Page images
PDF
EPUB

17. On the Personality of Pausanias the Periegete, by Professor E. G. Sihler, of New York University (read by title).

were

Was Pausanias a mere transcriber? In 1877, Wilamowitz, with the icono. clastic itch of his earlier manhood so stated (Hermes XII). His asseverations

re 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 cocksure 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.D., 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 Schriftquellen 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 ÉVT EūDev 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 Enynal of Megara did not understand from what tree a certain wood was (ii. 9, 7): i.e. not even they. The Enyntal 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.

6

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 in. cised Persian, Elamite, and Babylonian characters, — about one-half an inch in length. The inscription was first published by Evetts in ZA, 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 (Dārayavausahyā, 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. I), 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 [xšaðrā nyākama).

As a supplement to line six (hacā gastā, W and B) I should borrow the recurring utāmaiy xsa9ram 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,

1)

2)

3)

which, perhaps, is a not too violent epigraphical emendation, involving the joining at right angles of the first perpendicular wedge with the horizontal above in the cuneiform sign for ā and the raising of the oblique word-divider to a horizontal position above the two remaining perpendicular strokes. Such a form would restore to us the first person plural of the Nu class, built, however, against the rule on the strong stem, as illustrated by akunava”, akunavatā. The Old Persian akumā (for Ir. aky-mā) is, of course, outside this class. The same form I should supply in the lacuna of line five, where I spoke of a possible reference to the combined work of Achaemenidan kings.

The entire inscription might have read as follows :

Oaatiy Artaxšaðrā Xš vazraka xŠ [xŠyānām XŠ DAHyunām xŠ ah]yāyā BUMIyā Dārayava(u)šahyā xšhy[ā puora Dārayava(u)šahyā Artaxšaðra]hyā xšhyā puora Artaxšaðrahyā X[šayāršahyā Xšhyā pudra Xšayār]sahyā Dārayava

5) (u)sahyā Xšhyā pu[ora Dārayava(u)šahyā Vištāspahyā puo'a] Haxāmanišiya imam apadāna vaš[nā Auramazdāhā Anah(i)tahyā utā M(i)trahyā akunaumā m]ām Auramazdā Anah(i)ta utā M(i)tra mā[m pātuv utāmaiy xšaðram u]tā imam tya akunaumā.

Says Artaxerxes the great king, king of kings, king of countries, king of this earth, son of Darius the king. Darius was the son of Artaxerxes the king. Artaxerxes was the son of Xerxes the king. Xerxes was the son of Darius the king. Darius was the son of Hystaspes. I am of the race of the Achaemenidae. This throne room by the grace of Ahura Mazda, Anahita, and Mitra we have made.

Let Ahura Mazda, Anahita, and Mitra protect me and my kingdom, and this which we have done.

4)

6)

7)

19. Some Popular Errors in Time Relations (mechanically demonstrated), by Dr. Herbert W. Magoun, of Cambridge, Mass.

[ocr errors]

This paper cannot be successfully reproduced, since it consisted largely of illustrations made with an automatic melodista, or orguinette, an instrument so constructed that the time used in any selection rendered by it can be accurately determined. Versions of “Sweet Hour of Prayer" in 4/4 and 6/8 time, with and without “ holds,” were tried. The form used in practice was shown to be in plain 4/4 time, although the hymn itself is written in 6/8 time with “holds.” The written form, if followed accurately, produces a medley of ten 6/8 bars and six 4/4 bars (shorter version). As usually sung, the hymn contains either sixteen or twenty 4/4 bars. If the “holds” are observed, the result is a medley of ten 4/4 bars and six 6/4 ones, or of thirteen 4/4 bars and seven 6/4 ones. Pure 6/8 time of this sort (trochaic) is so jig-like in character that singers instinctively change to a 4/4 variation in the rendering of such hymns, even when they suppose that they are using 6/8 time. Their subconscious sense of the fitness of things causes them to make the change unconsciously. To this fact, combined with the 4/4 (hold) bars, the usual rendering is due.

Bethany (“ Nearer, My God, to Thee ") was given in 6/4, 6/8, and 4/4 time. The last is the favorite rendering, no matter what the score is, and it has now been recognized in the Century Hymn Book. The measures are largely of a cretic and antibacchiac nature. The 6/8 form is a dance movement and is sometimes so used. Most persons instinctively render the hymn in 4/4 time in singing.

Dorrnance (“ Jesus calls Us, o'er the Tumult”) was also given, in various ways: in 4/2, as it is often sung; in 3/2, with one “hold,” as it is usually written; in 4/4, as it is occasionally sung; and in 3/4, as it is sometimes written. In the last case the “ bold” was purposely omitted, to show the natural hilarity of pure ionics, a form used by the Greeks for their drinking songs. Here again the subconscious sense of most singers causes a change from the written form (triple measures) to the more sober movement of the corresponding 4/2 (4/4) rhythm. The ancients understood this matter of fitness in rhythms in a way which puts modern scholars to the blush.

The application of this paper can be found in the second (“Can Ancient and Modern Views of the Minor Sapphic and Other Logaoedic Forms be Reconciled?” p. xlix ff.), where the 3/8 analyses of logaoedic forms are briefly considered. The error- and error it surely is — in the 3/8 analyses of these forms, shows the reverse side of the picture; for these analyses rest on a similar misconception of time relations.

Adjourned at 12.50 P.M.

[blocks in formation]

JOINT SESSION WITH THE ARCHAEOLOGICAL INSTITUTE

AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION.

THURSDAY AFTERNOON, December 28. The Association met with the other societies at 3 P.M. in the larger auditorium of Stimson Hall, Professor Herbert Weir Smyth of Harvard University presiding. A brief address was delivered by the Hon. Andrew D. White, ex-President of Cornell University, late Ambassador to Germany. The Philological Association was represented at this session by the following papers:

20. Abstract Deities in Early Roman Religion, by Professor Jesse Benedict Carter, of Princeton University.

Roman religion exercised a radical influence over the course of Roman history; hence an understanding of it is essential to an appreciation of Roman civilization. The rise of abstract deities in Rome presents a good illustration of the truth of this statement.

Eliminating abstracts born under the empire and those for whom we have no testimony that they were actually the recipients of a cult, those which remain are about eighteen in number: Concordia, Felicitas, Fides, Fortuna, Honos, Juventas, Libertas, Mens, Ops, Pallor, Pavor, Pietas, Pudicitia, Salus, Spes, Valetudo, Victoria, Virtus.

Of these Pallor and Pavor fall out as fanciful additions of Livy; Mens and Valetudo as Greek importations; Concordia goes back only to B.C. 367; Spes only to the second Punic War; Pudicitia, Felicitas, and Pietas not beyond the second century B.C.

There remain therefore only: Fides, Fortuna, Honos, Juventas, Libertas, Ops Salus, Victoria, Virtus.

The origin of all these nine deities can be explained in one of two ways: either they were associated with some other deity as kindred powers: 0.g., Honos and Virtus with Mars; Ops with Consus (cf. Ops Consivia); Salus with Semo Sancus = Dius Fidius (cf. Salus Semonia); Juventas with Juppiter; or they were originally the cognomina of a deity after breaking off from the deity and becoming independent goddesses: e.g., Fides from Juppiter Fidius; Libertas from Juppiter Liber Libertas; Victoria from Juppiter Victor; and lastly Fortuna, whose origin is probably to be explained in this way though the exact cognomen and the deity are both uncertain. It is possible that these two ways may be reduced to one by considering the first merely as an advanced stage of the second.

In any case the process is extremely characteristic of the Roman temperament as distinguished from the Greek.

When the Greek created abstracts, he raised himself into their world and played with them in the abstract sphere - this is philosophy. The Roman, however, when he had made his abstraction felt instantly the need of giving it a concrete application — this is not philosophy, but jurisprudence, the application of the abstract principle to the specific case. Hence, here as so often in Roman religion, what seems to be the domination of law over religion is nothing but the natural working of the Roman mind, and proves not the corruption, but the genuineness of its religion.

21. On the Date of Notitia and Curiosum, by Professor Elmer Truesdell Merrill, of Trinity College.

The paper, which will be published in full in the second number of Classical Philology, reviewed the position of previous writers on the date of the two Regionaries, and subjected the evidence to a fresh examination, reaching the conclusion that the utmost that can be logically deduced on the subject is that Notitia and Curiosum had a common origin in a statistical document that assumed, probably in 314 A.D. (at most within a year of that date in either direction), the form from which, before 334 A.D., or at most very soon thereafter, a copy was made, which was later interpolated from a gradual accumulation of glosses, one of which can be ascribed to the year 334, or to a time very soon thereafter. Whether all these glosses were accumulated in a single Ms generation, or not, cannot now be determined; but at most probably only a few Ms generations separate the Constantinian .source' from our · Notitia' of the lost (but copied) Speyer Ms of the eighth or ninth century.

Another copy of the Constantinian ‘source was made before, or very soon after, 357 A.D., and this, with the gradual accumulation of a few desultory glosses (one of which can be assigned to the aforesaid date, or to a time but a very little later) was the ancestor, not many generations removed, of our • Curiosum 'of the eighth century.

It is of course conceivable that the archetype of either Notitia or Curiosum

6

6

« PreviousContinue »