Obrázky na stránke
[blocks in formation]


Instances said

to occur. Plaut.,

Perf. 29

Pres. 9
Ter., Perf.

Pres. 5
Cato, Pres. 17
Catull., Pres.
Cicero, Pres.
Sallust., Pres.
Nepos, Pres.
Horace, Perf.

Vergil, Pres.
Tibull., Pres.




3 32 I



[ocr errors][merged small]

15ܘ ܘ ܘ ܘ ܘ ܘ ܘ ܘ

I 6 2 5 I 16

[blocks in formation]
[blocks in formation]

Elmer says (142; 10) there are 18 (19?) examples of the present in Plautus and Terence, but (146; 14) cites only the number given above. It will be seen that even my statistics are incomplete, as I have noted only the instances met with in my reading since my interest in the subject was aroused. A number of authors are missing, while for Cicero my collections are only for the Letters. Others may be able to extend the list still farther.' I give a list of the omissions (except the Plautine perfects, on which see Bennett, Studies, VI 57), which may prove serviceable for reference, verbs other than those of the second person being indicated in parentheses, thus (1),(3): Plaut. Aul. 660 (1); Bacch. 1033 (3); Curc. 461 (3); Most. 324, 326; Pseud. 1296 (1); Rud. 704; Stich. 38 (1); Trin. 1011 (3); Ter. And. 403 (3); H. T. 1031 (1), 1032 (1); Phor. 764 (3); Catull. 50, 18, 19; 61, 152; Cic. Att. 1, 10, 4; 1, 11, 3; 13, 33, a. 1; Fain. 5, 20, 6; 6, 12, 5; 10, 5, 3; 10, 12, 1; 16, 12, 6 (bis) ; Hor. Sat. 2, 3, 38; 2, 3, 177 (bis); 2, 5, 75 (3); Ep. 1, 6, 32 (3); 1, 13, 19 (bis); Verg. Aen. 11, 293 (3); Tibull. 1, 6, 17 (3), 18 (3), 19 (3), 20 (bis) (3); 4, 2, 3 (3); Prop. 1, 7, 25; 1, 10, 20, 23, 24 (3); 3(2), 13, 41; 5 (4), 8, 77, 78 (3); Ov. Am. 1, 8, 72 (3), 95 (3); Art. Am. 1, 667 (3), 668 (3); 3, 237, 801; Rem. Am. 689, 717; Metam. 2, 89 (1); Trist. I, I, 25, 104; 5, 13, 26; Ex Ponto 1, 9, 32 (3); 2, 4, 31 (3); 2, 8, 64 (3); Fast. 1, 58, 684 (3). Elmer says in his criticism that he knows of no instance of cave with the perfect after Terence, except Hor. Sat. 2, 3, 38 and Curt. Ruf. 5, 2, 21. He will find three

1 Thus Ribbeck, in the indices of his Scenic Fragments, gives eight addi. tional examples, all presents but one.

[ocr errors]

more instances in the above list: Prop. I, 10, 23; 3 (2), 13, 41; Ov. ex Ponto 1, 9, 32.

From the foregoing it will be seen that there are 41 perfects as compared with 115 presents; 37 of these perfects (90 per cent.) occur in Plautus and Terence; from Terence on the proportion of perfects to presents is 4 to 88, or about 4 per cent.; to prove Elmer's theory the large majority of these presents must be nonemotional. What had become of Roman emotion after Terence ?

From Plautus on, cave with the present is often used in expressions of emotion, more or less strong, thus (I cite only a few typical cases, as I have neither desire nor space for an extended discussion): Plaut. Capt. 439; Most. 324; Ter. H. T. 1031 ; Phor. 793; Catull. 61, 152; Cic. Att. 1, 10, 4 ; Tibull. 4, 2, 3; Prop. I, 10, 24; Ov. Met. 2, 89; Sall. Cat. 59. In Plautus fully one fourth of the examples are emotional, in Terence nearly every instance.' In later authors the proportion varies, averaging probably 40 per cent. to 60 per cent. Thus, without 40 per cent. of the examples of the usage which he claims to discuss, without an adequate statement or exposition of the instances in even the three authors upon whom he apparently bases his discussion, Elmer asserts the validity of a theory which is not even tenable in the authors where the percentage of perfects is the highest. That he ventured to advance a theory so important without an adequate basis of statistics, and practically without any argument in its support, seems almost incredible. It is a mystery why its utter weakness was not discovered at once.

The same omissions occur in his treatment of ne with the present subjunctive, only the instances in Plautus, Terence and Cicero being given; but in this case, like Elmer, “I have made no attempt to collect the examples.” Thus only one of the four divisions of his theme (ne with the perfect subjunctive) has been adequately treated.

On pages 149-150 (17-18) Elmer presents some statistics as to the use of different forms of prohibition in Cicero's Letters which are certainly interesting. After mentioning the recipients of the letters where ne with the perfect was used-Atticus, Quintus Cicero, Trebatius, and Fadius Gallus—he says: “To his other correspondents he uses noli or in two instances cave with the present subjunctive.” But Cicero has eleven examples of cave outside of the letters to Atticus, seven of which certainly are to persons other than those whom Elmer mentions: to Rufus (Fam. 5, 20, 6), Ampius (Fam. 6, 12, 5), Paetus (Fam. 9, 24, 4), Plancus (Fam. 10, 5, 3; 10, 12, 1), Tiro (Fam. 16, 12, 6). A little later Elmer states : " Except the passionate remonstrance referred to in a letter written by Brutus (Brut. 1, 16, 6), the correspondents of Cicero use only noli in addressing him." But Balbus (Att. 8, 15, a. 2) uses cave, and Caelius (Fam. 8, 16, 2) and Brutus (Fam. 11, 20, 3 and Brut. 1, 16, 7) use vide.

1 See C. R. XV 158.

In my Prohibitives in Silver Latin' (A. J. P. XXI 166), I remarked : “it is interesting to note that the critics and later writers on the prohibitive regard Professor Elmer as the original overthrower of Madvig's theory, either ignorant or forgetful of the fact that Professor Hale (A. J. P. IX 162) six years before the appearance of Elmer's papers had shown that Madvig's theory did not apply to Plautus." I am rather surprised to see that Elmer takes no notice of this remark. The case becomes still more striking in view of the complete parallelism between Hale's statement of the force of the perfect subjunctive (pp. 161 and 162) and that of Elmer in several places. Thus, in the year 1888 (op. cit.), Hale, laying down the general distinction between the present subjunctive and the perfect, says: “the feeling of the finished tense in the independent jussive is that of peremptoriness. The speaker, using it, expresses himself with a certain amount of authoritative impatience"; ... "the be-it-done-and-done-with perfect”; while Elmer, in the year 1898 (Studies, VI 16), says: Tin my papers on the Latin Prohibitive (A. J. P. XV, 1894) I have shown that the only important distinction to be made between the two tenses is that the perfect tense is impatient and emotional, while the present tense is common-place." It was in immediate connection with his statement as given above that Hale said (in clear opposition, so far as the ground covered by the statement is concerned, to the dominant theory of Madvig): " Plautus freely uses the present subjunctive in prohibitions addressed to a particular person.” If such a phrase of censure as Elmer's "inexcusable carelessness" is to be used at all in philological discussion, it certainly might be charitably employed of Elmer's silence in this matter. In the passages quoted above Hale had supplied all the elements for an investigation of Madvig's doctrine, which it looked as if he had begun upon himself.

It will be noted that, in the foregoing, every reference to Elmer's original paper has been by page, often verbatim, when the accuracy of such reference could otherwise be disputed. I hope I have made every point of my position plain, frankly acknowledged every mistake, and shown some small part at least of the weaknesses, inconsistencies, omissions and mistakes in Elmer's treatment of the prohibitive. With these before him for consideration, I trust his criticisms of others in the future will be tempered by more of the spirit of comity and fair play than has characterized them in the past.




XXV. Band, 1898. I.-A. Schade, On the relation of Pope's January and May and The Wife of Bath to the corresponding portions of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. By way of preface the testimony of Pope himself is cited to show that his estimate of Chaucer as a poet varied from time to time, and was never high. Then follows a discussion of the origin and history of the story told by Chaucer's merchant-chiefly a résumé of studies by Varnhagen and others, with some criticism of minor points in their work. Schade favors the theory that Chaucer was indebted, at least for the episode of the pear-tree, to a fabliau no longer extant. Pope's January and May is simply one of his youthful exercises in adaptation. Conclusive evidence shows that he used the text of Chaucer printed in 1687. By a laborious process of comparison, which deals not only with Pope's omissions, additions, and alterations in relating the story, but also with differences in syntax and metre between the two versions, Schade arrives at results that are instructive, though quite easily anticipated. Pope in adapting the tale to his own times suppresses none of its indecency. He is less outspoken, to be sure, but the euphemisms with which his obscenity is covered are both suggestive and vicious. He is on the whole less concrete and picturesque than Chaucer. While Chaucer betrays some sympathy and tenderness of regard for the aged victim of a mean intrigue, and at times even appreciates the tragic aspect of his plight, Pope only sneers at his discomfiture. "With Pope the thought without its embellishment is nought,” says the author. “With Chaucer it is nearly everything: the laiter stands for Nature, the former for Art.” This opinion seems to be rather the conventional than the correct one. Even the present study affords some help to a deeper appreciation of Chaucer's exquisite art. Incidentally Schade deals with the influence of other English poets, chiefly Dryden, upon Pope's early style. The article is continued in volume XXVI.

E. Kölbing, Ten Byroniana, with notes. Among other letters are here printed several of Byron's written from various localities abroad to Hanson, his banker, showing something of the condition of his estate in the years 1809-1811; a letter from his mother to Hanson, written three weeks before her death, revealing great distress over financial matters; a letter from Byron to Mme. de

[ocr errors]

Staël in 1816, protesting that the reconciliation between him and Lady Byron which she had endeavored to effect was impossible.

H. Klinghardt, The Value of Phonetics in Teaching the Mothertongue and Foreign Languages. This article reports the discussion which followed a paper on the value of phonetics in elementary teaching of modern languages, read by 0. Jespersen before the Association of Danish Grammar Schools. A full report of the paper was given in the preceding volume of Englische Studien. Among other opinions expressed were the following: The utility of the phonetic method in teaching the native language would vary widely in different countries. The use of a phonetic alphabet in teaching English, for example, valuable as it might be in acquiring a correct pronunciation, encourages incorrect spelling. The first aim in studying a foreign language should be to gain access to its literature. The practical advantage that lies in the power to speak a language should always be of secondary importance. The phonetic method, however, makes this latter its chief object. On the other hand, it is shown that by this method the usual difficulties have been mastered as easily as by any other, with the added advantage of a correct pronunciation. The value of the phonetic method is not great enough to warrant the introduction of a phonetic alphabet and the study of the speech-organs. Its virtue lies in requiring the teacher to correct the mistakes in pronunciation which, under the old method, escaped his notice.

II.-K. Horst, Contribution to the Study of the Old English Annals. The author continues from the preceding volume his classification of MSS.

H. B. Baildon, Robert Louis Stevenson. This article, compiled in part from the Dictionary of National Biography, is intended primarily for German readers, but contains matter which must be interesting to those among whom Stevenson is better known than he is on the Continent. Baildon was his intimate friend when both were boys at Dr. Thompson's school in Edinburgh, and the attachment continued to the end of Stevenson's life. The writer has noticed several parallels between the youthful experiences of his friend and those of Goethe, especially his attempt to practice law, and his difference with his parents in choosing a career. A similar case, not mentioned by the author, is that of Carlyle. The French qualities of Stevenson's style have for some time been apparent to many. In school, though he was not studious, he had a distinct preference for French, Geometry, and Latin, but never did much with Greek. The writer says: "Some of the care and finish of his style and its frequent felicities may be traced back to his early love for Cicero and Horace, Ovid and Virgil.” And again, Stevenson is styled "a prose Horace, for to Horace has been attributed the quality of a curiosa felicitas, and

« PredošláPokračovať »