Page images

are used with much greater freedoni, 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 balancing 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-UULAI-UULUI_TII 2. Asclepiadean, Minor ||

VULA1-UULUI-T ll 3. Glyconic

11 -I-UULUILTI (These final bars 4. Pherecratic


1-TI are often L A I.) 5. Phalaecean II--I-UULATU-UU-TI 6. Priapean 11--I-UULULA--I-UUDI-TI

UUUTII 7. Sapphic, Major -UL-I-UULA1-UULUIL_|| 8. Sapphic, Minor -UL-ILMuU-TULĀ 9. Aristophanic 11-WI-UL10. Adonic


II. Alcaics


-LU-LA-uullu_|| 13.

II - ILU--I-UL14.

-UULWI-ULAsclepiadean Group I. L-cu TULA-UTULA-UTULULA


3. L--UTULUAN without

4. L-


5. Le-ulundu-luu-1 Divided Bars 6. L---UILUU-AL--uluu

2. L-

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

vuolu-|| or as vuol-T II.

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. xxxiji 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 following 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.


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 :


[ocr errors]


Balance on hand, Jan. 3, 1905 ·

$57.33 Annual dues and Initiation fees


$223-43 EXPENDITURES. Sent to Professor Moore, July 5, 1905.

$169.13 Stamps, stationery .

14.30 Printing

21.25 Clerk hire

3.00 Loose leaf ledger

2.60 Express

.55 Typewriting

2.00 Miscellaneous

1.90 Total

$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.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

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.

2. A Neglected Factor in the Question of the Mise en Scène of the French Classic Tragedies of the Sixteenth Century, by Professor C. Searles, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

Were the tragedies of the sixteenth century intended by their authors to be staged, or merely read after the fashion of the tragedies attributed to Seneca, is an old question lately revived by MM. Lanson and Rigal in the Revue d'Histoire Littéraire, 1903 and 1904.

Lanson was able to add materially to the list of representations of classic tragedies known to have been given during the sixteenth century and concludes that we are scarcely justified in believing that these plays were written merely to be read (Rev. d'Hist. Litt. 1903, p. 191). Thereupon Rigal examines these plays again to discover how many were really stageable with the resources which the sixteenth century dramatists had at their command. He believes that the poets could have had no real conception of the mise en scène of their tragedies (ib. 1904, p. 226).

In view of the very intimate literary relations between France and Italy we should naturally look in that direction for some light on this question, and we actually find there a system of mise en scène which answers many of Rigal's objections. D’Ancona (Origini del Teatro Italiano, vol. II) shows that the stage setting of the plays given so frequently at the chief Italian courts throughout the whole of the sixteenth century was a combination of the simple stage of the popular Latin Comedy and elaborate decorations and machinery of the Sacre Rappresentazioni; i.e., a street serving as the undefined place of the later classic French tragedy, with tombs, caves, and houses (sometimes to the number of five or six) in the background, from which the actors emerge or into which they enter, thus serving to localize the action when necessary. This custom of the Italians must have been entirely familiar to the French poets. It meets many of the objections of Rigal, and by accepting the convention of the action not in compartments or houses but before the same, the management of the chorus, the most disturbing factor of all, becomes at least feasible.

It is not claimed that many of these tragedies were thus presented, — although the expression of Saint-Marthe regarding the presentation of Cléopatre at the court is suggestive, — but it is believed in view of the great numbers of Italian artists, scholars, and actors as well as the Italian queen present at court, we are quite justified in believing that these poets with the possible exception of Garnier did have a fairly definite mise en scène in their mind

- an ideal at least, though one probably but seldom realized.

Discussion by Professors Murray, Prescott, and Matzke.

3. Some Phases of the Relation of Thought to Verse in Plautus, by Professor H. W. Prescott, of the University of California.

The paper was an effort to discover (1) the extent to which Plautus allows himself the separation, by the verse, of the attributive adjective from its substantive; (2) the causes, if there were any, of such separation ; (3) the relation of Plautus in this respect to earlier Latin verse, and to the Greek verse of the New Comedy.

Discussion by Professors Clapp, Murray, Merrill, and Richardson.

4. Aftermath Notes on the Unique Havelok Manuscript, by Professor E. K. Putnam, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

A transcription and collation of the Havelok manuscript (Laud. Misc, 108) in preparation for a new edition.

[ocr errors]

5. C.I.L. XIV, 309, by Professor C. Price, of the University of California.

Without the facsimile that belongs with this paper much that is pertinent must be omitted. From a study of the palaeography the writer maintained that 11. 1-5, 7-9, 13 and 21 were written before the other lines of the inscription, when Chius had held the offices mentioned in 1l. 2–9, and his legal wife, Cornelia Ampliata, was living. Afterwards he was elected to the offices mentioned in 11. 9 and 10, and these together with II. 14-20 were added. The third hand appears in the words bis (1. 6) and libertae (l. 15), the former taking the place of a clause defining curator and the latter replacing a longer word, perhaps con. . cubinae, necessary to preserve the symmetrical arrangement upon the stone; cf. C.I.L. XIV, 3727, 3777 and Orelli, 4093. Cornelia Puhengis, upon the death of Cornelia Ampliata, was received into the home and her civil status changed. This theory is supported by a genealogical table of the persons named in the ¡inscription.

The paper briefly discussed the Latinity of the inscription touching upon Ostis (1. 7); upon collegi (1. 8) in the masculine gender, as shown by iunctus (1. 10); upon magistro (1. 10) for magister; the writer of the second hand, hay. ing failed to look back to the beginning of the inscription, used the customary

dative; upon ad Marte (l. 10; cf. apud lovem Statorem, Orelli, 2155); and upon other minor points.

In dating the inscription from its palaeography, only such inscriptions were s used as came from the same geographical division of Italy, viz. Latium. They : are found in Hübner's Exempla Scripturae Epigraphicae, Nos. 303, 477, 1021, :527, 471, and 526, the dates of which are respectively 172, 181, 192, 193, 198, i and 200 A.D. Inasmuch as the later inscriptions are more like the Calpurnius Chius inscriptions, we are led to believe that the inscription was set up about 200 A.D.

Since there were several colleges of Silvanus at Ostia, some defining terms were necessary. In the first place, maius serves to distinguish this college from its smaller contemporaries ; secondly, quod est Hilarionis, 'that is Hilario's' is added, Hilario probably being a public-spirited freedman of wealth who upon being chosen sevir Augustalis, showed his gratitude, as was customary, by a public benefaction. In this case a shrine or temple to Silvanus Augustus was erected, to which his name was attached ; see Orelli, 2414 and 4938. This theory is supported by an inscription (Wilmanns, 1742) which was set up in honor of T. Flavius Hilario, who in the 17th lustrum was magister quinquennalium collegi


« PreviousContinue »