« PreviousContinue »
which, perhaps, is a not too violent epigraphical emendation, invoiving 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 lo 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. aks-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 :
Öaatiy Artaxšatrā 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 puora Xšayār]sahyā Dārayava(u)sahyā Xšhyā pu[ora Dārayava(u)šahyā Vištāspahyā pub'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 xšaoram 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.
19. Some Popular Errors in Time Relations (mechanically demonstrated), by Dr. Herbert W. Magoun, of Cambridge, Mass.
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.
JOINT SESSION WITH 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 : 6.8., 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 reli. gion, 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 may have been, not a copy of the Ms of 314 A.D., but that Ms itself ; but in this case the copy which served as the archetype of the sister document must have been made before the process of interpulation had fairly begun.
FRIDAY MORNING, December 29. The Association was called to order at 9.40, and the reading of papers at once began.
22. A Discussion of Cicero, de Oficiis, i. 7, 8, by Professor Charles Knapp, of Columbia University.
Recent editors and critics have (a) assumed a lacuna after disputetur in $ 7 or (6) they have bracketed one or more sentences in $ 8 or (c) they have done both.
As the first step to a right understanding of the passage the author suggested that chapter iii and section 7 should be made to begin at the same place (placet igitur) and that the passage should be printed continuously from this point (i.e. without hint of a lacuna after disputetur); much is gained thereby for the interpretation of the whole. In defence of his suggestion concerning the point at which the beginning of chapter iii should be marked it was pointed out that the section and chapter marking in the de Officiis (as in other works of Cicero) is very often faulty ; the results of an examination of the entire de Officiis from this point of view, with suggestions for a new marking of paragraphs, sections, and chapters at many points, were appended to the paper.
Up to placet igitur, $ 7, the movement of the book has been most orderly. In $ 7 the formal discussion of officia begins. Cicero declares that such discussion ought to begin with a definition. Yet direct unmistakable definition of officium does not at once follow. Why? Because just as he was about to begin his definition a new thought pressed upon his mind, the thought that before he could properly define officium he must indicate his point of view concerning duty, i.e. he must make it plain that he intended to view it from the practical side only. In Omnis ... quaestio, then, he declares that investigations may take one of two courses; we might paraphrase by Duo omnino genera quaestionum sunt de officio. Unum genus ... possit appropriately follows, for here Cicero declares that one of these two courses is theoretical, the other practical. In Superioris generis, etc., Cicero sets out to give illustrations of these duo genera quaestionum, Superioris ... eiusdem is expressed with absolute precision. Had Cicero taken the trouble to write, after disputetur, Primum animadvertendum est duo genera quaestionum de officio esse, the lacuna theory had never been broached.
At this point the confusion enters. For the confusion the words omniane officia perfecta sint are directly responsible, for the introduction of those words led Cicero to confuse with the one line of thought to which he was really trying to give expression, that of the two modes of investigating duty, another thought, present from the first in his mind, in itself wholly appropriate to the discussion as a whole, but not yet in order at this point, the thought, in a word, of the two kinds of duty, the perfecta officia and the officia media. He has actually contrasted theoretical inquiries concerning duty (superioris . . . eiusdem) with that class of duties (practical duties we may call them) which in § 8 he characterizes as officia media. Apparently, however, he had contrasted two classes of duties: we have a verbal antithesis between officia perfecta (in the clause omniane officia perfecta sint) and quorum . . . officiorum praecepta traduntur. (This line of reasoning proves the correctness of quorum and the futility of Heine's .correction' to quae).
Having once introduced this confusion of thought, Cicero persists in it; he goes on to the end of § 7 talking about his second thought, the two classes of duties. If all this is sound, Atque . . . offici at the beginning of § 8 cannot be rejected. The fact that Cicero had not already made a classification of duties has nothing to do with the case ; from omniane officia on he believed that he had in fact already classified officia. Nam et . . . perfectum follows properly after Atque .. offici. This reasoning explains also why in § 8 Cicero deals with the officium perfectum as well as with the officium medium, though it is with the latter only that he is to be concerned throughout his work.
We may now rewrite our passage thus: Placet igitur . . . disputetur. Duo quaestionum genera sunt de officio (or, Primum animadvertendum est duo genera de officio quaestionum esse). Unum genus est ... possit. Superioris . . . eiusdem. Posterius autem genus, quod, ut dixi, in praeceptis positum est quae de officiis traduntur, quamquam pertinet ad finem bonorum, tamen minus id apparet, quia magis ad institutionem vitae communis spectare videtur; huius generis exempla his libris explicabuntur. Officia autem ipsa in duo genera dividuntur. Nam et medium ... reddi possit. Sed de mediis tantum officiis mihi his in libris disserendum est.
In this rewriting we have preserved nearly all of Cicero's words. Section 7 declares that duty may be considered from either of two standpoints and pledges the writer to take the practical view. Then in $ 8 a classification of duties and a definition of each of the two kinds properly follow.
The author then considered in detail the objections which had been urged against the passage. This discussion took him somewhat far afield, since it involved a consideration of the varying senses in which Cicero uses the phrase media officia and a collection of passages in which there is in the de Officiis loose or even mistaken writing and a collection of passages in which Cicero discusses the same topic without referring back to his previous discussions of the same theme (critics have urged that our passage is not Ciceronian because it is so loosely written ; they have argued that $ 8 at least did not stand in Cicero's copy, because in iii. 14 ff., where he defines officia, he does not refer back to this discussion).
The author summed up by holding that from two points of view, a consideration of the passage per se and a refutation of the objections urged against it, he had proved the genuineness of the passage. Spite of some confusion of thought we have here an entity; the exact point at which the confusion of thought enters is clearly discernible, as are also the mental processes by which the passage assumed its present form. The promised definition of officium does come.
The Auditing Committee reported that it had examined the Treasurer's accounts and found them correct.