Wattenbach ? and Gardthausen ? 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 1802, there are some interesting forms of Bata which make it possible to supply the missing lines ani show how the form developed. Including the fragments the letter Bira oecurs in this manuscript 140 times, and in 117 of these cases the letter is perfectly clear. The forms vary greatly and are apparently usedi promiscuousix, 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

[ocr errors]

denote the number of times each form occurs; only letters which are perfectly distinct are counted. They are:

1. B (12); 2. Bor B (9); 3. B (4); 4.8(16); 5.0 (12); 6. (4); 7:6(4); 8.0 (10); 9.6(4); 10. 0 (27); 11.0(10); 12. 4 (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 bñta in two down-strokes. No. 11, 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 Bîra 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 Bîra 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.

1. Lucian, Timon, $ 18: WOTEPèk kopívou ter put nuévov. The edd.1 find this hard to explain. If kopivov be retained, may it not be here used in the rare sense of a liquid measure (see ad Strattis Kin. I)? 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 kooklvov. 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 (KOG KLVO V) as well as the jar (nidos), both of which are necessary to complete the figure. For the combination with this verb cf. bis KOO Klundov diater pur no Bai, Sat. Epist. 24. For the variant ptc. from Tetpaivw and tputráw, cf. the parallel pass. Dial. Inf. 11, § 4. Compare this, in fact, throughout with Plato. Finally, as an indication that Plato's words were in Lucian's mind, cf. oteyavóv of the Gorgias with un otéYouTos in the Timon and otéYELV oỦ duvamé vou in the citation from Dial. Inf.

1e.g. Hemst. Vol. I. p. 374; “vix ac ne vix quidem intelligo.” Williams, pp. 211, 212; "to this notion (i.e. of a liquid) 'basket' is abhorrent.” Mackie, p. 113: “KODLvos = aloos = a tub (sic!) with a hole in it."

The interchange of ck and p is obviously easy. • 2. Gallus, $ 22: Útepßàs Oplyklov diopúšas Tòv toixov. The touxwpúxos is a familiar acquaintance, but what does Útepßás etc., mean? Were the houses of the rich constructed with sloping roofs and openings under the eaves, or above the wall, corresponding to the enclosed metopae of a temple?

The two well-known Euripidean passages may be compared.

In 1. T. 113, Pylades points out that there is room for a man to let down his body between the triglyphs, and in Orest. 1371 a slave escapes by one of these apertures.

Unless reference is here made to some such opening, — usual, perhaps, for the sake of the light, – the alternative meaning would seem to be an entrance effected through the tiles or opening of the flat roof itself. Cf. N. T. Luke 19.

The translation, “lorica domus superata' (Reitz-Hemst.) assumes that tò Opcyklov was a parapet built around a flat roof. But would not Lucian have used Some less vague expression, such as διά των κεράμων, or διά της στέγης, if this had been his meaning?

Hermann (Lehrbuch d. griech. Antiq. IV. p. 154, note 2) says: “ der Giebelbau des Tempels ist ohne vorgängige private Bauweise nicht denkbar.” This passage also may indicate that the slanting roof was not monopolized by temple architecture.

3. Icaromenippus, $ 13: étè tñs kan vodókns, over (or 'at') my smoke-vent.' Reitz's translation, in fumario,' is, I think, clearly wrong. Pauly does better: • unter meinem Rauchfange ein Trankopfer darbringen.' But why not take not only kan Vodókn but also the preposition in the most literal sense and give a more burlesque, and therefore more probable, coloring? Icaromenippus promises that, alighting on his roof, he will pour a libation over (ění, not ‘unter ') the smoke-hole, that it may be wafted up to Empedocles.

To illustrate cf. the two passages in Herodotus where kan vodókn is mentioned. In VIII. 137, the sunlight streams in katà tņu kat vodóknu (evidently here a mere hole in the roof). In IV. 113, émi with the gen., Lucian's exact expression, is used. Herod. here represents the Taurians as transfixing their enemies' heads upon a pole and setting them up on their house-tops and by preference over the smoke-vent – uálcot' Từ tñs kan vodókns. Lucian could not have missed this passage in Herodotus.

In Icaromenip. § 25, Zeus seats himself at one of the scuttles (éti tñs a pútns) in heaven's floor and bends over it to catch the incense. To illustrate this and the whole meaning of kan vodókn, one could wish for the context in Pherec. Tyrannis, 2, where Zeus out of thoughtfulness for the altar loungers’ made for them a very large smoke-vent.'

However the much-debated chimney-question, Ar. Vespae, 139 sqq., may be decided, it would not interfere with this view. Even if a real chimney be understood here, the translation over the smoke-vent' would, I believe, be the best; the burlesque element is in either case the same.

4. Use of ότι μή. Ιη ουδέν γάρ ότι μή, Somnium, $ 9, ότι μή means nothing but,' and Icaromenip. $ 9, nothing else.'

Williams 1 annotates these two passages as instances of Lucian's careless use of for oủ, and refers to Professor Gildersleeve's article, A. J. P. Vol. I. 1. Heitland 2 also, although stating that ori is here the neuter of 60TIS, says: “ It will be noticed that the uń is, as often in Lucian, unbearable.” This use of ori uń (= except') is expressly mentioned by Gildersleeve (l.c.) as well known and legitimate,' and is used as partially explaining the extension of the combina- • tion elsewhere. In addition to the examples of this use of őti , cited from Homer, Herod., Thuc., Plato, and Arrian, in L. and S. (vide sub öti (neut. 80 TLS) II.), may be added (from Abicht's Herod.) Herod. II. 13 and 50, and (see La Roche, Il. XVI. 227) Herod. I. 183, III. 155 and 160; Thuc. IV. 94. 2, VII. 42. 6.

Lucian may, therefore, be here relieved of the charge of being 6 unbearable.'

5. The Arrangement of Guests in Lucian's Symposium (see the plan on p. xiv). Reitz 3 and Wieland 4 assume the triclinium arrangement. A careful reading of the text will contradict this assumption, and the accompanying plan is intended to meet the conditions in the text, viz.: (1) In § 8 Lucian says: “On the right as you entered, the women — and they were there in full force — took up all that bench, and among them the bride,” etc.

(2) S$ 8, 9. “On the side over against the door the rest of the company, each according to his rank. And first, beginning opposite the women, Eucritus,” etc. [Twelve banqueters are here named.]

(3) These twelve with Dionicus and Alcidamas, who arrive later, are the only men expressly mentioned, and Reitz and Wieland in their arrangement assume that there were no more. Certain expressions, however, imply that there were other guests in the company. Cf. § 6. “Why should I tell you of the others? It is chiefly about the philosophers, I think, and the litterateurs that you want to hear.” Again, in § 35, Lucian clearly implies that there were others besides the philosophers when he says: “ The laymen (oi id@tal) dined in a very orderly fashion.” The single candelabrum (TÓ Auxvlov) — which in § 46 is overturned, leaving the company in utter darkness — may, however, seem to forbid the assumption of any large number of guests, and the seeming contradiction involved in pra cioekeKÓULOTO ($ 15) is to be explained as a reference to the separate lamps placed on the several trays of the large holder.

(4) The uninvited cynic Alcidamas is urged by the host to take a chair by Nos. II and 12.

(5) Dionicus the last comer, although invited, had no place reserved for him after the signal to lie down was given. He therefore squeezes in (S 20) near, or next to, No. 12.

(6) From direct mention ($ 38) we learn that each pair of banqueters had a separate small table.

1 C. R. Williams, Selections from Lucian, John Allyn, 1882. 2 W. E. Heitland, Somnium, etc., Cambr. Un. Press, 1885.

3 Cf. Vol. IX. p. 359, where, too, he speaks of Histiaeus and Dionysodorus as lying in tertio lecto ultimi.' This would imply that there were no other banqueters beyond: but see below (3).

4 Wieland says: “Ieder von diesen Triclinien hatte seinen eigenen Tisch,' but we know from the text that there were six small tables for the twelve male guests first mentioned.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]
[ocr errors]

ai yous

αι γυναίκες

+ Đópa v. Zenothemis. 4. Hermon.

5. Cleodemus. 6. Ion.

7. ó wuuplos. 8. Lucian.

9. Diphilus. 10. Zenon.

11. Dionysodorus. 12. Histiaeus.


1. Eucritus.
2. Aristaenetus.

*? place proposed to Alcidamas for ó Opovos.

t? äldol tuvės ovu total.

« ПредишнаНапред »