« PreviousContinue »
To por 'Olvumiádl pa' is first presented a play of his own composition in 01. 101 (so Christ, l.c., Kaibel, op. c. II. 381), but it cannot mean more than first presented a play in his own name in Ol. 101, and hence refers to one of the above-named plays of A. They cannot therefore have appeared before the Lenaea of 375. Did they appear in A.'s lifetime? Naturally he would have desired to aid his son in their production ; but there is another reason for thinking so. While both plays are of unquestioned authenticity, the Aeolosicon appeared in two versions (Novati Life; Athen. 372 A; Schol. ad Hephaest. I. p. 56 Gaisf.), the second of which is certainly by A. There is no authority for supposing that Araros made the revision; hence A. survived its first performance at the Lenaea of 375 or later, long enough to revise it.
As for A.'s appearance in the Symposium, it is not necessary to suppose that this implies that he was dead when the dialogue was composed (384 or later); the fantastic views which are there put into his mouth may be a retort for his satire upon the Platonic state in the Eccl. and for the mention of Plato as Ari. styllus (nickname of Aristocles, his real name) in the Teleunoons.
A. died therefore not before 375. Presumably he lived not much longer. Even then he is only a trifle over seventy if his birth is placed in 445/4, or a little above eighty if it is placed in 455/4, as the writer believes that it should be. This paper has appeared in the Classical Review, XX (1906), pp. 153–155.
35. Note on the Standpoint for the Study of Religion in Homer, by Professor Arthur Fairbanks, of the University of Iowa (read by title).
The study of the different phases of social life in Homer is necessarily difficult for the student who recognizes that the Greek epic is the result of a long process of development, since not only metre and language but the picture of life as well must have been influenced by this process. At some points we can see that the account of religion would be subject to forces which would not affect so easily language or metre; e.g., the migration to Asia Minor must have interfered with religion more than with language, for religion is closely bound to locality. Yet it is untrue to the historic method for scholars to apply totally distinct methods to the two lines of study. It is commonly taught that the epic language was not spoken at any one place and time, although it includes no “manufactured " forms or grammatical usages ; that it is so consistent that it is difficult to trace any evolution in assumed strata of the poems; that it came to be understood in many parts of Greece where it was difficult for those who spoke one dialect to understand those who spoke dialects not closely related. In other words, the language was distinctly “epic,” created by the poets by assimilation from different sources. Are we not justified in assuming that the same principle holds true of the picture of social life? That the picture of religion, in like manner, does not reproduce the religion of any one place or one period, though it includes no absolutely new creation of the poet ; that its consistency is due to the poet's unconscious art ; that it came to be understood all over Greece, when the worship of one cult-centre would often be foreign to that of another cult-centre ?
If this assumption be granted, the study of epic religion should follow the same lines as the study of epic language. It is necessary first to study the picture of religion in the poems with all due regard to what we may learn from other sources as to different “strata.” The results of this study cannot be directly used for the religion of one epoch or one place, any more than the results of such a study of epic language or metre. Secondly, we may ask what modifying influences must be assumed as acting on the bards. Evidently the account of the gods and of worship is cut loose from local religious centres and given such a universal form as will suit poetry sung in many places. Again, the deeper phases of religion are not suited to the banquet occasion with which this poetry is associated. Perhaps the “rationalistic” atmosphere of the epic, its disregard for magic, some forms of divination, etc., is due partly to the attitude toward this phase of religion among the “princes" who were entertained by the bard. Thirdly, we may be able to connect some parts of this picture of religion with data from other sources, before and after the epic, and thus give it its true place in the history of Greek religion.
36. Can Ancient and Modern Views of the Minor Sapphic and Other Logaoedic Forms be reconciled? by Dr. Herbert W. Magoun of Cambridge, Mass. (read by title).
The object of this paper was to show that the difference between ancient and modern ideas of the Minor Sapphic and other logaoedic forms is chiefly one of viewpoint. The rhythm actually used in the days of Horace may have been, and probably was, essentially the same as that now employed. The reasons for this supposition are as follows : First, all logaoedics were composed in 4/4 time. The evidence on this point is conclusive. Second, all such measures contained rhythmical elements. This also can be abundantly proved. Third, the metri. cians confessedly omitted those elements. Fourth, pauses did occur within the lines, Schmidt et al. to the contrary notwithstanding. Native testimony on this point must outweigh modern conjecture. Fifth and last, the analyses that have come down to us are metrical, and therefore devoid of the rhythmical elements, which are necessary to complete the bars.
The Minor Sapphic has the structure (Latin, standard form): -UL-IL Nuu-IUL_ł. Stripped of its rhythmical elements, this gives the scheme :
LI-UUluc- Adding the possible alternate short syllable in the fourth place (Greek form) and the syllaba anceps, the result: Lu-ul-UU-10_y, which is exactly the analysis found in Hephaestion. The alternate short may occasion some trouble in the scheme ; but it occasions none in practice, if the sense is properly observed. A balancing element – usually a pause -always occurs in the bar. Observing the apparent trochees, Schmidt evidently surmised that the time was 3/8. He accordingly analyzed the line as (Greek): -ul-ŞI-vul- u, or (Latin): -ul->I-twl-ul- -u, ignoring the fact that the final syllable, at least in Latin, is generally long. Others, however, modified the Latin scheme and treated the last two syllables as, LT-1, by syncopation.
Schmidt's (Latin) analysis and the above 4/4 scheme have two thi in common ; namely, both recognize the fact that the third syllable is regularly longer than the fourth and that the fifth takes more time than the sixth and seventh. In the Greek the place of the caesura is not fixed, and the rhythmical elements
are used with much greater freedom, in the matter of position, than in Latin. The cyclic dactyl, so-called (Greek 3/8 scheme), has no justification.
The lack of agreement at the close, in the 3/8 and 4/4 analyses, seems to have been due to a desire on Schmidt's part for uniformity. A similar reason may be urged for the non-agreement, in some parts of the other forms, of the 3/8 and 4/4 analyses. The renderings actually used by Schmidt and other scholars were probably in 2/4 time, if not in 4/4. Correct 3/8 time is almost never used in practice. A 2/4 rendering results from the 3/8 schemes, because a slight deliberation is used in scanning, which amounts to the use of minute bal. ancing pauses between the words and syllables. They are too brief to be noticed ; for they are not over one-sixth of a second in length for ordinary speech. The 4/4 renderings and analyses will be found to satisfy all the essential requirements of both ancient and modern ideas on this subject.
The Latin forms are the more regular of the two, and they may be taken as the standard in consequence. Even these, however, show frequent irregularities. In the Greek, the rhythmical elements, including the caesuras, are constantly shifting their positions, and almost every line must be considered by itself. It was for this reason that the metricians confined themselves strictly to the conventional feet, which remained constant. In the Asclepiadean group, the forms with divided bars (see below) are Latin. The Greek may have preferred the other arrangement. The divided bars, indicated by the double lines (II), correspond to modern musical usage. The analyses (Latin standard lines) are as follows: 1. Asclepiadean, Major |--I-UULAI-UULA-VULUI2. Asclepiadean, Minor ||
VULNI-UULUI-T 3. Glyconic
Lul-TII (These final bars 4. Pherecratic
미 -ī ll are often LA 11.) 5. Phalaecean
ULAlu-uul_TI 6. Priapean
11--I-UULULA--I-vuol-TI 7. Sapphic, Major UL-I-UULA1-UULUILLI 8. Sapphic, Minor UL-ILMuU-I ULT 9. Aristophanic ll-WI-UL10. Adonic
II - ILU--I-UL14.
LwI-ULAsclepiadean Group 1. L-culULA-UTULA-UTULU-A
2. L-LUTULA-ul ULULA
A few changes may be necessary in minor details. For example, there are reasons for thinking that the Asclepiadean group, in Latin, always ended either as Luuulu-|| or as vuol-TII.
Recent attempts to avoid the cyclic dactyl have been made by dividing the choriambus (-ulu_); but the remedy is worse than the disease. The fundamental error in the time is retained, and the scansion is made more mechanical than before. A simpler method would have been the use of a true dactyl in 3/8 time (w or ........ There is no harmony, however, between a 3/8 (quick waltz) rhythm and logaoedics. See the paper on Time Relations above,
p. xxxiii f.
While the 4/4 analyses will not scan, they differ but slightly from renderings already in use. The best way to follow them is to keep the prose accents of the words and observe the sense of the lines; in other words, to read naturally, as in English. The stress ictus should be abandoned. The use of stressed tones fol. lowing the division lines of the bars in music, does not appear to have antedated the sixteenth century A.D. It did not become the fixed practice till the eighteenth. To attempt to carry it back to classical times; in the light of these facts, is futile.
Finally, it should be noted that the dipodies of the drama, in both Latin and Greek, are to be explained by a 4/4 structure, which admitted logaoedic lines wherever necessary.
Adjourned at 4.45 P.M.
The next meeting of the Association will be held in conjunction with the Archaeological Institute of America in December, 1906, at the George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
PHILOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION OF THE PACIFIC COAST.
The Seventh Annual Meeting was held at the Mark Hopkins Institute of Art in San Francisco on December 27, 28, and 29, 1906.
The meeting was called to order on Wednesday at 2 P.M., by the first Vice-President, Professor E. B. Clapp, in the absence of President J. Goebel.
Professor Leon J. Richardson then presented his report as Treasurer for the year 1904-1905 :
Sent to Professor Moore, July 5, 1905 ·
$169.13 Stamps, stationery .
21.25 Clerk hire
3.00 Loose leaf ledger
$214.73 Balance on hand, Dec. 27, 1905
$223.43 The Chair appointed the following committees : Nomination of Officers: Professors Matzke, Senger, and Murray. To Audit Accounts : Professors Merrill and Price.
Time and Place of Next Meeting : Professors Nutting, Johnston, and Noyes.
The reading and discussion of papers was then begun.
1. Notes on the Pseudo-Vergilian Ciris, by Dr. I. M. Linforth, of the University of California.
This paper is to be published in full in the American Journal of Philology.