This is a reproduction of a library book that was digitized by Google as part of an ongoing effort to preserve the information in books and make it universally accessible.
Google books
http://books.google.com
ee σιν PETERAL GRO 1S Vereen Sa te a |
oe meee
- = | > - 2 > . - , - = . o ᾿
- ΝΞ ΞᾺ . WE 2 Pe Pe 4 σε) A 4. Φ 8 8 4, .6. OO ν΄ ἃ, 4, δ' Ὑ
peer BUD
Digitized by Google
“-
. THE
AMERICAN
wer mye
ec ΖΗ. ae eee ὃ
ene τὴ
JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY
EDITED BY BASIL L. GILDERSLEEVE
Professor of Greek in the Fokus Hopkins University
VOL. XV
BALTIMORE: THE EDITOR NeW YorK AND LONDON: MACMILLAN ἃ Co. Leripsic: Εἰ A. BROCKHAUS
1894
PRESS OF THE FRIEDENWALD CO. Baltimore, Md.
CONTENTS OF VOL. XV.
No. 57.
1.—The Dramatic Satura and the Old Comedy at Rome. By Grorce L. HENDRICKSON, II.—A Collation of the Ancient Armenian Version of Plato’s Laws, Books V and VI. By F. C. CONYBEARE, III.—The se-Sound in Accented Syllables in English, By EDWIN W. BoweEN, IV.—On the Authorship of the Leptinean Orations attributed to Aris- teides. By J. E. HARry, On the Development of Diphthongs in Modern English from OE. f and 2. By JOHN Morris.—Note to Cic. Tusc. I 18-19. By EDWIN W. Fay.—Corrigenda in Wickham’s Horace. By ANDREW F. WEsT. REVIEWS AND ΒΟΟΚ NOTICES: : : . ὃ : : Murray’s New English Dictionary on Historical Principles.—Peterson’s Cornelii Taciti Dialogus de Oratoribus.—Horn’s Platonstudien ; Pater’s Plato and Platonism.—Buli¢’s The Church Slavonic Elements in the Modern Literary and Popular Russian Language. REporTS : : , : . : ; ‘ ‘ : A : Neue Jahrbacher ftir Philologie und Paedagogik.—Revue de Philologie. —Romania.—Beitrage zur Assyriologie und vergleichenden semi- tischen Sprachwissenschaft. BrigF MENTION, CORRESPONDENCE, RECENT PUBLICATIONS,
Books RECEIVED,
31
61
66 74
82
97
. 115 . 120 e 123
. 190
iv CONTENTS.
No. 58.
L—The Latin Prohibitive. Part I. By H.C. ELmMgr, ‘ II.—The Dog in the Rig-Veda. By EDWARD WASHBURN HOopPkINs,
By R. B. STEELE, : , : : IV.—The Origin of the Gerund and δεξιάν; By L. HorTON-SMITH, NOTE: ; ‘ ‘ ‘ , , . ‘ :
The Latin Gerundive -°ndo-. By EDWIN W. Fay. REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES: : 3 : Haupt’s The Sacred Books of the ola Testament: Siegfried’s The Book of Job.—Mayor’s The Epistle of St. James: the Greek Text, with Introduction.—Bréring’s Quaestiones Maximianeae.—Kaviratna’s Charaka-Samhita.—Ethiopic Bibliography. REPORTS: Englische Studien.—Romania. BRIEF MENTION, RECENT PUBLICATIONS, Books RECEIVED,
No. 59.
I.—William Dwight Whitney. By THomMas Day SEYMouR, II.—The Latin Prohibitive. Part II. By H. C. Ermer, ‘ ®111.—The Judaeo-German Element in the German Language. By Lzo WIENER, ‘ ; ὁ . ς : ; ; . Norss: ‘ ; ° : : : ᾿ : : : ; . Corrections and Additions to Lewis and Short. By FRANK G. Moore. —Brief Notes on Plautus, Terence and Horace. By ANDREW F. WEST. REVIEWS AND ΒΟΟΚ NOTICES:
Fennell’s Stichus and Gray’s Epidicus.—Jackson’s An Avesta Grammar in Comparison with Sanskrit. Jackson’s Avesta Reader.—Holtz- mann’s Die neunzehn Bttcher des Mahabharata (1893); Das Maha- bharata nach der nordindischen Recension (1894).—Schmidt’s Die Cukasaptati, Textus Simplicior.—Schmidt’s Das Kathakautukam des Crivara.—Scherman’s Materialien zur e schichte der indischen Visionslitteratur.
REPORTS: ‘ . ; . ‘ ; . . :
Rheinisches Museum.—Hermes.—Neue Jahrbiicher fir Philologie und
Paedagogik. ΒΒΙΕΡ MENTION, RECENT PUBLICATIONS, Books RECEIVED,
. 133 . 154
III.—On the Archaisms noted by Servius in the Commentary to Vergil.. . 164
194
. 217
. 223
. 238 . 256
. 260 . 267
. 271 . 299
. 329 . 348
- 359
. 382
. 398 . 400 . 406
CONTENTS. v
No. 60. I.—Agglutination and Adaptation. I. By EDWIN ὟΝ. Fay, . . 409 II.—Critical Notes on Plato’s Laws, IV-VI. By W.R. PATON, . . 443
III.—The Versification of the Old English Poem Phoenix. By MARGARET R. BRADSHAW, : ‘ : : . : ; : . 454
IV.—New Suggestions on the Civis. By RoBINson ELLIs, - « » 469
NOTEs: ‘ ‘ ᾿ ; : : ; : : ‘ ; ; . 495 Corrections and Additions to Schmalz’s Lateinische Syntax. By WIL- FRED P. MUSTARD.—Etymology of even (evening). By JAMES A. HARRISON. REVIEWS AND Book NOTICES: . : : : ‘ ; ; ὃ . 407 Smyth’s The Sounds and Inflections of the Greek Dialects. Ionic.— Fraccaroli’s Le Odi di Pindaro. Jurenka’s Ueber die Wichtigkeit, die gegenwirtigen Richtungen und die Aufgaben der Pindar-Studien. Jurenka’s Novae lectiones Pindaricae. REPORTS: . : ὃ : : ; . f : : : : . 510 Hermes.—Rheinisches Museum fir Philologie.
ΒΒΙΕΡ MENTION, . : : : : ; : : : Ξ . 520 RECENT PUBLICATIONS, : : ; : é : . : : . 6524 Books RECEIVED, : : ‘ 3 : ; : ᾿ A , . 551 INDEX, ; : : : : : : : ; ᾿ : . 525
Re aoa
ῖ 4
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY
VoL. XV, 1. WHOLE No. 57.
l1—THE DRAMATIC SATURA AND THE OLD COMEDY AT ROME.
It has long been observed that many of the events reported by Roman historians are so closely paralleled by fact and fable from Greek history and poetry as to preclude the possibility of belief in them as independent events, and to make the assumption of their derivation from Greek sources inevitable. Isolated obser- vations of this fact were made by the ancients themselves; as, for example, when Gellius, after narrating (1V 5) the story of the perfidy of the Etruscan soothsayers in the matter of the statue of Horatius Cocles, gives the verse which was said to have been composed upon this occasion (malum consilium consullort pesst- mum est), and adds: videtur autem versus hic de Graeco illo flesiodi versu expressus, ἡ δὲ κακὴ βουλὴ τῷ βουλεύσαντι κακίστη,---ΟΥ when Dionysius, in narrating the story of the capture οἱ Gabii and the communication of plans between the elder Tarquin and his son Sextus by the episode of the staff and the poppyheads, concludes thus: ταῦτα ποιήσας ἀπέλυσε τὸν ἄγγελον, οὐδὲν ἀποκρινάμενος πολλάκις ἐπερωτῶντι, τὴν Θρασυβούλου τοῦ Μιλησίου διάνοιαν, ὡς ἔμοιγε δοκεῖ, μιμησάμενος. In modern times, while instances of this paral- lelism have been noted since the revival of classical studies, it required the revelation of the character of early Roman history to set scholars fairly upon the track of them, and accordingly we find that the relation of such statements to their source has, for the most part, been pointed out only since the time of Niebuhr.
1 Dionysius, IV 56. Cf. Zonaras, VII 10: Ὅμοιον dé re τούτῳ καὶ ὁ 'Ηρόδοτος ἱστορεῖ, Herodotus, Ν 92, 6.
2 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY,
While it is doubtless true that the most flagrant violations of historical truth produced in this way belong to the period of Roman history for which the Romans themselves had no au- thentic records, the examples are by no means confined to it. For to the rhetorical historians of antiquity, to whom concessum est ementiri in historits ut aliquid dicere possint argutius,' the requirement of embellishments for facts sufficiently well known would appeal with a force quite as great as the need of events to fill out periods of history for which there were no records. We find therefore, for instance, in Livy’s account of the Second Punic War many descriptions which betray the influence of Greek writers, who have not only contributed picturesque details and adornments of one sort and another to similar events, but even—though much less often—the events themselves. Examples of the former class are the descriptions of the fall of Saguntum,’ of the plague at Syracuse,’ of the battle of Cirta.* Of the latter class is, probably, the story of Scipio’s acquisition of three hundred volunteers from the young men of Sicily in a manner so similar to the device of Agesilaus at Ephesus for reinforcing his expedition to Asia, as to cast serious doubt upon the historical truth of Livy’s narrative.°
The credit of bringing together the widely scattered observa- tions of this character in the field of historical prose, and of considering them, not as individual and isolated instances, but as the manifestation of a phase of Rome’s literary development, belongs to Eduard Zarncke.* The time at which most of these imitations of Greek history crept into Roman literature is
1Cicero, Brutus 42. Οἵ. also 43, where, after stating that the rhetorical writers of history chose the tradition that Themistocles had taken his own life, instead of the better-attested statement of Thucydides that he died a natural death, Atticus adds: hanc enim mortem rhetorice et tragice ornare potuerunt, illa mors volgaris nullam praebebat materiem ad ornandum.
.? Livy, XXI 8,5. Manifestly influenced by a description of the capture of Halicarnassus by Alexander, which Arrian follows.
3 Livy, XXV 26; Thucyd.II 51. This and the preceding example are cited by Zarncke (see infra, note 6), pp. 42 and 40.
‘Livy, XXX 11 and 12. Corresponding to the battle of Cunaxa, as the expedition of Masinissa to Numidia was not unlike that of Cyrus against his brother. Observed and elucidated by Zielinski, Die letzten Jahre des zweiten punischen Krieges, p. 150 (Leipzig, 1880).
§Livy, XXIX 1. Cf. Zielinski, 1. 1., p. 121.
®Der Einfluss der griechischen Litteratur auf die Entwickelung der rémischen Prosa, in Commentationes philologae quibus Ottoni Ribbeckio congratulantur discipuli Lipsienses, pp. 269-325, Leipzig, 1888.
SATURA AND THE OLD COMEDY. 3
defined with approximate accuracy by him as the latter half of the second century B.C., the period in which the principal writers appeared who served as sources for the historians whose works are preserved; a period too which represents the first considerable efforts of the Romans in artistic and rhetorical prose. Indeed, in this fact lies the explanation of these resem- blances; for where the only models of rhetorical prose which existed were Greek, it was inevitable that, along with stylistic adornments, not only descriptions and illustrations, but even events should be transferred.
In the field of literary history the same explanation of the transference of the facts of literary development from Greece to Rome would be, of course, inadequate, but whatever the true cause may have been' (and the number of instances which have as yet been recognized is perhaps too small to make a general- ization possible), here also we find a parallelism, which resulted sometimes in the assumption of misleading analogies, and some- times in the introduction into the history of Roman literature of forms which never had any real existence at Rome and which served only to fill out a parallel. An instance of the latter kind it is my purpose to discuss here.
The review of the beginnings of the Roman drama which Livy presents in the second chapter of his seventh book has attracted an amount of scholarly attention commensurate with its importance, but with results by no means worthy of the efforts bestowed upon it. It is not my purpose to review the history of the fruitless interpretations and hypotheses to which this passage has given rise, since most of them have been made without questioning the historical faithfulness of the account, and all of them in ignorance of the fact, observed by F. Leo,’ that we have not in this review the genuine data either of history or tradition, but a series of statements derived for the most part from Aristotle’s account of the development of Attic comedy. Before Leo, O. Jahn* had pointed out that this account displays a sharpness of division into periods attributable rather to philological combination than to the authentic record of facts, and he at the same time called attention to its aetiological character.‘ Kiessling also, while apparently
1 An explanation of the case in question is suggested on p. 20. Cf. also p. 29.
? Varro und die Satire, Hermes, 24 (1889), p. 76 ff.
3 Hermes, 2 (1867), p. 225.
*The explanation of the peculiar form of the Roman canticum and of the privileged position of the actores Atellanarum.
4 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
attaching considerable importance to the description as a whole,’ had expressed doubt as to the existence of a prehistoric dramatic satura as set forth by Livy, and had maintained that it was in all probability merely an effort to parallel the satyr-drama of the Greeks by a Roman analogy.” These suspicions of the untrust- worthiness of the narrative of Livy received a confirmation as striking as it was unsuspected in the observation of Leo above mentioned.
The following attempt to throw further light upon the relation of Livy’s account to Aristotle, as well as to the similar description of Horace (Epp. II 1, 145-60), accepts as its starting-point the brilliant results of Leo’s investigations.® It will be my effort to show that a parallelism exists between Aristotle and Livy much closer and more extensive than Leo seems to have suspected; as a result of which it will appear, I believe, that the much-vexed saturae of Livy, the satura of Euanthius’ treatise de comoedia and the satura of Naevius are but the Roman designation of an | analogue to the old Attic comedy, and that thus all evidence for the existence of any branch of literature bearing the name satura before the time of Ennius disappears. I shall further endeavor to point out some analogies between the accounts of Livy and Horace which have apparently escaped observation, and also certain points of contact between Horace and Aristotle.
The occasion of Livy’s review, it will be remembered, is the mention of the first μα scaenici, which were introduced from Etruria and undertaken, znter alia caelestis trae placamina, in the hope of obtaining relief from the violence of a plague, with which the city had been visited for two years (365 and 364 B.C.): Ceterum parva quoque, ut ferme principia omnia, εἰ ea ipsa peregrina res fuit, sine carmine ullo, sine tmitandorum carmti- num actu, ludiones, ex Etruria acciti, ad tibicints modos saltantes, haud indecoros motus more Tusco dabant.
1 Ad Hor. Epp. II 1, 139.
20. Horatius Flaccus Satiren, Einl., p. vii. Following Jahn, B. Grubel (de Satirae Romanae origine et progressu, Prog., Posen, 1883), pp. 3 and 4, had also rejected Livy’s account and held that the history of satire begins with Ennius (p. 6).
3Cf. also Zarncke in Bursian-Miller’s Jahresbericht, 73, p. 324, and Schanz, Rém. Lit., p. 88.
‘The separation of dance and music from words seems to have been made, without reference to the natural or probable development (see Schanz, Rém. Lit. I, p. 14), for the sake of giving the Etrurians a distinct place in the
SATURA AND THE OLD COMEDY. δ
(5) zmitart deinde eos iuventus simul inconditis inter se iocu- laria fundentes versibus coepere, nec absoni a voce motus erant. (6) accepta itaque res saepiusque usurpando excitata.
vernacults artifictbus, quia ister Tusco verbo ludio vocabatur, nomen histrionibus inditum, (7) gui non, sicut ante, Fescennino versu similem inconpositum temere ac rudem alternis iaciebant,' sed inpletas modis saturas descripto tam ad tibicinem cantu motuque congruent peragebant.
(8) Livius post aliquot annis, gui ab saturis ausus est primus argumento fabulam serere, idem scilicet, id quod omnes tum evant, suorum carminum actor, dicitur, (9) cum saepius.revocatus vocem obtudisset, venia petita puerum ad canendum ante tibicinem cum Statuisset, canticum egisse aliquanto magis vigente motu, guia nihil vocts usus inpediebat. (10) Inde ad manum cantari histrionibus coeptum, diverbiaque tantum tpsorum voci relicta. (11) postguam lege hac fabularum ab risu ac soluto toco* res avocabatur et ludus in artem paulatim verterat,
tuventus histrionibus fabellarum actu relicto ipsa inter se more antiquo ridicula intexta versibus tactitare coepit; quae exodia postea appellata consertaque fabellis potissimum Atellanis sunt.
In Livy as in Horace, the beginnings of the drama are connected with the Fescennina licentia.®
history of the Roman stage. That the tradition which assigned them such a place may have had elements of truth in it is possible, though it seems highly probable that aetiology was at work here also, in the effort to explain the word zsirio, quia ister Zxsco verbo \udio vocabatur (Livy, 1. 1., 6).
'It is perhaps superfluous to say that the words gut non .. . tactebant belong to the characterization of the zocu/aria of the preceding paragraph, as is shown by sicut ante.
2 These words are practically the only characterization of the saturae of the preceding paragraph which the description of Livy affords, as Bernhardy pointed out (Rdm. Lit., p. 394, An. 275). The phrase is parallel to a6 saturis above. The development into a more artistic dramatic form is incorrectly attributed, however, solely (4ge hac) to the external modifications introduced . by Livius, while, in fact, the internal changes first introduced by him (argu- mento fabulam serere) must have been the real causes of development aé γέρε ac soluto t0¢0.
3 Horace, Epp. II 1, 145, and Livy, 1. 1., 7, Fescennino versu similem, where see note I. The derivation from /ascinus (= φαλλός), which makes the Fescennini entirely parallel to the Greek φαλλικά, seems to be the prevailing explanation of the word, in spite of the energetic opposition of Teuffel- Schwabe (I, p. 4), who lay special stress upon the support which the analogy of the Afc/lanae (from Atella) gives to the derivation from the name of the
- --
6 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
The crude beginnings thus made were developed by degrees until the dramatic performances passed into the hands of profes- sional actors, who produced so-called satires. These much- discussed saturae, which have been awarded the dignity of classi- fication as a separate and original form of Roman satire,’ receive more light perhaps from Leo’s discovery than any other portion of this account; but, while he has given us the material for a correct interpretation, Leo has not, I believe, discerned the true reason for the presence of saturvae in this description. He says (1. L., p. 77): ‘Aus einer so offenbar construirten Darstellung ist kein Moment als historische Thatsache anzunehmen; der Litte- rarhistoriker hat augenscheinlich nur nach einen Ausdruck ge- sucht, der eine noch in freier Form sich bewegende Dichtungsart? schicklich bezeichnen konnte: er fand den von Ennius aus der Sprache des Lebens (fer saturam) eingefiihrten Titel bezeich- nend. Moglich auch dass er, der Etymologie satura—odrvpm folgend, den Namen nach dem Aristotelischen διὰ τὸ ἐκ σατυρικοῦ μεταβαλεῖν ὀψὲ ἀπεσεμνύνθη (Poet. 14492, 20) bildete; sicher das er im folgenden diese satura in Analogie zum Satyrspiel setzt. Jedesfalls muss die vorhistorische satura aus der Geschichte der romischen Poesie in ihre Quellenkunde versetzt werden.”
Etrurian town Fescennium. Instead of confirming the derivation, the analogy seems to me rather to give a clew to its origin. When the connection between Sascinus and Fescennint had perhaps become somewhat obscured, nothing would have been more natural, after the introduction of the fabulae Atellanae, whether for the people or the philologists of Rome, than to construct a parallel explanation of the Fescennint on the same pattern. That Etrurian names and customs were an inexhaustible source for the explanation of all that was obscure in Roman life and language would only facilitate this process. Cf. Porphyrio ad Hor. Epp. II 1, 145.
1So Nettleship, The Roman Satura: its original form in connection with its literary development, Oxford, 1878; the historians of Roman literature and many others incidentally. The ancient critics distinguished but two forms of satire, the Ennian and the Lucilian. Diomedes (Suetonius, Reif., p. 20), p. 485, and Quintilian, X 1, 93. ‘
2In interpreting the word as a somewhat colorless designation of a free and formless poetical genus like the saturae of Ennius, Leo seems to have been anticipated by Diintzer, Kritik d. Hor. IV, p. 284, note 2: “Hatte Livius ausdriicken wollen, diesen dlteren, ungeordneten Spielen habe man den Namen saturae beigelegt,so durfte er nicht sagen: non Fescennino ete... . peragebant, wo saturae nicht in einem besondern, vielmehr ganz im gewdhn- lichen Sinne genommen ist, fiir Mischgedichte, Quodlibet.” But, of course, Duntzer does not question the existence of the stage of development described by this designation. Cf. also zd., vol. II, p. 6.
SATURA AND THE OLD COMEDY. 7
Of the two considerations here advanced by Leo in explanation of the designation satura, the first need not delay us now, since it will appear with sufficient clearness in the course of my discus- sion that a much more definite meaning and one more closely parallel to the Greek source is attached to the word. The second, however, which is identical with Kiessling’s conjecture mentioned above, calls for a word of criticism before going further, since it can be shown, I am convinced, without reference to the true interpretation, that neither our source nor the narrative of Livy gives any support to the assumption of a relation between the odrvpos and these saturae.
In the first place, if the compiler of this account was striving to represent an analogy to the Greek satyr-drama, it 15 hard to see why he should not have followed Greek sources relating to the σατυρικόν, instead of setting forth his parallel in words borrowed from the history of comedy. The latter case would only be conceivable if the words διὰ τὸ ἐκ σατυρικοῦ μεταβαλεῖν (to which Leo appeals) were said of comedy and not of tragedy. Certainly no good reason can be given why Aristotle’s account was made use of, unless the saturae were meant to parallel some phase of the development of Greek comedy, and not the satyr-drama. The further reason for believing that the sa#urae here described cor- respond to the odrvpa is, according to Leo, the fact that in the words of Livy immediately following they appear in an unmis- takable analogy to the satyr-drama. Leo is by no means the first to assert the existence of such an analogy—it is one of the commonplaces of the interpretation of this passage, and he deems it therefore apparently unnecessary to point it out in detail. Briefly stated, this view depends upon the assumption of a transition of the salurae to exodia,' which, as the form and significance of their designation, as well as their relation to the Atellanae,’ indicate, were afterpieces in the manner of the satyr- drama. Let us examine the words of Livy to see with what justice this assumption is made. It has been well observed by
1 Teuffel-Schwabe, I, p. 6 (1): “ Einigen Halt bietet ...der Uebergang in den Begriff exodia”; Fritzsche, Horatius Serm. Einl., p. 14; Bernhardy, p. 395: ‘Das exodium war eine dramatisirte satura.” See note 2, p. 9, for the history of this view.
* Livy, 1. 1., 11: exodia ... conserta fabellis potissimum Atellanis sunt. Cf. also Lydus de mag. p. r. I 40: ᾿Ατελλάνη δέ ἔστιν τῶν ζεγομένων ἐξοδιαριων, and Diomedes (Suetonius, Reifferscheid, p. 14): Atellanae, argumentis dictisque tocularibus similes satyricis fabulis Graccis.
8 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Jahn and others’ that a sharp distinction is drawn between the performances of the Roman youth and the regular actors (histriones), but with a perversity of judgment in the face of
clear statements which is quite incomprehensible, they have —
insisted that in this distinction the satura is assigned to the zuventus. But if the distinction holds good once in this account (11) it should hold again, and it is very distinctly said (in 6) that the safurae (being no longer rude productions of Fescennine character like the earlier zocu/aria of the zuventus) were produced by vernaculis artificibus (τεχνίταις), who were called hzstriones.‘ So far,.then, as Livy’s account informs us, with the development of zocularia into saturae the zuventus disappear® until the drama had finally begun to take on artistic form (paulatim in artem verterat), when the zuventus again, leaving to hzstriones the production of regular plays, began to produce ridiculous buf- foonery by way of afterpieces to them, which were then called exodia. Now, as has been said, these ridicula (exodia) of the zuventus are commonly assumed to have been an outgrowth of and an advance upon the saturae. But the fact that these saturae were produced by Aistriones, as we have seen, would
1 Jahn, 1. 1., p. 225; Mommsen, Rom. Gesch. 116, p. 438, note.
2 Jahn, |. 1.: “‘ Der iuventus wird die formlose satura zugeeignet.” Fritzsche (Hor. Einl., p. 12), apparently unable to free himself from this view and at the same time realizing that it is not contained in Livy’s words, takes refuge in the absurd and entirely unwarranted statement that the saturae were first produced by regular actors and afterward by the ixzventus /
3A. Miller, Die griechischen Bihnenalterthimer, p. 170, note 2 ad fin.: “Seit Philipp’s Zeit tritt fir ὑποκριτής die allgemeinere Bezeichnung τεχνίτης auf.” The Lat. avtzfex is used in this sense absolutely in a good many places, e. g. Quint. XI 3, 73. Cf. also Gellius, XX 4.
* While Leo seems to share the common view of the relation of the saturac to the later ridicula (exodia) of the iuventus, he still has appreciated the fact that according to Livy the satsrae are in the hands of professional actors and not of the txventus (illustrating this point admirably from Aristotle). ‘‘ Durch Uebung ward aus den Improvisationen eine ia deren sich berufsmassige Kunstler bemachtigten” (p. 77).
SA striking analogy to the disappearance of the tuventus at this point, and their reappearance when the saturae gave way to the more artistic comedy, is furnished by the history of the Attic drama. Cf. Wilamowitz, Herakles, vol. I, p. 55: ‘Aus den volkstimlichen tanzen geht die komédie hervor, und sobald sie da ist, verschwindet diese vorstufe.” And in a note to these words: ‘Am bezeichnendsten ist dass die spiele der freiwilligen [tsventus] sofort wieder auf kamen, als der staat den vergeblichen versuch machte, die komédie zu un- terdricken... Kratinos erhielt keinen chor: da fihrte er seine Rinderhirten mit freiwilligen als einen dithyrambos auf” (v. Hesychius, 5. v. πυρπερέγ χει).
—=<—
SATURA AND THE OLD COMEDY. 9
alone be sufficient to call this assumption into question, even were we without positive evidence of the relation of the pro- ductions of the zzventus to the earlier period. Livy says (11) that the zuventus...inter se... ridicula intexta versibus tacti- tare coepit,and that they did this antiguo more (‘in their old way’). Now, looking back over Livy’s account we find that the only other mention of the zaventus (5) tells us that they imitated the pantomime of the Etrurian players, at the same time zzcon- ditzs inter se iocularia fundentes versibus, a description as nearly identical with that of-the later rzdicula (exodia), just quoted, as could well have been given without the repetition of the same words.’ It appears, therefore, that the exodia are not a survival! of the satfurae, but rather of the rude, Fescennine-like produc- tions which preceded them.’? The history of the safurae after their abandonment by Livius Andronicus the account does not - contain, but it does not imply that they absolutely ceased with Livius’ innovation. Here they appear simply as a step in the development of the artistic drama, just as the zocularia of the zuventus were a step in their development. To conclude, there- fore, this digressive criticism, it should be clear that neither our source (Aristotle) nor the plain interpretation of the text of Livy gives any support to the assumption of an analogy between the saturae and the satyr-drama.
1 The same thing is described in similar phraseology in 6: (histriones... qui non) stcut ante (i. e. sicut iuventus) Fescennino versu similem incompositum temere ac rudem alternis iaciebant. The effort to give variety to the same description in these three places will scarcely escape the attentive reader, e.g. Sundentes (5), tactebant (7), tactitare (11); inter se (5), alternis (7), inter se (11); tocularia (5), Fescennino versu sim. (7), ridicula (11), etc.
80 far as I have been able to ascertain,.Casaubon, in his famous disserta- tion de satyrica Graccoritm poesi et Romanorum satira ed. Hal. 1776, p. 183, was the first to advance this view of the relation of the exodia to the saturae which I have been at pains to refute, and scholars since his time have followed him without much, if any, dissent. Yet Casaubon’s only reason for the assumption of their relation is trivial, and based upon inaccurate observation. He says, after quoting Livy, VII 2, 11 (ridicula intexta versibus etc.), ‘‘appellatione versuum, satiram, cuius paullo ante meminerat, intellexisse hic Livium, nequit ambigi.” But why the designation versus should require ys to refer the exodia to the saturae is not at all clear. Probably he meant that the use of versibus in αἰ indicated the more developed form of poetry which the saturae are represented to be, as if the earlier and cruder stage were not in metrical form. If that is so, he curiously overlooked the fact that zersibus is also used in 5 of the form of the original socwlaria of the iuventus, and, as I have shown, it is to this description that section 11 reverts.
10 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
Comedy, says Aristotle,’ had its origin in improvised phallic verses. Its early development was obscure because it was not seriously cultivated, but was produced by volunteers, and only received public recognition and a chorus from the archon com- paratively Jate. The most important phase of its development was the introduction of the general plot, μῦθοι (argumentum), and the abandonment of personal censure and invective (ἡ ἰαμβικὴ ἰδέα). Epicharmus and Phormis in Sicily had been the first to make this change, but of the Athenians Κράτης πρῶτος ἦρξεν ἀφέμενος τῆς ἰαμβικῆς ἰδέας καθόλον ποιεῖν λόγους καὶ μύθους With this description of the work of Crates compare the words of Livy (8): Livius... αὖ saturis ausus est primus argumento® fabulam serere. That there is a relation here is obvious, and also that somehow or other the saturae are compared with the iambic ?3a—a phrase which describes the element of personal abuse (τὰ καθ᾽ ἕκαστον) which characterized the old comedy, in distinction from the μῦθοι or the μῦθος διὰ τῶν εἰκότων" Of the new’ comedy. ἡ ἐαμβικὴ ἰδέα serves, therefore, at once to designate and to characterize the old
1 Poetics, 4, 1449¢, 10 and 38 ff.
? Poetics, 5, 14494, 7. Cited and compared with Livy by Leo, 1. 1., p. 78. It is surprising that Casaubon should have recognized the similarity of these two passages without suspecting a relation of dependence between them. That he had observed their resemblance is, I believe, sufficiently clear from the following (de sat. poesi, p. 181): ‘““quemadmodum autem apud Graecos usurpationem τῆς ἰαμβικῆς ἰδέας, ut cum Philosopho loquamur, excepit in scena dramatice post inventam ...ab Epicharmo et Cratete comoediam: sic satiram veterem secuta est fabularum compositio; quarum auctor primus apud Koma- nos Andronicus etc.”
3Argumento, as a terminus technicus, may require a little elucidation. Cic. de Invent. I 19 (27): argumentum est ficta res (μῦθος), guae lamen ficri οί (διὰ τῶν εἰκότων, Poetics, 9, 14516, 13, or καθόλου, as here; cf. ἐό., vs. 8: ἔστιν δὲ καθόλου μέν, τῷ ποίῳ τὰ ποῖα ἅττα συμβαίνει 2έγειν ἢ πράττειν: κατὰ τὸ εἰκὸς ἢ τὸ avayKaiov), huius modi apud Terentium etc. Quintilian, II 4, 2: ergumen- tum, quod falsum sed vero simile comoediae fingunt. Cf. also td. V 10,9 and X 1, 100. Argumentum is therefore a very accurate rendering of καθόλου... μύθους. Concerning λόγους see Vahlen ad loc. The Greek technical equi- valent of argumentum is πλάσμα, concerning which see Ὁ. 18, note 3. The passages cited would seem to indicate that argumentum was thus used chiefly of the new comedy.
* Poetics, 9, 14514, 13 and 14.
>It need scarcely be remarked that Aristotle distinguishes but two kinds of comedy, the old and the new (xa), the latter corresponding to the μέση and whatever of the véa may have been known to him. This division is of course to be distinguished from the later twdfold division of the Pergamene (?) critics. Cf. esp. Kaibel, Zur attischen Komdédie, Hermes, 24, p. 59.
gt
A a ta a TR a a ce eT CE ag nS “» 2 ee - ΠΥ ΒΨΝΝ
‘SSATURA AND THE OLD COMEDY. II
comedy, which Horace describes in the well-known lines at the beginning of the fourth satire of the first book, as follows:
Eupolis atque Cratinus Aristophanesque poetae atque alit, quorum comoedia prisca virorum est, si quis erat dignus describi, quod malus ac fur, guod moechus foret aut sicarius aut aliogut Jamosus, multa cum libertate notabant.'
For the same qualities of aggressive personal attack, Lucilius appears in a relation of dependence’ upon the old comedy in the verses which follow:
hinc omnis pendet Lucilius, hosce secutus mutatis tantum pedibus numerisque etc.
If a relationship was thus recognized between Lucilius and the old comedy because of common characteristics, what would be more natural than that a descriptive designation of the old comedy (ἡ ἐαμβικὴ ἰδέα) should be interpreted by the name of the compositions of Lucilius (safurae)? Our conclusion there- | fore is that the term satura in Livy’s account owes its origin to a transference of the word, in the sharply defined meaning given to it by the peculiarly aggressive quality of the poems of Lucilius, to an assumed Roman parallel to the old Attic comedy, and that it was chosen as containing the most significant suggestion’ of the qualities of the ἰαμβικὴ ἰδέα.
'On the source of this description see Kiessling ad loc. and Platonius περὶ διαφορᾶς κωμ. (Diibner, I, vs. 7 ff.).
2'Was Horace the first to affirm this relation, as Kiessling holds? Probably not. Leo has shown with great probability that it goes back certainly as far
. as Varro, while F. Marx (Stud. Lucil.) conjectured that the relation was
suggested by Lucilius himself, and more recently (Interpretationum hexas I, Prog., Rostock, 1888, p. 12) he has brought to the support of his hypothesis certain unmistakable traces of Aristophanic verses in the fragments of Lucilius. Certainly the dramatic element in Lucilius was very pronounced (cf. L. Miller, Leben und Werke des G. L., p. 23), nor does he seem to have been without a consciousness of it. Cf. vs. 880 Lach. (adduced by Marx, Stud. Lucil., p. 43). In Miiller’s edition (XXX, vs. 16) the line, as emended by Dousa, has quite a different form and meaning.
3The comprehensive conception of ancient satire which recent criticism has rendered current, has done much to obscure the fact that the use of the word satura—and ancient comment upon this form of literature—is very much Ἢ narrower than the literature of satire itself. Horace’s description of Lucilius, his own remarks about himself (esp. Sat. II 1), and the later use of the word
—
12 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
This conclusion should require no further confirmation unless there be something in the description of the saturae in this passage which makes their identification with an assumed stage of dramatic development corresponding to the old comedy wholly inappropriate. I have already shown how the almost universal confusion of the saturae with the exodia has led to incorrect conceptions and characterizations' of the former, and it will not therefore be surprising if, at first thought, to most students of Roman literature the analogy between the saturae as here described and the ἀρχαία shall seem too faint for the establishment of any relationship between them. Let us see, then, how far it is possible to get at the character of the safurae from this descrip- tion, without the aid of the meaning which I believe the word possesses here (for it will be seen, if this is correct, that the essential characterization of them hes in the, designation itself). | First, as commentators on Livy point out, the words zmplelas ‘modis are emphatic, distinguishing the safurae from the irregular, Fescennine-like form which had preceded—an antithesis which is still further emphasized by zon sicut ante in the preceding sentence, and also by the words which follow, descripto iam (marking the contrast) ad tbicinem cantu etc. Add to this the
or references to this literary genus convey, almost without exception, the idea of a literature of aggressive and personal attack. This was doubtless due very largely to the one-sided emphasis laid upon the polemical element in the satire of Lucilius, and is not only analogous, but probably also related to the similarly one-sided descriptions of Greek comedy by the character of the criticism presented in each period—the old (φανερῶς), the middle (αἰνιγματωδῶς) and the new (ἡ μηδ᾽ ὅλως τοῦτο ποιοῦσα πλὴν ἐπὶ δούλων ἣ ξένων, Dibner, 1X4, vs. 67). Cf. Leo, 1. 1., p. 71 ff. But even the best characterization of the real nature of satire (as Horace or Lucian practised it) may be paralleled by a description of the old comedy, for the ridentem dicere verum of Horace (con- cerning which see Kiessling, Hor. IT, p. xiii) does not differ from the character ascribed to the writers of the old comedy in the most learned and best of the treatises πὶ κωμ, (Dibner, III), according to which παιδείας εὐτραπέλου γινόμενοι ζηλωταὶ τοὺς ἀγῶνας ἐποίουν.
*On the other hand, tambicus = scriptor saturarum in Apuleius, Apolog. 10: C. Lucilium, quamquam sit tamdicus, tamen improbarim quod Gentium et Macedonem pueros airectis nominibus carmine suo prostituerit. Divrectis nomi- ntbus (= ὀνομαστὶ) was the manner of the old comedy.
ΤῈ. g. Fritzsche, p. 13, note 2, uses the words ridicula intexta versibus (11), which are said of the exodia, to confirm a statement in his characterization of the saturae. He describes the latter also as “eine rein extemporirle Natur- poesie,” and immediately afterwards refers to the words deseripto iam ad tabtcinem cantu !
SATURA AND THE OLD COMEDY. 13
fact that they are said to be produced by professional actors, and we must infer that a stage of thoroughly-developed dramatic ' form is herewith indicated,’ even though not possessing a general plot (avgumentum). The only other descriptive words are aé visu ac soluto toco, in paragraph 11, which refer back to the saturae. Meagre as this description is, it must be confessed, I think, that it corresponds in general outlines to the brief charac- terizations of the old comedy contained in the treatises περὶ κωμῳδίας prefixed to the scholia of Aristophanes. Throughout them the old comedy is characterized by two traits, a playful spirit of fun (γέλως, τὸ χαρίεν) and a license in ‘the use of abusive jest (ἄδεια τοῦ σκώπτειν, oxdppara),’ qualities which are indicated here by the words visus ac solutus tocus.. By impletas modis may very well be suggested something of the manifold musical and metrical form of the parabasis.* The word satura itself, however, in the Lucilian sense, is the real characterization of the drama here described, conveying unmistakably the idea of φανερῶς καὶ ὀνομαστὶ σκώπτειν" (κωμῳδεῖν), which is only faintly repeated in soluto toco.
In striking and unexpected confirmation of this result (since Livy has commonly been supposed ‘* to be our only authority for
1 The language of Livy (argumento fabulam serere = componere, cf. 38, 56, 8) indicates that the designation /aduéa (play) might have been attached to the saturae, although they lacked the argumentum (μῦθοι) of the more artistic drama, founded by Livius.
2An. 7. κωμ. (Dibner, Xa, vs. 72): Ἴδιον δὲ κωμῳδίας τὸ μεμιγμένον ἔχειν τοῖς σκώμμασι γέλωτα. Platonius π. diag. κωμ. (Ὀ δηετ, 1): ἄδειαν... εἶχον σκώπτειν κτλ. Idem π. διαφ. χαρ. (Diibner, 11): ὁ ᾿Αριστοφάνης ἐπιτρέχειν τὴν χάριν τοῖς. σκώμμασι ποιεῖ. ἸΌΪὰ.: Εὔπολις... ἐπίχαρις καὶ περὶ τὰ σκώμματα λίαν εὔστοχος. To the same effect is a Latin scholium of a Plautus MS of the Collegio Romano (4 C. 39), reported by Ritschl, Op. I, p. 7: Comoedias esse oportet refertas caviliis quae σκώμματα vocant Graeci et cachinnis quas yeAaciac vocant.
3 These last two words would not unnaturally receive a much milder inter- pretation when the meaning of saturae was not understood. How closely solutus might interpret ἄδεια appears from various legal uses of the word, noted in the lexicons, and in this connection especially from Caecina ap. Cic. ad Fam. VI 7, 3: solutum existimatur esse alteri male dicere. For tocus cf. Hor. Ep. II 1, 149 and the discussion of that passage below, p. 21.
*Platonius 7. diag. κωμ. (Dibner, I, vs. 51): ἡ δὲ παράβασις ἐπληροῦτο ὑπὸ μελυδρίου Kal κομματίον καὶ στροφῆς καὶ ἀντιστρόφου κτλ.
580 also Leo, who has seen so much deeper in these questions than any other scholar: “Eine solche satura vorhistorischer Zeit erscheint nur an dieser Stelle” (1. 1., 77). It has long been recognized that Valerius Maximus (II 4, 4) paraphrases Livy ignorantly.
—
14 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY.
this prehistoric satya) appears Euanthius in the treatise de comoedia, prefixed to the scholia of Terence.’ Here a survey of the origins of tragedy and comedy is followed by some general considerations concerning the development of the latter, after which the author turns to the different stages of the history of comedy, beginning with the ἀρχαία, which he also calls ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματος, guia inest in ea denominatio civium de quibus libere describe- batur. etenim per priscos poetas...res gestae a civibus palam cum ecorum...nomine decantabantur. But because the liberty granted this form of composition was abused, me guzsguam in alterum carmen infame componeret lege lata stiluere. Et hinc deinde aliud genus fabulae id est satyra’ sumpsit exordium, quae a satyris, guos inlotos semper ac petulantes deos scimus esse, vocitata est: eist <alit> altunde...nomen prave putant. A> satura appears here asa genus fabulae, concerning which I am not aware that much has been said. A. Teuber,® who has touched on the subject incidentally, apparently represents the common interpretation. in understanding satyra of the satyr-drama, in which view Scheidemantel‘ acquiesces. But a closer consider- ation of Euanthius’ words will show that this is wholly impossible. For, in the first place, a comparison of this etymological digres- sion with Diomedes’ (Suetonius*®) discussion of the same word reveals, as has been seen, that they are from the same source, and makes the inference almost inevitable that by satyva some phase of Roman satire is referred to.