« ПредишнаНапред »
The reading of papers was then begun. At this time there were present about fifty members. At subsequent meetings over seventy members were in attendance.
1. Children on the Stage in the Sanskrit Drama, by Professor A. V. Williams Jackson, of Columbia University.
· A motto for the paper was found in Hamlet's allusion to the children players in London in the days of Queen Elizabeth (Ham. ii 2. 330). Other instances of children on the stage in the English drama from its beginning to the time of Shakspere were brought out, and attention was called to the presence of children, as a recognized element in histrionic productions on the Greek stage, and sporadically also in the Latin theatre. The investigation then turned to India.
The romantic character of the ancient Hindu plays was first treated of with reference to the free non-observance of the unity of time. The plot of Kālidāsa's Çakuntalā was chosen as an illustration of the lapse of time during the progress of a play. The dramatic part which Sarvadamana, the little son of the hero and heroine, plays in the dénouement of this romantic piece (act vii) was emphasized. Also in Kālidāsa's Vikramõrvaçī, the character of Ayus, scion of the king, served as a good example of a youth's bringing about the happy solution of an involved play.
Bhavabhūti's Uttara-Rāma-Carita, a sort of Sanskrit Winter's Tale, offered parallels to Shakspere. Kuça and Lava, placed under the guardianship of the sage Vālmīki, become striplings of heroic mould like Guiderius and Aviragus reared by old Belarius in Shakspere's Cymbeline; and in the sixth act these manly youths are restored to their father, Rāma. In the interlude, or masque production, which is presented in the last act of the drama (act vii), the circumstances of the birth of the two heroic princes are enacted in mimic reality before the king. In this scene the banished queen appears before the audience, supported on either side by Earth and Ganges. These latter impersonations, as the paper showed from the stage-direction, were intended to be represented as holding each an infant boy in the arms (tataḥ praviçaty utsañgitāi 'käikadārakhābhyam prthvigañgābhyām avalambitā sītā). In whatever manner the scene was presented, whether merely by pantomimic gesture or by some more realistic device, none the less, the notion of a child in swaddling clothes is portrayed dramatically, just as in the Winter's Tale (ii. 3) or in Terence's Andria (ii. 6–7). The royal boys whose birth the mimic play enacts, are now grown to be twelve years old, as the play tells us (act iii et al.). Like Ayus of the Vikramõrvaçī, they speak Sanskrit, not Prākrit.
As already noted of the Çakuntalā, the paper observed that also in the Mrcchakatikā the little Rohasena, son of the hero whose fortune has been ruined, is very young and speaks Prākrit in the climax scene where the lad is introduced. This is the scene, so full of tenderness, that gives the name “Toy Cart' to the play. In the last act of the same drama (act x), the little fellow is again brought in to add to the pathetic situation of the last hours of a father unjustly condemned to die. The dramatic character of this scene was criticised with some detail. A parallel situation was cited from Viçākhadatta's Mudrā-Rākshasa (act vii), where a child is similarly brought on the stage in the scene of the impending execution
of a guiltless father sentenced to death. In this play also the young child speaks the Prākrit dialect.
One other instance of a touching rôle played by a child was aiiuced from Kshemiçvara's Candakāuçixa. The tiny boy's thoagédless and chidish Prakrit prattle .me too' (mam gi; adds depth to the heart-rending nature of the scene in which the unfortunate parents are sold into servitude act in, and his seeming death and miraculous restoration to life, in the last act (act i, complete the mingled woof and west of joy and sorrow that make up the material cí this noble tragi-comedy.
The paper closed by estimating the importance of the rôle pared by children in the Sanskrit dramas, as compared with the histrionic productions of other nations; ani it favorably criticised the faithfulness of touch ani the power of expression in portraring tbe natural love of chadren which the Hindu plays showed. The concluding paragraph emphasized several points of interest which the early dramas of India possess in the light of paraïe's that they ofier to the plars of Shakspere.
2. Age at Marriage in the Roman Empire, by Professor Albert Granger Harkness, of Brown University.
This paper is printed in fall in tre Transactions.
3. Notes on the E:ymology of Atriun, by Dr. H. W. Magoun, of Oberlin, O.
Probably no other word in Latin, or indeed in the classical languages, has had more etymologias proposed for it than the word situ*. So less than seven have been seriously put forwar. Two of them are Greek, 3607, suggested by Becker, and a!7207, once larger accepte, ani by general onsent attributed to Scaliger, who seems to have been the erst to propose it. His contemporary, Casaubon, airacaias this same rien, azi a sacta marsi. nus, p. 99, on Suetonius, wastus, 29 si, 125, 12 :22 :2773, he sars: “in medio erat area sub dincolamnis cincta: ideo is les etan gimiam appellatur. Idem quoque inuium dicebatur. ze hue proprie atriem est, non atrii pars : nam a rinn ab alin.37, sgniscat ce ia ac s seb doGraeci italOpov frequentius rocant: sei a r pra atrio Ditanus saepe apei LXX. & Iosephum, ... Extat & apud Lucanu, etc.
If these taro etymologia presented a phonetic dinneultas, there would still remain the question of the historical connection to be serei. It can hardly be supposed that the went came into Latia from the Greek through Tuscan and, if it did not, no other bridge appears and the fourth century BC, which hardly gives time enough for the Romans completer forget ech an origin, as they must have done to acceri with the facts la the case of a11207, it is clear that its adaptation to the meaning cranns, which from the ate fate of its appearance an Greek in this sense is pain roar a case of pope ar etymology from the Greek sile, has led to the error of rerersing the trach in a sense and supposing that # in came from a $40%.
Orari Hueller teI. 250 i s a comparis which might possibly be exfrescd in the form of an ecuatin, between the trias on the Adriatic Sea and 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 Mélapov, 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
mitniti. dus nie om te min tu a uzazi wa mtoto m; and Lite bil. I, I.:: 1 -167 216 217 2*7174 1.2 1713 izi, mini, ut ur min in Worm. 7 E II inat LINEUP 4 mm , 2 ere solet NiZ in mati. 17, X 1 2 A zam na zar teri petersi diluncta cu Ut e una 9471.17 E. I WII 1.5, CI 1 2. rscroco, a few omes ne LLEIRI CISCLatte wins i midvas: but these massages at malam itt * 1 .C. Bu č e concas occur in the 1:02r5 Li I may perhaps de semana e Isize was cürqualIt appears mm Lor's weis SC we rucn. WIS LLARI wa gure ja the wals; had a rutet. L idia etc.; 2) VIS I werv si 2
12 crtav Erzum. The natını arrence at I wis merei", a scuori itaun of sman size than the first. W20:2.1 scocines Becit Win P253. t rowd Is In anteckanger to a greater 12... geratu zuen wir a port " ani cat de urzi “ were only to be frund ia arve nansuos.** Wimit sinds in FLV, 59. II. 1;. in exclaration of their caracter, and is posizu s kreti u Gii Becit. Gin? II. p. 246 as soum. He assumes Pric'utien22 k. m. I. p. 227 1.that the D-shaped porters won their incinter Ira turned the peri dulzan ct Flay's via, and that the cutaeiti um zure n ist have been atentcai with the Idrzaam which Q. Cicero wisheri tu cin inegea 23 the porta US. This acoun that the D-shaped porticues formed the peristvizum wis suggested is early as 1332, Liv. of Entertaining Kauwl., Pompeiz. IL p. S, fectncte, ssued by Soc. for Dufus, of Cse. Knowl, and the suggestica seems pia isicie except that peristyiku were reguariy rectangular in shape, or at least their sides were strught. Accurling to Vitruvius, VI. 4, they should be a third part lenger than wide, and be placed transverseiy.) The resuiting villa, if Warquarit e fuilowed, wouii be of a very unusual coastrictron: first, an atrium with its gestionizem ; then, a peristviium wbuse zret was very smail, purvuia, - a little bit of a one ; next, a small strium ; and behind this, a triciinium or decus. Vething of the surt appears to have been found. and it is foundfui whether it ever will be; for an interior atrium, where there is an exterior one, seems to be an anomaly, and an atrivium is merely a small atrium. Of the twelve conjectural plans of the villa, which I have been fortunate enough to collect Scamuzzi, 1995; Felibien des Ivaux, 1099; Castell, 1;28; Marquez, 1790; Hirt, 1827; Haudebourt, 1833; Schinkel, 1341; Bouchet, 1852; Burn after Hirt, 1971; Cowan, 1889; Winnefeld, 1891; and Magoun, 1994) mut a single one can be regarled as favoring the view of Marquarit; for in no case is the cavucdium represented as smaller than the atrium, which it must be. to be the atrioium cf. Cicero's statement), and fuur, including the two latest, regard the cavaediuin hiiare as a peristylium. Now it appears that there were porticoes in villas besides those in the peristyiium ; for Vitruvius, in giving the arrangement of a country villa, says, VI. 8: ruri autem pseudouriams statim peristylia, deinde tunc atria haventii circum porticus puvimentatas spectantes zu palaestras et ami'ulationes. Moreover, in the passage from Cicero upon which Marquardt bases his theory, no peristylium is mentioned. In fact the worii does not occur in either epistle; but in the preceriing section he says: zila mini valde placuit, propterea quod summam tignitatem pavimentata porticus habebat. and again, in the other passage just preceding the citation above, he says: Sign nostra . . . velim imponas, et si quod aliud qikelov .. reperies, et maxime, quae tibi palaestrae gymnasiique videbuntur esse. Etenim ibi sedans haec ad te scribe
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 peristyliun, 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. 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 osten 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