« ПредишнаНапред »
The sentimentalism, therefore, for which Aristophanes assails Euripides consists largely in a proneness to minute and toying descriptions of external nature. Euripides lived at a time when the old Greek spirit was giving way to the new, and men were becoming more reflective and introspective. There were also peculiarities in Euripides' own life and circumstances which must have largely affected his tone and character. He was a recluse, of artistic sensibilities and wedded to books. Hence his sentimentalism.
The Greeks were not a sentimental people, but had a practical, commonsense, objective way of looking at things. Aristophanes, a man of the world, regarded the new spirit as unnatural and unmanly, and though he himself appreciated keenly the beauties of nature, he did not regard tragedy as a fitting vehicle for the expression of such sentiments.
The most romantic of Euripides' plays, the Bacchae, – a drama which exhibits a deep love for nature, — was composed amid the wilds of Macedonia, where the poet's spirit had free range and the emotions were unchecked in expression by the sneers of hostile critics. The Bacchae and the Frogs have much in common, and no doubt Aristophanes had learnt much of the character of the Bacchae before that play was exhibited in Athens.
The Secretary then read an invitation to a reception on Wednesday, July 8, extended to the Association by Professor and Mrs. Albert Harkness. The invitation was accepted.
The Committee, consisting of Professors Allen, Gudeman, and Platner, which was appointed to report a recommendation concerning a uniform standard of Latin Orthography for the use of School Textbooks, then reported through its chairman, Professor Allen.
Discussion of the report was postponed.
At eight o'clock the members, together with a large number of the citizens of Providence, assembled in the Lyman gymnasium to listen to the address of Professor March, the President of the Association.'
The speaker was intro luced by Professor Albert Harkness, of Brown University, who welcome<l the Association on the occasion of its second meeting at Providence.
9. The Filological Study of Literature, by Professor Francis A. March, of Lafayette College, President of the Association.
" In recognition of his distinguished contributions to the study of language, Professor March was elected at the last meeting (see PROCEEDINGS, Vol. XXVI., p. liv) to a second term of service as President. Professor March was one of the founders of the Association, and its President in 1873-74.
The speaker referd to and commented on filological studies of literature, mostly found in the publications of the Association, belonging to the following classes.
STUDIES FOR THE ACCUMULATION OF SCIENTIFIC DATA.
1. The enumeration and classification of the words in literary masterpieces according to the grammatical forms; as, so many hundred subjunctivs, or conjunctions, and the like.
2. Similar studies of the historical etymology; as, so many Anglo-Saxon words, so many Norman, and the like.
3. The once-used words.
6. Words of sensation, for colors, sounds, and the like, to build up the world of a story as it appeard to the author.
7. Accumulation of descriptivs applied to a natural object, as the ocean, the sun, and the like.
8. Studies of syntax, classification and enumeration of the different kinds of sentences, periods, paragrafs, in a literary work.
9. Studies of rhythm and meter; classification and counting up to establish authorship, as in Shakespeare and Homer.
STUDIES OF INTERPRETATION,
10. Of simpl sentences as gems of thought. (a) To clear up the precise meaning of the words; (b) to gather up the accumulated associations of the vital words.
11. Of the whole utterances of characters in pictures of life, as of Hamlet, Caliban, to realize the characters.
12. Of the whole works of an author, to realize his character and his environment.
13. Of the literature of a nation to read the character of the nation.
14. The comparativ study of national literatures to lern the character of man, his best, his worst.
Most of these essays ar naturally works of curious investigation and reserch. The scolars who produce them labor harder on books for simpl utility, lerned editions of important literary works, concordances, grammars, and dictionaries, Child's Ballads, Furness's Shakespeare, Abbott's Shakespearian Grammar, Schmidt's Shakespeare Lexicon, Murray's llistorical Dictionary of the English Language, — the greatest filological work of our generation, - bring the holisyu al labors of hundreds of investigators within easy reach of all students of literature and language.
The dictionary of Engiish dialects, the first number of which is just printed at Oxford, is another great work for the vince of language, 'The complete con. cordance and dictionary of Chaucer, which the Early English Text jety bas been so many years cherisking, is at last rury in manus ript, a more valusalt work than even the Shakespeare Indtionary. The bey thing is to get it printed, We shal soon hav the opportu.ty to make cu bulmriptions wit,
The filological study of literature seems next in honor to the creation of literature. There ar times of ebb in the tide of creativ power.
“Nature endures not the expense
Of multiplying the immense."
Then the interpreters hav their day. They bring home to their generation the inspiring thought of erlier ages. Their great books, their great institutions of lerning, preserv the world from lapsing into barbarism.
PROVIDENCE, July 8, 1896. The Association reassembled at 10.10 A.M. The President appointed the following committees :
On Auditing the Treasurer's Report: Professor Albert Harkness and Dr. Sewall. On Time and Place of Meeting in 1897: Professors C. L. Smith, Lodge, Clapp. On Officers for 1896–1897: Professors Allen, Seymour, Owen,
Professor Allen then explained the Report on Latin Orthography. After discussion it was moved to print a summary of the Report in the Proceedings.
The chairman gave the Committee's reasons for confining its report to School Text-books proper, — the grammars, lesson-books, and elementary editions which serve for the first introduction to the study of Latin. In such books, if anywhere, a conventional standard of orthography may be desirable. The authors first put before young pupils are Caesar, Cicero, Vergil — perhaps also Sallust and Cornelius Nepos. All are writers of the end of the Republic or of the first years of the Augustan age. The Committee thought it wholly impracticable — for the present at least — to print these authors, for learners, in the spelling of their own times, as exemplified in such inscriptions as the Lex Julia Municipalis, and the Lex Rubria (45 and 49 B.C.), and the newly discovered inscription relating to the Secular Games of 17 B.C. It was shown that this would necessarily involve not only such forms as quoius, quoi, equos, relinquont, aestumo, but also servei in the nominative plural, and serveis in the dative and ablative plural. Although the latest of the above-named inscriptions, cut two years after Vergil's death, no longer adheres strictly to this use of ei, still we have reason, it was urged, to suppose that Vergil's own spelling was more conservative than that of this inscription. The report then proceeded as follows:
Your Committee is clear that, as a standard for elementary books, it is best to adhere to the tolerably uniform system of the first century of our era, and that in particular the spelling of the Monumentum Ancyranum — thought by Mommsen to be that of Augustus himself ---- may well be to us a sort of pattern, so far as it goes. This system is, in truth, only a little later than that which we have been describing. We shall then write servi in the nominative plural, servis in the dative and ablative plural; optimus, aestimo, lacrima ; cuius, cui, cum ; vultus and servus. As regards the most crucial point — the use of uu, vu — it should be said that this spelling did not prevail all at once. From Quintilian 1 it appears that uo, vo were affected by conservative schoolmasters as late as the middle of the first century, and this statement is borne out by inscriptions — for instance by the laws of Malaca and Salpensa in Spain, from Domitian's time, in which divom, vacuom, etc., occur. We should then have warrant for voltus and servos. Nevertheless it is certain from the Monumentum Ancyranum ? that uu, vu were in good use early in the century, and the practical advantage of having uniform endings, -us and -um, is so great that it should turn the scale in favor of this spelling. A middle course — voltus, volnus, but parvus, perpetuus — which we find pursued in several recent schoolbooks, seems to have no historical justification.
It is more difficult to decide what to do with -quu-, as in equus, reliquus, sequuntur. It chances that no words involving this combination occur in the Monumentum Ancyranum. Brambach believed equus to be of equal age and respectability with divus, and thought that its adoption, as part and parcel of the standard orthography of the Empire, was necessary. He was obliged, however, to except quum and quur, as non-existent forms, and he was unable to deny the correctness of the spelling with -cu- (ecus, secuntur) in the other words concerned. Notwithstanding Brambach's defence, -quu- has fallen into much disfavor among Latinists, and, as your Committee incline to think, with justice. The combination is of the rarest occurrence in inscriptions of any period. Newer and more careful researches have made it probable that it was never much else than a theory of grammarians, who sought to remove an apparent irregularity in the paradigms of inflexion. We may refer to the discussions of Stolz (Histor. Gramm. I. p. 254), and of Lindsay (Latin Language, p. 86 f.), both based on Bersu's collections. There seems to be little doubt that -quo- passed, in the course of the Augustan period, into -cu- (sometimes written -qu- 4), but never into -quu-. The Committee accordingly think that ecus, relicus, secuntur, relincunt, parallel to cum, cui, cuius, are the best forms for our elementary books. In like manner exstingunt will be the third person plural of exstinguo. It will, of course, be necessary to provide in our grammars for this replacement of -quu- by -cu-, but this does not seem difficult to do.
Respecting the assimilation of prepositions, it is clear that no hard and fast rules can be laid down, and that a wooden uniformity would not represent ancient usage. The Monumentum Ancyranum has conlegium and collegium, impensa and inpensarum, immortalis and inmissa. The inscription about the Secular Games has similar doublets. There is room to doubt whether ef- for ex(effugere, efficere) was in use at the time of Augustus' death. At any rate there are significant traces of ecferre and the like in the manuscripts of both Cicero and Vergil. But the evidence is not clear enough to warrant a reversal of the customary spelling. It is hard to know what to recommend about ob, ab, sub before s and t. Yet there can be little doubt that the usage of the early first century is exemplified in apsens of the Monumentum Ancyranum, and that the grammarians' fad which introduced absens, obtineo, etc., against the actual pronunciation,' was not known at that time, and on the whole we are inclined to recommend the adoption of .ps-, -pt- in these compounds.
1 1. 7, 26.
2 annuum, rivum, vivus. 3 P. Bersu, Die Gutturalen, etc., Berlin, 1885 The pivotal point of disagreement between Brambach and Bersu is the testimony of the grammarian Probus. See Bersu, p. 63.
4 So often in the older MSS. of Vergil; equs M, Geo. III. 499; loquntur MR, Aen. I. 731. See Ribbeck, Proleg. P 442.
The Committee furthermore suggests the use of the contracted genitives conlegi, fluvi, etc., the avoidance of final t for d (set, haut, aput, etc.), and the sparing use of ch, th, ph in Latin words (it will perhaps be safest to restrict this to the four words named by Cicero as those in which he gave way to the inroads of secondary aspiration). Incohare should be so spelled. This word occurs in the Monumentum Ancyranum. We may add that the above recommendations require little break with current usage as shown in the most carefully prepared text-books.
A word is perhaps desirable respecting the accusative plural of the third declension. Otto Keller, in his second volume Zur lateinischen Sprachgeschichte has given us a fresh discussion of this subject, with full statistics of the occurrence, in inscriptions and manuscripts, of the endings -es and -is. From these statistics he deduces, for adjectives and participles,3 the rule that is is the only proper form for all words, whether original i-stems or not, which have -ium in the genitive plural, and -es the proper form for those which have •um in the genitive plural. This rule he considers applicable to the Augustan poets and the prosewriters of the Republic. The encroachment of -es upon -is he believes to have begun in the Augustan period, but he thinks that the poets, at least the older poets of this period, were not affected by it. The Monumentum Ancyranum, however, shows evident traces of this encroachment; it has labentes, omnes side by side with agentis, omnis. In view of these facts, the Committee feel some uncertainty; but bearing in mind the advantages of a fixed usage, we recommend, with some diffidence, conformity to Keller's rule, at least so far as adjectives and participles are concerned.
Respecting another question of some practical importance, the use of j and v, the Committee are unable to make an unanimous recommendation. One member is in favor of discarding both these modern devices, and accustoming the learner from the outset to distinguish i and u consonant from i and u vowel as Roman boys were obliged to — by sense and surroundings. Another thinks that a system which fails to differentiate volvit from voluit is too hard for the beginner, but he dislikes j and v, as tending to fix and perpetuate the notion that the Romans had separate letters for vowel and consonant, and would like to see in use i and u with some diacritical mark, which might be dropped in all but the most elementary books. A third member of the Committee would adopt i for j, but would continue to distinguish v and u by separate letters. This use of v without ; has been resorted to in a number of recent schoolbooks. The inconsistency has this practical justification, that the difficulty of distinguishing vowel and consonant is greater with u than with i.
1 Quintil. I. 7, 7.
: Orator, 48, 160. 8 In substantives -es is more prevalent, and the rule does not always hold. The most that Keller asserts is that all which have (or can have) -; in the ablative singular, either have or can have is in the accusative plural. Substantives in -r have -es. For many individual nouns, however (as ardis, finis, hostis, turris, mons, gens, pars, etc ), Keller allows only the accus plur in -rs. The Monumentum Ancyranum has, it may be observed, aedes, fines, and gentes.