Page images

divinities Cupid and Psyche, and felt himself constrained to accept the tradition without essential variation. However, the ambition to possess a son, which forms one of the elements of human interest in the romance, is the author's own,1 and to judge from the naïveté with which he inserts it, no incongruity was felt to exist in the combination.

The persistence of this folk usage into modern times has been verified by Professor S. B. Doten, who recalls a conversation with Luigi della Piazza, formerly an Italian peasant, in which American prudery was the subject of criticism by the latter. He declared that not only was the promise of a child followed by congratulations to the mother on the part of her acquaintances, both male and female, but that accompanying the congratulations was the hope expressed that the child would be a boy.

It seems safe, therefore, to assume that the Pollio was in full harmony with the national spirit; that its anticipation was the nation's anticipation, its preference for a male child the nation's preference, and its prediction the nation's prediction also; and that, therefore, the collapse of the hopes voiced in the Pollio brought the nation a sense of disappointment rather than a sense of the ludicrous at the poet's failure. In short, the shock caused the Romans was no greater than that recently caused their lineal descendants, the Italians, who had set their hearts upon having a bambino as heir apparent to their throne, but whose hopes were dashed by the announcement that their keenly anticipated prince was a princess. Since Virgil wrote the Pollio before the birth of Julia, I can see no reason why he should have withheld the publication of the poem until the birth and then finally, when the memory of the event had faded, have brought it forth quietly as an expression of the ideal. It seems rather to have been a salutatory poem quite in keeping with the times.


1No other child than Voluptas is mentioned in literature, nor probably does any appear in art. The representation of Psyche holding a small Eros child like a baby to her bosom and apparently nursing it (Brit. Mus., Cat. No. 825; Furtwängler, Ant. Gem. Bd. III, 281) is probably a fanciful variation of the Cupid and Psyche motif. At least, regarding a similar representation (in the Kestner Collection at Hannover, Furtwängler, Taf. XLII, 36) of Psyche holding a sleeping Eros child to her bosom no question can be raised, since the quiver and bow are hanging from a tree near by.



Scholars are awaiting with great expectancy the publication of the Hittite tablets found by Professor Winckler in his excavations at BoghazKeui. A preliminary report has been given in Mitteilungen der deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft (1907), No. 35. The writer was especially interested in the new personal names furnished by these tablets; see a paper on "Some Hittite and Mitannian Personal Names," The American Journal of Semitic Languages XXVI (January, 1910). At the time this article was written it did not seem to him that the new names offered any additional points of contact between Hittite-Mitannian names and those "pre-Greek" names collected and discussed by Kretschmer, Einleitung in die Geschichte der griechischen Sprache, but further study has convinced him that this conclusion was due to a too hasty examination of the material. Names like Akissi, Sissi, Sizzi, Kanissi, Papassi, Kirbassi (AJSL XXVI, 97), certainly show the same ending as the names with the s-suffix in Kretschmer, op. cit., 311f. So the name of Arnuanta, "the great king, son of Dudhalia," Winckler MDOG, No. 35, 29, is clearly made up of the element arnu-, cf. Kretschmer op. cit., 406, and the well-known ending nt or nd. For this ending in personal names see especially pp. 304, 364 of Kretschmer's work.

Of peculiar interest is the name of Alakshandu, king of Arzawa, contemporary of King Hattusil of the Hittite state (ca. 1300 в.c.). This name has the common nd ending, but the element Alaksh is, so far as the writer can discover, without any parallel either among the large number of names Kretschmer has published or among the Hittite-Mitannian names now known. Is it perhaps the well-known Greek name Alexander as written in cuneiform by a scribe who was familiar with names ending in nd?

Alaksh would be a good cuneiform rendering of 'Aλe; cf. the cuneiform of 'Apraέépέns, Ar-tah-sha-as-su or Ar-tak-sha-as-su, Hilprecht and Clay, Vol. IX, Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, 50–51. It is true the Babylonian scribes who lived a thousand years later, and who probably had come in contact with Greek names more or less frequently, rendered Alexander by A-lik-sa-an-dar (cf. Tallqvist Neubabylonisches Namenbuch 5), which is a more accurate rendering. This form does not, however, make it improbable that Alaksh may have been a rendering of 'Aλeέ, as anyone acquainted with cuneiform knows.

It is only natural that a scribe who was familiar with names in nd

should have written 'Aλéŝavdpos as Alakshandu.

The reverse process is not uncommon later when the Greeks changed the ending nd into avôpos. A few instances cited from Kretschmer, op. cit., will illustrate this: Mupíavdos, later form Μυρίανδρος, p. 309; Telendus, Telandrus, Τύμανδος, Τύμανδρος, p. 308; 'Opóμavd(p)os, p. 309. This raises the question at once whether many of the place-names in Asia Minor, as well as the personal names, which later ended in -avdpos, did not originally end in nd. So Maíavdpos, Σκάμανδρος, Αντανδρος, Αλκανδρος, etc., may perhaps originally have been Maíavdos, etc. That Alexander is not, however, to be put among these is evident from the fact that the name is composed of good Greek elements. We know that the dynasty ruling the Mitannians from ca. 1450-1350 B.C. was Aryan; cf. the names Saushshatar, Artatama, Artashumara, Shutarna, etc. (Meyer "Das erste Auftreten der Arier in der Geschichte," Sitzungsberichte d. kgl. preuss. Akad. [1908] 14 f.).

If this suggested interpretation of the name is correct, we now have the name Alexander attested for the date ca. 1300 B.C., which cannot be far from the time when Paris was called the "defending man" at Troy. D. D. LUCKENBILL



ἀπεφήνατο δὲ ('Αναξίμανδρος) τὴν φθορὰν γίνεσθαι καὶ πολὺ πρότερον τὴν γένεσιν ἐξ ἀπείρου αἰῶνος ἀνακυκλουμένων πάντων αὐτῶν.

Burnet (Early Greek Philosophy 62, n. 2) refers to the words åvaKvKλovμένων πάντων αὐτῶν as possibly supporting his view of Anaximander's innumerable worlds as coexistent, saying "It would be a very strange phrase to use of a successsion of single worlds." With the question which Burnet is there debating I am not now concerned; but I quite agree with him that the phrase is strange-equally strange, I should say, on either view. In a word, I believe that Távrov avrov is impossible, being in fact a conflate text, where the choice lies between πάντων and αὐτῶν. If we read ἀνακυκλουμévov avrov the text is clear: it means that at stated intervals from eternity φθορά succeeds γένεσις, and vice versa. This is the familiar κύκλος yevéσews, in the laxer sense, which is common to almost all Greek philosophers. But by certain schools, notably the Pythagoreans and the Stoics, a stricter kúkλos yevéσews was taught, according to which all things come round again after the expiration of a cosmic year in statum quo ante, even down to trivial and seemingly accidental details. This was variously called ἀνακύκλησις, ἀποκατάστασις, οι παλιγγενεσία. It seems obvious that the reading ȧvakukλovμévwv távtwv alludes to this doctrine, and is due to someone who attributed it to Anaximander, doubtless having in mind the passage quoted from him by Simplicius in Phys. 24, 18: (è§ wv dè ǹ yéveσís éσTI TOîs

οὖσι, καὶ τὴν φθορὰν εἰς ταῦτα γίνεσθαι) κατὰ τὸ χρεών· διδόναι γὰρ αὐτὰ δίκην καὶ τίσιν ἀλλήλοις τῆς ἀδικίας κατὰ τὴν τοῦ χρόνου τάξιν. Since we know that Simplicius owed this quotation to Theophrastus, to whom our passage also is to be referred, we must raise the question whether Theophrastus wrote πάντων or αὐτῶν. What we know of the manner of Theophrastus, who proceeded in the spirit of Aristotle, might well incline us to the view that he would have interpreted τὸ χρεών and τὴν τοῦ χρόνου Táğı as implying åvakúkλnois and that he might consequently have written ἀνακυκλουμένων πάντων. This view might be supported by another statement which goes back to Theophrastus, Hippol. Ref. i, 6, 1: Aéya dè xpóvov ὡς ὡρισμένης τῆς γενέσεως καὶ τῆς οὐσίας καὶ τῆς φθορᾶς. Here we should perhaps read &poμévov for piμévns; cf. Simplicius in Phys. 24.4 (speaking of Heraclitus) ποιεῖ δὲ καὶ τάξιν τινὰ καὶ χρόνον ὡρισμένον τῆς τοῦ κόσμου μεταβολῆς κατά τινα εἱμαρμένην ἀνάγκην. Since this also comes from Theophrastus, commenting on expressions of Heraclitus very similar to those of Anaximander, we have ample reason for holding that he might have written wávтwv, meaning to attribute to Anaximander the doctrine of ȧvakúkλŋois; but we cannot close our eyes to the possibility that, while Theophrastus might have done so, the substitution of πávrov, assuming that the original reading was avrov, might equally well have been made by someone else who interpreted Anaximander in the same way. And it is to this latter possibility that I incline, because, waiving the general considerations which have been above set forth, avrov seems better suited to the specific context. I should therefore bracket návrov. To the larger question as to the proper interpretation of Anaximander I hope soon to return in another connection.



XENOPHON'S Memorabilia Iv. 2. 10: yvwμovikós

Σω.: ̓Αλλὰ μὴ ἀρχιτέκτων βούλει γενέσθαι; γνωμονικοῦ γὰρ ἀνδρὸς καὶ τοῦτο δεῖ. The use of this rather peculiar word here--so peculiar indeed as sometimes to have been questioned -seems to have been understood only from one point of view, the more serious-minded, of course. Its choice was really determined by a pun so frank and obvious that it would seem it could not have been overlooked, and yet an examination of some two score commentaries, translations, special and general lexicons, etc., does not show any hint of it, and if it has been remarked anywhere, it certainly does not belong as yet to the commonplaces of Xenophontean interpretation.

Everyone has seen that the serious meaning of the word has reference to the σopov avspŵv yváμas of § 9, which Euthydemos has been engaged in collecting, and it has been translated accordingly, most commonly

[ocr errors]

with the phrase "magno iudicio hominem," or its equivalent. The adjective γνωμονικός may however also be derived from γνώμων in its senses norma or carpenter's square, or index or style of a sundial, common enough usages, as the lexicons show. The humor consists in the selection of just such a word as in this special connection (speaking of master-builders) means both "a wise man and "a man of rule and square," and such a playful conceit is peculiarly appropriate to the tone of gentle irony in which Socrates handles Euthydemos. The sentence might then be roughly paraphrased (though the pun in English sounds rather far-fetched), if yvúpas in § 9 be translated somewhat familiarly "saws":"You're not thinking of becoming a master-builder are you? for a knowledge of saws would come in handy in this profession too." W. A. OLDFATHER



οὗτοι ἀπ' ἀρχῆς πάντα θεοὶ θνητοῖσ ̓ ὑπέδειξαν

ἀλλὰ χρόνῳ ζητοῦντες ἐφευρίσκουσιν ἄμεινον.

These lines are quoted by Stobaeus (Eclog. 1. 8. 2) with many others to the same purport in illustration of the commonplace that Time is the great discoverer-"all precious things discovered late to those that seek them issue forth." That is probably all that they mean. As the Greek stands, there seems to be no emphasis on coì and no rationalistic intention of opposing the gifts of the gods to the independent search of men. To Greek feeling the gods give us also what we find. The extreme statement of this view appears in the (presumably spurious) line from Epicharmus' Xpvσoyóvov Пoλreía (Diels fr. 57.7):

οὐ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος τέχναν τιν εὗρεν,

ὁ δὲ θεὸς τοπάν.

Jebb in his Bologna Ode has expressed the Greek feeling precisely:


κλέος ἄλλοις μὲν πορών,

αὐτόματον δ' ἑτέρῳ (Galvani)

συνέμεν νεύρων φύσιν,

τὰν θεοὶ κρύψαν πάρος·

Isocrates, it is true, in a passage not to my knowledge cited in this connection leaves the door open for either hypothesis, Panegyr. 32: v ἀπὸ τῆς ἀρχῆς σκοπῶμεν εὑρήσομεν ὅτι τὸν βίον οἱ πρῶτοι φανέντες ἐπὶ γῆς

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »