« PreviousContinue »
15. Medea's Marriage Problem, by Professor J. E. Harry, of the University of Cincinnati.
Meineke emended Eur. Medea 240 to read tws uálcota xpňoetal OUVEUVÉTO, translating quibus modis tractandus sit maritus. He is followed by many editors. But tws xpňoetai is not paralleled in Greek poetry (nor is it very frequent in prose), the normal construction being tl xpňoetan. Moore, in his revision of Allen's edition, retains the Ms reading (8tư), and renders xpňoetai OUVEUVÉT by manage her husband. But xpño bai does not mean “ manage” in any period of the literature. Medlea means simply that it is an extremely difficult question to decide who will prove the best man to live with — xpîtai kal ovšo, as Demosthenes says (1. 14). Cf. Plutarch, Dion, 17 y uálcota Twv 'Adhunoi piawy έχρητο και συνδιοτάτο. The problem τω δεί χρήσθαι has presented itself to both sexes in all ages. Ηesiod says μάλιστα γαμεϊν ήτις σέθεν εγγύθι ναίει. Our old dramatists are full of situations such as Medea says the marriageable maid must face. Cf. Marston, Antonio and Mellida; Shakspere, Two Gentlemen of Verona (1.2), Merchant of Venice (1. 2). The wife is not supposed to hold the reins (the image in “ manage ") — she is part of the team itself. Cf. Xen. Oec. 7. 18. With Med. 242 compare Plato, Phaedr. 254 A. Alcibiades defines χρωμένων åvopurwv å vēpumOLS (1 Alcib. 1250) by kolvwvoúrrwv. In Med. 240 the last two words signify yameital. Cf. 1001 and Plato, 1 Alcib. 129 C. One must possess before one can use (é xortes xpulled år), must get before one can possess (KÉKTNOU kal xpw, Xen. Cyrop. 8. 3. 50); but xphobai may include or presuppose é xelv and kektno dai. Many authors use the two verbs almost interchangeably (ποικιλία).
Liddell and Scott quote xpņobal from Xenophon's Symposium (2. 10) as meaning "manage.” This is a mistake. Socrates, in reply to a question of Antisthenes how it comes that he does not train Xanthippe, explains: keyw din βουλόμενος ανθρώποις χρήσθαι και ομιλεϊν, ταύτην κέκτημαι (= χρώμαι) ευ ειδώς ότι εί ταύτην υπoίσω (note καθέξω, supra), ραδίως τοις γε άλλοις άπασιν ανθρώπους ouvéo oual. Note particularly that when Antisthenes puts the question, he does not say é xels, nor kért nO AL (the word used later by Socrates), but xon.
For the combination μάλιστα χρήσεται compare Lys. 19. 18 πολλούς δή μάλλον έχρητο ή τη εμώ πατρί, Isoc. 16. 25 μάλιστ' αυτό χρώμενοι, 17. 47 και μάλιστ' ετύγχανον πάντων των εν τη πόλει χρώμενος, Isae. 3. 19 οίς αν τυγχάνωμεν χρώμενοι μάλιστα, Hyper. 1. 5 χρήται τούτοις πάντων μάλιστα.
The meaning of the verse, then, is (to quote Xen. Oec. 7. 11) Tivi dv KOLVW VÒN βέλτιστον οίκου τε και τέκνων λάβουμεν (cf. 953). In the general statement a special application lurks — Medea is thinking of herself (cf. 18, 23, 31, 35, 166, 441, 483, 502). Olkolev means precisely what Earle says it means (“at home”), not " from one's own resources," as Liddell and Scott take it. Medea is a γυνή εις Ελληνικά ήθη άφιγμένη, whereas Helen is a γυνή Ελληνίς transported to a barbarian land: πατρίδος θεοί μ' άφιδρύσαντο γής | εις βάρβαρ' ήθη (Εur. Ηel. 273 f.).
But Meineke's tractandus sit would be xpn xpho ao la. Cf. Eur. Fr. 901. Wecklein conjectured 8tw. . . xaploetal, which contains as naive an inquiry for a maiden as Meineke's Ows xphoetai (see Ar. Eq. 517). Conjecturarum plena sunt omnia. But we may say, with Porson, nulla opus est mutatione. Medea means : τινα γάμον ειμι; [ποιός] τις πόσις με δέξεται | νυμφικάς ες ευνάς; (ΕΙ. 1199 f.).
Remarks upon the paper were made by Professors Smyth and Knapp, and the author.
16. Comparisons and Illustrations in the tà tpos éautóv of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus, by Professor Curtis C. Bushnell, of Syracuse University (read by Professor Kellogg, of Princeton University).
These comparisons are variously introduced by some one of twenty-two different words or combinations of words, used singly like ws ...,ws av ώσαvel . . . etc., or correlatively like HOTEP . ούτω etc. Special cases are comparison by repetition, as 4. 2, and by vôdlov . ☆ ... following a ques. tion, as 6. 35. In 4. 15 the point of comparison is merely implied.
Words used metaphorically constitute a majority of the cases.
Of Elemental Nature, 51 cases, 18% of all;
Of the cases assigned to Elemental Nature "calm weather” is three times used of serenity of spirit, “ extinguishing" nine times of the cessation of some activity or life itself, “ flowing” ten times of change or of Deity as source, the “calm flow” four times of serene existence, the “fountain-head” seven times, especially of Deity as source, the “river,” the "shifting sand,” the “ wave,” the “torrent,” each once of change, the “promontory” once of stability of soul.
Of the group belonging to Vegetable Life "fruit" is three times used to symbolize the acceptable, three times to symbolize production. “Leaves” as they form and fall are, with a reference to Homer, compared with the succession of generations. The operations of plant lise are six times taken as symbolic of what is natural, “ reaping” twice of death, the severed branch once of him who cuts himself off from society (cf. “abiding in the vine,” ]n. 15. 4 ff.).
The illustrations from Animal Life are used especially of what is natural or of what is of small importance.
Of the illustrations which concern Human Life six only are religious, but these are especially striking, as : “A man committed to virtue is indeed a priest and minister of the gods” (cf. “priests unto God," Rev. 1. 6). “ He who feels discontent at anything is like a sacrificial pig that kicks and squeals.” Many grains of frankincense on the same altar. One drops sooner, another later; it makes no difference.”
Eight cases are medical or pathological, seven physiological, ten athletic or gladiatorial. “The good man must head straight for the goal, casting not a glance
behind,” “must run the short way" (cf. “ running the race ” of i Cor. 9. 24, 26; Heb. 12. 1); and the dywvio ai of 6. 30 reminds us of 1 Tim. 6. 12 and 2 Tim. 4. 7.
Of the fifteen cases belonging to the spectacular group eight compare the nature controlled by its desires to a puppet controlled by strings. Life is four times compared to a play (cf. “ All the world's a stage” and Cic. de Sen. 5, 64, 70, 85).
Twelve comparisons are military, and in seven of these the “good soldier" is symbolic of loyalty to right.
The weaver's art is ten times used in illustration, but only of the “ web” of creation and circumstance, reminding us of the weaving of the Erdgeist in Faust.
The world is seven times compared to a “city.”
Thirty-three cases are of arrival, departure, or travel. Death is called " departure” twelve times, life a “journey” three times, death the “journey's end”
A course of action is twelve times called a “ path.” Three comparisons concern the “stranger."
Six are of child-life, always on its unattractive side. Three are of the “view from above," three of “sleep and dreams,” seven of “imprisonment."
The Geometrical group especially enforce the teaching of the insignificance of human things. Four cases are of the “angle,” four of the “point.”
Of exceptional beauty are: 4. 33. “I am in harmony with all that is a part of thy harmony, great Uni
For me nothing is early and nothing late, that is in season for thee. All is fruit for me, which thy seasons bear, O Nature! from thee, in thee, and unto thee are all things. •Dear City of Cecrops !' saith the poet: and wilt not thou say, 'Dear City of God'?"
4.48. “Serenely greet the journey's end, as an olive falls when it is ripe, blessing the branch that bare it and giving thanks to the tree that gave it life.”
4. 49. “ Be like the headland, on which the billows dash themselves continu. ally; but it stands fast till about its base the boiling breakers are lulled to rest.”
" In this river of existence how can one prize much any of the things that race by, on none of which one can take firm stand? It were like setting one's love on some sparrow that fits past and in an instant is out of sight.”
“Say men kill you, quarter you, pursue you with execrations: what has that to do with your understanding remaining pure, lucid, temperate, just? It is as though a man stood beside some sweet, transparent fountain, abusing it, and it ceased not to well forth draughts of pure water; nay, though he cast in mud and filth, it will speedily disperse them and wash them forth and take no stain." (Rendall's translation.)
Very extended are 6. 20; 8. 34; 11. 8, 20.
Several comparisons follow in immediate succession in 2. 17; 4. 28, 29; 5. 6; 7. 3; 9. 39; 12. 36 (cf. the Homeric multiplication of comparisons at supreme moments, as Il. 2. 455 ff.; 15. 603 ff.). Sometimes the comparisons are extended in the Homeric manner, as 4. I, 43.
The repetition of a word in making his point is a favorite device of our author, as 4. 3, 29; 9. 2.
His favorite subjects for illustration are change, the insignificance of buman things, the absence of evil from nature, contentment, discontent, and the unnaturalness of the unsocial disposition.
17. On the Personality of Pausanias the Periegete, by Professor E. G. Sihler, of New York University (read by title).
Was Pausanias a mere transcriber? 1877, Wilamowitz, with the iconoclastic itch of his earlier manhood so stated (Hermes XII). His asseverations were sweeping and made with a defiance which is often found associated with precocious cleverness. Each temperament has its own pathology. Dissentients, actual or potential, were assigned to the limbo of blockheads. More than cock. sure was W., particularly of the section in Pausanias dealing with the Acropolis, a mere transcription from Polemon, the writer of an Atthis. That nothing on the Acropolis of which P. chose to take notice is later than Polemon, may or may not be so. Pausanias was under no contract with posterity to bring his data down to his own time. His chief exception was Hadrian, the munificent Philhellene and leader in the Renaissance movement which swept through a great part of the second century A.1)., and of which P. himself was a part, no less than, e.g., Pollux the lexicographer, or even Lucian, who poured real genius into his repristinations of literary forms. P., as Frazer properly points out, was dominated in the main by an antiquarian and religious interest. Lucian, Frazer urges (p. xxxiii), “ perhaps the most refined critic of art in antiquity mentions no artist of later date than the fourth century.”—To proceed: Christ of Munich (in his Gr. Lit. G. 3d ed. p. 694, n. 3) cites Wilamowitz even now quite fully, is clearly more impressed with W. than with the sane and searching treatment of Frazer. But while we freely admit that every single pair of eyes, that every separate brain, have their limitations, an unprejudiced and accurate perusal of P. in his entirety does leave the impression that we have to do with a genuine traveller - and that Wilamowitz's inferences are imaginary.
Professor Christ has something to say for himself also: "wenn er aus der früheren Zeit auch vieles Unbedeutende und Mittelmässige erwähnt, aus der späteren Zeit aber selbst das kolossale Monument des Agrippa am Aufgange zur Acropolis in Athen mit Stillschweigen übergeht, so muss (sic) das mit den Schristquellen unseres Autors zusammenhängen, die eben nur bis zu jener Grenzscheide ergiebig flossen." We see Professor Christ advances the little auxiliary muss as that academic convenience which serves so handily when the scattered and fragmentary data of tradition afford us no sunlight, or at best but gloom or gray dusk, or some kind of chiaroscuro.
The narrow limits of this syllabus permit but a few additions of my own.
1. Is it thinkable that Pausanias should have resorted to books in describing the most familiar and frequented spot in the entire Hellenic world, - a spot infinitely more accessible than Delphi or Olympia, as it lay on the very highway of the great East and West movement of the Mediterranean world? Is it conceivable that P. should have proceeded like a young student in a philological seminar tempted by indolence ? I think not.
2. The Herodotean manner of P. is by no means childish, in his age. Even in the Halicarnassian, the latter's Ionism was a concession to time and actual cur. rent forms of prose. In the Renaissance writer P. in his turn we have not merely Herodotean phrase and syntax too, but we have the free use of episode, we have aútoyla, and also the local sources of information : as in i. 41, 2 évtelldev ó Tv επιχωρίων ημίν εξηγητής ηγείτο. In i. 42, 4 he ignores the εξηγηται of Megara,
or leaves them to their statements, but proposes to use his own judgment. The denyntal of Megara did not understand from what tree a certain wood was (ii. 9, 7): i.e. not even they. The denyntal agree as to the source of name of a little town then in ruins, Andania of Arcadia (clearly they often disagreed) iv. 33, C; ο δε των επιχωρίων Πατρεύσιν εξηγητής, vii. 6, 4; Ρ. could not get information about the source of the name of Artemis Aurela, ii. 31, 6; to this I now add Porphyrio on Hor. Epist. ii. 1, 230; aedituos habeat: enarratores atque indices : aeditui enim templorum ac numinum quibus inserviunt sacra et originem advenis et ignorantibus narrant.
3. Only the actual traveller it is who everywhere notes what is in ruins or decay. There are still ruins of the Agora of Salamis, i. 35, 3; the temple of Zeus Konios has no roof, i. 40, 6. At Sikyon any one can see for himself that the ceiling of the temple of Artemis of the Marshes has fallen in, but what became of the agalma “they are unable to say,' ii. 7,6. On the market-place (at Corinth) is the sanctuary of Apollon Lykios, but – κατερρυηκός ήδη και ήκιστα θέας άξιον, ii. 9, 7. Many more of such groups of data, overwhelmingly demonstrating aútoy la could be adduced. But my space is at its end.
18. A Reëxamination of the Inscription of Artaxerxes II, on the Mouldings of Columns from Ecbatana, by Professor H. C. Tolman, of Vanderbilt University (read by title).
The fragments of the moulding of the columns are of black diorite, with incised Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian characters, — about one-half an inch in length. The inscription was first published by Evetts in 2A, Bd. 5, pp. 413 ff. At least half of the Persian cuneiform text is wanting, but the oft-recurring phraseology of the Achaemenidan kings makes the supplement very plausible.
My copy of the original gives Dārayavašahyā in lines two and four. I feel inclined, however, to regard this anomalous form as a false reading for Dārayava(u)šahyā on the authority of the Susan inscriptions of the same monarch (Dārayavaušahyā, Art. Sus. a, 1, 2, 3 (bis]).
The regular Xšayāršahyā instead of Xšayārcahyā (Art. Sus. a, 2 [bis]) must be read in line three. That the correct spelling appears here as in the inscriptions of Xerxes at Persepolis, Elvend, and Van (Xerx. Pers, a, 4, 6, 11, 17; b, 7, 12, 22; ca, 4, 6, 10; cb, 6, 9, 16; da, 5, 8, 15; db, 7, 12, 22; ea [eb] 1; Elvend, 8, 12; Van, 9, 16; Vase Insc. 1), is shown by the unmistakable occurrence of šahyā at the beginning of line four.
The broken part of line five may have referred to the structure as being the joint work of several kings, as in the Susa inscription, imam apadāna Dārayavauš apanyākama akunaš — Arta[xšatrā nyākama).
As a supplement to line six (hacā gastā, W and B) I should borrow the recurring utāmaiy xsa9'am of the Persepolitan inscriptions of Xerxes (Xerx. Pers, a, 15; b, 29).
The locus desperatissimus of the inscription is the concluding words. My copy clearly shows akunā mā with the oblique wedge of word division before mā. The form as written is the climax of the unintelligible even in the chaotic state of the language evinced by these late inscriptions. It certainly seems to be a stonecutter's blunder. I should propose, with some hesitation, the reading akunaumā,