Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

he uses it eight times, Aen. IV. 18, 550; VII. 253, 388; IX. 591; X. 388, 648; yet all but two of these, IX. 591 and X. 388, seem to be in keeping with the other passages and both cases occur in the later books, which show other evidences of increasing freedom in dealing with his subject. It is very probable, then, that Vergil means an aúly when he uses aula; and, if he does, it seems clear that here again, in the two passages relating to Dido's palace, he has used the word atrium as an equivalent for the Homeric méyapov. Such an explanation relieves all four of the passages from difficulty, is in strict keeping with Vergil's methods and character, and is far more natural than the supposition that he pictures the houses of his own day and then attaches usages and customs of his remote ancestors to give the whole an antique flavor. He may indeed have been influenced somewhat in his conception of ancient palaces by what he saw about him in Rome; but that is quite a different matter from supposing that he took these things as a basis rather than his Homeric sources.

I have thus far been able to find nothing in positive support of the above views. Heyne compares I. 725 with Od. I. 365, and adds below: “Non lucernas vel candelabra posuit sed lychnos, funalia . . . cf. Odyss. 1, de regia Alcinoi, 100 sqq.," and he says of porticibus longis, II. 528: “Si Homerica et non sua potius tempora sequutus est, aidovo av expressit, quae aúnu ab utraque parte ornabat”; but his note on II. 512 and the excursus on the passage make it clear that he holds practically the common view. He says: “Graecis poetis erat ara Iovis Hercei (Διός Ερκείου) in atrio aedium Priami, εν αυλή: eam aram Virgilius in impluvium, si interiora domus ita appellare licet, transtulit ... ut Penatium ara esset; propius hoc ad Romanum morem. v. Excurs.” In the excursus he makes interiora domus refer to the peristylium of a Roman house. He does, however, recognize that there are difficulties in the passage. If Vergil means the uéyapov, all these difficulties disappear, and that he does seems to be the only logical conclusion; for, as was suggested at the beginning, he could not use a Latinized form of péyapov. In the sense of the main hall of the å vòpov, the word is cited only in Homer. In Herodotus it is used of sacred edifices alone, and in later times it seems to have been confined entirely to underground caves sacred to Demeter and Persephone, in which sense it would probably have been understood by his readers, if Vergil had been bold enough to turn it into a Latin word. The best thing that he could do was to use the word atrium in its place, very much as we should use the word hall or halls to-day if writing a poem in English under similar circumstances; for it is probable that every foreign word which he used was familiar to his readers in the sense in which he used it. He accordingly used the technical term where he could do so, and translated elsewhere. Finally, the common view, that atria in the passages corresponds to aúlý, loses sight of the fact that the Homeric aúlń was not a room at all, but an open, unpaved court.

25. On the Accent of certain Enclitic Combinations in Greek, by Professor Francis G. Allinson, of Brown University.

This paper appears in full in the Transactions.

Professor J. Irving Manatt, of Brown University, then made some remarks on recent progress in Mycenaean archaeology.

26. Notes on the Hippolytus of Euripides, by Professor J. E. Harry, of Georgetown College.

I. THE CHARACTER OF PHAEDRA. Down to the time of Wilamowitz-Möllendorff it was generally believed that Euripides represented Phaedra as being what she pretended to be — a virtuous woman, who really tried to remain true to her husband, and earnestly desired that her passion for Hippolytus should not be revealed to the young man. Wilamowitz says this view is not the correct one, that Phaedra is only playing a part in her dialogue with the nurse (516-524), that she really sees through the design of her servant, and hopes that she will approach the youth for whom she has conceived such a strong passion. Kalkman follows W..-M.'s lead, and others subscribe to the same opinion.

But, if we should adopt this view, would we not impute excessive subtlety to Euripides, as well as to Phaedra ? Would we not demand too much of the audience? The average Athenian was not dull, but could he (in the brisk dialogue of Euripides) have taken all these subtle points which have escaped the scrutinizing glance of all the painstaking students, only to be discovered after the lapse of twenty-three hundred years? If this was the poet's design, and he has lacked an interpreter from that day to this, was it not too deep for even the quick-witted Athenian ? Could he understand the real significance of Phaedra's words when she declared over and over again what her feelings are and what she has determined to do?

Phaedra was not spotless any more than Hippolytus, but she could not be called unchaste. Every utterance of hers shows how she tried to stem the tide and die eůkleńs. Her great misfortune is not to have hearkened to the voice of reason in time. Whither her passion might have carried her (even the strongest have succumbed) we can only conjecture, for the nurse precipitates matters by revealing to Hippolytus the whole situation. That this was done without the queen's knowledge and consent is clear. That she, perhaps, intuitively divines somewhat of her servant's purpose without knowing to what lengths she would go, does not affect the question. In her present state of mind she is easily led on by the nurse. She is not able to take the lead herself until she is roused by the terrible reality, until her worst fears have been realized. Then she summons up all her strength and carries out her previous resolution, viz., to take her own life. But now her reputation is at stake, and another shall suffer as well as she — Kakóv ye xårépw yevňooja. Oavoûo' (728).

This conception of Phaedra harmonizes with the circumstances attending the production of the two dramas. Euripides must have intended that his second play should be entirely changed : he could not have retained the old Phaedra without deceiving his audience, and this he would not wish his players to do; for, as Hamlet says, their business is to tell all.

1 So Puntoni De Phaedrae indole et moribus in Euripidis Hippolyto Stephanephoro, Pisa, 1884.

he uses it eight times, Aen. IV. 18, 550; VII. 253, 388; IX. 591; X. 388, 648; yet all but two of these, IX. 591 and X. 388, seem to be in keeping with the other passages and both cases occur in the later books, which show other evidences of increasing freedom in dealing with his subject. It is very probable, then, that Vergil means an aúlý when he uses aula ; and, if he does, it seems clear that here again, in the two passages relating to Dido's palace, he has used the word atrium as an equivalent for the Homeric Méyapov. Such an explanation relieves all four of the passages from difficulty, is in strict keeping with Vergil's methods and character, and is far more natural than the supposition that he pictures the houses of his own day and then attaches usages and customs of his remote ancestors to give the whole an antique flavor. He may indeed have been influenced somewhat in his conception of ancient palaces by what he saw about him in Rome; but that is quite a different matter from supposing that he took these things as a basis rather than his Homeric sources.

I have thus far been able to find nothing in positive support of the above views. Heyne compares I. 725 with Od. I. 365, and adds below: “Non lucernas vel candelabra posuit sed lychnos, funalia ... cf. Odyss. 1, de regia Alcinoi, 100 sqq.," and he says of porticibus longis, II. 528: “Si Homerica et non sua potius tempora sequutus est, aldovo av expressit, quae aúlnv ab utraque parte ornabat"; but his note on II. 512 and the excursus on the passage make it clear that he holds practically the common view. He says: “Graecis poetis erat ara Iovis Hercei (Alòs 'Epkelov) in atrio aedium Priami, év aủaņ· eam aram Virgilius in impluvium, si interiora domus ita appellare licet, transtulit ... ut Penatium ara esset; propius hoc ad Romanum murem. v. Excurs.” In the excursus he makes interiora domus refer to the peristylium of a Roman house. He does, however, recognize that there are difficulties in the passage. If Vergil means the uévapov, all these difficulties disappear, and that he does seems to be the only logical conclusion; for, as was suggested at the beginning, he could not use a Latinized form of uéyapov. In the sense of the main hall of the å vòpúv, the word is cited only in Homer. In Herodotus it is used of sacred edifices alone, and in later times it seems to have been confined entirely to underground caves sacred to Demeter and Persephone, in which sense it would probably have been understood by his readers, if Vergil had been bold enough to turn it into a Latin word. The best thing that he could do was to use the word atrium in its place, very much as we should use the word hall or halls to-day if writing a poem in English under similar circumstances; for it is probable that every foreign word which he used was familiar to his readers in the sense in which he used it. He accordingly used the technical term where he could do so, and translated elsewhere. Finally, the common view, that atria in the passages corresponds to aúlý, loses sight of the fact that the Homeric atau was not a room at all, but an open, unpaved court.

25. On the Accent of certain Enclitic Combinations in Greek, by Professor Francis G. Allinson, of Brown L'niversity.

This paper appears in full in the Transactions.

Professor J. Irving Manatt, of Brown University, then made some remarks on recent progress in Mycenaean archaeology.

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

II. THE GREEK STAGE AGAIN.

In view of the stand taken in some quarters recently against the no-stage' theory, I merely wish to emphasize what Pickard says in the American Journal of Philology, Vol. XIV., p. 83: “The height of this stage,' the lack of means of communication with the orchestra, its slight depth, its distance from the cavea, the doors leading out on the level of the orchestra, the arrangement of the seats themselves, all unite to prove that this structure could never have been used as a stage.':

At line 58 of the Hippolytus a chorus of attendants enter, remain for some time, and depart with their master (1. 112). For this scene the broad level of the orchestra is better suited than the narrow platform of the stage. Indeed, to one who has had something to do with the management of a troop of young men on a much wider platform under not entirely dissimilar circumstances (at least so nearly alike that any difficulties of representation in the one would obtain for the other) it seems almost impossible to put this scene on a stage eight feet deep.

So in the scene where Hippolytus and the nurse are within the palace. Phaedra is farther away from the audience than the chorus, and consequently nearer the palace. Suddenly she hears a noise within and commands the chorus to keep quiet that she may hear. It is Hippolytus upbraiding the nurse, and, as soon as she discovers the real state of affairs, she breaks out with : uoi, aiaî aiai. l w duotálalva tûv čuwv radnuátwv (569-70). The chorus does not understand, and Phaedra bids the choreutae step up to the door and listen for themselves (taio d'ÉT LOTâo al túlaus). She does not tell them to mount an elevated stage. True, they do not move, but this is clearly a device of the poet to convey to the audience an account of what is going on in the palace (577-80).

III. MISCELLANEOUS. 1. 32. č kồnuov is read by MAC2P and the scholiast, ě konlov by VCIN. Editors vacillate between the two. Nauck reads ě konlov and says: “ě konuov deteriores libri” (which is not true). Wilamowitz has ě konmov and translates ihr fernes Lieben. Wilhelm Pecz (in his study of the tropes in the three tragic poets, Berliner Studien für class. Phil., Vol. III.) considers ě konuov as referring to Hippolytus by metonymy (love for the lover). Weil proposes to alter these three lines, and omits épwo' épwt' kòmuov. Bury (Class. Review, III. 220) feels sure that ěknlov must be the true reading, but his arguments are not convincing. é xôndov, conspicuous (cf. Il. V. 2), makes sense — such as it is; the opposite donlov, secret ( Thuc. VIII. 108), would be just as appropriate. Cf. 40, 42, 139 (KPUTTQ TT ÉVOEL). The passion was secret in both places (in Athens and at Troezen); it only became more violent when Phaedra came to the latter place. But many conjectures might be made, e.g. ålyelvbv (cp. 775), and yet none of them could be received as certain emendations. Blomfield, as well as Hartung, excises 32 and 33, but if these verses are removed, a sufficient explanation is wanting for 30 and 31: these two in turn are made necessary by 29. Moreover, é el dè in 34 corresponds to mpiv mèv in 29.

1. 33. úvbuašev is the reading of the MSS. and the scholiast. Several changes have been suggested. Meineke and Wilamowitz read wrbuaoov. Kirch

« ПредишнаНапред »