Skip to main content

Full text of "Brief Mention"

See other formats


Early Journal Content on JSTOR, Free to Anyone in the World 

This article is one of nearly 500,000 scholarly works digitized and made freely available to everyone in 
the world by JSTOR. 

Known as the Early Journal Content, this set of works include research articles, news, letters, and other 
writings published in more than 200 of the oldest leading academic journals. The works date from the 
mid-seventeenth to the early twentieth centuries. 

We encourage people to read and share the Early Journal Content openly and to tell others that this 
resource exists. People may post this content online or redistribute in any way for non-commercial 
purposes. 

Read more about Early Journal Content at http://about.jstor.org/participate-jstor/individuals/early- 
journal-content . 



JSTOR is a digital library of academic journals, books, and primary source objects. JSTOR helps people 
discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content through a powerful research and teaching 
platform, and preserves this content for future generations. JSTOR is part of ITHAKA, a not-for-profit 
organization that also includes Ithaka S+R and Portico. For more information about JSTOR, please 
contact support@jstor.org. 



BRIEF MENTION. 

' History repeats itself ' and ' history never repeats itself ' 
are alike true and alike false. History is a poor teacher, and 
its lessons are mostly futile ; and yet, in the last Brief Mention, 
I undertook to apply the story of the Civil War to the questions 
of to-day! Historical parallels are often absurdly askew, as I 
have urged repeatedly, in season and out of season, in the 
Journal and outside of it ; and yet, some months ago, I was 
tempted to institute a comparison between the history of Aigina 
and the history of the United States, as will appear from the 
following extract from ' America in the War ', which I repro- 
duce, with an illustrative vignette, by the kind permission of 
the Century Company, to whom I furnished the text of Rae- 
maekers' cartoon entitled 'Justice'. It must be considered 
nothing more serious than a tribute to the modernity of Pindar, 
who could supply headings for every phase of the great conflict, 
as he has done in the opening of the Eighth Olympian for one 
of the burning questions of our day. 



JUSTICE! 

" The woman figure 
called Justice in Rae- 
maekers' cartoon has 
a Greek name. She is 
Themis, consort of 
Zeus, Themis who sits 
by his side on the 
judgement seat. The 
scales are the scales of 
^Egina, in her day a 
great money centre, 
whose talent was the 
standard of value 
then, as the American 
dollar is today. ^Egina 
was the mother of 
^Eacus, one of the 
three great judges of 
the lower world, and 
be it remembered, it 
was ^Eacus that ad- 
ministered justice, 
^gina is called by one 
of the greatest Greek 
poets the place where Themis is worshipped more than 
anvwhere else on earth, and he tells us further that there was 




BRIEF MENTION. 103 

much weighing in iEgina, the Merchant State. Heavy weights 
there were in either scale. Much care was needful in the 
weighing, no little balancing doubtless. So there were many 
in our ^Egina who felt the draw of kindred, of friendship, of 
fellowship. But this is the Day, the Day of Decision, the Day 
of Lord .ZEacus. After the knife-edge of the balance comes 
the knife-edge of the guillotine." 



Touching the Eighth Olympian I have said more than once, 
" Pindar knew Aigina well, and the universal of the Aiginetan 
odes is often so pegged in the knotty entrails of the particular 
that it is hard to set it free ", and not a few lovers of Pindar 
have attempted to liberate the Ariel of the Eighth Olympian. 
The latest comer is Mr. Whitmore, who, in the October num- 
ber of the North Carolina University Studies in Philology, has 
essayed the task of mediating the transition from the myth of 
Aiakos to the laudation of Melesias — fortified, as he says, by 
the progress of Pindaric study during the last twenty years. 
But cut off, as I am, from the bulk of my Pindaric apparatus, 
I must content myself with summarizing Mr. Whitmore' s 
article with such intercalary reflexions as would naturally occur 
to an old student of Pindar. 



The first question that arises is the time and place at which 
the ode was sung. Boeckh, followed by the majority of inter- 
preters, makes Olympia the place, the time immediately after 
the victory ; and the hurried preparation has been urged as an 
excuse for the lack of articulation, for what some would even 
call the ineptness of the insertion. Mr. Whitmore argues 
at length for Aigina and a longer interval, but as he has solved 
the problem of the transition to his own satisfaction, that point 
does not seem to him of vital importance. 

The story of Aiakos and the Aiakidai was a matter of obliga- 
tion for the composer of an Aiginetan ode, and the myth of the 
Eighth Olympian deals with Aiakos as the fellow-worker with 
Apollo and Poseidon in the building of Troy. The task ac- 
complished, Aiakos had the signal honour of being brought 
home to Aigina in the chariot of Poseidon ; and when Borne- 
mann, with the familiar Teutonic sneer, asked how my note on 
v. 51, '8evp(o) : To Aegina ', harmonized with my acceptance 
of the earlier date, he simply showed that he had not read 
Boeckh's explanation. To be sure, I ought to have been more 
explicit. 



104 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. 

The myth of Aiakos is followed by a sentiment on which 
the transition is supposed to hinge : repirvbv h' cv avOpuirois laov 
lororcTcu ovSiv. My interpretation has not satisfied Mr. Whit- 
more. And no wonder. It has not satisfied me, as will presently 
appear. 

' The contrast ', I wrote, ' is between the life of the gods and the life 
of men. Apollo is happy in three places, Poseidon in two. But human 
beings are not equally happy everywhere. Timosthenes was victorious 
at Nemea, Alkimedon at Olympia. An Athenian would not be at home 
in Aigina, nor an Aiginetan at Athens. This commonplace prepares, 
after a fashion, the way for the inevitable mention of Melesias\ 

This is the way in which the problem presents itself to Mr. 
Whitmore's mind: 

*<The honor done to Aeacus was an exceptional honor > ; often, when 
the gods took a mortal into their company, he remained there. <After 
citing the example of Ganymede, he goes on) to say that Aeacus was in- 
deed> favored beyond the common lot of mortals ; but his good fortune 
could not be lasting, and Pindar adds the general observation, " Nothing 
among men remains equally (that is, uniformly) joyful ". From this gen- 
erality he passes to a more personal utterance : " But if I have traversed 
in song the glory that Melesias has won through his pupils, let not envy 
smite me with a jagged stone " ; that is to say, let not my pleasure on 
the present occasion be imperilled by my praise of Melesias, which I 
will continue by mentioning victories won by yet another of his pupils, 
Timosthenes \ 

True, Pindar is not disinclined to moralize on the chang- 
ing fortunes of human life akkor' aWolai Stai&Woio-iv avpai 
(O . 7 . 95), whether he is dealing with mythical heroes or with 
the victors in the games. Citations are needless. Nor is he 
averse from telling of the errors, the blunders, the failures, 
that mar the careers of those who figure in his songs. The 
Seventh Olympian will serve instar omnium. But in the Eighth 
Olympian there is no intimation that there was any drawback 
to the felicity of Aiakos. According to Mr. Whitmore, as 
we have seen, Aiakos, as a fellow-worker of the gods, ought to 
have shared the fortune of Ganymede. One cannot help think- 
ing that it would have seemed better to him to < judge > in 
hell than serve in heaven. Vergil's " his dantem iura Ca- 
tonem " might have been suggested by what Pindar says of 
Aiakos, Sat/Aovco-crt 8t*as iireCpawe(I. 8. 24). A far more simple 
way is the way of contrast, not of coincidence. From the 
First Olympian on, Pindar dwells on the contrast between the 
arpuToi ttcuScs 0cc5v and the too vulnerable sons of men. The 
opening of the Sixth Nemean — a Melesias ode — is a classic 
passage. True, Aiakos was not a god, but he was kcSvotcitos 
iirixOovivv, and his good fortune will never be paralleled. Taking 
to-ov in its prevalent sense of ' equal ', we learn that there is 
no pleasure, no transient pleasure (cf. O. 14. 5), in mortal life 
that will ever match the good fortune of Aiakos. No such lot 



BRIEF MENTION. 105 

is that of Pindar. A god may be airrjfmv Keap ( P. 10, 22) , not the 
singer who has to face the invidious task of praising an Athenian 
trainer who bore a familiar Athenian name. As compared with 
the unbroken felicity of Aiakos, or even with the mingled yarn 
of the average human life, Pindar's lot as an epinikian poet 
was not a happy one. In his profession, as in the days of 
Hesiod, the twin demons, Kotos and Phthonos, were rampant, 
and, being one of the ' irritabile genus ', Pindar was peculiarly 
sensitive to criticism. In every Greek community whose sons 
it was his part to praise, the same twin demons shewed their 
malignant faces. It is not without significance that Pindar 
throws into sharp relief the story of Aias and Odysseus (N. 7 
and 8) , and he was not slow to encounter his own detractors or 
those who assailed his victors. He was ready to shoot arrow 
for arrow, to give blow for blow, and he was, as was Melesias, 
<TVfiire<T€iv 8' dic/xa fiapv*. But he was also a master of the art of 
' turning the fair side outward '. He was not above soothing the 
susceptibilities of such good friends and wealthy clients as the 
Aiginetans. The Aiginetans had quick ears and retentive 
memories, and if he had uttered aught that reflected upon a 
great Aiakid like Neoptolemos, he did not fail to make amends 
to the ruffled Aiginetans (N. 7). 



But Mr. Whitmore has enhanced the embarrassment of 
Pindar's position by the acceptance of Mr. Paton's notion that 
Timosthenes was jealous of the success of his younger brother 
Alkimedon. True, this victory is the only Olympian victory 
credited to an Aiginetan, though the Aiginetan odes make up 
a fourth of the epinikia, and in like manner there is only one 
Pythian victory gained by an Aiginetan. The Aiginetan vic- 
tories seem limited to a narrow circle. But Timosthenes as the 
elder brother doubtless footed the bill and as the head of his 
clan took pride in the Olympian victory. It is sheer guess- 
work to ascribe to Timosthenes the victories recorded in the 
latter part of the poem. Other commentators with equal right, 
or equal wrong, ascribe them to Melesias — himself a famous 
athlete and therefore especially qualified to act as a trainer. 
He had been the trainer of Timosthenes, and Timosthenes may 
have insisted on the tribute to his old master. 



The Aiginetans were evidently full fed with the Athenian 
Melesias, and Mr. Whitmore may be right in his interpreta- 
tion of aveSpafiov vfxvw (v. 54) , as a reference to P.'s previous 



106 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. 

laudations of Melesias, who figures so. largely in the Sixth 
Nemean, which winds up with the words: SeXfavl kcv | raxo? 
$i' aAftas | Icrov eiiroifii M eA^criav, | ^ct/owv tc kcu io^os avioxov. But 
what was Pindar to do? In the majority of the boy odes the 
trainer is mentioned by name* It was a familiar courtesy, if 
not exactly a TtOfios. O. 10. 16 Has is to the victor as Patroklos 
to Achilles. N. 5. 49, an Aiginetan ode, Menander is cited, 
and as the relations between Athens and Aigina were not so 
strained at that time Pindar says: XPV & &*' 'A0avav t£ktov' 
aOkrjTalaiv c/a/xcv, a verse I am fond of citing when I urge the 
importance of a thorough training in Attic for those who under- 
take to wrestle with the Greek language. Add to this the 
three mentions of Melesias. The omissions may be accounted 
for. O. 11 is a very short ode and Has had been paid off in 
O. 10. In P. 11 those who believe in the prefigurement theory 
of the myth may see in Pylades and Orestes (v. 16) the types 
of trainer and trained. In N. 7 Pindar was too busy with 
Neoptolemos to think of anything else, and N. 8, at least accord- 
ing to Wilamowitz, he had eyes for no one but Deinias with 
whom he was hopelessly in love. But I must not expose myself 
to the critics of overstrained Pindaric exegesis. The subordi- 
nation of the victor in the boy odes is at any rate an instance of 
the stress the Greeks laid on arm^poavvrj. 



The latest commentary on O. 8 that I have seen is that of 
Cerrato, who translates the pivotal verse ' Nulla vi sara mai, 
che a tutti gli uomini egualmente piaccia ', and among all the 
various explanations favours the one given many years ago 
by Heyne : viam sibi parat ad laudem Melesiae aliptae ; in qua 
interserenda invidiam deprecatur. ' You can't please every- 
body ' ; and ' You can't please everybody ' is the upshot of Mr. 
Whitmore's exegesis — as it is the upshot of this Brief Mention. 

Poor old Heyne ! As an ancient Gottinger I have a kindly 
feeling toward the scholar who was once the pride and boast 
of the Georgia Augusta; for Gottingen will never be to me 
what it was to Ernst August — ' ein verflucht' Nest '. Poor old 
Heyne, overpraised in the beginning, underrated by a cabal of 
enemies in his latter days, he was after all a man. '< Heyne >\ 
says Carlyle, ' is not less interesting for what he did than for 
what he was ', and mindful of my own blunders I am fain to 
adopt his epitaph : Vixi et quern cursum dederat Fortuna peregi. 
It was pointed out by one of Wolf's accomplices that Heyne 
inflected the Greek imperative after the high Roman fashion, 
but some years ago I found that Wolf, or was it Wolf's editor? 
bestowed upon vi£<a the aor. inf. viW. At all events neither 



BRIEF MENTION. 107 

Heyne nor Wolf seems to have mixed up his genders as some 
of the ' meri principes ' have done and even in the matter of 
the inflexion of the Greek verb the leaders of philological 
studies in Germany have not all been guiltless. For proof-texts 
see the thirty-nine volumes of the Journal. I am not going to 
disfigure this page by the ugly parentheses against which one 
of my critics has vigorously protested. 



Turning over the pages of my Rabelais the other day I was 
surprised to find that he had attributed to 'Octavien ' the famous 
doctrine of Julius Caesar in his Analogia in which he warns 
against an ' inauditum atque insolens vocabulum ' ' tamquam 
scopulum '. To be sure I was inclined to pardon the false 
attribution because he used ' Octavianus ' instead of 'Augustus ', 
a bit of sacrilegious snobbery against which my soul has always 
revolted. But unfortunately Rabelais' slip called up sundry 
slips of my own as when not so long ago I paralleled the nod- 
ding of Father Homer in the matter of Nestor with the yawn 
of an M. P. over his own maiden speech, a yawn that elicited 
an ironical compliment from Disraeli. It is a familiar story but 
by a strange lapse I wrote ' Salisbury ' instead of ' Harrington * 
(A. J. P. XXXV 113). True, there are other and perhaps 
worse slips, and I am prompted to record this one because of 
my delight in the brilliant appreciation of that dull statesman by 
Lytton Strachey in his Eminent Victorians (pp. 322 foil.). 
Such false ascriptions are very common and may give rise to 
learned discussions. Pindar ascribes the rescue of Nestor to 
his son Antilochos (P. 6. 28), whereas Homer credits it to 
Diomed. Was this a lapse on the part of Pindar or a designed 
antagonism? But Pindar always reminds me of something, 
and I find that Landor's criticism of Pindar's plethora of gold 
ought not to have been charged against Aspasia's correspondent 
but Aspasia herself (A. J. P. XXXIX 431). 



Mr. Cudworth's Odes of Horace Englished into Rimed 
Verse Corresponding to the Original Metres calls up again the 
old question as to the relation between matter and form in the 
original poem. The new translator follows Mr. Conington's 
dictum that all Alcaics are to be rendered in the same metre, all 
Sapphics likewise in the same metre, and so throughout. Mr. 
Gladstone protested against the rule, and cited as a cogent proof 
the first seven odes of the Third Book. Others uphold it, and 
Professor Shorey says that the unity of the first six odes was 



108 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHILOLOGY. 

recognized by Porphyrio — f an ode sequence whose unity, like 
that of the sonnet sequences of modern poetry, depends on iden- 
tity of metre and general similarity of moral purpose and aes- 
thetic effect subsisting amid much diversity of detail \ It may be 
observed that Mr. Gladstone speaks of the first seven odes, and 
assuredly the seventh does not harmonize with the theory as to 
the compelling character of the Alcaic metre. As to Mr. Cud- 
worth's choice of corresponding metres — it is impossible for 
me to see anything convincing in his selection. But the whole 
matter has been discussed over and over again in various Brief 
Mentions— the latest being A. J. P. XXXVII 235, where the 
reader will find other references. Of the translation itself, 
which is not a metempsychosis, there is no space for a detailed 
criticism. 



D. M. R. : In 1917 the American Academy in Rome issued 
the first volume of Memoirs (Bergamo, Istituto Italiano 
d'Arti Grafiche), a continuation of two volumes of Supple- 
mentary Papers of the American School of Classical Studies. 
It is thoroughly Italian in appearance. The print is good and 
suggests the Roman styles of the Renaissance. The titles of 
the papers by former and present members of the Academy 
are as follows : The reorganization of the Roman priesthoods 
at the beginning of the Republic ; The Vatican Livy and the 
Script of Tours; The Aqua Traiana and the mills on the 
Janiculum; Ancient granulated jewelry of the Vllth century 
b. c. and earlier ; Bartolomeo Caporali ; Capita Desecta and 
marble coiffures ; and the military indebtedness of early Rome 
to Etruria. The frontispiece is a beautiful reproduction of 
a statue found in 1901 on the site of the Gardens of Sallust, 
which has been loaned by Mrs. Gardner to the Academy. The 
first paper is the last published article of Director Carter, 
who died last year while engaged in a Red Cross Mission to 
the Italian front, and who had already made many important 
contributions to the study of Roman Religion. The second 
paper is a learned palaeographical study in which Professors 
Rand and Howe differ from Shipley and maintain that the 
Reginensis (762) manuscript of Livy represents only an early 
stage of the Tours script. The third article is a scholarly 
study of remains found on the site of the Academy, by Van 
Buren and Stevens. The study of Granulated Jewelry by 
Curtis is in continuation of his previous work in this line and 
is a valuable contribution. The study of the neglected Bar- 
tolomeo Caporali is exhaustive, original, and abundantly illus- 
trated. The essay on Capita Desecta revives an old subject 
and rejects the theories of Heuzey, Reinach, Bernoulli and 



BRIEF MENTION. 109 

Gauckler, and concludes that Greek and Roman sculptors were 
more ready than we have been willing to admit to employ 
more than a single block in the making of a marble head. 
Mr. Crawford might have referred to the fact that heads 
have been found in Egypt with a separate piece for the coiffure 
(cf. Breasted in Art and Archaeology, IV, 1916, p. 239). 
McCartney in his article shows that in weapons and methods 
of warfare Rome was completely subject to Etruria. In the 
discussion of the helmet, a reference to the article of Schroder 
in Jahrbuch des d. arch. Inst. XXVII, 1912, pp. 317 f . is lacking, 
and for the chariot refer also to Mercklin, Der Rennwagen in 
Griechenland, Leipzig, 1909. The idea of standards is Mace- 
donian and Hellenistic as well as Asiatic, and to say that all 
agree in ascribing the trumpet to the Etruscans is hardly 
correct as it occurs on a sixth century Greek vase of Amasis 
and other Greek vases such as Baumeister's Bilder no. 258, 
and also on Greek coins showing the victory of Samothrace. 



W. P. M. : Horace in the English Literature of the Eigh- 
teenth Century. By Caroline Goad. Yale Studies in English, 
No. 58. 1918. 641 pp. $3.00 net. This is a careful study of the 
use of Horace by the great English writers of the eighteenth 
century. A long appendix (pp. 291-620) gives all the allusions 
to, and quotations of, Horace in the works of the authors con- 
sidered. The book is well written, and there is an excellent in- 
dex. The author finds that in the eighteenth century " Horace 
was the most frequently quoted and deferred to of any classic 
author " ; also, that there was a noticeable tendency to use the 
Satires and Epistles more than the Odes. It is interesting to read 
that both Pope and Johnson could speak of ' disiecta membra 
poetae ', and that Johnson could make Horace say 'inter stellas 
Luna minores \ On p. 487 there is a quotation from Fielding, 
' that ingens solitudo complained of by Horace ', with the note 
that there is no such expression as ingens solitudo in Horace. 
It might have been added that the expression comes from Mar- 
tial, iii. 44, 3, ' quacumque venis, fuga est et ingens | circa te, 
Ligurine, solitudo \ In the quotation on p. 19, ' Stultum ' should 
be ' Stultorum \