« PreviousContinue »
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 Officiis, 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 defini. tion 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 con
trasted 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.
23. The Galliambic Rhythm, by Professor Thomas Fitz-Hugh, of the University of Virginia.
Hephaistion (Gaisford, i. 72) refers to the catalectic ionic a minori tetrameter as των εν τω μέτρων μεγεθών το επισημότατον, and quotes from Phrynichos the tragic poet two pure ionics,
Το γε μην ξείνια δούσαις, λόγος ώσπερ λέγεται,
ολέσαι κάποτεμεΐν οξέϊ χαλκό κεφαλάν, and a third from Phrynichos, the comic poet, who lived some hundred years later,
“Αδ' ανάγκα 'σθ' ιερεύσιν καθαρεύειν φράσομεν.
The history of the ionic a minori forms shows that variation from the regular
was but sparingly and sporadically indulged in. The only radical modification to which the verse was subjected came through the influence of the Anakreonteion, vu-u-u-
and resulted in the latest and most beautiful ionic variety, the galliambic.
Hephaistion (i. 73) speaks of the poems in this rhythm as those, év ols kai tà τους τρίτους παίωνας έχοντα και τον παλιμβάκχειον και τάς τροχαϊκάς αδιαφόρως παραλαμβάνουσι προς τα καθαρά, ως και τα πολυθρύλλητα ταύτα παραδείγματα δηλοί,
Γαλλαι μητρος ορείης φιλόθυρσοι δρομάδες,
It seems clear that Hephaistion regards the first line as td kadapa, and the second L-uluu .
as illustrating τα τον παλιμβάκχειον και τας τροχαϊκάς έχοντα: in other words, to Hephaistion these galliambic poems exhibited two sorts of verses, pure ionic tetrameters and tetrameters containing third paeons (or the equivalent palimbacchium) and trochaic dipodies (értáo nuot, u__).
The scholiast (Hephaistion, i. 73, 1) disregarding the second line examines the first in detail and pronounces it pure; coming to the second, he dismisses it with a word as like the first : "Iows dè nepi Twv égñs Noyos. Here is a difference of opinion: Hephaistion considers the second line as a typical galliambic of the anaklastic form, the scholiast as a pure ionic resolved. The history of the ionic rhythms in general and of the galliambic in particular must decide between them. Resolutions of so sweeping a kind seem highly improbable for an ionic rhythm, except through the mediation of the ditrochaeus, which through the influence of Anakreon's åvardýuevov came to be a constant feature of ionic rhythms. The history of these forms would indicate that such resolutions presuppose a ditrochaic basis and hence the anaklastic beat in all galliambic connections, and thus vindicates the characterization of Hephaistion. At the same time, it is not in lyric usage that the origin of these typical galliambic resolutions is to be sought, but rather in the freedom of dramatic motives. G. Hermann (Elem. Doctr. Metr., p. 459) has identified an interesting type of comic usage in Plautus, Amph. 168– 172:
) ) )
Here we seem to have the sources of our galliambic peculiarities laid bare: the ditrochaeus interchanging with the ionic foot and determining the anaklastic character of the resolutions in 11. 169–170.
To the Roman metricians the typical galliambic verse is always anaklastic, and the resolution of the last long of the ionic foot was tantamount to a transfer to the ditrochaic beat: cf. Keil, G.L. VI, p. 95, — si tetrametri versus catalectici, qui in huius modi metro (sc, ionico a minori) primi habendi sunt, longas in breves solverint metrum efficient galliambicum; Victorinus then gives a typical example of the galliambic rhythm,
tremulos quod esse Gallis habiles putant modos
and proceeds: memineris tamen et tribrachyn loco trochaei hoc metrum si necessitas postularit admittere. Maecenas (Baehrens, Frag. Poet. Rom., p. 339) writes: ades et sonante typano quate
flexibile caput vuLuLutuluuluvuud The resolution ‘typano' u occurs only in the stable ionic position, the second foot of the dimeter, and for all known galliambic verses seems wholly excluded from the first foot of either dimeter, where every other conceivable resolution is more or less frequent.
If we put together all the actual varieties of the galliambic verse in Kallimachos, Varro, Catullus, Maecenas, and Diogenes Laertius, we get the following scheme:
The unmistakable ionic resolution, ÚULū occurs only in the pure central position. It seem highly probable that its exclusion from the other places was due to their anaklastic character, which permitted every resolution except
The nature of the resolutions to which the galliambic rhythm was amenable points clearly to the conclusion that there was but one sharply felt beat in each of the two anaklastic feet; namely, on the first syllable in each. The subordinate ictus in each was left to take care of itself; so that it was a matter
ب / ب ب و 7
of indifference if the word-foot happened sometimes to jar against the theoretical verse-foot at these more or less stressless points, as was particularly likely to be the case in Latin with its more conspicuous and immovable word-accent; so, for example, in Catullus, 63. I: super alta vectus Attis celeri
maria vulu- LUL_,vulu vu where the theoretical ictus on the last syllable of rate was too weak to conflict seriously with the word-accent on the first, and hence the frequent admission of such forms side by side with the more natural effect, as in v. 3, adiitque opaca
silvis redimita loca deae vulucu
ul where there is no such conflict of word-foot and verse-foot.
To sum up: The history of ionic rhythms from Alkman, Alkaios, Sappho, and Anakreon, down the ages through the Greek drama to Plautus himself shows a clear tendency to maintain the unmistakable purity of the ionic foot. On the other hand, the name itself of the galliambic, the typical association of the ditrochaeus with every phase of it from Kallimachos to the citation of Diogenes Laer. tius, the testimony of Hephaistion and the Roman metricians, and the remarkable fact that with all the freedom of resolution in the first foot of each dimeter, the only undebatable ionic resolution uluu is confined to the pure ionic place, the end of the first dimeter, - all these considerations point to the truth of the thesis, that the resolution of the final long of the ionic foot in a galliambic connection amounts to rhythmic anaklasis for all known remains of this latest and most artistic creation of Greek metric.
24. Notes on the Bucolic Diaeresis, by Professor Samuel E. Bassett, of the University of Vermont.
This contribution, which was read by Dr. Weller, of Yale University, will be found in the TRANSACTIONS.
On motion of Professor Elmer Truesdell Merrill, of Trinity College,
Voted, that the Secretary send to Professor Francis A. March, Sr., the greetings of the Association as follows:
The American Philological Association, assembled in its annual meeting, sends affectionate greetings to its absent ex-President, Professor Francis A. March, whose four-score years of life, recently completed, have not been years of labor and sorrow, but of labor sweetened by manifold successful achievement.
Serus in caelum redeas, diuque
25. The Ablative of Association, by Professor Charles E. Bennett, of Cornell University.
This paper will also be found in the TRANSACTIONS.