With Codex A (Parisinus 6115, IX. cent., commonly known as Codex Memmianus), the oldest extant manuscript of the Lives are to be classed: Cod. Gudianus, 268, XI. cent. (G2); 1 Cod. Monacensis Lat. 5977, XV. cent. (Mon); Cod. Vaticanus Lat. 1904, XI.-XII. cent. (V ́1), known as 'Vaticanus Lipsii'; Cod. Mediceus LXVIII. 7, XI. cent. (M3), the Third Medicean'; Cod. Mediceus LXVI. 39, XIII. cent. (3/1), the First Medicean'; Of these G and Mon are very closely related to one another. Mon, though a paper codex of late date, appears to have been copied directly from an uncial text, perhaps from the immediate archetype of G2. These two manuscripts stand nearer than the rest of the class to Codex A, and these three may be distinguished as a group within the class. Another group may be recognized in M3, M1, R1, which exhibit a distinctly closer relation to one another than to the rest. Between these two groups stands 174, nearer to the second group, but apparently not of it. In a second class, inferior to the first, but not infrequently preserving the genuine tradition where some or all of the manuscripts of the first class have lost it, are to be placed the following twenty-one codices: Codd. Vaticani Lat. 1860 (Vo), 1908, and 7310 (1), XIV. cent.; Codd. Vaticani Lat. 1906, 1907 (VT), 1910, 1915, 3335, and 3336 (V36), XV. cent.; Codd. Ottoboniani Lat. 1562 (O') and 2008 (02), XV. cent.; Cod. Urbinas Lat. 457 (U), XV. cent.; Cod. Lat. Reg. Suec. 1990 (R2), XV. cent.; Cod. Mediceus LXIV. 8, XIII. cent. (M), the 'Second Medicean'; Cod. Bibl. S. Crucis XX sin. 3, XIII. cent. (1); Cod. Mediceus LXIV. 9, XIV. cent. (M3);. Cod. Perizonianus 4 (in Leyden); Codd. Britannici: 15. C. III, XII. cent. (B1); 15. C. IV, XIII. cent. (B2); Lat. Cl. 31914, XV. cent. (B3); and Lat. Cl. 24913, XV. cent. (B3). Within this class, also, as in the first, two groups can be clearly distinguished. The nucleus of one group is formed by five manuscripts, V, V1, M2, M1, M3, which are shown to have a common source by certain disturbances of the text, the omission in VV of about a page of the Vespasian, and a transposition,. shared by all five, of two considerable passages of the Galba. To this group. also belong B1 and B3. The other group centres round 133 UO1 O2, and certainly includes VR1 and B. The nearer affinities of the remaining seven manuscripts. of the second class cannot be determined on the present evidence. On the border line between the two classes appear to stand Codd. Vaticani Lat. 1905, 1913, 1914, and probably 9338, all of the fifteenth century, though the: evidence for the last named, partly owing to its defective condition, is scanty. Codd. Veneti: Lat. X. 30, 31, and 345, and Lat. Zanetti 382, XV. cent.; -- 1 Codd. A and G2 were not examined by the writer. For readings from the former he is indebted to Professor A. A. Howard; from the latter, to Becker's Quaestiones Suetonianae. probably all belong to the second class, but the excerpts gathered from them were not sufficiently full to base a positive statement upon. In conclusion the writer gives a list of thirty-five manuscript readings, adopted, with two exceptions, by Roth, but known to him only from early editions or as conjectures, and adduces reasons for believing that these and other good readings of fifteenth century codices are derived from genuine manuscript tradition, and are not, as Roth held, mere conjectures of scholars of the Renaissance. The paper will be published in full in the Harvard Studies in Classical Philology for 1901. 15. The Salian Hymn, by Professor George Hempl, of the University of Michigan. This paper is printed in full in the TRANSACTIONS, Vol. XXXI. 16. Miscellanea Critica (Aesch. Prom. 2, Soph. O.T. 54 sq., Eur. Med. 214-224, Eur. Hipp. 1-2, Porson's Enunciation of 'Porson's Rule'), by Professor Mortimer Lamson Earle, of Barnard College, Columbia University. ἄβατον might It was queried whether in Aesch. Prom. 2 the variant reading not, in view of Soph. Phil. 2 (cf. Ant. 772), be as old as Sophocles's time. — In Soph. O.T. 54 sq., the two divisions into protasis and apodosis of the sentence εἴπερ — κρατεῖν were discussed, that which makes the apodosis begin with ξὺν åvdpáσiv (the prevailing division in modern commentaries) and that which makes the apodosis begin with κάλλιον. For the latter division Wunder seems to be primarily responsible. In favor of this latter division, it was urged that it brings together ὥσπερ κρατεῖς and ξὺν ἀνδράσιν, which belong together; against it was urged that, like the other division, it makes κpareîv resume the notion of apžeis when that notion has already been once resumed by кpaтeîs. It was suggested that the right division is after yŷs, and that we should point and interpret thus: ὡς εἴπερ ἄρξεις τῆσδε γῆς, ὥσπερ κρατεῖς — For if you really mean to remain lord of this land, the way you do rule it — with men is better than to rule it empty.' With this division of the sentence кpareÎV at the end of v. 55 is perfectly natural. In the discussion of Eur. Med. 214-224, an attempt was made to show that Ennius, in making the remarkable translation of vv. 214-218 which we find in Cic. ad. fam. 7, 6, had before him the traditional text, save perhaps that for dúokλecav in v. 218 he read (what Prinz extracted from the Scholia) dúo volav. In v. 215 Elmsley showed that Ennius probably read μéμyno (so L). An English version of the verses in question from Ennias's point of view was essayed, thus: ‘Corinthian ladies, I left home. Don't find any fault with me; for I know that many people have, some of them become distinguished abroad, others of them at home — these from not going about have won infamy [assuming for the moment that Ennius read dúσkλetav] and sloth to boot.' Ennius would thus have made a heavy pause after dóμwv (214), have taken πολλοὺς βροτῶν as distributed in τοὺς μὲν — τοὺς δ ̓, have regarded τοὺς μὲν as placed ὑπερβατόν after σεμνούς γεγῶτας instead of logically from his point of view) before those words, have taken OIA in v. 217 as = old' (an anacoluthic resumption of Toùs d' at the head of the vs.), and, finally, have thought that dø' ἡσύχου ποδός resumed adverbially the adjectival ἐν θυραίοις (note his propter ea). It may be added that sunt improbati is a fitter rendering of δύσνοιαν ἐκτήσαντο (as Ennius misunderstood the idiom) than of dúσKλELAV ÉKTÝσAVTO. It was further urged that vv. 219–221 are misplaced, Wyttenbach's objection to yàp where it stands being well taken. It was proposed to place these verses after v. 224. — In Eur. Hipp. 1-2, the harsh order of the words has led many to misunderstand them, M. Weil and Professor von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff being honorable exceptions. The verses are of course to be understood as equivalent to: IIoλλn μὲν ἐν βροτοῖσιν οὐρανοῦ τ ̓ ἔσω κέκλημαι θεὰ Κύπρις (πολλὴ κέκλημαι μέγα ἔχω τὸ ὄνομα) κοὐκ ἀνώνυμός (εἰμι). In regard to Porson's famous rule about the fifth foot in a tragic trimeter ending in a cretic word, which is wrong as it stands, it was suggested that Porson probably drafted the rule so that it ended quintus pes non spondeus esse deberet, but thinking it directer to use an affirmative rather than a negative turn of expression, carelessly substituted for non spondeus the expression for what is normally allowable in the first five places of the trimeter, viz. iambus vel tribrachys, forgetting that the final made "vel tribrachys " an impossible addition. Adjourned. AFTERNOON SESSION. In conjunction with the Archaeological Institute, the Association held a joint meeting, at which the following papers were presented by the representatives of the Association. 17. Sun Myths in Lithuanian Folksong, by Professor George D. Chase, of Cornell University. This paper appears in the TRANSACTIONS, Vol. XXXI. 18. Note on và ảoɣaιóтepa Aιovvota, by Professor Edward Capps, of the University of Chicago. (Read by title.) The writer called attention to a current misunderstanding of the word apxaióTepa in the much-discussed passage, Thuc. 2, 15. The comparative is held by Dörpfeld and others to indicate that the historian knew of only two Dionysia; the Lenaea and the Anthesteria were therefore identical. The opponents of this view have committed the same error of interpreting apxatóтepa as if it were παλαιότερα. It was shown that the two words ἀρχαῖος and παλαιός are strictly differentiated in usage, and that the passage, rightly interpreted, absolutely excludes Gilbert's view, adopted by Dörpfeld, as to the festivals of Dionysus, and fully sustains the position of Böckh. 19. The Visits of Simonides, Pindar, and Bacchylides at the Court of Hiero, by Professor Harold N. Fowler, of the College for Women of Western Reserve University. Examination of the available evidence makes it probable that Simonides went to Sicily in 476–5, and remained there until his death in 467. Probably neither Pindar nor Bacchylides went to Sicily in 476, nor is there any real evidence that the three poets were together at Hiero's court. In view of the relative ease of travel by sea in the fifth century, and of the fact that the poet's profession made his presence at public occasions in various places desirable, it is probable that Pindar and Bacchylides visited Hiero's court more than once, but there is no evidence that either was there for any long period. 20. Aristotle's Theory of Imagination, by Professor William A. Hammond, of Cornell University. The views of Aristotle regarding the nature of imagination are found mainly in the De anima and in the series of eight opuscules, known in the Aristotelian corpus as the Parva Naturalia. The processes of knowing are marked off by Aristotle into three distinct stages: (1) The simplest form of knowing is sensation (aioOnois). (2) The second stage is imagination (pavraota). (3) The final stage is rational thought (VOÛS, ÉπLOTÝμN). The imagination mediates between sensation and thought. Sensation furnishes to the mind a body of impressions and copies of the external world, which imagination and thought employ. Imagination is a storehouse, as it were, of copies of sense-objects, which persist in the mind as images after the sensed-object has been removed. It is a collection of residual sensations, capable of being revived into consciousness. Without it memory would be impossible, and the mind merely the scene of ever-shifting kaleidoscopic sense-impressions. The term pavraoía is used by Aristotle to mean both the faculty and the product of imagination; the latter, however, is ordinarily called by him phantasm (párTаoμa). There are three more or less distinct senses in which Aristotle employs the word pavraoía or pávтaoua: (1) Appearance, phenomenon (De mundo 395 a 29; De sensu 439 b 6; De coelo 294 a 7, 297 b 31). (2) Phantasm, or false appearance (Soph, elench. 165 b 25, 168 b 19; De insom. 460 b 20; De mir. ausc. 846 a 37). (3) In the psychological meaning of an internal picture of an absent sense-object, — not merely the picture itself but the faculty that produces it (De an. 425 b 25, 429 a 1; Metaph. 980 b 26). The term "phantasy" is akin to páos 'light' (De an. 429 a 3), and pavrážeiv ‘to appear'; and there is in the word an implied distinction between the phantasm and the real. It is appearance versus reality (Soph. elench. 164 a 9 ff., Eth. nic. 1114 a 32). Yet while the image is not the real thing, but only the real thing's form, it may be a true copy of the real, and, as such, as true as sensation. The two prominent elements expressed in the word, looked at etymologically, are that of form and light, without which the sensible is only meagrely revealed to us. Analogically to the presentation of the world as form and light to the senses (the eye being the most important sense-organ), so phantasy reveals to our consciousness an inner world as a world of forms, color, perspective, and light, — an inner world corresponding in its imagery to the world of lighted space. The psycho-physiological process by which imagination is awakened is conceived of by Aristotle as follows: Sensation is due to a movement set up in the sense-organ by a present stimulus. This movement has the power to persist or to continue after the stimulus has gone (De insom. 459 b 7 ff.). Just as one throws a pebble into the water, and it sets a circle in motion, which communicates its motion to a second circle after the pebble has disappeared (459 a 28 ff.), so the energy in a sense-organ communicated by a sense-stimulus is in turn communicated to the blood (De insom. 461 a 25-b 18), and by the blood is transmitted under favorable circumstances to the heart, which Aristotle regards as the organ of imagination and of all the higher functions of consciousness. The image in the heart is the phantasm, and the movement there is fainter than in the original sensation, so that Aristotle describes the phantasm as a "weak sensation" (pavraola kotiv alobnois Tis dσbevýs, Rhet. 1370 a 28). These movements are especially characteristic of sleep, for the sense-activity is then suppressed (De insom. 461 b 12; De divin. 464 b 5). Imagination has two forms: (1) That of revived or residual sense-perceptions; i.e. copies or images of the sensible world, in which imagination is receptive or reproductive; (2) that of reconstructions or created images, in which the imagination is active or productive. The one form of imagination is called by Aristotle pavтaoía aio@ntiкń (reproductive imagination), and the other, paraola Xoyiotikh or Bovλevtiký (De an. 433 b 29, 434 a 7), or productive imagination. The latter belongs to man only; the former belongs also to the brute creation. The latter kind of imagination is due to a free, initiative power in the central organ (the heart), which may take the form of logical construction of the elements of sense-imagery into a coherent complex, such as is exhibited in a creation of literary or plastic art, or it may take the form of arbitrary, incoherent, confused image-masses, as exhibited in sleep, in the delirium of fever, and in the excitement of vehement desire or violent passion. Such distortions and malformations, corresponding to no real things, are due mainly to physiological causes, especially to excessive heat and disordered movements of the blood. They occur mostly in sleep, because the activities of thought and sensation, which act as regulators of imagination by day, are suppressed in sleep, and imagination has undisputed control of the central organ. These phantasms, uncontrolled by waking consciousness, resemble the imagery of clouds, which at one moment represent a centaur, at another a man, and are constantly shifting in their forms (De insom. 461 b 20). Imagination, then, is for Aristotle both an image-receiving and an image-producing power. As an image-receiving or image-holding power, it is the source of memory or recollection. A memory or memory-image differs from a phantasm in two particulars: (1) Memory regards the phantasm as a copy of something, while imagination regards it simply as a picture. (2) Memory regards the thing of which the phantasm is a copy, as having already been seen or known by us (De mem. 451 a 14). The deliberate and conscious calling up of this copy is recollection (áváμvnois). One of the highest and most important functions of imagination is to supply the schematic form in which the activity of conceptual thought is clothed. For the schemata of general notions the reason needs general images, and these are supplied to voûs by the productive imagination. Thought is not possible without an image (De an. 403 a 9, 427 b 16, 431 a 17 ff., 432 a 8; De mem. 449 b 30). The relation of pavracia to art finds no explicit treatment in Aristotle's writings. |