« PreviousContinue »
ably, we are to understand, in addition to whatever satisfaction may be required under the verdict regarding the claim which was the basis of the wager.
This conclusion prompts a further small remark based on the consideration of Roman procedure for a single talent-the value of one cowseems a small sum of damages. It has a formal sound. The procedure by wager and affirmation (sacramentum) appears to be Indo-European in origin, and certain of its quaint forms as well as its known history point to an early recognition of it in the Roman community. Therefore there is of course much force in the citation of apparent parallels between early Roman and early Greek procedure of this sort. In the Roman actio per sacramentum, the amount staked by the litigants was a formal sum, bearing no sufficiently commensurate relation to the actual value at issue (cf. the single as with which the steelyards were struck in mancipatio), and this whether the stakes were paid over to the successful litigant, or, as in some cases, diverted to sacred uses as costs of court. The stakes originally were perhaps of the real value at issue, but they early ceased to be so. Is it not probable that the Homeric trial-scene represents a similar stage of development in procedure, and that the single talent forfeited by the loser is symbolic rather than actually corresponding to an award of damages, exemplary or otherwise? With regard to the meaning of orwp also (loc. cit., p. 27), Roman procedure may well be cited. The issue in procedure per sacramentum was joined before the praetor, by whom the adjudication was referred to a single iudex or arbiter, to a commission of recuperatores, or to the centumviral court. Is it not possible that the orwp corresponds to the praetor, the yépovres to the judicial body?
E. T. M.
XOPOY IN TERENCE'S HEAUTON
Scholars have recently been engaged in a diligent search for new actconclusions in Plautus, Terence, and the fragments of the Néa. One instance, which has hitherto escaped observation, occurs in the Heauton v. 170 and disposes of the only place in Terence where the stage was apparently left vacant in the middle of a scene. This new instance involves other consequences of considerable importance, as I hope to point out in the near future.
ROY C. FLICKINGER
Selected and edited by ERNEST RIESS. New York:
Macmillan, 1910. lix+393 pp. $1.60 net.
The editor states in the preface that this book "is intended for the use of Freshmen classes," and that "the notes have been written with the condition of the Freshman in mind." He also explains why he regards the letters of Cicero as suitable for use in the first year in college. Many will differ from him on this point, but all will agree that, if this is the purpose of the book, it should be adapted to the student's needs.
The Introduction of forty-nine pages treats of letter-writing in general, of Cicero's correspondents, of the collections of his letters, their language and style, and of the chronology of Cicero's life. At the present time, when attacks upon the method and value of classical training are so vigorous, it is very important that the work of classical scholars should itself exhibit some of the characteristics that are commonly supposed to be the product of such training, especially in textbooks that are intended for the use of young students. Among these characteristics clearness and propriety of language may be placed first, and the Introduction in a book like this is precisely where they should be most conspicuous. It may perhaps be no fault of the editor himself in this case that he has not yet mastered the intricacies of English style, but there can be no excuse for those who have allowed his work to be published without careful revision. There is hardly a page of the Introduction that does not offend seriously against the laws of good English usage. The following illustrations will suffice: "The Romans became. . . . the classical nation for the literary letter," "the great letter classics of modern times," "Cicero was raised sky-high in his expectations," "Dolabella continued his spendthrifty and immoral life," "of which (office) his shortsighted vanity and quick temper made a fearful mess," "devoted his life to the upkeeping of Cicero's memory," "the oppression of the Conspiracy," "the assumption of the virile toga," "his high-flying hopes were dashed," "partly from the same point of view combined with the aesthetic standpoint," "other letters transcending the original limiting date," "Cicero adverts to the prying eyes of strangers but was himself not innocent of the latter crime," "towering head and shoulders above his fellows in breadth of culture," "It [the sermo cotidianus] is prone to exaggeration in both directions, as well aggrandizing its statements as emphasizing the littleness," "Diminutives serve to emphasize littleness, jocosely, modestly, contemptuously," "The gout kept Marius on his country seat," "the
ancients never reading in our soundless way." The word "addressee" is used continually, "maxim" is employed for "rule," in one sentence (p. xii) we find "rhetorics and schematisms," and in the notes occur such expressions as these: "Appius had done his level best," "the Ariovistus panic," "a trust to do the state out of its income," "cooked ballots," "he obligated the house of the Luculli," "Like in the modern claque this applause was started at the blow of a whistle."
To turn from form to content, it may be that the editor has been more fortunate in his experience, but no Freshmen with whom the reviewer has recently come in contact could properly interpret such French expressions as au courant, chronique scandaleuse, insouci (all three of which occur in the first eleven lines of p. xxvii), rapprochement, and jeunesse dorée, even if there were any possible reason for using them. Undoubtedly Freshmen should understand these words, but as a matter of fact they do not. Furthermore it is necessary, unfortunately, in our present sad condition, to translate Greek words and phrases for the benefit of the many students of Latin who do not know Greek, but this the editor has often omitted to do. Since the notes are intended expressly for the student and not for the instructor, it is idle to write thus: "Asiam: on this whole affair see Mélanges d'Archéologie, XXVIII, 171" (p. 297), and to refer to such books as Norden's Kunstprosa and Schmidt's Cicero's Briefwechsel, without giving any sufficient explanation in the text. In general it seems to the reviewer that the notes are very often quite inadequate for their purpose, if this is to furnish such information as is absolutely necessary to enable the careful and patient student to obtain a reasonably accurate understanding of the meaning of the text. An illustration of this inadequacy is found on p. 275, where the only note to ὕστερον πρότερον Ομηρικῶς (ad Att. i. 16. 1) is a reference to the passage in the Iliad.
The substance of the notes seems accurate in general, but a few possible slips may be noted, or suggestions offered. On p. xviii Terentia is spoken of as "self-sacrificing in the extreme," but on p. 290 we find the statement, "Such traits of selfishness which spoil the impression of [a] self-sacrificing wife. . . . seem to have been among the chief reasons for Cicero's divorce." On p. xxv the editor says of Cicero that "the elderly man had been inveigled into a second marriage with Publilia," but on p. lv "to rehabilitate his financial position he married the young and rich Publilia." The statement (p. xxxvii) that "the original flexibility of long and short syllables, the law of accent which tended to weaken the final syllables, had been consciously neglected" can hardly be called felicitous. On p. xxxix, among illustrations of a freer use of cases and prepositions, we find "an objective genitive instead of erga, F. xv. 4. 17," but the letter referred to has only sixteen sections, and in the sixteenth the text reads tua tum benevolentia erga me. On the same page, among "malformations and innovations" we find "the frequent syncopation of the suffix of the third plural in the perfect stems";
and "the metathesis of arcessit to accersit," a statement that does not agree with that of the Thesaurus at least. In the note on I. i, S is incorrectly used as the abbreviation of the praenomen Sextus; and Plato is said to have taught "in the Gynmasium Academi." The note on p. 290 (ad Att. iii. 7. 1) "cadebat: almost accomplished apodosis of contrary to fact condition with protasis understood" would puzzle even a good student; and a line quoted from Ennius' Medea (Fam. vii. 6. 1) is said to be "written in eight acatalectic trochees" (p. 304).
Nomina are frequently abbreviated: "P. M. Scaevola and M'. M.” (p. 308), "L. T. Fadius" (p. 309), "C. C. Longinus" (p. 316), "A. Pollio" (p. 317), "M. C. Postumus" (p. 334)-a proceeding contrary to ordinary Roman practice, and one that results in giving each of these men two praenomina. The De rerum natura is called “a famous epic" (p. 312); and αἰδέομαι Τρώας καὶ Τρωάδας, quoted from the well-known verse in the Iliad (vi. 442), is translated "I am ashamed of the men and women of Troy" (p. 326).
S. B. P.
Selected Epigrams of Martial. Edited with Introduction and Notes by EDWIN POST. [College Series of Latin Authors.] Boston: Ginn & Co., 1910. Pp. li+402. $1.50.
This edition is a happy combination of erudition and sound judgment. Mr. Post has made a careful study of ancient and modern sources, but in writing his commentary has borne in mind the fact that the books of the series are intended primarily for college students. The selection is representative, and includes the most interesting of the epigrams. The Introduction contains, besides a sketch of the poet's life and other conventional material, a brief but well-written account of the development of the epigram. Detailed discussion of the text has been relegated to a critical appendix. The index of passages cited in the notes (pp. 341-54) furnishes excellent material for class papers. The edition is the best now available for college courses in Martial.
While the editor's conclusions are for the most part sound, there are some passages in which his interpretation seems open to question. For example, at i. 15. 5, non bene distuleris videas quod posse negari et solum hoc ducas, quod fuit, esse tuum, he says that distuleris and ducas are in the subjunctive "because Martial courteously uses the generalizing second person singular." But apart from the fact that the shift from the personal to the general would seriously impair the effectiveness of the lines, there is no necessity to resort to the generalizing second singular to account for the subjunctive. Distuleris is the subjunctive (ideal certainty) regularly used in the conclusion of the second class of conditional sentences (Less Vivid Future or Ideal); the condition is implied in videas quod posse negari. Ducas, on the other hand,
is a subjunctive of obligation or propriety. Doubtful also is the explanation of the syntax at v. 34. 9, mollia non rigidus caespes tegat ossa, where it is stated that non is used with a subjunctive of prayer instead of ne. But non goes with rigidus, not with tegat. In his note on i. 41. 4 the editor wavers between the two interpretations of sulphurata “bits of sulphur to be used as cement" and "bits of wood smeared with sulphur to be used as tinder." The former explanation, however, is made extremely improbable by the fact which the most obvious interpretation of the passages cited by Mr. Post himself seems to bring out, namely, that when cement is referred to, sulphur, not sulphuratum, is the word used. Cf. Plin. N.H. xxxvi. 199: vitrum sulphuri concoctum feruminatur in lapidem; Plin. Ep. viii. 20. 4: sulphuris udor saporque medicatus vis qua fracta solidantur; also the scholiast at Iuv. 5. 47-48, solent sulphure calices fractos sive calvariolas conponere; and possibly the Juvenal passage itself (calicem) quassatum et rupto poscentem sulphura vitro, and Stat. Silv. i. 6. 73-74: quique comminutis permutant vitreis gregale sulphur. The evidence seems distinctly in favor of the second explanation (i.e. sulphurata = tinder), which is supported by the close parallel furnished by x. 3. 2-4: foeda linguae probra circulatricis, | quae sulphurato nolit empta ramento | Vatiniorum proxeneta fractorum. Further, the passages quoted show that we should take fractis vitreis literally and that the editor is hardly justified in interpreting it "trumpery in general, not merely glass." The citation from Petronius 10, An videlicet audirem sententias, id est vitrea fracta et somniorum interpretamenta, is not in point. The editor's explanation of this passage is typical: the book shows a tendency toward excessive refinement in interpretation. A noticeable example of this is furnished by the note on i. 66.7 ff.: virginis . . . . chartae, quae trita duro non inhorruit mento, where we find "the allusion is twofold: (1) to a virgin who has never been affrighted by contact with a man's face; (2) to the fresh papyrus, unsoiled by use." But surely it is only the latter that the poet has in mind; it does not seem likely that kissing with the chin was more common in ancient than in modern times. Another example of strained interpretation is found in the note at ii. 43. 10: fulcitur testa fagina mensa mihi, where after giving the correct explanation that on account of a broken leg the table was propped up by a piece of earthenware, the editor adds that perhaps Martial means that for him an earthenware vessel served as a monopodium. In iii. 7.3 quos (quadrantes) dividebat balneator elixus he adopts Friedländer's explanation that the "balneator is one of the patron's slaves who accompanied him to the thermae to serve him in the bath and to act as dispensator." But there is no connection between these two functions. Moreover the epithet elixus would have very little point if it were applied to a slave who had just arrived at the bath in his master's train; it seems to suggest a permanent functionary of the establishment (possibly the proprietor of a private bath), who may reasonably be supposed to have acted as the patron's agent in the distribution of the dole. The explanation given of iv.