Page images

then may first be cast a stone at one of the most tender and imaginative passages in Horace.

Discussion by Professors Fairclough, Clapp, Schilling, Murray, Foster, and Richardson.

7. On Correption in Hiatus (concluded), by Professor E. B. Clapp, of the University of California.

The study of this subject leads to the following conclusions : 1. The practice of the poets as regards correption is influenced somewhat, though not so much as we should expect, by vocabulary and style. The very frequent occurrence of a given vowel or diphthong at the end of words is not always accompanied by a corresponding frequency of correption. Conscious or unconscious choice must have played its part. 2. As regards the origin of the usage, the consonantization theory of Hartel and Grulich offers too exact and satisfactory an explanation of many of the phenomena to be wholly rejected. 3. If correption in hiatus began with the “short ” diphthongs al, el, 01, in accordance with this theory, its origin must go back to forms of poetry older than our Homer, since in the earliest as well as the latest portions of the Iliad and Odyssey we find a tolerably settled and stereotyped practice, and the curtailment of quantity is by no means confined to the diphthongs mentioned. 4. Whatever tendency exists in the later poets toward extending correption beyond the Homeric limits (as to a slight extent in Hesiod, Simonides, Manetho) must be regarded as poetic experiment, in a direction which did not win general approval. 5. The general tendency in the later poets, in this as in so many other features of metrical usage, lies in the direction of the limitation of the poet's freedom, and the setting up of fixed and conventional standards.

This paper is printed in full in Classical Philology, Vol. I, pp. 239252.

Discussion by Professors Murray, Bradley, and Richardson.

8. The Helen Episode in Vergil's Aeneid (ii. 559-621), by Professor H. R. Fairclough, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

The writer maintains that 11. 567-588 are genuine. Thilo's objections are first examined and answered. Heinze (Virgils epische Technik, p. 45 ff.) adds other arguments in condemnation of the passage. The words scilicet haec Spartam incolumis, etc., if genuine would furnish the only soliloquy in the narrative of the 2d and 3d books. “Wie unnatürlich und frostig!” But the soliloquy will appeal to most readers as unusually impressive, and from the artistic standpoint seems to be modelled with great care. Thus Wagner comments on the beautiful balance between the three questions in the simple future, aspiciet, ibit, and videbit, and the three in the future-perfect, occiderit, arserit, and sudarit. Servius had noted that 1. 601

Non tibi Tyndaridis facies invisa Lacaenae refers to the expunged passage in which Helen is introduced, but what, asks Heinze, are we to say about culpatusve Paris (602), of whom there is no mention

[ocr errors]


the preceding lines ? But culpatusve Paris is only a corollary to the previous words about Helen. If she can arouse such anger, so also surely can her guilty paramour. The two have the force of a plural. It is no human agents you must

It is the gods themselves who are responsible for Troy's downfall. Heinze's idea that 11. 601-602 would be natural enough apart from a previous passage involving Helen or Paris, is quite alien to the directness of Vergilian narrative, though it may be paralleled in Greek tragedy, especially in lyrical passages. Heinze himself has seen that Vergil probably had in mind here the famous passage in the Iliad (T 164):

ου τι μοι αιτίη εσσί, θεοί νυ μοι αιτιοί είσιν,

οί μοι έφώρμησαν πόλεμον πολύδακρυν'Αχαιών. . Here we have the directness of Epic style. The words are addressed by Priam to Helen. So, too, all is simple and direct in Vergil, is, as we believe, Helen is present in the scene, but how different, if, as Heinze holds, Venus mentions her merely as the ultimate cause of Troy's downfall !

Further, Heinze enlarges on the ancient criticism : turpe est viro forti contra feminam irasci. The mere irasci, he says, would not dishonor Aeneas, but Vergil would never have allowed his pious hero to conceive the thought of killing a defenceless woman, especially if she had sought refuge at the altar. How would this, he asks, befit one who has just narrated with horror the story of an altar-desecration ? But let us remember that the thought is never carried into action, and that the hero himself has anticipated criticism (11. 583 ff.). That Helen is a nefas (585), an unholy thing, is (at least at such a time) a sufficient defence against the charge of impiety. Heinze's whole argument is an elaborate example of special pleading.

An Homeric situation in many ways similar to this Helen episode is one to which sufficient weight has never been given. Henry calls attention to the resemblance, but has not developed the parallelism. See Odyssey T 1-55. Here, as in Vergil, the hero meditates the slaying of women, but does not carry his thought into action. Here, too, the hero soliloquizes, and here, too, a dea ex machina appears on the scene. In Homer, Athene reminds Odysseus of his home, his wife, and child, and in Vergil Venus reminds Aeneas of his father, his wife, and son, though even closer is the parallel in 562:

subiit deserta Creusa, Et direpta domus et parvi casus Iuli.

And still further, as Athene chides Odysseus for his lack of confidence in divine aid, and assures him of her protection to the last ; so in Vergil, Venus confessa deam,“manifesting the goddess,' reproves her son, first for his frenzy-quid furis (595) ? — but secondly for forgetting her - quonam nostri tibi cura recessit? and the Homeric parallel is sufficient to determine the exact meaning of this rebuke, which does not mean that Venus is wounded in her feelings because Aeneas has thought of attacking Helen, or because she has a special interest in Anchises, but because (as Conington puts it) “ Aeneas by losing self-command showed that he had lost confidence in his mother and sense of his relation to her.” Lastly, the goddess assures Aeneas of her unfailing support (1. 620).

The parallel is fairly complete, and the conclusion seems irresistible that as

this Homeric scene must have been in the mind of him who composed 11. 567588, as well as of the author of the succeeding lines, the whole of the passage involved, the doubtful and undoubted lines alike, must be the work of one and the same poet, viz. Vergil himself.

From the account of Vergil given by Suetonius we may draw many important inferences. In the first place, a work of such magnitude as the Aeneid, involving the use of a great variety of legendary and historical material, must, if composed bit by bit (particulatim), and in irregular order, have been subject to numerous imperfections and inconsistencies until the work of revision was complete. Hence the inconsistency noted by Servius.

In the second place, parts at least of the Aeneid must have been more or less known before the edition of Varius and Tucca appeared.

In the third place, it was the poet's practice to discuss his doubts and difficulties with others, and doubtless the two to whom he turned most frequently were his two greatest literary friends, Varius and Tucca. These therefore were familiar with the poet's sentiments and conceptions, and though the emperor's commands prevented them from destroying the Aeneid, according to Vergil's express entreaty, yet they were in a position to see that, as far as possible, the poet's wishes should be carried out. Vergil had probably expressed his dissatisfaction with the Helen episode, and his executors decided to omit it. Inasmuch as the emperor's instructions prevented them from making additions, they were compelled to leave the context in an imperfect state. But the passage was already known to others, and was possibly published later by some one who regretted its omission. Indeed, the very fact of its omission from the first complete edition would bring it into notice.

In lieu of the substitute passage which we may well believe Vergil intended to compose, we are justified in retaining in our texts the one which Servius has preserved, believing that though its author was dissatisfied with it, as indeed he was with the Aeneid as a whole, yet it is the work of Vergil himself, and that the second book suffers vastly more from its omission than from its insertion.

The paper appears in full in Classical Philology, Vol. I, pp. 221-230. Discussion by Professors Johnston, Senger, and Murray.

9. The Yokuts Indian Language of California, by Dr. A. L. Kroeber, of the University of California.

The Yokuts language is notable among American languages for the small number of its affixes and elements used in composition, and its consequent simplicity of structure as regards word-building by synthesis. It totally lacks pronominal incorporation, which is regarded as one of the most important characteristics of American languages in general. Its pronoun, which approximates in function the pronoun of the modern analytical Indo-European languages, is very systematically regular and apparently shows a strong influence of an analogizing tendency. A notable feature of the languages is a complicated system of vocalic changes in the stems of words. These changes appear to be occasioned by suffixes, but are generally not determined by the vocalic content of the suffix. Any particular vowel change is primarily dependent upon the grammatical idea to be expressed. Stems of different parts of speech alter their vowels differently under the stimulation of phonetically similar suffixes. Two suffixes of identical form but diverse morphological function produce different vowel mutations in the same stem. This system of vowel mutations is therefore conditioned psychologically rather than physiologically. It is due more to grammatical consciousness than to purely phonetic tendencies.

Discussion by Professors Schilling and Senger.

10. A Criticism of Texts offered for the Reading of Advanced German in our Colleges and Universities, by Professor J. H. Senger, of the University of California.

As the udy of the languages of the Greek and Roman peoples has for its final object the realization of the spirit of those who used them, the same object is justly claimed for the study of the German language in the upper divisions of our colleges and universities. The spirit of a people is most sensibly realized by its art, and of all arts most lastingly by its literature, inasmuch as literature is a presentation of the beautiful. With this in mind the paper considers works of modern authors offered for advanced reading, especially those of Freytag, Keller, Scheffel, and Sudermann.

Of his two great novels, an abridged edition of Soll und Haben will hardly present Freytag's theme, i.e. the German people at work, so that the American student will be lastingly impressed by it; German commerce portrayed in it has an aspect of Gemütlichkeit quite unintelligible at the present time. More impressive might be Die verlorene Handschrift, although the work loses considerably in its abridged form.

The contents of Gottfried Keller's Romeo und Julie auf dem Lande may be quoted in Keller's own words: “A young man and a young woman, the children of two very poor, ruined families, who were irreconcilable enemies, committed suicide by drowning themselves after having participated with evident enjoyment in the kermess festival of the previous day.” One of the characteristic traits of Keller's prose writings is his irony, a quality which especially on account of its peculiar subtlety is certain to make a wrong pression on the youthful reader.

This applies likewise to Scheffel's writings. While fully appreciating the many excellent points of Ekkehard, the ironical tone prevailing in all Scheffel's writings can hardly be called characteristic of the German mind, whose salient trait is seriousness.

More dangerous still must be called the influence of Sudermann. In both his novels, Der Katzensteg as well as Frau Sorge, the themes ignore the justice of ordinary common-sense morals.

In claiming for the study of German a place similar to that of the classics we shall never lose sight of Goethe's saying: Das Klassische ist das Gesunde. We shall do our best to contribute to the undisturbed development of a sound taste in matters of art by conscientiously and rigorously eliminating from serious consideration by the scholar anything which is not saturated with beauty, by which we mean that which always has been, is, and will be good and true.

By this method we shall not fail to obtain the best result of the study by rousing in our students that lasting enthusiasm which is based upon a sympathetic appreciation of the great achievements of the entire German nation in science and art, and in their choice fruit, humanity.

Discussion by Professors Clapp, Matzke, Putnam, and Schilling. Adjourned at 12.35 P.M.


The meeting was called to order at 2.35 P.M. Following upon the report of the Committee on Nominations, the Association elected its officers for the year 1905-1906 :

President, E. B. Clapp, University of California.
Vice-Presidents, H. R. Fairclough, Leland Stanford Jr. University.

H. K. Schilling, University of California.
Secretary and Treasurer, Leon J. Richardson, University of California.
Executive Committee, The above-named officers, and

A. F. Lange, University of California.
J. E. Matzke, Leland Stanford Jr. University.
H. C. Nutting, University of California.

O. M. Johnston, Leland Stanford Jr. University.
The presentation of papers was resumed.

11. The Composition of the Old French Roman de Galeran, by Professor J. E. Matzke, of the Leland Stanford Jr. University.

The paper tested Foerster's belief that the Roman de Galeran owes its variations from the Lai du Fraisne of Marie de France, its central source, to influences of Gautier d'Arras' poem Ille et Galeron. A detailed comparison of the two poems fails to confirm this theory. Proof was then presented that the author of the Roman de Galeran knew the Roman de l'Escoufle, and that this story in the main is responsible for the alterations of the Fraisne plot which he introduced.

Discussion by Professors Clapp and Johnston.

12. The lunula worn on the Roman Shoe, by Dr. C. J. O'Connor, of the University of California.

Recent authorities fail to find on statues any example of the luna or lunula, which Romans who had held patrician magistracies wore on their shoes as a mark of rank. The example figured in Rich, Dict. Ant. under lunula, came originally from Ca De urbis ac Romani imperii splendore, p. 258. In the latter place the illustration is not taken from a statue, but is an ideal restoration. This conception of the form and position of the lunula is probably derived from a bronze lamp — or one like it — figured in Baumeister, Denk. I, p. 575, fig. 619. The two crescents on the lamp are either handles or amulets. The only passages

« PreviousContinue »