Page images


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 :


Balance on hand, Jan. 3, 1905
Annual dues and Initiation fees

$57.33 166.10



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.

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.

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 ll. 1-5, 7-9, 13 and 21 were written before the other lines of the inscription, when Chius had held the offices mentioned in 11. 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 11. 14-20 were added. The third hand appears in the words bis (1. 6) and libertae (1. 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 Pthengis, 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 (l. 10) for magister; the writer of the second hand, hav. 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 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, 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


fabrum (carpenters). The worship of Silvanus was held especially sacred by the carpenters, Silvanus being sometimes called dendrophorus, 'the carpenter.' In the Calpurnius Chius inscription we see that Hilario was very closely associated with the worship of Silvanus. In this respect the inscriptions support each other, and lead to the belief that they both refer to the same Hilario.

Furthermore, the date of the Flavius Hilario inscription corroborates this hypothesis. These lustra belonged to the new series of lustra instituted by Domitian in 86 A.D. and occurred at intervals of four years (see Suet. Dom. 4; Censorinus, 18; Statius, S. iv, 2, 60 ff.; and Pliny, N.H. ii, 47). Accordingly Flavius Hilario held office from 146 to 178 A.D. and had not passed away when the inscription was set up by his wife and daughter. It is reasonable to suppose that he lived to the close of the second century A.D., which confirms the belief that the Calpurnius Chius inscription referring to Hilario was erected at that time.

The third defining clause is iunctus sacomari (for sarcomario), ‘hard by the public scales,' misread and so misunderstood by both Mommsen and Dessau, who read funclus (C.I.L. XIV, 309 and XIV, 51). For this use of iunctus, cf. Wilmanns, 1724; and for like expressions see Orelli, 2389 and 2417. For the use of collegius as masculine see Orelli, 2413, 4101,4123,4978, and 7186. To the paper a genealogical table was added.

Discussion by Professor Richardson.
Report of the Auditing Committee adopted. Adjourned at 5 P.M.


The meeting was called to order on Thursday, December 28, at 9.30 A.M.

The reading of papers was continued.

6. Old Problems in Horace (continued), by Professor J. E. Church, Jr., of the Nevada State University.

On Horace, Carmina, i, 3, 1-8.

In his interpretation of this passage, PAPA. XXXIV (1903), xxii, in which he suggests the insertion of ut after Vergilium, the late Professor Earle raises two objections to the generally accepted theory that this passage is a benediction and a prayer upon which the former is conditioned, on the ground that if this interpretation be the correct one, there is no reason why the first stanza should have been the first and the second the second, — “indeed, it would be a great improvement if the two stanzas were to change places,” — nor is it to be supposed that Horace wrote arrant nonsense here.

We should raise no question against the first objection if these stanzas were the product of the English mind and language. But several examples of Roman benedictions followed by prayers strikingly similar in arrangement and language to the above stanzas cast much doubt upon the tenability of the position taken. These examples, moreover, occur in formal inscriptions as well as in literature. Such are Bücheler, Carm. Lat. Epigr. : 197 Ita levis incumbat terra defuncto tibi . . .

rogo ne sepulcri umbras violare audeas;


194 Ita candidatus quod petit fiat tuus

opus hoc praeteri; 195 Ita candidatus fiat honoratus tuus

et ita gratum edat munus tuus munerarius

et tu (sis) felix, scriptor, si hic non scripseri[s]; and CIL. VIII, 1070 Ita tibi contingat quod vis, ut hoc sacrum non violes. The benediction in every case precedes the prayer. The introductory ita is equivalent not to hoc modo, as Professor Bennett has suggested in his note on the ode in question, but to hac condicione, as is shown not only by the general sense of Büch. 197 and CIL. VIII, 1070, but also by the imperative in Büch. 194 and by the conditional clause in Büch. 195. Moreover ita and not sic is apparently the original particle, the choice of sic in Horace, Ovid, Tibullus, quoted below, and in Büch. 215, 3, having been evidently constrained by the metre while ita was chosen without visible constraint in the prose inscription CIL. VIII, 1070, and in Büch. 194 and 195 was employed in evident preference to sic, in spite of the simpler form of the iambic senarius available.

In further defence of this theory, can be cited Büch. 196, 1467, Tibullus i. 4, 1-3, and others.

It is conceded, on the other hand, that the reverse order is also employed, as in Büch. 1458, 1466, Ovid, Amor. i. 13, 3–4, and Tibullus ii. 5, 121–2; iv. 4, 19

The order of the first was determined by the thought expressed, that of the others possibly by the extreme shortness of the prayer which, artistically considered, could not fittingly follow so long a benediction.

The curse, where this stronger means of defence is employed, does not appear to precede the prayer. In fact, the distinctive prayer rarely occurs, the curse appearing in the conditional form, as in Wilmanns' Exempla 271, quisquis huic sepulchro nocere conatus fuerit manes eius (elvs) eum exagitent. An example of a prayer followed by a curse similar to the above may be found in Henzen, 6977.

The second objection may be dismissed as being over-critical. The use of personification found in all literature is but fully applied here, as in Vergil's Aeneid, i. 168, Hic fessas non vincula navis | ulla tenent. The ship is addressed as human with human characteristics. The ship loves not the storms more than does the sailor, and is “ wearied” as much as he. Therefore, if the ship will guard its precious burden, may the buffeting of the storms be taken away and favoring winds direct its course. The only crux which a critical rather than a poetic mind would see is that the ship needs no such inducement, for the passenger's welfare and its own are identical. But this is really no crux; the prayer is the natural expression of a solicitous heart. When critics find aught to assail in Tennyson's prayer to the ship which bears the ashes of his friend (In Memor. Canto XVII), –

my prayer
Was as the whisper of an air
To breathe thee over lonely seas.


[ocr errors]

Come quick, thou bringest all I love.

So may whatever tempest mars
Mid-ocean, spare thee, sacred bark,

« PreviousContinue »