« ПредишнаНапред »
10. The Origin of Sigma lunatum, by Professor John H. Wright, of Harvard University.
This paper is printed in full in the Transactions. It was discussed by Professors Smyth, Allen, and by the author.
11. A Discussion of Catullus LXII. 39-58,' by Dr. Charles Knapp, of Barnard College.
The author's purpose was to show that in vv. 45 and 56 dum . . . dum are correlatives, to be interpreted as literally =“the while ... the while,” i.e. as equivalent to quam diu ... tam diu. This view is not new, having been held by Quintilian (ix. 3. 16), Haupt, Riese, Baehrens, Schmalz, and Hale. Its rejection, however, by such recent editors as Ellis and Merrill justifies a new examina. tion of the whole passage. Further, the author claims to have supported the old view by a line of argument never before brought to bear on our passage.
Strong exception was taken to the method adopted by both Ellis and Merrill in their attempts to interpret this passage. Both seek to determine the text and the reading of v. 45 by an appeal to v. 56. This the author held to be a complete reversal of the proper method. He came thus to the statement of his main point, which was that more attention must be paid to the form of the poem than has been accorded to it by recent editors. Several scholars — e.g. Ellis, Riese, and Baehrens — call attention to the amoebean character of the poem, but none of them makes adequate use of this point in its criticism and interpretation. Attention was then called to the fundamental law of amoebean poetry, namely, that the utterances of the second speaker should correspond in form and contents to those of the first. See Conington's introductions to Vergil's third, seventh, and eighth Eclogues, and Page's prefatory note to Horace, C. iii. 9. In Ecl. iii. the amoebean dialogue covers 48 vv., each competitor delivering twelve strains of two vv. each; in Ecl. vii. we again have 48 vv., divided into twelve strains of four vv. each. Every one knows how admirably Horace obeyed the law in the poem referred to.
The author then asked, How far did Catullus obey the law in this poem? The carmen amoebaeum proper consists of vv. 20-59. Originally there were three pairs of stanzas. The second of these is now mutilated beyond recovery; only six vv. (32—37) remain. We may therefore leave this portion entirely out of the discussion. The first strophe and antistrophe contain five vv. each, besides the refrain; no trace of incompleteness can be discovered. The third strophe and antistrophe originally contained, it is probable, ten vv. each, besides the refrain. See Riese and Baehrens on v. 41. We may conjecture, therefore, with much probability, that in the matter of form this carmen amoebaeum obeyed the first law of such compositions.
Turning to the language, we note at once striking correspondences between the several strophes and antistrophes. In vv. 20-24 the girls say, “How cruel thou art, Hesperus, to tear the maiden from her mother.” The lads reply (26– 30), “ How kind thou art, Hesperus, to give the maiden to her lover.” Each utterance consists of three sentences: a question in one v., a relative clause in
1 See Classical Review, X. 365.
three w., and a second question in the concluding v. These final questions are clearly examples of amoebean “tit for tat.” In our passage (39–58) the strophe (39-47) forms a single sentence, composed of two clauses correlated by ut and sic. Each clause falls into two parts, with adversative asyndeton at the joints, i.e. at vv. 43 and 46. In the antistrophe (49–58) the structure is the same, save that in v. 54 the conjunction is expressed. (See further, Carl Ziwsa, Die eurhythmische Technik des Catullus, II. Theil, pp. 11, 12, Wien, 1883.) These resemblances in the language strengthen the hypothesis accepted above, that in external form there was originally complete correspondence between the parts of the song.
The author dwelt thus on the amoebean character of the poem because on that he rested his special line of argument. His points were: (1) We have here a good specimen of the carmen amoebaeum; (2) the law of such carmina is that the leader sets the pace to which the other must conform; (3) here the girls lead; and hence (4) their utterances must in each case be perfectly intelligible, when taken by themselves. At v. 49 the lads were bound to reply to the girls; they were bound, furthermore, to do this in ten vv., and the form of their deliv. erance must be as like as possible to that of the girls. It is self-evident that to accomplish this task at all it was necessary for them to understand in every detail what the girls had said. So in our reading of the poem we must put ourselves in the position of the lads by'interpreting vv. 39-47 by themselves, and then we must apply the same line of interpretation to vv. 49-58.
The author then proceeded to analyze v. 39-47. Vv. 39-44 he paraphrased thus: Dum flos intactus est, carus est pueris et puellis; sed cum tactus est, non carus est, etc. When one reads sic in v. 45, his natural expectation is that the correlating clause will itself be broken into two parts, corresponding exactly to those of the ut-clause. These can readily be found, since dum intacta (virgo) manet = dum flos intactus est of our paraphrase, and dum cara suis est, if taken as Quint. interprets it, is a complete correlative to carus est flos, etc. Again, v. 46, which = sed cum virgo tacta est, corresponds exactly to v. 43, which = sed cum flos tactus est, and v. 47, which = virgo non cara est pueris et puellis, is correlative to v. 44, which = flos non carus est, etc. If this stanza be interpreted by itself, its parts can be arranged in no other way. The beauty and flawlessness of the poet's workmanship are then self-evident.
The author then presented his objections to the views of Ellis and Merrill. The former says: “Sic may well contain the predicate optata est implied in the protasis of the simile,” etc. A sufficient answer is the fact that the protasis of the simile contains not merely optata est, but non oplata est as well. If, then, est be supplied at all after sic, we must take as its predicate the whole contents of the protasis, not a part, as Ellis has done. The same argument disposes of Merrill's view, which is thus expressed: “The two dum-clauses are not correlative, but co-ordinate, both modifying sic VIRGO (sc. est), while sic is emphatic, referring to v. 42. Thus v. 45 corresponds alone to vv. 39-42, while vv. 46–47 correspond to vv. 43-44." Sic must refer not to v. 42 alone, but to all that is contained in vv. 39–44, and the predicate to est must, as already urged, be the whole contents of those six vv. Thus, v. 45 would correspond, not to vv. 39-42 alone, as Merrill would have us believe, but to all the vv. 39-44. In that event vv. 46-47 would be wholly unnecessary and therefore weak, and the perfect artistic balance which we obtained before would be wholly destroyed.
We may now without trouble apply the same line of interpretation to vv. 49– 58. We may paraphrase again : Dum vitis intacta est, non cara est; sed cum tacta est, cara est. This is balanced by Dum virgo intacta est, non cara est; sed cum tacta est, cara est. V. 56 means simply: “So the maiden, the while she remains intacta, the while she grows old uncared for."
The paper closed with a brief consideration of the question whether dum ... dum could bear the meaning assigned them throughout the discussion. On this point the author had nothing new to offer, but contented himself with compiling, more completely than has heretofore been done, a list of the authorities by whom this view has been defended and illustrated. Quint. ix. 3. 16 explicitly upholds it, implying that it is an archaism, a very plausible suggestion. The only parallel thus far cited is Pl. Truc, 232, where Lambinus' reading Dum habeat, dum amet is “accepted or repeated by Hand, C. F. W. Müller, Fleckeisen, Schwabe, Schöll, and Key, L. D., s.v.” (Ellis, p. 248, footnote). See also Haupt, Opusc. II., p. 473; Riese and Baehrens in their editions; Schmalz in Müller's Handbuch, I12., p. 509; Hale, Anticipatory Suojunctive, pp. 68, 69; and finally the critical note in the Goetz-Loewe-Schöll edition of the Truculentus. Both Riese and Baehrens cite by way of illustration Verg. Ecl. viii. 42 Ut vidi, ut perii, referring to Savelsberg, Rhein. Mus. XXVI. (1871), p. 135, the latter adding Corssen, De pronunt. I12., p. 856. See, however, Conington ad loc. For similar usages in Greek, see Ellis on v. 45, and Haupt, Opusc. II., pp. 471-473.
This paper was commented on by Professors E. T. Merrill, C. L. Smith, Allen, and by the author.
12. Superstitions and Popular Beliefs in Greek Tragedy, by Dr. Ernst Riess, of Norwalk, Conn.
This paper appears in full in the Transactions. It was discussed by Dr. H. W. Magoun, and by the author in reply.
13. Euripides, Hippolytus, 42, by Professor Francis Kingsley Ball, of the University of North Carolina.
δείξω δε Θησεί πράγμα, κάκφανήσεται. The plot of the Hippolytus is set forth in the prologue by Aphrodite: Those who do her homage she puts first in honor; but she throws down all who act presumptuously toward her (5, 6); Hippolytus declares that she is basest of deities, and will pay her no regard (13, 14); she means to be revenged upon him (21, 22).
Her plan of revenge she proceeds to explain. Phaedra, the [second] wife of Theseus, is deeply in love with Hippolytus through Aphrodite's designs (26– 28). This shall be made the means of accomplishing her purpose (41: áll’oŰti Taúty TÓvděpwta xpn repeîv). But how? Why, Theseus shall be informed of the affair, and he will curse Hippolytus and put him to death (42–44). But be informed of what affair? Certainly Theseus will not kill his son because Phaedra is enamored of him.
Wecklein explains that the verse is general in its signification (the matter shall be made public; and I will see that it reaches the ears of Theseus).
Mahaffy and Bury follow Wecklein, and say further, “ Euripides does not add that it was to be represented in a false light, for his prologue is only to give a sketch of the plot, not to enter closely into the details.” Wilamowitz says that the uninformed hearer can expect nothing from these verses but the guilt of Hippolytus. Wilamowitz, however, is not entirely right. If we join his note with that of Mahaffy and Bury, we shall arrive at what ought to be the conclusion drawn by the uninformed hearer or reader, namely, that either Hippolytus does wrong or his father is misinformed, the latter of which proves to be the truth. Doubt as to the outcome of the play ought to begin, really, with verse 41, where Aphrodite proposes to make use of Phaedra's infatuation as a means of destroying Hippolytus.
Hiller and others object to the verse on the ground that it is contradictory to the issue of the play: Aphrodite does not reveal to Theseus the love of Phaedra for Hippolytus.
To remove the apparent contradiction, Weil suggests the reading deigai dengel a payua. Other readings proposed are as follows: és pôs de deifw a pâyua (Barthold); ήδη δε δείξω πράγμα (Fecht); δείξω δ' ο λήθει πράγμα (von Arnim); and, perhaps the most noteworthy, that of Wilamowitz, delfw de Onotws Taidi, Kåkparnoetan. Wilamowitz points out that Aphrodite states what takes place immediately and at the end of the play, but leaves out the middle part, namely, the aversion of Hippolytus and the slandering of his character by Phaedra.
On the other hand, we have, in favor of the MSS. reading, the following considerations:
1. The reading deltw òè Onoel has the support of all the MSS. without any variant.
2. The meaning is not really inconsistent with the development of the play.
It is true, as has been objected, that it is Artemis who reveals to Theseus the love of Phaedra for Hippolytus. But is this what is referred to in verse 42? Not at all. Verses 41-44, though obscure, have but one explanation, as is shown by the development of the plot. “I will use Phaedra's infatuation,” says Aphrodite, "to overthrow Hippolytus. Theseus shall hear of the affair (at pâyua), and he will curse and destroy my foe.” Let us follow, now, the development of her plan: Phaedra at first concealed her love for Hippolytus (394), but finally revealed it to her nurse (350-52); the nurse informs Hippolytus, and is reviled by him (565-90); Phaedra, now that her love has been revealed (596), wishes to die (599), and hangs herself (777); Theseus finds a letter on Phaedra's person (856), in which she accuses Hippolytus (874-86); Theseus bids Hippolytus begone from the country (973); Hippolytus' death is reported (1162); Artemis informs Theseus of the innocence of Hippolytus (1298, 1299) and of the infatuation of Phaedra (1303).
It is clear, then, that the prologue is not really inconsistent with the development of the play, as the information given to Theseus by Artemis is of a sort to clear Hippolytus from censure, while that referred to in the prologue is intended to work his ruin, and reaches Theseus by means of the nurse's revelation to Hippolytus, which causes the writing of the letter and the suicide of Phaedra; — all caused directly or indirectly by Aphrodite, the author of Phaedra's infatuation.
The apparent inconsistency, already referred to, that the prologue does not state exactly what takes place in the play itself, may find a parallel in the Ion.
We are informed by Hermes, in the prologue of the Ion, that Xuthus and Creusa, being childless, have gone to consult the god at Delphi (64-67); Apollo is to present his own son by Creusa to Xuthus when the latter enters the temple; Xuthus is to take the boy to Athens, where he is to be made known to Creusa and obtain his rights (69–73). The development in the play, however, is as follows: Creusa is greeted by Ion at the shrine at Delphi (237); Xuthus, on returning from the neighboring oracle of Trophonius (405), meets Ion in the temple and greets him as his son (517); an explanation takes place, and Xuthus bids Ion go to Athens (577); the chorus is commanded to reveal nothing to Creusa on a penalty of death (666, 667), but they tell her everything (761 ff.); Creusa wishes to kill Ion, as she thinks herself wronged by Xuthus (979), but her plan fails (1194 ff.); Creusa recognizes Ion by the garment in which he was exposed when an infant (1395 ff.); – the recognition taking place at Delphi, and not at Athens as told in the prologue.
3. The reading deięw de Onoei maintains the line of thought better than any other reading suggested.
Nobody, to my knowledge, disputes the genuineness of verse 44. This verse helps out the MSS. reading in 42. The line of thought is this : “ Phaedra loves Hippolytus; this infatuation is good for my purpose; Theseus shall hear of the affair; he will destroy Hippolytus; Phaedra shall die.” Theseus is the one to be informed because the one most concerned. When informed, he will kill Hippolytus, — not of course because Phaedra is in love with him, but for one of the reasons given above, namely, that Hippolytus is guilty, or that he believes him guilty,
Suppose we read, with Wilamowitz, delfw de Onotws maidl. Then the line of thought is: “Phaedra loves Hippolytus; this is my opportunity; Hippolytus shall know it; his father will kill him; Phaedra shall die.” By following the MSS. we are left in doubt as to the real cause of Hippolytus' death; but by following Wilamowitz we can arrive at only one conclusion, and that erroneous, the guilt of Hippolytus. Furthermore, Aphrodite does not give the information to Hippolytus any more than she gives it to Theseus. To both it comes indirectly — to the one, through the nurse; to the other, through Phaedra's letter.
To conclude: The objections to the reading deltw de Ondel pâyua are not well sustained. I think the reading should be retained, (a) because it has the unanimous support of the MSS.; (6) because it is not really inconsistent with the plot, does not force us to an erroneous conclusion, and may be paralleled in Euripides' own works; (c) because it is suited to the context.
This paper was read, in the author's absence, by Professor Earle, of Bryn Mawr College.
14. One of the Debts of Roman Literature to Early Roman Tragedy, by Professor Karl P. Harrington, of the University of North Carolina.
Although, unhappily, it is quite beyond our power to estimate accurately all the debt of Roman literature to early Roman tragedy, it is clear that the tragedies