« PreviousContinue »
course, not found on every page of Varro, but in general the organization of the sentences must be considered as quite elaborate, especially in view of the fact that the Res Rusticae are written in the form of the Platonic dialog, which is much less favorable to such a treatment than is the Aristotelian.
Quintilian is deserving of special attention as a notable example of a medium apperceptive type.
The units of thought are of moderate size. The relations of their ele. ments to each other as well as the relations of successive units are clearly grasped. Associative additions are frequent, but seldom overrun the thought or crowd out other elements. The sentences of Quintilian accordingly often bear a resem. blance to the narrative type.
In the following passage it happens that the associative processes are little in evidence : Institutio, 3, 6, 81-83 : sed non statim, quod esse manifestum est, etiam quid sit apparet. hoc quoque constituto novissima qualitas superest neque his exploratis aliud est ultra. his infinitae quaestiones, his finitae continentur: horum aliqua in demonstrativa, deliberativa, iudiciali materia utique tractatur: haec rursus iudiciales causas et rationali parte et legali continent: neque enim ulla iuris disceptatio nisi finitione, qualitate, coniectura potest explicari. ... discant igitur ante omnia, quadripertitam in omnibus causis esse rationem, quam primam intueri debeat qui acturus sit. Formula:
4 ababidablablablabab ... ab id ef
The discourse moves on in a calm and steady flow, perspicuous and for the most part carefully articulated. The sentences seldom pass beyond the average normal range of consciousness. Here we have, to use Quintilian's own words, his nuda praeceptorum traditio. This is Quintilian the man. In the proemiums to his different books we see traces of Quintilian the rhetorician. Note only the following: 1, proem. 5, ego cum existimem, etc.
А в B cd
CD i GH
effi gh EF See also 3, proem. 2–3. Quintilian shows good taste in employing comparatively few of these overloaded sentences.
There appears to be no Roman writer, at least before the third century A.D., who was addicted to the use of the interlocked form (Boucke's type, II, :3). Those who do employ long sentences either follow the types described above (pp. 39-40) or the strictly analytic type (II, 4). This is plainly due to the same general characteristic of the Roman mind, which made it possible for them to create the two most remarkable products of that nation, the Roman legal system and the organization of the Roman Catholic Church. However, we do find sporadic examples of the interlocked type. Velleius Paterculus and Pliny the Elder, for example, occasionally become entangled in their own web of thought when they attempt elaborate periods. A single sentence from Velleius Paterculus (2, 18, 1-3) will be sufficient to illustrate the lengths to which he could go in extravaganza. Even more marvellously constructed than this sentence is the one which fills sections 143 and 144 of the seventh book of Pliny's Natural History.
The Roman historians of the classical period are representatives of a style approaching very closely to Dr. Boucke's narrative form (II, 2). In Caesar, however, the associative elements do not play a very important part. He is somewhat akin to Quintilian. This is not true, however, of Book viii, written by Hirtius.
This rapid and rather sketchy review of the essential qualities of the sentence structure of five writers who possessed remarkably strong individualities will perhaps show in a general way what the method of study here followed would accomplish. Within the general field a number of subordinate questions arise. Some of these, both because of the inadequacy of our sources of information concerning the
lives of the writers and also because of the small part of their writings that has been preserved to us, can never be solved. Others have been briefly suggested or touched upon in the course of this paper. Do different schools of stylists show general differences in sentence structure ? general development of the type of sentences employed take place in the centuries between Plautus and Isidor? Such a development can be clearly traced in German literature. Does the type of sentence structure show any development of the mode of thought, in the case of those authors whose extant works extend over long periods of time? Does the test of sentence structure throw any light on the authenticity of writings of questioned authorship? Lastly, it should be the main object of one who deals with this subject to determine so far as possible whether and in how far the qualities of mind shown in an author's sentences can be correlated with those shown in his actions otherwise, thus bringing the style in relation to the man himself.1
This is, of course, difficult in the cases of writers concerning whose lives we know little. The great advantage, however, of the general method followed in this paper is that it is individualistic that the style of each author is approached as a distinct and different problem. The method does not seek, as does the Nägelsbachian, to impose a group of artificial (rhetorical) forms upon a writer, but on the contrary recognizes an unlimited number of types which it would abstract from the writer's sentence structure.
1 Professor Fred Newton Scott, of the University of Michigan, has undertaken the study of the rhythms of Walt Whitman from much the same point of view, and has obtained interesting and valuable results.
The Reputed Influence of the Dies Natalis in determin
ing the Inscription of Restored Temples.
By Prof. DUANE REED STUART,
In an article which appears in the American Journal of Archaeology, vol. IX (1905), pp. 427-449, I have endeavored to reconstruct the policies adopted by Augustus and Hadrian in inscribing the public buildings which were restored under their auspices. Reference is there made to Marquardt's assertion 1 that in the restoration of a temple the emperors sought to avoid the necessity of adding to the traditional dies natalis a second anniversary of dedication, by preserving the inscription of the founder and passing over in silence their own repairs.
I took exception in my previous paper to the statement of Marquardt, on the ground that he failed to recognize the possibility of variation in policy, and hence based a sweeping inference on the practice of Augustus. He writes " die Kaiser," but quotes only the three stock passages that treat of the method of the Princeps. One point, nevertheless, I left unchallenged; namely, the supposition that the dies natalis wielded a preservative power in favor of the original dedicatory inscription, and thus became a factor in moulding imperial policy. This question I purpose to discuss in this paper. The matter at issue has to do with motives rather than with methods, although it is necessary to fix the ultimate causes lying back of imperial procedure by a study of the facts. Let me confess at the outset that my attitude toward Marquardt's hypothesis is polemical.
In one respect the views which Marquardt held concerning the dies natalis, when he made his suggestion, have been superseded. As examination of the context in Römische Staatsverwaltung will show, the author accepted the rule first laid down by Jordan, to the effect that the anniversary of the foundation as originally fixed survived all vicissitudes of restoration and rededication. At the most a subordinate festival commemorating the new dedication might be inserted in the Fasti. This doctrine is no longer orthodox. Several years after the publication of Jordan's article Emil Aust? attacked his thesis and pointed out various instances in which, as a consequence of restoration, the day of dedication was changed. This apparently was always the case when a temple was rebuilt a solo. Wissowa, whose opinion at the present time carries greatest weight in questions of this sort, adopts the view of Aust.
1 Römische Staatsverwaltung, vol. III, p. 274.
Nevertheless this amendment in fact does not materially affect the spirit of Marquardt's contention according to which the sanctity attached to the annual cult celebration actually dictated imperial procedure in rejecting the right of inscription on a restored temple. Indeed, if the regard in which the dies natalis was held can be supposed to have exerted any force as a controlling motive, even greater influence may be logically imputed to it. Marquardt inferred that the emperors felt bound to avoid the necessity of depriving the original anniversary of an undivided observance. If the Caesars paid such homage to the traditional festival, they would have been even more careful to refrain from any mode of inscription which might have consigned the old dies to oblivion and brought to pass the substitution of a new date of celebration in the Fasti. Therefore the possibility that desire to perpetuate the original anniversary of foundation may have modified the policy of the imperial restorer, retains all the right to consideration that it may ever have possessed.
In practice there were three methods of inscription to which any restorer, emperor or subject, might resort: (1) The inscription of the original builder was kept intact and alone. (2) The restorer kept the inscription of the founder,
1 Ephemeris Epigraphica, vol. I, p. 235.
2 De aedibus sacris populi Romani inde a primis liberae reipublicae temporibus usque ad Augusti imperatoris aetatem Romae conditis, Marburg, 1889, p. 42 ff.
Religion und Kultus der Römer, p. 406; Gesamme'te Abhandlungen, Munich, 1904, p. 146.