Because of a suggestion made to me by Miss F. Melian Stawell and also because of the argument, based on the previous paper, made by Professor Rothe in his recent book, Die Ilias als Dichtung (p. 346), I add for the Iliad this table which shows the frequency of the words given in relation to the number of verses in each book. The books are named in the order of the relative frequency of these words:

It will be observed that X is second in this list and that K, the

Doloneia, is very close to the bottom.

These two tables emphasize the conclusions reached in the former paper and show how closely each book of the Iliad is knit with the Odyssey, each book of the Odyssey with the Iliad, and show also how vain are the arguments which have been used to prove the relationship of the Odyssey with single books of the Iliad.

NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY

EROTIC TEACHING IN ROMAN ELEGY AND THE GREEK SOURCES. PART II

BY ARTHUR LESLIE WHEELER

The erotic system of antiquity appears already highly developed in the New Comedy. In elegy, as we have seen, the rôle of erotic expert was remodeled to suit the requirements of the genre, and in the same way many of the precepts were subjected to changed applications and new conditions. In comedy the τéxvn èpwτikń was predominantly a feminine art; in elegy it became even more predominantly masculine. The shift involved many changes of omission, alteration, and addition, for when the system had once become established, new principles based on both literature and life were evolved. It is not my purpose to follow in detail the variations of each precept, especially in Roman elegy, but to compare the Roman with the Greek and determine, if possible, the Greek source of each precept.

A surprisingly large number of the precepts employed by Roman elegists can be closely paralleled in Greek literature. Without attempting absolute completeness I shall discuss a majority of these together with the Greek parallels-enough to show the extent of the phenomenon itself and to support, as I hope, the inferences which I shall draw. Since the purpose of this paper is to throw light on Roman elegy, it is fitting to begin in each case with the Roman form of the precept.

Propertius (ii. 14,19-20) states concisely the principle: Indifference begets love.

hoc sensi prodesse magis! contemnite, amantes:
sic hodie veniet, si qua negavit heri.

The principle is effective because it arouses jealousy-fear of a rival. Propertius merely hints this (v. 31, culpa), but it is emphasized in the related passages of Ovid (A. ii. 19; A.A. ii. 435 ff.; iii. 580 ff.). The Greek parallels follow.

[CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY VI, January, 1911] 56

Lucian, Dial. meretr. viii (Ampelis, an older mer trix, to the less sophisticated Chrysis): Οστις δὲ, ὦ Χρυσί, μήτε ζηλοτυπεῖ μήτε ὀργίζεται μήτε ἐρράπισέ ποτε ἢ περιέκειρεν ἢ τὰ ἱμάτια περιέσχισεν, ἔτι ἐραστὴς ἐκεῖνός ἐστιν; τὸ δὲ πῦρ ὅλον ἐκ τῆς ζηλοτυπίας ἐστίν . ζηλότυποι γὰρ καὶ μάλιστα λυπηθήσονται . . . . . μεγάλοι ἔρωτες γίγνονται, εἰ πύθοιτο ἀμελεῖσθαι.

...

Ampelis then tells how she once punished a lover on this principle, one of the details being the usual exclusion-ἀπέκλεισα, as she puts it. The Twelfth Dialogue should be compared, and the Fifteenth proves that the principle does not work out in all cases.

Alciphron, Epp. ii. 1, 6, (p. 61, Fercher): διὸ καὶ μέγα τῶν ἑταιρουσῶν ἐστι σόφισμα, ἀεὶ τὸ παρὸν τῆς ἀπολαύσεως ὑπερτιθεμένας ταῖς ἐλπίσι διακρατεῖν τοὺς ἐραστάς, κ. τ. λ.-written by a meretrix to Demetrius.

Ibid. i. 37, 3 (Myrrhina excludes Diphilus, who has been untrue, in order to bring him to his senses): εἴωθε γὰρ ἡ βαρύτης τῷ ἀμελεῖσθαι καταβάλλεσθαι; cf. iii. 50, 1.

Aristaenetus Epp. ii. 1, 20 (p. 158. Hercher); Aelianus writes to Calyce on behalf of Charidemus, whom she is maltreating: χαριέστατον οἶδα τὸ σμικρὸν ὑποκνίζειν τοὺς νέους· τοῦτο γὰρ τῶν ἀφροδισίων προαναστέλλει τὸν κόρον καὶ τὰς ἑταίρας ἀποδείκνυσιν ἀεὶ ποθεινὰς τοῖς ἐρασταῖς ἀλλ ̓ εἰ τοῦτο γένοιτο πέρα τῆς χρείας, ἀποκάμνουσιν οἱ ποθοῦντες.

Heliodorus (viii. 5) puts the same principle into the mouth of Arsace's nurse: πεφύκασι γὰρ οἱ νέοι θεραπευόμενοι μὲν ὑπερφρονεῖν, βιαζόμενοι δ' ὑπείκειν.

In comedy the principle appears several times:

Terence Heauton. 366 f.:

haec arte tracabat virum

ut illius animum cupidum inopia incenderet,
eademque ut esset apud te hoc quam gratissimum.

Eunuch. 434 ff.:

Thraso. Sed heus tu, purgon ego me de istac Thaidi,

Gn.

Quod eam me amare suspicatast? Gn. Nil minus.

Immo auge magis suspicionem. Th. Quor? Gn. Rogas?

Scin, si quando illa mentionem Phaedriae

Facit aut si laudat, te ut male urat? Th. Sentio.

Id ut ne fiat, haec res solast remedio:

Ubi nominabit Phaedriam, tu Pamphilam

Continuo; . . . . denique

Cf. 812-13.

Par pro pari referto, quod eam mordeat.

(

In the Truculentus Phronesium works upon three lovers in the

same way.

Turpilius Demiurgus, frag. I R.3:

Ergo edepol docta dico: quae mulier volet

Sibi suum amicum esse indulgentem et diutinum
Modice atque parce eius serviat cupidines.

A survey of these passages shows that in the Greek the principle is an exclusively feminine one, but in the Latin it has been adapted to masculine use. This is probably accident due to gaps in the sources, but it is decidedly significant that the whole process of transfer is evident within the limits of Roman elegy. In Propertius iv. 5, 29-32 and Ovid A. i. 8, 71-72 the lena speaks, i.e., the comic motif is transferred bodily to an elegiac setting; in Propertius ii. 14 the lover alone uses the principle; in Ovid A. ii. 19 both lover and amica use it. The second (Pr. ii. 14) is the truly elegiac form because the principle is there subjective-erotic. Ovid (A. ii. 19) represents that impudent and exaggerated frankness, that effort at piquancy, which so often marks his work in elegy as decadent.

The principle just discussed is closely connected with another: the anger often violence of the loved one indicates her (his) passion. This appears in all three Romans, who glory in the violent attacks of the strenuous amica. Propertius devotes an entire elegy to the subject: iii. 8; cf. especially vss. 17-20.

his ego tormentis animi sum verus aruspex,
has didici certo saepe in amore notas.
non est certa fides, quam non in iurgia vertas.
hostibus eveniat lenta puella meis!

Cf. iii. 12, 15-16 and iv. 8 (here stress is laid on Cynthia's jealous violence, rot on the love that may be inferred from it). Even the

1 Eunuch. 434 ff. is original with Terence according to Donatus, but undoubtedly suggested by some writer of the véa; cf. Legrand op. cit. 205.

2 F. Wilhelm Rh. M. LVII (1902), 599-602, collects many of the following passages, but discusses them merely from the point of view of the violence, jealousy, etc., not distinguishing those in which there is didaxis.