fore sets about picturing to the imagination of the reluctant Lesbia the unlovely life she has henceforth to lead, and, by way of effective contrast, recites each precious detail of their wanton dallyings in the happy days of old. He resumes, then, in a tone of tenderest commiseration, At tu dolebis, cum rogaberis nulla. Scelesta, uae te! quae tibi manet uita! It seems strange that anybody should have thought for an instant that scelesta, uae te!' expressed anger instead of pity. Baehrens' note should have settled that point, it seems. So also 'quae tibi manet uita' represents Lesbia's life as even now sad and desolate, just as Catullus has repeatedly confessed himself to be 'miser,' and thus adds a further incentive to immediate reconciliation. Our poet has now employed every resource at his command. He can now do nothing but recur to the promise of Sappho and rest his heart upon it; for, as Horace also has said, "iam te sequetur," if you will but bide your time. And so, at last, he exhorts himself to meet disdain with disdain, At tu, Catulle, destinatus obdura. No opposition could be more complete than that between the foregoing interpretation and that which Baehrens proposed. He considered it as an exceedingly irate invective addressed by Catullus on his return to Rome from Verona to Clodia after hearing of the suspicion she had incurred of poisoning her husband. I need not pause here to refute his views in detail. If the foregoing interpretation is sound, they fall to the ground. All depends upon the apprehension of what I regard as the key to the whole, the words “nec quae fugit sectare” (v. 10). Baehrens there refers to Theocritus xi. 75 and Callimachus ep. xxxii. 5. A glance at these passages in their context will show that they afford no parallel whatever. There is no suggestion of giving up what is lost in order to enjoy what is at hand. It is, therefore, a gratuitous insult to Catullus as well as to Lesbia to quote these passages and Horace, Sat. I. ii. 105 foll. Theocritus vi. 17, although not quite parallel, is more nearly so; better still is Horace, C. II. v. 13, iam te sequetur? To understand Catullus c. viii. one ought perhaps to consider also c. lxxvi., as even a casual reading of these poems, one after the other, will suffice to convince one that there exists between them more than a chance relation. On closer study, however, the contrast between them in tone and spirit becomes very striking. It is well known that Macaulay somehow associated the two poems in his mind; and one may readily conceive of the latter moving him to tears, though they seem rather ill-bestowed when shed over c. viii. It would seem that when Catullus came to bid a last farewell to Clodia in cc. xi. and lxxvi. he recurred in thought to the earlier poem written when he did desire that she requite his love, before he learned to loathe the very passion he had formerly cherished. Catullus' c. viii. receives further illustration from several other poems to which we may now briefly refer. First, we are reminded of Horace C. III. xxvi., where the poet proclaims his intention of renouncing the warfare of love and dedicating his arms to Venus; in the end, however, it appears that his votive offering has been made only to induce the goddess to give the disdainful Chloe one touch with her uplifted lash. Of Horace C. III. ix. Porphyrion says: "Hac alternis vicibus respondentem sibi Lydiam amicam facit. Agit autem cum ea de instauratione gratiae." Here both lovers play consciously at the game of feigned disdain, and therefore each understands the other the more readily. In English we have Carew's famous Disdain Returned, which in tone is closely akin to the first example from Horace, although it is far less refined. In striking contrast to this is the beautiful sonnet by Michael Drayton, entitled Love's Farewell, and beginning, "Since there's no hope, come let us kiss and part." The touches are delicate and the tone is refined. The sonnet also bears a more intimate relation to Catullus c. viii. than to any other poem here cited unless it be Horace C. III. ix. One need not seek to disguise the fact that Catullus, as became the ardent nature of the man, felt more keenly than Horace "the pains of despised love," in order to show that there exists between these various lyrics more than a chance resemblance. They are one and all art lyrics, although in Catullus art is more perfectly fused with life. Fortunately we need not choose, as if that choice alone remained, between regarding c. viii. as an artistic bit of vers de société, like Horace C. III. ix., and as an angry lampoon addressed to a woman who has been discovered to be a Lucrezia Borgia. In common with c. iii., it possesses the exquisite charm resulting from the delicate transition from emotion to emotion without destroying the moving equilibrium of the unitary mood. In closing, I may say that there is no need to wonder at the familiarity of Catullus with Sappho which is presumed in the foregoing interpretation. If evidence were desired it could be found in cc. xi., li., lxi., lxii., etc. But we know that Valerius Cato busied himself with the literary interpretation of Sappho, and all of his associates were doubtless well acquainted with her poems. 34. Repetition in Shakspere, by Professor J. E. Harry, of the University of Cincinnati (read in abstract, in the absence of the author, by Professor Hubbard). ... "Shakspere never repeats" is a common saying, but like many common sayings, is untrue. Boyet says “veni, vidi, vici . . . videlicet, he came, saw, and overcame "; Rosalind speaks of "Caesar's thrasonical brag of ‘I came, saw, and overcame ""; the Queen in Cymbeline declares that: "a kind of conquest Caesar made here, but made not here his brag of 'came,' and 'saw,' and 'overcame ""; and Falstaff boasts that he may justly say "with the hook-nosed fellow of Rome, I came, saw, and overcame." The poet does not often literally plagiarize himself, but the same ideas (frequently in phraseology which betray their origin) recur so many times in both the plays and the poems that the revelation is almost startling to one who has been accustomed to regard repetition as a fault (if fault it be) from which the world's greatest dramatist is singularly free. Reunions and reconciliations occur in nearly all of Shakspere's romances. The recovery of lost children is not an infrequent incident. Mistakes of identity, disguises, and bewilderments recur often in the earlier comedies, certain tricks and frauds in the later. A play within a play is found several times. The second scene of the first act of the Merchant of Venice is almost identical with a scene in Two Gentlemen of Verona (I. 2). Mariana, in some respects, is like Helena; Oberon and Puck have their counterparts in Prospero and Ariel. Queen Mab's doings are not so very different from those of Puck. The Welsh parson recalls Holofernes; Sir Hugh reminds us of Fluellen; and the vision seen by Queen Katharine calls up King Richard's dream on Bosworth Field. Pyramus and Thisbe appear in more than one play; Troilus and Cressida are mentioned in two, and are the chief characters in another; Lucrece is referred to not unfrequently in the plays, and is the subject of a long poem. The mountainous retreat in Cymbeline has some resemblances to the Forest of Arden (in spite of the differences). Marina and her mother have many experiences in common with Perdita and Hermione. Shakspere gives us no typical mother. Characters of the faithful wife, of the dutiful daughter, are well drawn, but the mother, the real mother, whose character, as mother, might insensibly and irresistibly attract us, like Desdemona, or Imogen, or Marina, are wanting. Volumnia does not count, although she is spoken of as "the most noble mother of the world"; nor can Constance deserve to be called an ideal mother she is not a real, but a royal mother. References to his own life are to be found in three of Shakspere's plays. Evidence from his poems shows that he studied birds and flowers, knew much about horses and dogs, was familiar with hawking and hunting. The poet frequently ridicules the craze of foreign travel. The prose epistle which serves as a preface to the Rape of Lucrece is turned into poetry in three of the sonnets. Repetitions in the latter are numerous. The ideas of decay, Time with his scythe, birth, death, resemblance of progeny to parent, sleep (alone and in comparison with death) appear very frequently. Rosalind discourses to Orlando on the heart-wholeness of him that "will break an hour's promise in love," and Eglamour declares that "lovers break not hours, | Unless it be to come before their time, | So much they spur their expedition." One cannot read those noble lines in Measure for Measure ending with "Become them with one half so good a grace as mercy does," without thinking of the celebrated words of Portia: "The quality of mercy is not strain'd . . . it becometh the throned monarch better than his crown." Examples of repetition of thought might be multiplied. The same may be said of phrases and conceits: "Beguiled | With outward honesty, but yet defiled with inward vice," "Whose inward ill no outward harm express'd." Compare Romeo and Juliet, I. 3, and Sonnet XVI. Cheeks as red as roses is a thought that constantly recurs. Expressions like "worms and tombs" are abundant. "Thorns and roses" is another frequent combination. Graves and ghosts, naturally, are spoken of in many dramas: "The grave stood tenantless and the sheeted dead | Did squeak and gibber in the Roman streets”; “Now it is the time of night that the graves, all gaping wide, | Every one lets forth his sprite, | In the church-way paths to glide"; "Graves at my command | Have waked their sleepers, oped and let 'em forth"; "The sepulchre | Hath oped his ponderous and marble jaws"; "And graves have yawn'd and yielded up their dead"; "And ghosts did shriek and squeal about the streets"; "And spirits walk, and ghosts break ope their graves." References to disorder among the planets are especially frequent. But in the whole visible world nothing seems to have won the admiration of Shakspere so much as the glorious orb of day. The sun to him was the very type of majesty. It is mentioned 242 times in his dramas, and 46 times in his poems, the moon and stars only about half as often. But even "the glorious planet Sol in noble eminence enthroned" does not interest Shakspere so much as one of the planets-"this huge stage "which" presenteth nought but shows | Whereon the stars in secret influence comment." How much he drew from the stage for metaphor and illustration can be seen even in a casual perusal of Lear, 2 Henry IV, As You Like It, Merchant of Venice, Macbeth, Henry V, Troilus and Cressida, and Sonnet XXIII. Allusions to the power of "sweet music are almost as abundant. Not infrequent are the references to the singing of birds: "Hark! Hark! the lark at heaven's gate sings "; "Like the lark at break of day arising | From sullen earth, sings hymns at heaven's gate." Verses almost identical that is, containing the same thought couched in almost the same language — may be cited by the hundreds. To take the first that comes to hand: "Deeper than e'er plummet sounded"; "Deeper than did ever plummet sound"; "Or dive into the bottom of the deep | Where fathom line could never touch the ground." The President then declared the session adjourned. The thirty-third annual session will be held at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, beginning Tuesday, July 9, 1901. PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST. SAN FRANCISCO, December 30, 1899. For years the question of the organization of a Philological Association on the Pacific Coast had been discussed among the members of the language departments of the University of California and the Leland Stanford Jr. University. In December, 1898, at an informal dinner of the University of California Greek Club, a committee was appointed, consisting of Professors E. B. Clapp, University of California, E. M. Pease, Stanford University, and E. F. Burrill, Oakland High School, to consider the question of calling a meeting for the organization of such an association. The arrival of Professor B. I. Wheeler as President of the University of California added additional impetus to the plan, and a call was issued by the committee for a meeting to be held in the Mark Hopkins Institute of Art in San Francisco, to which all persons interested in the organization of a Philological Association of the Pacific Coast were invited. A programme of papers to be read accompanied the call, to which the following persons responded: Mr. W. H. Alexander, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. Mr. W. F. Belfrage, Visalia, Cal. Mr. G. Berg, Marysville, Cal. Prof. C. B. Bradley, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. Rev. W A. Brewer, San Mateo, Cal. Miss H. S. Brewer, Redlands, Cal. Miss Josephine Bristol, High School, Redwood City, Cal. Mr. Valentin Buehner, High School, San Jose, Cal. Mr. E. F. Burrill, High School, Oakland, Cal. Mr. Martin Centner, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. Mr. Samuel Chambers, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. Mr. James G. Coffin, Stanford University, Cal. Mrs. Emily Cressey, Modesto, Cal. Mr. J. A. De Cou, Red Bluff, Cal. Prof. Frederik S. Dunn, University of Oregon, Eugene, Ore. Mr. Jefferson Elmore, Stanford University, Cal. Prof. H. R. Fairclough, Stanford University, Cal. Mr. G. E. Faucheux, University of California, Berkeley, Cal. |