« PredošláPokračovať »
the very end of antiquity, the pentameter as a monostich has a definite and continuous tradition of artistic use. Not once in all that time does it occur outside its inherited sphere of ex-votis, proverbs, old said sooth and the like.
The pentameter katà orixov is also old. It may be due—though this is by no means as clear—to a similar false analogy and consequent usurpation of the tripody used in a series. This use of the tripody is rare. So is the pentameter katà orixov. But although the pentameter karà orixor—with special variations-rose to the height of literary use, it never held nor deserved the position of the single pentameter, and at the end of all things ran off and out into a so-called Textáuerpov énikóv. The one really artistic example of it is the epigram of Philippos (AP. 13, 1). That this should be a dedicatio in intent is also significant.
The deliberate reversal of the distich is associated with the name of Dionysios Chalkus, but apparently his experiment went no further than the merely mechanical interchange of hexameter and pentameter. He does not seem to have had the discernment even to realize that, for example, the system of pauses usual in the distich should have been reversed as well as the order of the lines if any notable effect was to be produced. It is probable that, like Yvon in the old fairy tale, “this trick never came out of his own head.” We have one oracle of two lines in this form. If such were his source he misunderstood the evidence. The oracle regarding Phalaris, for example, if genuine is not a deliberate case of the distich reversed. Oracles are not delivered in distichs at all. Such cases as Apuleius, Met. IV 33, Heliod. Aethiop. II 26, II 35, are purely literary. Indeed the oracle regarding Phalaris may well be of the same sort, merely part of a story which certainly smacks of later days and was designed by its form to suggest the irregularities of ancient folk verse. The idea underlying the other forms discussed is clear enough.
In every case, irregular forms of the distich are either confined to, or clearly derived from, the inscriptional sphere. This is due to the extreme antiquity of the sphere, to the conservatism of tradition, the variety of talent necessarily found there and the shape and limitations of the object inscribed. In a large number of cases the form is the result of mere juxtaposition of favorite sentiments and is, therefore, irregular only in appearance. There were a great many examples of these irregular forms. The frequency of inscriptions, their intimate connection with every phase of public and private life is one of the most characteristic features of the ancient world as compared with our own. In the time of Sulla, for example, many travellers and investigators had already collected and published them in large numbers. These collections are now lost but must be reckoned with by those who would study the sources of Pausanias, the Greek Anthology, etc.
To select a frequent and characteristic peculiarity and constitute it a canon of literary art within the department in which it was found seems an easy and natural step, especially for the Greeks, with whom literary traditions were conservative and genetic and the distinctive, inherited peculiarities of department so carefully observed. When the epigram developed from its original office of a practical inscriptio into a regular branch of literature it dropped all its irregularities as a matter of course. But the original department went on as before, and if the poet returned to it he recognized the freedom of form as a departmental peculiarity and adopted it while moving in that department. The artistic limitations of the freedom which he allowed himself are clearly marked by the examples which we have been considering. The irregular forms of the distich which rose to literary rank, one and all, have a certain symmetry and betray a deliberate theory of composition. This is why they were selected for literary purposes in distinction from the rest, and down to the latest period their original sphere was rarely, if ever, forgotten or transgressed.
Finally, when we contrast the Greek and Roman treatment of these forms the difference is characteristic and national. speaks in the mouth of Petronius. With her imperious temper, her passion for the exact, the fact that with her the distich began as a scholastic tradition, not as a national growth, we should naturally expect her to relegate all infringements of the one proper form to the obscurity which, in her opinion, they deserved.
KIRBY FLOWER SMITH.
IV.-INDIAN GLOSSES IN THE LEXICON OF
The Greek lexicon of Hesychios contains, as is well known, a number of glosses from the Indo-Iranian dialects. The Persian words found in this Alexandrine lexicographer have been fully discussed by Lagarde in his treatise on 'Die persischen Glossen der Alten' (Gesammelte Abhandlungen, 147–242), but the Indian vocabulary of the Hesychian thesaurus has as yet received little attention. It is true that Reland, in his discussion 'De veteri lingua Indica' (Diss. VI of his Diss. Misc. I 207-32), has devoted considerable space to the Indian glosses of Hesychios. Reland, however, does not seem to have been acquainted with Sanskrit, for he etymologized the Indian words on the theory that they were of Persian origin. This view of Reland's, however natural two centuries ago when he wrote, fatally vitiates his results. The Indian words found in the Greek and Latin authors imperatively demand study anew. Such an investigation should possess some value as casting additional light upon the current pronunciation of the Sanskrit and Prākrit during the period when India was known to the Graeco-Roman world. The present paper, however, is confined to the Indian glosses in Hesychios. These glosses are arranged here in their alphabetic order. For the sake of brevity, remarks on the words considered are confined to the smallest space consistent with clearness. The identifications suggested for some of the glosses must be regarded as merely tentative. Notwithstanding this, they are advanced in the hope that, if they themselves are incorrect, they may nevertheless furnish some clue for a future investigator.
αποκολοκαύτωσις" παρ' 'Ινδούς ή συνουσία. οι δε π παφλαγόσι τινών χριο
μένων τα αιδοία δονεϊν παρέχει. The Indian word åtokolokaútwois seems to be derived from Skt. apa+kāla + khud. The meaning would then be ovvovoia sapà χρόνον. The exact mode of συνουσία is not easy to determine. Two passages of the Kāmasūtra may perhaps be cited as throwing some light upon this gloss. Of these two the second seems to be the one to be preferred as an explanation of the word.
The first passage is as follows: samvähanë parişvajamineva gātrāir ürünāyakasya mrdnīyāl | prasștaparicayă corumülam sajaghanam iti samspršet | tatra sthiralingatām upalabhya cāsya pāņimanthena parighattayet | căpalam asya kutsayantīva haset || (Kámasútra, ed. Durgaprasada, Nirnaya Sagara Press, p. 166; see R. Schmidt's translation, p. 206).
The second, and apparently the preferable, passage runs thus: evam vrkšajānam jantūnām sūkäir upaliptam lingam daśarätram tăilena mȚditam punahpunar upaliptam punaḥ pramşditam itu jātaśõpham khatvāyām adhõmukhas tadantaré lambayet | tatah śītāih kaşāyaiḥ kṣtavedanānigraham sõpakramena niş padayet | sa yåvajjivam sūkajo nāma sopho vitānām || (Kāmasútra, p. 369; see Schmidt, p. 471).
If the explanation of the gloss otokolokaútwois here suggested be correct, it would show that the Sanskrit v khud, which occurs but seldom in the literature, was used more frequently in popular speech than is generally supposed. In the Kāmasútra kāla is frequently used in the sense of xpóvos ovvovolas (e. g. pp. 76, 101 of the Nirņaya Sāgara Press edition).
[It is possible that qe naplaybou may be from pléyw in the sense of amore urere.-M. S., Jr.]
[Professor Lanman, private letter of Nov. 15, 1900, suggests that årokolokaútwois may be 'a Greek name for an Indian method' (cf. the discussion on πτερυγοτύραννος). In this case αποκολοκαύτωσις might be miswritten, as he says, for átokohokúvtwois. A possible explanation of the phrase vşkşajānām jantūnām sūkāir upaliptam lingam Kāmasūtra, p. 166, may thus be gained. The gloss is beset with difficulties. The whole appearance of the word is Greek, not Indian, and the termination can be nothing but Greek. Our suggested explanation of the gloss, assuming it to be Indian, as ouvovala mapå xpóvov (apa 'away' + käla 'time' + V khud futuit') is very doubtful and it must be considered as merely tentative.]
βαισήνης" παρ' Ινδοίς το στρατόπεδον (cf. also βαίσηνος: ο στρατός).
It is possible that Baionuns may be the representative of the Sanskrit abhişēņa, which occurs in RV. 6, 44, 17, where it is thus glossed by Sāyaṇa: asmán pratyabhigatāḥ sēna yeşām tādņšān (cf. AK. ii 8,94 : yat sinaya 'bhigamanam arău tad abhişēnanam). The meaning of abhişeņu would thus be 'a hostile advancing force' (hardly, as the PWb. says, 'Geschosse richtend'), which answers fairly well to the signification assigned by Hesychios to
Balonívns. As a reverse analogy to the loss of initial Sanskrit a in a Greek loan-word, we may cite Greek énavapopá ‘repetition,' which is borrowed in Sanskrit in the form paņaphara 'astrological term. tech.' (Uhlenbeck, Etymol. Wtb. 153). [Prof. Lanman, private letter, Aug. 18, 1900, queries whether Baconuns is not Prāk. païsënā from padisënā, Skt. pratisënā 'hostile army,' Harivamsa 6018. For the phonology involved see Hēmacandra Prāk. Gramm., ed. Pischel, I 206; Pischel, Gramm. der Prākrit-Sprachen, $220.]
βραχμάνες" οι παρ' Ινδοίς γυμνοσοφισται καλούμενοι.
This gloss is plainly the Skt. brahmāṇaḥ ‘Brahmans.'
γάνδαρος" ο ταυροκράτης παρ' 'Ινδούς.
The word yavdapos is evidently the Skt. gandharva, Māhår. Prāk. gandhavva 'a semi-divine being.' The Greek transcription would seem to presuppose a Prāk. *gandharra. (Reland, I 221, derived yáv&apos from the Persian kundāvar 'bold champion.')
γαυσαλίτης" όρνεον παρά Ινδούς.
It is barely possible that yavoalírns may be a Greek recollection of the Skt. kāuśika ‘owl.' But this identification is by no means certain.
[Professor Lanman, private letter of Aug. 11, 1900, suggests that yavoalíons stands for Skt. kāusala 'a Kosala (bird)'; cf. Skt. sāindhava 'Sindhi (horse).' The phonology and the semantics are so excellent that it is far preferable to the identification with kāusika. At the same time, I have not yet met with any substantiation of the meaning 'bird' in the Sanskrit lexicographers. The only signification which I have thus far found for kāusala beside being a proper name is ‘bow'; cf. kausalam gândivő, Vāijayanti, p. 118, 1. 347, ed. Oppert. Reland, I 222–3, derived yavo alions from the Persian kajalah 'magpie.'—L. H. G.]
Γεννοί: οι γυμνοσοφισταί.
M. Schmidt, in his edition of Hesychios, correctly recognized in this gloss the Skt. word jāina ‘Jain.' This form renvoi shows Prākritic influence in the doubling of an original single consonant, with resultant shortening of the Sanskrit diphthong ai to i, è (cf. also jina in Mahāvastu, passim, and Māhār. jiņa).
Aoprávns ó 'Hpakinis map' 'Ivdois.
With the gloss Aoporávns we may perhaps compare the Sanskrit