A History of Classical Philology (2024)

From The Art and Popular Culture Encyclopedia

A History of Classical Philology from the Seventh Century BC to the Twentieth Century AD (1911) is a book on the history of classical philology by Harry Thurston Peck.

PREFACE

Long experience has convinced the author that, as a rule, classical students, even those who arc pursuing the most advanced courses, axe very imperfectly informed as to the history of the subjects upon which they are engaged. They may be thoroughly trained in various ramifications of Classical Philology, while knowing little or nothing of Classical Philology as a whole. It seems an anomalous thing that any university student should proceed to his doctorate in Greek and Latin without ever having had a conspectus of the entire field of which he is familiar with a part; that, for example, he should be able to give no intelligent account of the Alexandrian School; that the significance of the Renaissance to a classicist should not be clear to him; that Scaliger, Lipsius, Casaubon, Bentley, Corssen and Lachmann should be little more than names; and that he should have learned nothing genetically about literary criticism, text criticism, and scientific linguistics.

Yet such is very often the case; and though it is to be regretted, it is not a reasonable cause for censure. There exist no manuals at the present time to give this general information in a lucid, coherent manner, and without losing sight of the strand which unites all classical studies and makes them parts of a splendid whole. Grafenhan’s book in four volumes, the publication of which was begun in 1843, course, quite obsolete to-day. Reinach’s Manuel de Philologie Classique is admirable as a work of reference, but, with all its closely packed information, it does not form a continuous narrative. The treatise by Dr. Sandys, published only a few years ago, is a monument to his scholarship and wide reading; yet the multiplicity of details contained in its three volumes will not unnaturally deter a student, unless he be a very heroic seeker after knowledge.

The present work has, therefore, been written with the desire to give a comprehensive and comprehensible knowledge of how classical studies were first developed, and of that gradual evolution which has made Classical Philology a science, possessing at the same time some very distinctly marked aesthetic phases. It has seemed best to mention the names of only such scholars as have helped on this evolution by adding something to the sum of human knowledge. The adoption of such a plan has made it possible to compress into a volume of con- venient size all that is essential; while the bibliographical references will enable the reader to pursue more exhaus- tively any particular subject that has here been touched upon. It is hoped that the book may be of some prac- tical service to students of the classics, in helping them to see and understand the unity which in their studies is too often obscured by matters of secondary importance.

Harry Thurston Peck.

New York,

March 29, 1911.

I. THE GENESIS OF PHILOLOGICAL STUDIES IN GREECE

The origins of the Hellenic people are exceedingly obscure, and they take us back to a remote antiquity. The fact that there was no generic name for the race until after the time when the Homeric poems were composed is a very interesting and instructive fact. One cannot even say that the Greeks were hom*ogeneous; and a great deal of the most modern research has served only to darken counsel and to expose the fallacy of earlier theories. Certain it is that, during the Stone Age and afterwards, there streamed over the Grecian peninsula great waves of migratory peoples from the northeast, r They forced their way to the southern point of the Morea, just as they also found homes in southern Italy in the Grecian islands, and a sure foothold in Asia Minor.

It is a picturesque hypothesis which views the latter country as having once been peopled by an effeminate race of Semitic origin, tracing their descent through polyandrous mothers, and worshipping female deities, among whom the Great Mother, afterwards called Cybele, was supreme. That these enervated Canaanitish shepherds should have been subsequently overcome by a horde of virile conquerors from Thrace is another part of the same ethnic theory. These conquerors, tracing their descent through their fathers and worshipping the great male thundering deity, Bronton or Zeus, were possibly true Hellenes, and they established a civilisation of their own in Asia, where they ruled as an aristocracy in the states and cities which they subsequently founded.*

Yet this is only one of many theories, and it presents as many diflaculties as it explains. The importance of it lies in the fact that it serves to show how very far back into the past we must look for anything like a beginning of that culture which came afterwards to be regarded as essentially Hellenic. The explorations at Mycenae and Tiryns and elsewhere, though attesting the antiquity of certain of the arts, leave us still at a loss regarding the racial affinities of the early Greeks. One is justified in asserting nothing more than that the lands which became subsequently Hellenized were first populated by sections of the Mediterranean race comprising the so-called Pelas- gians, the Iberians, the Ligurians, and the Libyans.* A later migration from the north, moving slowly southward, overwhelmed the original inhabitants of what was destined to be known afterwards as Hellas, or Greece. Professor G. W. Botsford has described in a very interesting manner

•See Ramsay, in the Journal of Hellenic Studies, k. 351; and Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, pp. 28-54 (New York and London, 1892).

•See Sergi, The Mediterranean Race. Eng. trans. (London, rgoi).

GENESIS OF PHILG.LOGICAL STUDIES IN GREECE 7

the nature of this migration.^ They came in bands which we call tribes, each under its chief. Their warriors travelled on foot, dressed in skins and armed with pikes, and with bows and arrows, while their women and chil- dren rode in two-wheeled ox-carts. They found Greece, their future home, a rugged, mountainous country, with narrow valleys and only a few broad plains. Every- where were dense forests, haunted by lions, wild boars, and wolves.’’ These Greeks of the Tribal Age were scmi- nomadic in their habits; since at first they built mere huts of brush and clay, which they readily abandoned, and they must for centuries have shifted their uncertain habitations. At the west of their new country the coQ.st- line was nearly straight and with no harbours. “But those who came to the eastern coast found harbours everywhere and islands near at hand. They began at once to make small boats and to push off to the islands.

“But they must have been astonished when they saw for the first time strange black vessels, much larger than their own, entering their bays. These were Phoenician ships from Sidon, an ancient commercial city, and in them came ‘ greedy merchant men, with countless gauds ’

• Botsford, A History of the Orient and Greece (New York and London, 1904). See also E. Meyer, Forsekungerv zur altcn Gcschichte^ vol. i. (Halle, 1892); Hall, The Oldest Civilisation of Greece (London, 1901); and Ridgeway, The Early Age of Greece (Cambridge, 1901, foil.). A recent, yet not fully accepted view, regards the Pelasgians as having worked out this civilisation, the fruits of which were appropriated by the true Hellenic invaders from the north.

for trading with the natives. Though in most respects the Greeks were then as barbarous as the North Ameri- can Indians, they were eager to learn and to imitate the ways of the foreigners. The chieftains along the east coast welcomed Asiatic arts and artisans. From these strangers they gradually learned to make and use bronze tools and weapons, and to build in stone. Contented in these homes, they outgrew their fondness for roving. Skilled workmen from the East built walled palaces for the native chiefs; artists decorated these new dwellings, painted, carved, and frescoed, made vases and polished gems. Those chieftains who were wise enough to receive this civilisation gained power as well as wealth by means of it. With their bronze weapons they conquered their uncivilised neighbours, and, in course of time, formed small kingdoms, each centring in a strongly fortified castle.”

The contradictions which meet us in all accounts of

early Greece make any positive hypothesis untenable.

/

But they do give us an insight into the character of the Greek genius as we have come to know it. There is much plausibility in the view that these Hellenes were racially connected with the Celtic peoples, and that they were not originally of one single stock. Restless, brave, mercurial, full of curiosity, their nomadic life for many centuries made them more brilliant than stable. Po- litically, they also afford a parallel with the Celts, in that

GENESIS OE PHILOLOGICAL STUDIES IN GREECE 9

they lacked the national cohesiveness which was Roman. Their seafaring gave them a larger outlook than the Latins had. It made for separation rather than for unity. On the other hand, it stimulated the intellect, and enhanced the qualities of imagination and specula- tion. To the last, the Greeks were adventurous, ingen- ious, inquisitive, and ever seeking after something new and interesting.

The antiquity of Greek culture explains why the oldest monument of Hellenic literature, the Homeric epic, is not a rude specimen of the poetic art, but rather a bit of exquisite workmanship, wrought out with wonderful management of light and colour and melodious sound. It is the climax, the final masterpiece, of epic poetry. Although the Homeric epics tell the story of a fairly primi- tive people, there is nothing primitive in the mode of their construction or the deftness of touch that is every- where to be discovered in them. The Iliad and the Odyssey, though very much older, assume a fairly definite form somewhere in the seventh century b.c., when writing was first generally introduced among the Greeks. Recent scholarship is not indisposed to view these two poems as representing each an organic whole, however numerous may have been the changes which both underwent in parts.‘ It does not concern us, indeed, to determine

‘ See Blass, Die Interfolationen in der Odyssee (Halle, 1904); and Br6al, Pour Mieus Connattre Homire (Paris, 1906).

10

HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

whether there actually lived an individual Homer. The student of Classical Philology regards the Homeric epic as a starting-point from which to trace the gradual devel- opment of intellectual pursuits among the Greeks within that period of time when their history can be tested by undoubted facts. Before the general use of writing, there could have been little to be classed under the name of formal scholarship, although for fifteen centuries there was an evolution of the arts which scholarship endeavours to study and explain. Before the Homeric period there must have been thousands of poets who became masters of the lyric, and after that of the epic. We know that Greek tradition held Thrace to be the earliest home of this semi-religious literature, associated with the names of mythical bards such as Orpheus, Musaeus, Eumolpus, and Thamyris. Finally, we know that the centre of cultivation shifted from Thrace to the more genial shores of Ionia, whence came the completed epic which is as- cribed to Homer.

The chief importance of the epos for our present pur- pose is found in its relation to literary study, to criticism, and even, after a fashion, to scientific speculation, to religion, and to philosophy. The part which the Iliad and the Odyssey played in the early period of Greek education was extraordinary. These poems were, indeed, the basis of all training that was not purely physical. In the schools, which we know to have existed as early

GENESIS OF PmOLOGICAE STUDIES IN GREECE II

as 700 B.C., Homer was read, not so much as literature, but as an ultimate authority on history, politics, ethics, warfare, medicine, and even religion. Questions that involved titles to lands were settled by an appeal to the Homeric poems, which were consulted according to the theory of their plenary inspiration. In the Odyssey this theory is in fact expressly stated. A poet is one who is inspired by the Muses; and the hard Phemius says to Odysseus; “I am self-taught; but it was a god that breathed into my mind all the various ways of song.”

A touch of orientalism is found in the notion of Demo- critus (in the fifth century, b.c.), to the effect that all great poets are mad — that is to say, carried away by a sort of divine frenzy. Such a belief accounts for the place which Homer, the greatest of all the poets, held in the intellectual life of Hellas. In the study of his epics, we find the germs of many other studies. Lists were made of the unusual words contained in them. The rela- tions of the gods to each other and to mankind were all thought to be explained by Homer. An apt quotation from the Iliad or Odyssey would silence an opponent in debate, as effectually as a pointed text from the Bible would end a controversy among the Puritans. Indeed, what the Hebrew Bible is to the orthodox Jews, what the New Testament is to the orthodox Protestant Chris- tians, and what the KorS,n is to orthodox Muhammadans, — this the Homeric poems were to the early Greeks. A

12

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

reverence for Homeric learning was entertained among them at the time when their authentic history begins. Its strong influence affected the minds of men in later centuries, as we shall presently have occasion to see. Even in our own days its existence is discernible in the minutely critical studies which modern scholars have made regarding every topic that was even casually touched upon by Horner.^ It may be added that much of the same inspiration which was ascribed to the author of the Iliad and the Odyssey, was also attributed to the minor poets, commonly called the Cyclic Poets, who largely imitated Homer and confined themselves within a certain round or cycle of tradition. There were really two cycles, one a Mythic Cycle, relating to the genealogies of the gods and the battles of the Titans and to cosmogony; and the other a Trojan Cycle, based upon stories con- nected with the Trojan War. The most celebrated of the Cyclic poems were the Cypria, at one time ascribed to Homer, but later to Stasinus or Hegesias, the JEthiopis of Arctinus, and the Nostoi of Agias, not to mention the parodies by Pigres.^ There were likewise the so-called

^ See, for example, Seymour, Life in the Homeric Age, with the bib- liography, pp. xiii-xvi (New York, 1908); and Adam, The Religiotts Teachers of Greece, pp. 21-67 (Edinburgh, 1908).

• The chief authority for the Cyclic poets is the Chrestomatheia of

Proclus (412-485 A.D.) in the extracts preserved by Photius. See Welcker, Der Epische Cyclus (Bonn, 1865); Lawton, The Successors of Homer (New York, 1898); and for the meaning of the word cydicus, a paper by D. B. Munro m The Journal of Hellenic Studies (1883).

GENESIS OF PHILOLOGICAL STUDIES IN GREECE 13

Homeric Hymns, and the three works that remain to us imder the name of Hesiod (c. 700 B.C.), whose Theogony is the oldest poem that we possess on Greek Mythology.

When the Greeks came to know much more than they had known about the geography of the world in which they lived, and when by experience they grew more thoroughly enlightened as to other knowledge which came to them in many ways, then they found that Homer was not to be accepted literally and as a wholly inspired source of wisdom. Thus there arose a Higher Criticism of the Homeric writings as there has arisen a Higher Criticism of the Bible. When so much depended upon the understanding of a line or of a passage, it was essen- tial that every one should be quite sure that the line or the passage was correctly quoted. Even the variation of a single word, or the interpolation of a single verse, might be a matter of extreme importance. Yet the Homeric poems were not, at first, written down according to an accepted text. They differed in many places. Parts of them were recited, detached from the whole, at festivals and public entertainments, by the rhapsodes or de- claimers. Therefore, in the sixth century B.C., a recen- sion of them was necessary so that there should be standard editions of the Iliad and of the Odyssey.

That such a recension was actually carried out is scarcely to be doubted, though to whom it is due no one can surely say. Tradition ascribes it to the Athenian

14

HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

“tyrant,” the brilliant and sagacious Pisistratus, who is said to have committed the work (about 530 b.c.) to a commission of four learned Homeric specialists.^ In this, Pisistratus is said to have followed out a plan conceived by his relative and predecessor, Solon. The tradition referred to is merely a tradition and is based only upon the authority of later writers such as Cicero, Pausanias, Josephus, Libanius, and Tzetzes. Therefore the ascrip- tion of this standard Homeric tejrt to Pisistratus is not necessarily accurate. It has been the custom to credit Pisistratus with an ejrtraordinary number of innovations, — political, social, literary, and artistic. Thus, he is said to have enforced a series of sumptuary laws; to have sup- plied the poor with cattle and seed so that they might leave Athens and betake themselves to agriculture; to have erected beautiful buildings; to have regulated the religious rites, and to have instituted the superb festivd

^See Flach, Peisistraios und seim Utterarische Thdtighdt (Tubingen, 1885). The Greek grammarian Diomedes, quoted by Villoison, says that a staff of seventy (or seventy-two) men of letters took part in the work. It has been noticed in modem times that neither Herodotus nor Thucydides nor Plato nor Aristotle, who all frequently mention both Homer and Pisistratus, makes any allusion whatever to this al- leged recension of the Homeric text. So significant is this omission, that modem students of the subj’ect (for example, Wilamowitz) are dis- posed to deny that the story about Pisistratus has any basis of fact at all. One may hold a more moderate opinion and regard Pisistratus as having rearranged the text for purposes of recitation at the Panathenaic festival, yet with no mmute consideration of particular lines. See infra^ p. 20.

of the Greater Panathenaea; to have encouraged Thespis to produce his primitive tragedies at Athens, thus pro- moting the Drama; and to have been the first person in Greece to collect and open a library for public use. Hence it is natural that the establishment of a standard Homeric text should have been ascribed to Pisistratus. In any case it does not matter whether he or some one else brought it into form. There is reason for supposing that he com- pelled the public declaimers to recite the different portions of the poems according to a definite arrangement; and indeed that a recension was undertaken in his time is highly probable, since the quotations from Homer made by writers prior to the Alexandrian period exhibit very slight variations. The Alexandrians themselves made few im- portant changes. We may he confident that our text of Homer is substantially identical with that which was read five hundred years before the beginning of the Christian era. Thus, one hundred and fifty-two passages from Homer are cited by twenty-nine writers after and in- cluding Herodotus. They amount to about four hundred and eighty lines, but they contain less than a dozen lines which are not in the ordinary text.'

If Pisistratus ever made an Homeric text, it was not the only official text of the two great epics, since we also hear of “ city editions ” or “ civic editions," which

'See Ludwich, Dk Somer-vulgata als mdexandrinisch erwiesm (Leipzig, 1898).

were standards each in its own country.* The important fact is that at so early a period there should be found a beginning of Text Criticism in which, as now, many sources of knowledge must have been drawn upon — chronology, history, geography, and, to a certain extent, esthetics, more especially the aesthetics of language.

It is interesting to remember that Solon was accused of having interpolated a line in the Iliad so as to make it appear that the Athenians had taken part in the Trojan War, and that Pisistratus had inserted a line in the Odyssey so as to bring in the name of Theseus, the national hero of Athens. We have, therefore, as early as the sixth century, indications of all the difficulties which beset text critics in modem times — variant editions, errors due to carelessness, others due to ignorance, and also conscious al- terations to suit the purpose of the transcriber. Nor was Homer the only author whose text sulfercd in this way; for there is a story to the effect that Onomacritus was detected in altering the oracles of Musajus and that he was punished for it.

There is some significance in the legend that the first care- fully prepared edition of Homer was made in Athens, rather

^ Seven of these “city editions” are noted — the Massalotic, the' Si- nopic, the Chian, the C 3 ^rian, the Argive, the Cretan, and the I,K 3 sbian. The first four were Ionic, and the last three were .^.olic. All of these editions were supposed to have been copies made from the archetype prepared under the direction of Pisistratus. The Greek term for “dty editions” is iKd6<r€is /card T6Xeis.

GENESIS OF PHILOLOGICAL STUDIES IN GREECE

than among the Asiatic lonians, who had represented a higher form of culture. Athens was destined to be- come the intellectual centre of the Greek world, though it had not yet won supremacy. Ionia has the credit of having first established regular schools with paid teachers for the purpose of imparting a general education. The teaching of which we read in Homer was, of course, physical training with some instruction in music and medicine. The public instruction given to youths in the Doric States such as Sparta and Crete had very much the same character.^ The Bidiaei and Paedonomi, under whose care the Spartan boy was placed after the age of seven, trained the young in gymnastics, in the use of arms, and in choral singing. For such literary education as a man was expected to possess (usually only reading, writing, and a little arithmetic) he depended chiefly upon the instruction which was given by his parents. It is stated by Plutarch that the semi-mythical Lycurgus brought copies of the Homeric poems to Sparta, and made a knowledge of them a requirement in the Spartan schools; but if so, this must have been due to the fact that he had travelled in Asia Minor and had introduced at home a practice which he had observed abroad. Among the lonians, however, literary teaching in regular Schools is found as early as the seventh century b.c., and as these schools were then in a very prosperous condition and

^ See Monroe, Source Book of the History of Education (Greek and

Roman Period) (New York, 1901). c

l8 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

very largely attended, they must have been established long before. Herodotus (vi. 27) mentions a boys’ school in Chios in the year 500 B.C.; and at the time of the in- vasion of Xerxes, when the Athenians left their own city and took refuge at Troezen, one of the first things they did was to arrange for their school system during the period of their temporary exile.* The Mitylenacans pimished disloyal allies by depriving them of the right to maintain schools. Charondas, about 650 b.c., made state provision for literary instruction in Sicily.*

The teaching of literature appears to have been de- veloped, first of all, as an adjunct to instruction in morals. The earliest intellectual exercise of boys at school, and probably before they had begun to attend school, was the study of the Homeric poems. This anticipated even the learning of the alphabet; for the alphabet was first taught by the jpanfiancn-^’s, while the Iliad and the Odyssey were read and recited to growing boys, who were urged to learn them gradually by heart. But the early apprecia- tion of the epics was not a literary appreciation at all; and to understand the prominence given to this study, we must remember the peculiar view which the Greeks took with regard to Homer. He was not so much the great poet, the master of heroic verse. He was rather a moral teacher, an ethical guide, who drew his characters with

^ Plutarch, Themistodest lo-

• Diodorus Siculus, xii. 12.

GENESIS OE PHILOLOGICAi STUDIES IN GREECE ig

a conscious purpose of exhibiting in their actions the qualities that men should emulate or shun. As late as Horace who, like all Romans, was a great lover of the concrete, we find this same thought expressed.

“ Wliile you are declaiming at Rome,” he says to his friend Lollius, “ I have been reading over at Prseneste the writer of the Trojan War, who tells us better and more clearly than either Chrysippus or Grantor what is noble and what is base, what is expedient and what is not.”

And farther on, “ Again, as to what virtue and wis- dom are able to effect, he (Homer) has set before us a useful model in the person of Ulysses.”

The strenuous insistence on a thorough knowledge of Homer was therefore due, first of all, to his moral teach- ing. We must remember also that the formal education given in school was much less valued by the Greeks than it is by us. Plato says in his Laws that a knowledge of writing is necessary only so far as to enable one barely to write and read; and that to write fast or with elegance is outside of the range of ordinary education. There may even have existed, as Mahaffy suggests, a prejudice against clear and regular script, because it would recall the writing in books which was done by copyists who were slaves. Wlien we say that a person writes “ a clerkly hand ” the remark is not altogether complimentary. Hence, the average Greek probably wrote with more or less diffi-

20

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

culty, and did not have, as a rule, much occasion to use the accomplishment. But inasmuch as he memorised most of his learning, he was the more deeply saturated with it.

So it about that the universal familiarity with Homer resulted in a very general criticism of the Homeric poems. As Mr. Saintsbury well says, “ It was impossible that a people so acute and so philosophically given as the Greeks, should be soaked in Homer witlrout being tempted to exercise their critical faculties upon the poems.” ^ Such was indeed the case; and thoughtful men began to ask themselves whether a great moral teacher who represented the gods as deceitful, faithless, and debauched could be really a moralist at all. Like- wise, contradictions and statements were pointed out which practical knowledge showed to be untrue. Then began an attempt to give an allegorical or a rationalistic inter- pretation of Homer, which should preserve his authority and yet reconcile it with the facts of human life. We find traces of the Solar Myth at about this time, and in- genious interpretations like those which the Rabbinical writers have given of portions of the Hebrew Bible. Here is the beginning of Literary Criticism — though not “ literary ” in the rightful sense, for it had to do chiefly with mere words and not the form of Homeric and other poetry. Nevertheless, it was a beginning; and in succeed-

1 Saintsbury, A Eistory of Criticism, i. pp. lo-is CNew York, igoo).

GENESIS or PHILOLOGICAL STUDIES IN GREECE 21

ing centuries it became sesthetic, treating literature purely as the product of conscious or unconscious art.

It was in Asia Minor that this early criticism had its birth. The lonians were the first, perhaps, to study Homer systematically. They were, therefore, the first to reject his mythical interpretation of nature in the effort to discover a rational and physical interpretation of it. They inquired, “ What is the first principle and source of all things? ” and with this inquiry Greek Philosophy begins. Before Pisistratus had undertaken to make a standard edition of the Homeric text, Thales, Anaxi- mander, and Anaximenes, all of Miletus, and Heracl*tus of Ephesus, taught the intimate connection between life and matter, the one dependent on the other, according to the doctrine known as Hylozoism. Thus Thales {c. 640 B.C.) believed the first principle to be water, since moisture is necessary to life. Anaximander made the first principle an unknown element to which he gave the name amipov, from which by eternal motion all things were produced. Anaximenes found the original element to be air, whence came everything through the processes of condensation and rarefaction. On the other hand, Heracl*tus (c. 500 B.C.), the last of this so-called Ionian School, taught the immanence in all things of fire, and the doctrine of an eternal flux.

Pythagoras (c. 500 b.c.) was the most remarkable of these earlier philosophers, and it was he who developed

22

HISTOSV OJ CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

a new form of religion and of philosophy, while he was the first great mathematician to arise among the Greeks. In fact, as early as the seventh century, mathe- matics began to be studied, (mainly geometry) which the Greeks learned from the Egyptians. Dr. Cajori re- marks: ^ “ Just as Americans in our time go to Germany to study, so early Greek scholars visited the land of the pyramids. Thales, (Enopides, Pythagoras ... all sat at the feet of the Eg)^tian priests for instruction. While Greek culture is, therefore, not primitive, it commands our enthusiastic admiration. The speculative mind of the Greek at once transcended questions pertaining merely to the practical wants of everyday life. It pierced into the ideal relations of things and revelled in the study of science as science.” *

Thales introduced the study of Geometry into Greece and with him begins the study of scientific Astronomy. The attempt to square the circle is as old as Anaxagoras. All of the Ionic philosophers pursued the study of Mathe- matics. Pythagoras, however, stands alone. Around the life and personality of this great genius there hangs, as it were, a mist of tradition such as envelops all of the most

•See Al l m a nn , GreeJ Geometry from Thales to EucUd (Dublin, 1889); Tannfiiy, La Glometrie Grecque (Palis, 1887); and Cajori, A History cf Memeniary Mathematics (New York, 1907).

® An abstract oi a history of geometry in Greece, written by Eudemus, is preserved in the commentaries by Produs (41a ajd.) on the first book of Euclid.

GENESIS OF PHILOLOGICAL STUDIES IN GEEECE 23

remarkable characters of history, from Moses to Napoleon. Pythagoras was born in the island of Samos, but after visiting Egypt and the East, he finally made his residence at Crotona, in Southern Italy, where he established a cult the members of which, drawn mainly from the aris- tocratic class, formed a brotherhood under the leadership of Pythagoras. They were bound by a vow to study his theories of religion and philosophy. Three hundred of them formed the highest caste; and they were admitted only by Pythagoras himself, who judged them largely through his knowledge of physiognomy. There was some- thing mystic about all this, for they took an oath of secrecy according to the maxim of their master: “ Everything is not to be told to everybody.” Pythagoras taught them temperance, self-control, and an ethical righteousness which should make their lives reflect “ the music of the spheres,” that is to say, the order and harmony of the universe. This principle of harmony ran through all the PjTthagorean teaching, which comprised music, arith- metic, geometry, and astronomy. There is a story which tells how he discovered the relations of the musical scale by accidentally observing the various sounds produced by hammers of different weights striking upon an anvil, and suspending by strings other weights equal to those of the respective hammers. He is said to have first dis- covered the so-called Pons Asinorum in geometry. In Religion he taught the transmigration of souls — a doc-

24

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

trine which he had probably learned in India. The essence of all things is Number, according to his teaching; but no existing works, bearing the name of Pythagoras, are gen- uine. His influence among the Italian Greeks, and after- wards among the Athenians, was very great; so that the Pythagorean cult endured for many centuries.* Finally, in the sixth century, the Eleatic School of philosophy arose, numbering among its most distinguished teachers, Xenophanes, already mentioned as having rejected the Homeric idea of God, with Parmenides and Zeno, both of whom asserted that the senses cannot teach us truth, but that verity is apprehended only by the mind.*

The study of nature, which began with the Ionian School, led to the origin of another science. Homer had long been the basis of geographical knowledge. On his statements, Hesiod and the other early poets had depended. It may be said without exaggeration that interest in geography, so far as it had existed before the middle of the seventh century, was spread among the Greeks en- tirely through the poems of Homer. The children in the schools, and the elders who heard the declamations of the rhapsodes, thus became acquainted with the cities, rivers,

^ Die Pythagoreer (Posen, 1841); Chaignet, Pythagore a

la PhUosopMe Pythagorieme (Paris, 1873). For his so-called Golden Verses, see GSttling’s edition of Hesiod (Gotha, 1843); and Schnee- berger. Die goldenen SprUche des Pythagoras (Miinneistadt, 1862).

‘Windelband, Eistory of Ancient Philosophy, pp. 46-52. English translation (New York, 1899).

GENESIS or PHILOLOGICAX STUDIES IN GREECE 2$

and mountains of Greece, and (especially from the Cata- logue of Ships) with the names of the Hellenic tribes. But after first-hand knowledge had been gained by travel, learned men began to formulate a more exact view of physical geography, so that with them the science of Geography began.' Anaximander of Miletus is said to have made upon a large scale a map of the world as he supposed it to be. His compatriot, Hecataeus (c. 500 B.C.), constructed a bronze plaque or possibly a globe,* on which the sphere of the earth, the sea, and the courses of the rivers were given. Maps of countries, however, had not yet be- come important; though descriptive notes were collected from persons who travelled on business or from curiosity. In this manner the data necessary for the preparation of Descriptive Geography were gradually accumulated. To this the great contributors were Hanno of Carthage, who explored the western coast of Africa, his countryman Himilco, and such of the Greeks as came into direct contact with the Persians and Egyptians.* Hecataeus corrected the chart of Anaximander, adding a commen- tary of which fragments are preserved in quotations. This is the first geographical work written by any Greek.

• See Bunbury, A History of Ancient Geography (London, 1883).

^xiXmos tIvo^ (Herod, v. 125).

3 See Antichan, Les Grands Voyages de Dicoicoertes des Andens (Paris, rSgr); and infra, pp. 34-35-

■•Edited by C. and Th. Muller (Paris, 1841). See the monograph by SchSfier on Hecatseus (Berlin, 1885).

26

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Writers like Anaximander and Hecatseus committed their observations to Prose. Until their time, poetry had been employed even in philosophical discussion — an example followed by Lucretius in later times among the Romans. But descriptive geography cast aside the restraints of metrical form, though still maintaining a highly poetical character. Only by degrees did it become true prose, but was filled with phrases and turns of expression bor- rowed from the epic writers. Those who employed it were known as Logographi; ‘ and presently they began to mingle, with their descriptions of countries, anecdotes and remarks not strictly geographical. In their works, therefore, we find the beginnings of History, which was at first nothing more than annals very simply written. Its true development comes later with Herodotus, who skil- fully combined descriptive geography with the story of nations, interwoven also with personal observations, so that he deserves the name which Grafenhan has given him of “ the Humboldt of Antiquity.”

Thus it will be seen that out of the study and criticism of Homer there came the elements of many kinds of learning. Homeric study fostered mathematical, geo- graphical, astronomical, and philosophical research, just as it led other poets to write in imitation of their great model. Though Homer gradually ceased to be viewed as a universal teacher, yet the devotion of the Greeks, so

^ TioyoypdtpoL,

GENESIS OE PHILOLOGICAL STITDIES IN GREECE 2 ^

long given to his poetry, exercised an influence which made it endure far beyond the time when he was held to be a wholly inspired writer. His great lines had become a part of every man’s intellectual equipment. His phrases, his epithets, his many gnomic utterances, were as firmly embedded in the daily speech of the Greeks, as those of the English Bible and of Shakespeare are embedded in our own. In the study of him we are to find the sources of Greek learning. Afterward, while forsaking him as a guide in morals and in science, men still turned to him as a great master of language and an unconscious model of strong yet harmonious expression.

[Bibliography. — In addition to the works cited in the preceding chapter, see also Grafenhan, GeschichU dcr Classisclien Fhilologie, i (Bonn, 1843) J Reinach, Manml de Fhilologie Classiqm, 2d ed. 2 vols. (Paris, 1885); Eggcr, Essai sur VHistoire de la Cri- tique chez les Grecs (Paris, 1887); Sandys, A History of Classical Scholarship, i. pp. 1-5 1, 2d ed. (Cambridge, 1908); Jebb, Homer (Glasgow, 1887); Schomann, Griechische Altertkilmer, 4th ed. (Berlin, 1897); Handbook of Homeric Study (London, 1905);

Cara, Gli Hethei Felasgi (Rome, 1902); E. Curtius, History oj Greece, Eng. trans,, 5 vols. (New York, 1868-1872); Mahaffy, What have the Greeks done for Modern Civilisation? (New York and London, 1909).]

II. THE PRE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

(500-322 B.C.)

Throughout the sixth and seventh centuries, suprem- acy in Greek culture had been held by the lonians of Asia Minor. To them were due the intellectual efforts which have been described in the preceding chapter. In Hellas proper, however, both Athens and Sparta had achieved a prominence which was full of latent possibili- ties. The wise and temperate rule of Solon and Pisis- tratus in Athens, and the institutions which at Sparta were ascribed traditionally to Lycurgus, had fitted each of these States to play the important r61es by which they are best known in history. Athens and Sparta were different in almost every respect. Athens was democratic, brilliant, and given first of all to intellectual activity. Sparta was aristocratic, subjected to a strict discipline, and caring first of all for warlike power.^ These two States had been gradually acquiring control over the territories which touched their own; so that in the sixth century they became possessed of a civilisation based

^ See Jaonet, Les XnsiUutions Societies ... a Sparte, 2d ed. (Paris, 1880).

28

THE PR®-AlEXAiroRIAN PERIOD

29

upon strength of body and mind, and ripe for the further cultivation which was to be developed in them.

It was in the year 500, that a darkly threatening cloud began to loom over the Greeks of Asia Minor. Their proximity to Persia had always been a danger. Loving liberty, they gradually resented the burden of a despotism which the Persians fostered by imposing petty tyrants upon communities which had been wholly free. In the year 500, their smouldering discontent broke out into a flame. There was a general uprising of the Ionian cities. A republic was proclaimed in Miletus. Soon the cities on the Hellespont and almost the whole of Caria and Cyprus joined in a revolt An appeal for help was made to the Western Greeks; and though Athens and Eretria were the only States to give immediate aid by sending a small fleet, this marked the beginning of the great Persian Wars which constitute an epoch in the history of Greece and of the world. For the moment, the Ionian fleet was shattered by the Persian allies from Egypt and Phoenicia. Miletus, after a siege of six years (500-494 B.C.), was taken and destroyed in the madness of a frightful vengeance. The whole of Ionia was ravaged with oriental cruelty. It was then that Athens stood forth as the champion of the race; and against her Darius, “ the great king,” launched two vast expeditions of ships and men. The first was wrecked at Athos. The second came to a disastrous end on the plain of

3 °

HISTORY OF CXASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Marathon (490 B.C.). One hundred thousand Persians under Datis and Artaphemes were pitted there against ten thousand Athenians under Miltiades. The Asiatics were routed with great loss, and the Athenian victory sent a thrill of triumph throughout all Hellas.

Modem historians believe that the exploit of the Athe- nians was greatly exaggerated then, and that it has been misimderstood ever since. Professor K. F. Geldner says, “ Probably the Greeks, after having avoided battle for a long time, fell upon the Persians as they were departing, and especially after their powerful cavalry had already embarked.” ‘ If the able and energetic Darius had com- manded in person, the result would doubtless have been different. Making all allowances, however, it was in effect a victory for Athens, since the Persians abandoned the campaign and returned to Asia. Therefore, Athens leaped at once to a position of great influence which was enhanced when, ten years later, the new Persian king, Xerxes, sought vengeance. An enormous army under his command marched through Macedonia and Thrace, and an overwhelming fleet sailed forth to Thessalonica. The Spartans, who now rushed to arms, suffered the glorious defeat of Thermopylae. The Athenian fleet routed the Persians off Salamis; while both Athenians and Spartans united in shattering the disordered troops of Persia behind their fortifications at Plataea. Finally, ’• See also Schauer, Die ScUacht bei Marathon (Berlin, 1893).

THE PRiE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

31

the lonians, on the same day, being encouraged by the sight of Grecian ships, shook off once more the shackles of their servitude and destroyed the sixty thousand men who remained out of the great host that had been led forth by Xerxes.*

The two Persian Wars may seem to have had no direct relation to the history of Classical Philology; yet in fact, by compelling the Greeks to put forth all their power, these splendid triumphs stimulated them into extraor- dinary activity wherever the race was represented.^ Such a stimulation is the result of every great war, and it may well serve as a vindication of many historic struggles which have cost so heavily in human life and in apparently wasted treasure. The Punic Wars led at Rome to the first real flowering of Italian genius. The Civil Wars which ravaged Italy in a later century ended with the golden triumphs of the Augustan Age. France was never so glorious, intellectually, as in the battle-years under Louis XIV, and again amid the Napoleonic Wars. The heroic struggle of England against Spain made the Eli2abethan Period superbly memorable in the annals of literature and science; and so did her stubborn, unrelenting contest with

‘ See Cox, The Greeks and (he Persians (New York, 1897).

’Note, for example, the remarkable activity displayed by the Athenians in rebuilding and enlarging their city’s walls. Men of every station, women, and even children, under the urgent advice of the mighty Themistodes, engaged in thb work, tearing down temples and even tombs to afiord material for the walls.

32 HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

the Corsican Emperor, when at times she stood entirely alone, with a haughty confidence in her ultimate success. Warfare on a great scale brings into play all the energies of men, both physical and mental. It inspires them alike by its victories and by its defeats. It leads nations to cast aside their inglorious love of ease and lets the fierce joy of conflict stir at once the senses, the intellect, and the imagination.

Hence it is that we find in the Persian Wars the begin- ning of a great and splendid career for the Hellenic States, and most of all for Athens, which had won such brilliant victories in the field as to rouse Hellenic pride and to make the city of the violet crown the centre of all Hellas, in arts as well as arms. We must now look for the rise of men who were really great, and for the develop- ment of those studies which had been only nebulously visible in the two preceding centuries. Certain of the men who became famous early in this period, which ex- tends from the outbreak of the Persian Wars to the death of Aristotle, won their chief distinction through the in- spiration which had come to them because of the Persian assault on Greece. Conspicuous among these was the Theban Pindar, greatest of all the lyric poets. The Thebans were jealous of Athens; yet Pindar was no local poet, but the laureate of the whole Hellenic race; and his exultation over the defeat of the Persians led him to pour forth vivid, joyous lines, ringing with the note of patriotic

THE PRiE-AIEXANDEIAN PERIOD 33

pride. Because of this, his fellow-Thebans imposed on him a heavy fine, which the Athenians paid back to him twofold besides erecting a statue in his honour.

The mention of Pindar leads us to note that Lyric Poetry was first cultivated with conscious art among the iEolians and the Dorians. The lyric in general is the most primitive form of poetry, and it must have existed in the earliest ages, at least in a rude form, for it is the spon- taneous utterance of emotion — at first absolutely individ- ual self-expression, a concomitant of the primitive dance, a vocal expression of the “ play instinct,” seeking naturally after rhythmic movement.* This originally expressed itself in the trochaic measure, which is the primitive metrical form among all peoples. Then was developed very grad- ually the dactylic hexameter which we find in Homer. Side by side with this hexameter, however, the lighter lyrical movement was cultivated in song. Elegiac and lambic Poetry forms a transition from epic to lyric composition, and was so known to the lonians. Purely lyrical or Melic Poetry, which was verse intended to be simg to a musical accompaniment, was not Ionic, but first received artistic shape from Terpander of Antissa in Lesbos as early as 700 b.c. In the .Eolic l3n:ic, Alcseus of Mitylene (later imitated by Horace), and his contemporary, Sappho, gave it a complete and varied form. So the jovial poems

•See W. Scherer, PoeUk (Berlin, 1888); and Peck, Literature (New York, 1908).

34

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

of Anacreon (550 b.c.) were composed earlier than Pindar’s time. Yet it was Pindar, a Dorian, who raised choral poetry to its highest form at the time of the Persian Wars, together with Simonides and his nephew, Bacchyl- ides.^

The splendid victories of Hellas over its eastern foes led Herodotus of Halicarnassus in Asia Minor to write his remarkable narrative in nine books at a date which is uncertain, but which must have been about the middle of the fifth century b.c. Herodotus, a great traveller, a keen observer, a collector of interesting facts, has been styled “ the Father of History.” We have seen, however, that history of a sort had been written by the Logographi.® It was Herodotus who cast aside the dry annalistic form and wrote in a prose style that is at once simple, attractive, and highly picturesque, for it retains a deep tinge of poetic colouring. This genial, learned, and yet pleasing writer took for the subject of his history the Persian Wars. It is, indeed, a great prose epic of the conflict between Hellas and the East, as the first sentence of the first book shows: —

“ This is a publication of the researches of Herodotus of Halicarnassus, to the end that the deeds of men may not be obliterated by time, and that the great and won-

‘See Mattel, Die griechischen Lyriker (Berlin, 1892); and the intro- duction to Smyth’s Greek Melic Poets (New York, 1900).

• See p. 26.

THE PRiE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

35

derful achievements wrought both by Greeks and by bar- barians may not be divested of their glory — and, more- over, to explain the cause which led them to wage war upon each other.”

Contemporary with Herodotus was Hellanicus of Mity- lene, of whose works only fragments remain. Though he lived to a very old age, dying in 406 b.c., he had none of the literary charm of the new prose. Nevertheless, he was the first writer to introduce something like a chrono- logical arrangement into the traditional records of history and mythology; and his views regarding them were ac- cepted for more than a century after his death. He likewise was a profound student of Genealogy. His records, though having little literary value, were of much service to the later historians; while the notes of Herodotus made during his extensive travels were a rich mine for writers on Descriptive Geography.

Just as the Persian Wars had given Herodotus a theme, so the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.c.) inspired the greatest historian who has ever written. This was Thu- cydides (471- c. 399 B.C.), an Athenian who wrote a history of this epoch-making struggle waged between the two leading States of Hellas for the supremacy of the race, — Athens and her allies on the one side, and Sparta and her allies on the other. Thucydides was a man of wealth and character. His fine intellect had been cultivated tmtil it became an instrument of remarkable power, delicacy, and

36 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHTLOLOGY

finkh. He had on the one hand the scientific spirit, and on the other hand an almost unrivalled gift of literary expression. When the war broke out, he was forty years of age, with all his faculties at their very highest; and thus, most naturally, the history which he produced in eight books ‘ has become what he desired it to be, a pos- session for all time (wTij/ito €? aei). Herodotus had written with great charm of style. His narrative was illumined by anecdote and the narration of curious facts. He was a prose poet. Thucydides, on the other hand, combined judicial impartiality with a manly, moving eloquence. Lord Macaulay said that his prose was the finest prose that has ever yet been written by any man;* and this in spite of what to the modem mind seems often to be extreme obscurity. His impartiality is the more remarkable in that he was writing contemporaneous his- tory, and that he was himself an Athenian and took part in the war. To quote Dr. F. B. Jevons: “ There is hardly a literary production of which posterity has enter- tained a more uniformly favourable estimate than the history of Thucydides. This high distinction he owes to his undeviating fidelity and impartiality as a narrator; to the masterly concentration of his work, in which he

^The eighth book is incomplete and is by some regarded as not the work of Thucydides himself.

^Macaulay also said of himself that while he might perhaps dare to believe that he could equal the prose of any other writer, he would never attempt to rival the seventh book of Thucydides.

THE PIL$-A 1 JEXANDRIAN PERIOD 37

is content to give in a few simple yet vivid expressions the facts which it must have often taken him weeks or even months to collect, sift, and decide upon; to the sagacity of his political and moral observations in which he shows the keenest insight into the springs of human action and the mental nature of man; and to his un- rivalled descriptive power. . , . Thucydides when he undertook to record the present, thereby deliberately elected to confine himself to efficient causes. This pref- erence for efficient causes and for scientific history, in the best sense of the term, is intimately connected with the positive nature of his history — that is to say, with his perpetual endeavour to record facts and to distinguish them from inferences drawn from facts.”

The utmost efforts of modern criticism have been un- able to shake the wonderful structure of his history. In this respect he is to be compared with Gibbon. It is interesting to note that while Niebuhr is popularly said to have first established the scientific principles of histori- cal investigation. Gibbon anticipated Niebuhr in practice just as he himself had been anticipated by Thucydides more than two thousand years before.*

A contemporary of Thucydides, Xenophon, who was

• See MiiUer-Striibing in the JaMmch fiir PhUologie, cssxi. 289 foil.;

and Classen’s Introduction to his edition of Thucydides, vol. i. 2d ed. (Berlin, 1897); Forbes, The Life and Method of Thucydides (London, 1895); and Jevons, A Eistory of Greek Literature, pp. 327-348 (New York, 1897).

38 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

also an Athenian, is the third great historian to give lustre to the Prae-Alexandrian Period. Serving as a mercenary in a Greek force raised by Cyrus the Persian, he recorded his experiences in the Anabasis, a work which continues to be read in our secondary schools both for the sim- plicity and vivacity of its narrative, and for the facts observed by Xenophon and faithfully recorded in the seven books which make up the work. Xenophon as an historian is inferior to Herodotus and Thucydides, but he is an admirable writer, as his persistent popularity well shows. Besides the Anabasis, he wrote a history of Greece (HeUenica) which practically completed the un- finished work of Thucydides, unlike whom he wrote with a strong bias, in violent contrast with the stem im- partiality of his predecessor.* Xenophon did not confine himself to historical writing, but composed treatises which had to do with Political Science (the Lacedcsmonian Polity, the Cyrofcsdia, and On the Athenian Finances) as well as quasi-ethical monographs, the most famous of which is the Memorabilia of Socrates. Xenophon writes in a dialect which is not purely Attic, owing to the fact of his long and frequent absences from his native country.®

In the histories of Thucydides and Xenophon there are introduced set speeches, conventionally supposed to have been delivered by generals to their troops, by statesmen

• See A. Holm, GriecUsche GeschicUe; Eng. trans. (London, 1894-99).

• See Alfred Croiset, Xinophon, son Caractire et son Talent (Paris,

1873)-

THE PR^-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 39

to deliberative assemblies, by ambassadors and by dema- gogues. These speeches do not pretend to be authentic records. They are inserted partly to enliven the narrative by interspersing it with personal touches, and more par- ticularly to sum up eEEectively and within a short compass the opinions or arguments which the speakers might have been supposed to hold and to utter. They are true in substance though not authentic in form. Their occur- rence in historical writing shows that, during the fifth century. Oratory had become an art. Of course, a certain kind of oratory, rude and extemporaneous, must have been known far back in the prehistoric period, since oratory is one of the accomplishments which make for statesmanship. The primitive chieftain undoubtedly ha- rangued his followers when occasion arose. Even in the poetry of Homer there are speeches set down in hexameter verse. But this untutored oratory was, as Professor Sears describes it, merely “ protoplasmic eloquence.” The psychological basis of it was not understood. The graces of external form were not yet taught by precept. Such power as oratory had, came from strong feeling and the gift which some possess of swaying the minds and imaginations of their hearers by communicating to them something of their own passion. By the end of the sixth century, however, educated men began to recognise that the gift of eloquence, the end of which is persuasion, could be acquired; so that in a philosophical treatise by

40

HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Diogenes of Apollonia there is found embodied, “ like a trilobite in limestone,” the following rhetorical injunction, “ It appears to me that every one who begins a discourse ought to state the subject with distinctness, and to make the style simple and dignified.” ‘ In fact, the Greeks, who were essentially a nation of talkers, expected the account of a man’s actions to be accompanied and ex- plained by his spoken words, so that all might judge of his intellectual and moral character. Hence it was that at the time of the Persian Wars, eloquence came to be highly valued as indispensable to the statesman, the diplomat, and the commander of armies. Oratory, or, to use the Greek term. Rhetoric Qriropi/crj), thus arose, comprising both the practical and the theoretical art of speaking. So earnestly was it cultivated that it came to be called at last “the art of arts.” Its development was one of the steps which accompanied the decline of poetry and the rise of prose. Just as the l)T:ic supplanted the epic, and pictur- esque prose narrative was gradually preferred to poetry, so oratory — a still further remove from purely imaginative composition — helped to assimilate literature with practical life. Its rapid growth was due, of course, to the spread of democracy by which the government of the State be- came the gift of the assembled people. To dominate the reason, the impulses, and the prejudices of the people were at last the chief functions of the art of oratory.

‘ See Sears, The History of Oratory, ch. i. (Chicago, 1903).

THE PRiE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

41

Already for the training of legal and judicial pleading, a definite though imperfect system had been set forth. Cicero ^ ascribes it to the Sicilian Greeks, who were famous in antiquity for their ready wit, their love of highly coloured language, and their passion for subtle argument. The first manual professing to instruct men in the art of per- suasive speaking is said to have been written by Corax of Syracuse in Sicily early in the sixth century b.c. With this date then begins the formal development of the art of Rhetoric. Corax opened a school at Syracuse in which he taught the principles laid down in his and

his pupil, Tisias, of whom little is known, made some additions to the rules of Corax.^ Gorgias of Leontini (485-380 B.C.), probably a pupil of Tisias, carried the study of rhetoric to Hellas proper, whither he went as an am- bassador to ask for protection against the encroachments of Syracuse. From that time he had a residence in Athens and another in the city of Larissa in Thessaly, winning widespread fame both as a public speaker and as a practi- cal teacher of rhetoric. So far as any evidences remain of the teaching of Gorgias, it seems plain that his rules looked to a highly artificial and meretricious style of oratory.®

^ BrutiiSy 46.

• These rules divided an oration into five parts: (i) proem, (2) narra-

tive, (3) arguments, (4) subsidiary remarks, and (5) peroration. Both Corax and Tisias made much of die value of what they called eZ/c6s, that is to say, the semblance to truth which in an oration makes the whole of an argument appear plausible and therefore possesses an appeal to man's sense of what is just and right.

® Two orations ascribed to him are extant. See Blass, pp. 44‘72‘

42 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHTLOLOGY

Studied antitheses, a profusion of simile and metaphor, apostrophe, and other figures, together with a carefully balanced rhythm, must have made his most finished elo- quence resemble the so-called Euphuism of John Lyly and his fellow-Elizabethans. It was, in fact, a foreshadowing in Greece of the so-called Asiatic style of eloquence adopted in later times by some of the Roman orators. At Athens, however, a less affected mode of eloquence pre- vailed. There were great orators who were conspicuous during the middle of the fifth century B.C., and whose manly, noble eloquence (the Attic style) gained little from teachings such as those of Gorgias.

The Age of Pericles — the noblest statesman whom Greece produced — was a period of great splendour. Peri- cles adorned and enriched the city with the wealth con- tributed by the allied States. Athens to him meant Greece just as Paris to the French people has long meant France. Under his patronage, Greek architecture and sculpture reached perfection. He planned the Parthenon, , the Erechtheum, the Odeon, and many like magnificent public edifices. He encouraged literature as well as the other arts. He was the centre of a splendid group, in which were Thucydides, ^Eschylus, Sophocles, Euripi- des, Anaxagoras, Zeno, Protagoras, Pindar, and the great sculptors Phidias and M3 u:oil Athens was brilliant with gorgeous festivals and crowned with the laurels of military glory. The noblest figure of all was Pericles himself.

THE PRiE-ALEXAOTRIAN PERIOD 43

Though Thucydides opposed him, he generously records the fact that Pericles never did anything unworthy of his high position, that he neither flattered the people nor oppressed his private enemies, and that with all his un^ limited command of public money, he was personally in- corruptible.^ Gorgias is said to have instructed both Pericles and Thucydides, but the first Athenian to apply the rules of rhetoric practically in speaking before the public assemblies and the courts was Antiphon (480-41 1 b.c.) . He was also the first to publish speeches as models for rhetori- cal study. If we examine these and the orations inter- woven in the history of Thucydides, we find that they exhibit a certain self-consciousness which is fatal to effective oratory. Lysias 378 b.c.) shows purity of style and

grace, though he is lacking in energy. Isocrates (436-338 B.c.) is rightly regarded as the father of artistic oratory, properly so called, and by his mastery of style he has in- fluenced oratorical diction throughout all succeeding ages.^

^ Lloyd, The Age of P cricks , 2 vols. (London, 1875); and Abbott, P cricks (London, 1891).

2 Isocrates (Milton’s ^‘Old Man Eloquent” and Cicero’s “Father of Eloquence”) was perhaps as well known for his rhetorical teaching as for his practical application of it. He wrote speeches to be delivered by others, and he gave instruction at the rate of 1000 drachmse, or about $250, for a course of lessons, and he often had a hundred pupils at a time, yielding a revenue equivalent to $25,000. The king of C5^rus paid him 20 talents (about $22,000) for a single oration. These set speeches were not merely delivered once, but were copied and read wherever Greek was understood. On the other hand, he would some- times spend from five to ten years in perfecting one of ^ese show pieces.

44 HISTOR'S OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

He spoke with ease, adapting the language of the people to his own usage; his periods were flowing and rhythmical; and he had an instinctive knowledge of everything which tends to the possibilities of harmonious language. It is said that Cicero was a deep student of Isocrates.^

It was not until near the close of the Pras- Alexandrian Period that the most magnificent representative of Greek oratory arose in the person of Demosthenes. He com- bined the persuasiveness of Lysias, the animation and boldness of Thucydides, and he understood well the art of speaking in short, terse sentences which would go home like arrows to the minds of an assembled multitude. His superb oration On the Crown shows not only an absolute mastery of all the resources of rhetoric employed with great intellectual power, but also patriotic fervour and that sincerity which belongs essentially to the et/cds upon w4ich Corax had insisted.*

So much of the teaching in Greece was given orally that we may perhaps find in this circ*mstance an explana- tion as to why the oldest rhetorical text-book now in existence belongs to the middle of the fourth century B.C. Corax, already mentioned, had merely discussed the divisions of an oration and the manner of presenting its arguments. In the manual written by Anaximenes (who, by the way, wrote nine books of criticism on Homer), the

^See Blass, Attische Beredsamheit^ 2d ed., 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1898); and Jebb, Attic Orators^ li. pp. 1-34, 2d ed. (London, 1893).

’ See Butcher, DemosihetteSj preface to last ed. (London, 1903).

THE PRiE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 45

subject is treated practically rather than philosophically. Anaximenes taught rhetoric to Alexander the Great, who for his sake spared the city of Lampsacus, though it had sided with the Persians. This manual, which is dedicated to Alexander, was, until the last century, included among the works of Aristotle and generally ascribed to him, though with considerable doubt. In 1828, L. Spengcl in his treatise on the rhetorical writers prior to Aristotle* conclusively proved the work to be that of Anaximenes. The author divides oratorical discussion into three cate- gories: (i) Forensic, (2) Deliberative, (3) Declamatory. This threefold division was accepted by the ancients from that time. The manual gives excellent advice as to the proper arrangement of the members of an oration, with some further technical details. The book, however, is brief and its treatment of the subject very meagre.

The first scientific treatise with a full analysis and a comprehensive grasp of both theory and practice is that of Aristotle in his Rhetorica, divided into three parts or books. As this is the most important work on rhetoric produced in ancient times, a short account of its plan and development may be given here. The great point of departure in Aristotle’s discussion of rhetoric is found in his view of its functions. Rhetoric to him is not the art of ornamenting and beautifying discourse. It is not merely persuasion. It is rather the discovery of the ' Published at Stuttgart, 1828. '

46 mSTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

possible means of persuasion. Hence, rhetoric is the counterpart of Logic, and the principles of logic enter into its laws as an essential part of them. The uses of rhetoric are: (i) the means by which truth and justice may rise superior to falsehood and injustice; (2) the means of persuasion that are suited to popular assemblies; (3) the means of seeing both sides of a case and of thus dis- covering the weakness of an adversary’s argument; and (4) the means of defending one’s own case against all possible attacks that can be made upon it. The means of persuasion he sets forth as follows: (i) natural, “ in- artificial ” proofs, such as the sworn testimony of wit- nesses, documents, etc.; and (2) artificial proofs, which are either (a) logical, involving demonstration by argu- ment; or else (b) ethical, when the weight of a speaker’s own character inspires confidence in his hearers, and emotional, when he works upon the feelings of his listeners by appealing to their S3nnpathies or prejudices. Logical proof, he says, depends upon the principle of giving “ a syllogism from probability.” Of the nature of such syllogisms he distinguishes the common topic or general head, applicable to all subjects, and the special topic drawn from special arts, gifts, or circ*mstances.

Following a division of Anaximenes, rhetoric was divided into three kinds: (i) Deliberative Rhetoric, which has to do with exhortation or persuasion and is concerned with future time as to expediency or inexpediency; (2) Fo-

THE PRiE-AlEXANDRIAN PERIOD 47

rensic Rhetoric, relating to accusation or defence and concerned with time past as to justice or injustice; and (3) Epideictic Rhetoric, relating to eulogy or censure, and usually concerned with the present time and as to honour or distress. The first two books of Aristotle’s rhetoric deal with invention, i.e. the discovery of the means of persuasion. The third book relates to expres- sion and arrangement. Under the latter head he treats of the art of delivery, considering verbal expression in which is included the use of metaphor, simile, and terse gnomic sayings, of the rhythm of sentences, and of Style. As to style he notes four varieties: (i) the purely literary, (2) the controversial, (3) the political, and (4) the forensic.

Aristotle’s Rhetoric is the most exhaustive, analytical, and scientific treatise on the subject that has ever been written. It is, however, as has been truly said, the philosophy of rhetoric rather than rhetoric that he dis- cusses. His mind was intensely analytical and was always seeking for ultimate causes; so that even in this field he is forever verging upon the sphere of the meta- physical. The great importance of the treatise is that it prepared the way for Aristotle’s Dialectic or Logic, which in turn furnished many of the distinctions and classifica- tions, destined afterward to be used in a different relation by the originators of Formal Grammar.

Aristotle himself regarded rhetoric as standing side by side with logic, since each relates to the process of insur-

48 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

ing conviction. The orator must be a dialectician if he would reach the highest excellence in his art; and the dialectician, on the other hand, will make his logic most effective through a command of the arts of oratory. Hence Aristotle's rhetoric is really a dialectic science. In his Organon^ after he has set forth his system of logic, he develops the methods by which man arrives at knowl- edge. He discloses the laws of thinking and the modes of cognition from a study of man's faculty of cognition, striving to gain an insight into the nature and formation of evidence and conclusion. In the course of this inquiry he tries to classify all possible objects of human knowl- edge under definite heads. In so doing, he drew up his famous ten Categories {pmdicamenta). These are: (i) sub- stance, (2) quantity, (3) quality, (4) relation, (5) place, (6) time, (7) situation, (8) possession, (9) action, (10) suffer- ing, that is to say, passivity.^ The mere enumeration of these categories serves to show how intimately they are connected with the classification that we find in our formal grammar. Because, in setting them forth, Aris- totle provided a terminology and a framework for the Alexandrian and other grammarians in the following period, he has been spoken of as the source in which both criticism and grammar find their origin.^

^ These ten categories are really reducible to two: (i) substance, (2) at- tribute; or (i) being, (2) accident.

• Dio Cassius, liii. p. 353; Reiske (294 R). Aristotle^s Rhetoric is

edited separately with notes by Cope and Sandys, 3 vols. (Cambridge,

THE PRiE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 49

Rhetoric, language study, criticism, literary training, and philosophy were all popularised by a class of teachers who became famous under the name of Sophists {<To<l>i(TTaC), Originally the name Sophist was given to any one who professed a particular knowledge of some special subject; but about 450 B.c. it was primarily applied to well- educated men who had the gift of ready speech and who travelled from place to place lecturing and teaching in return for a tuition fee. They were the middlemen of learning and made intelligible to untrained minds a good deal of what was set forth more profoundly by original writers and thinkers. They have their counterpart in the peripatetic lecturers who traversed the United States from 1830 to i860, making addresses before “ lyceums,’’ and in the university extension teachers of the last two decades. Some of them were men of great ability, such as Gorgias of Leontini, already mentioned; and Protagoras, a brilliant teacher of rhetoric in Athens, who was the first scientific individualist, taking as his motto “ Man is the measure of all things,’’ that is to say, every man must be his own standard of truth, since truth is only relative and not absolute. There was also Prodicus of Ceos, who lectured on literary style (opOo^ireia), laying great stress on the right

1877); and Zeller, Aristotle (London, 1897). On the rhetoric of the Greeks, see Gros, tuide sur la Rk^torique chez les Grecques (Paris, 1835); Perrot, Les Pricurseurs de DSmosthine (Paris, 1873); Girard, Etudes sur VJhoquence (Paris, 1847); and Bascom, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (New York, 1888).

£

so HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

use of words {le mot juste). Hippias of Elis was another famous Sophist. He was a man of prodigious memory and profoundly versed in all the learning of the day, so that he attempted literature in every form that had so far been developed. He piqued and rather shocked his audiences by attempting to prove that law is an evil and should not be obeyed, since it forces man to do many things which are contrary to his nature. In this he was one of the first representatives of what the higher slang of our day describes as “ the artistic temperament.’’

Such Sophists as these — brilliant, versatile, eloquent, and ingenious — had an immense influence on popular thought. Their society was courted by the leading men of Athens. Even Pericles took pleasure in their conver- sation. Greatest of them all was Socrates, though he professed to despise the Sophists as a class and believed himself to be other than a Sophist because he took no money for his teachings, which were given in a desultory, conversational fashion. From Protagoras and Gorgias and Hippias, the Skeptics derived their doctrines; but Socrates stands forth as the most inspiring philosophical teacher of any time. From his immensely suggestive talk, Plato drew his inspiration, as did Aristotle from Plato. Socrates gave an entirely new turn to philosophic teaching. Before his time philosophy had been physical; after Socrates it became metaphysical and ethical. Just as the early lonians had sought for a material origin of the universe,

THE PR^- ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 5 1

SO Socrates thrust aside all speculations of the kind and asked the epoch-making question, “ How shall man live? ” The answer to this question was sought not merely by Plato and by Aristotle, but afterwards by the Epicureans and the Stoics, the Cynics and the Eclectics.

It should be remembered, however, that, on the whole, the Sophists as a class were rightly held in disesteem. The majority of them were mere smatterers, glib and shallow, perverting the truth, and willing for a price to make the worse appear the better reason. In the end, the later Sophists were nothing but smooth talkers, some- times delighting in mere technicalities, which took with them the place of reason, so that they fell wholly into ill repute.^ But it was the Sophists of the fifth century who gave a special impulse to the theoretical study of language. Remembering the importance of rhetoric and the quasi- philosophical principles of men such as Protagoras and Hippias, it is not strange that there should have arisen an immense amount of discussion regarding language, from the desire to discover the laws of thought through a discovery of the laws which govern the expression of that thought in human speech.

The fact that Language Study began as an adjunct to the study of philosophy is immensely important as ex- plaining two interesting facts, — the fact that the pur-

^ On the Sophists, see Benn, Greek Philosophers, ch. ii. (London, 1883); Schanz, Die Sophisten (Gottingen, 1867); and Ueberweg, GeschicMe der Philosophic, i. 9th ed. (Leipzig, 1907).

$2 HISTORV OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

suit was conducted in a way so unlike that of the scien- tific linguist; and the other fact that a long time elapsed before the development of scientific grammar. The phi- losophers were at first concerned only with the meanings of words, and very little with their forms, their external relations to each other, or their arrangement and govern- ment in a sentence. They strove rather to dig down into the very heart of language, to find out what lay behind the sounds, and to penetrate into the working of the minds that gave them currency. Why was a certain combination of letters the representation of one idea, while a certain combination of other letters stood for the repre- sentation of a different idea? In general, what was the relation of sound to thought? These questions and others like them first attracted the philosopher to the study of language, while they are the very last and most remote problems to interest the modern scientific linguist. Hence, if the ancients had begun to investigate language for its own sake, they would have created Grammar; but as they took up the subject merely as a means to another end and from the standpoint of psychology, they invented Etymology.

It is, of course, to be imderstood also that even the most enlightened of the Greeks in their most earnest researches never went beyond the study of their own language. They scarcely even recognised the speech of other peoples as entitled to be called language at all.

THE PRiE-ALEXANDRIAN PEEIOD

53

The Hellenic contempt for the non-Hellenic is nowhere more strikingly displayed than here. To the Greeks all foreigners, and even their own kindred who spoke un- familiar dialects, were styled “ dumb ” {a'^XmacroC). The contemptuous term ^dp^apo^ is merely another expression of the same feeling. It was only the Greeks who talked. Other people chattered like the birds of the air, or jab- bered like the beasts of the forest. Thus the Carians, the Thracians, the Illyrians, the Phrygians, and even the Macedonians were said to speak “ barbarian ” tongues.^ Demosthenes called Alexander the Great a “barbarian.” This feeling also operated in keeping back the development of grammar in its modern sense. As a rule, no Greek studied foreign languages. His own tongue he learned in childhood and he felt no need of instruction in that. As for the jargon of alien races, he despised both them and those who spoke them. Themistocles, who is said to have spoken Persian very fluently, stands out as a conspicuous exception. For a long time there were no language teach- ers and no study of language from the standpoint of formal grammar. Persons who in ancient times acted as inter- preters between Greeks and non-Greeks were either children of mixed parentage, speaking both their fathers’ and their mothers’ tongue; or else they were foreigners who studied Greek for the express purpose of serving as interpreters. There was, indeed, a steady demand for the services of ^ Strabo, vii. 321; xiv. 662.

54 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

such men. Herodotus nowhere implies even in the remot- est way that he knew any of the languages spoken in the many countries that he visited. In one passage^ he speaks of caravans of merchants in the region of the Volga as needing seven interpreters {epfirjpeK) speaking seven languages. At a very much later period, when Alexander the Great penetrated India and questioned the Brahmins on the subject of their religion, the conversa- tion had to be carried on through a series of interpreters. The Greeks, in fact, displayed an amusing naiveti in their astonishment at finding so many people who knew no Greek, but who spoke barbarian tongues with so much ease. They were, in fact, apparently not gifted as prac- tical linguists; for even after Latin was the language of their own rulers, they seldom learned to speak it well. Thus Plutarch says * that he found it impossible to master Latin, and that one needs to begin its study when very young. Strabo notes that historical treatises composed in foreign languages were inaccessible to the Greeks and never read by them.®

On the other hand, at an early period there is mention of foreign scholars and writers who acquired an excellent command of Greek, men like Berosusthe Babylonian (in the fourth century b.c.) and Manetho the Egyptian, who wrote in Greek the records of their respective countries —

^ Herodotus, iv. 24.

^ Plutarch, Demosth. 2.

3 Strabo, ii* 4, 19.

THE PRiE-ALEXANDEIAN PERIOD 55

which the Greeks regarded with a supercilious indifference. There is absolutely no hint in any ancient writer that any of these foreign languages might be related to the Hellenic dialects. The idea would have seemed preposterous even to the most enlightened Greek. The nearest ap- proach to the suggestion of such an idea is found in Plato’s dialogue, the Cratylus, where Socrates notes the similarity between the Greek and Phrygian names for certain common objects. But though Plato is evidently here upon the verge of a discovery that was made only in the last century, he failed to see the importance of the fact which he had set down, and chose rather to accoimt for it on the theory that the Greeks had borrowed a few words from the Phrygians. That his own language and that of a “ barbarian ” people had a common source seems never to have occurred to him; nor did so keen an observer as Aristotle perceive in languages “the law and order which he tried to discover in every realm of nature.” Hence, it came about that, as the Greeks were naturally slow in acquiring foreign tongues, as they had a supreme contempt for other languages than their own, and as they entered on the investigation of the subject from a purely philosophical and psychological point of view, the first stage of language study reached by them was the theoretical rather than the empirical.

The Greek word Xdyo? means at once the spoken word, and the reason which prompts the utterance of that word.

56

mSTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

This duality of meaning both symbolises and illustrates the spirit in which the Greek philosophers approached the study of language. They wished to determine (i) whether the word and the thought had a necessary relation; and if so, (2) what that relation was. Naturally enough, two opposing views were soon formulated by two philosophical schools. The Heracl*teans ^ believed that because all truth is derived from language, language rests upon an immu table basis. Words are either perfect expressions of things or else they are only inarticulate sounds. That is to say, a name must be either a true name or it is no name at all. Between every name, therefore, and the thing which it signifies, there is a natural harmony by virtue of which each word in itself inevitably expresses the innermost nature of the thing named. The Heracli- teans thus held that language arose by nature {(ftvcrei or vS/if). The Eleatics,® on the other hand, regarded words as given to things arbitrarily; that the names of things, like the names of slaves, might be altered at pleasure; and that, in consequence, no light is to be thrown on mental processes or on the nature of thought, by study- ing the forms in which it is expressed. One of the Eleatics, a Megarian, Diodorus, named his slaves after the con- junctions, thinking to show thereby the absurdity of the

Heracl*tean doctrine, — which recalls Dr. Johnson’s

^ /.e. tlie followers of Heracl*tus of Ephesus, about 500 B.c*

® I.e. the followers of Xenophanes and Parmenides of Elea,

THE PILE-ALEXANBEIAN PERIOD 57

famous refutation of Berkeley’s idealism. Language, therefore, according to the Eleatics, arose by convention {Bicrei or cyvvd'qK'ff).

This controversy has an interest far greater than any merely linguistic discussion could possess. It really strikes down into the most profound recesses of the hu- man mind. It grazes the borderland of a philosophical question that has puzzled metaphysicians ever since men began to reflect upon the mystery of their being, — a question that has never been solved and that, humanly speaking, admits of no solution. It is the question which in the scholastic period of the Middle Ages was known as the question of Realism and Nominalism. It is the question which, in after times, appeared as the question of the Freedom of the Human Will. Its discussion by the ancient philosophers led to the investigation of lan- guage. As it was claimed that language corresponds naturally and inevitably to the thought, just as sensation corresponds to the object which excites it, the first in- quiry which philosophers set before themselves was this: What is language?

Heracl*tus asserted that language is the immediate product of a natural power which assigns to each thing its proper designation as a necessary element of the thing’s existence. Names, he said, are like the natural, not the artificial images of visible things, i.e. they resemble the shadows cast by solid objects, the images seen in mirrors,

5$ HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGV

the reflected sun in still water. “ Those who use the true word do really and truly name the object, while those who do not, merely make an unmeaning noise.” That is, words are the immediate copies of things, produced by nature herself, not due to any subjective influence or human caprice, but corresponding to realities by objec- tive necessity; they have an abstract propriety and fit- ness {6pd6T7)i) and an intrinsic force and meaning. This is the extreme statement of the Heracl*tean doctrine which was afterward modified by Epicurus so as to make the objective necessity, referred to above, a physical, organic necessity.

Against the Heracl*teans, the Eleatics defended their thesis that names are given and were always given arbi- trarily by men who might with perfect propriety change them about. Democritus propounded four arguments against the Heracl*tean view, (i) The argument of hom*onymy. For instance, lekek means both a key and a collar-bone. Now a key and a collar-bone have abso- lutely no relation to each other; hence, if K\ek be the inevitable and natural name for one of them, it certainly cannot be equally the inevitable and natural name of the other. (2) The argument of Polyonymy. A man is called avOpcoTTO’i, or p^poyfr, or /SporJ?. These terms are in no way alike; how then can they all three be the nec- essary names of the one object? (3) The argument of Change, as when Aristocles comes to be called Plato.

THE PRE-ALEXANDEIAN PERIOD 59

(4) The argument of Missing Analogy, as when we have the verb <j>poveiv formed from ^po'w?cri?, while from BiKMoavvi] we find no such verb as BiKaioavvetv.

In general it may be said that the Heracl*teans num- bered among their followers the majority of the ancient philosophers, though Aristotle stands out as a great ex- ception. He, with his dislike of anything mystical, and with his practical hold on the real, was an uncompromis- ing opponent of the natural theory, and held that language depends on the common argument and conviction of men, — words having no meaning at all in themselves, but having all their meaning put into them by those who use them. They are mere counters, whose value depends wholly upon the assent of mankind.

It was evident, of course, to the Heracl*teans them- selves, after a little study, that their claims could not be made good in language as it actually existed; for they could not show in the case of many words any essential connection with the objects described by them; and it was also evident that words had greatly changed since the time when they were first coined. Hence, the dis- cussion was put back from words as they were then, to words as they had once been; and this led to speculation as to the origin of language. Setting aside the original notion that it was directly created by the Deity, men sought to show in what manner it first came into existence. If word and object be related, what is the nature of the

6o

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

relation? If the original name was appropriate to the thing named, in what way was it appropriate? The general drift of opinion answered this question in favour of the “ onomatopoetic ” theory, not in its crudest form, but in the form in which it has been defended in modern times by men like Heyse and his pupil Steinthal, and cautiously by Whitney and by Paul.^ A passage of Epicurus cited by Diogenes Laertius (x. 75) gives the fairest and most temperate expression of what this view meant:

“ Words in the beginning did not originate by express agreement; but by the very nature of men, in the case of each people, experiencing peculiar feelings and hearing peculiar ideas, they expelled the air accordingly, thus ex- pressing different feelings and ideas differently, just as people differed in location and surroundings.”

This is in reality the theory of Heyse. So Lucretius ’ argues that speech arose from the impulse of things, just as children who cannot speak, begin to gesture. And what wonder is it, he says, that men mark different feel- ings by different sounds of the voice? Even dogs and horses and gulls and crows in the same way express vary- ing moods and passions.

^ Heyse, System der Sprackwissenschaft, edited by Steinthal (Berlin, 1856); Steinthal, Gesckichte der Sprackwissenschaft hei den Greichen ufid Romerny 2 vols. 2d ed. (Berlin/ 1891); and Whitney, The Life and Growth of Lan^mge (New York, 1S80); id, Langmge cmd the Study of Lan- guagCy 4th ed. (New York, 1884)-

• Lucretius, v. 1028 foil*

THE PRiE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

6l

The whole of the ancient teaching on language, its nature and its origin, is summed up and digested in that wonderful dialogue of Plato’s which bears the name of Cratylus. This work is by far the most profoundly philosophical linguistic discussion that antiquity pro- duced, — full of deep truths and searching insight. It is not too much to say that no treatise on language before the last century is worthy of comparison with it. Yet its importance has been only half appreciated by many, ow- ing to the vein of humour that runs through it, and the playful tone that characterises its most remarkable pas- sages. Some scholars have even regarded it as purely a piece of philosophical fun, a Platonic extravaganza meant only to make a mock of the whole subject of language study. This view is wholly untenable, and whoever holds it misses one of the most striking proofs of the greatness of Plato. It is precisely in the mode of treatment that he has chosen to adopt, and because he has half hidden his deepest truths beneath a veil of humour, that the argument of the Cratylm is so remarkable. Plato had re- flected long and seriously upon the nature and phenom- ena of human speech; he had satisfied himself of many things of which his contemporaries had no conception; yet when he came to gather together the results of his reflec- tions and to mass his facts, it was evident to him that he was still far from having attained a complete philoso- phy of language. There were still too many things left

6a

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

unexplained, too many lacunae in his fabric. Hence, he prefers to refrain from dogmatic statement. He will not claim to have a well-rounded and complete system; and, therefore, he elects to treat the subject with a light touch, to speak modestly and with caution, and to let his own observations fall casually into the mind of his reader as suggestions and incentives toward further speculation. His really serious spirit is, therefore, subordinated to a humorous treatment, so that in the Cratylus we have, as it were, a giant at play. It gives us, in a way, the chips and shavings of his mental workshop, yet the chips and shavings are those of one whose dust-heap contains more pure gold than the treasuries of other men.

The Cratylus is a dialogue between Socrates, Hermog- enes, and Cratylus. Hermogenes is a disciple of the later Eleatics, and Cratylus a sincere believer in the phi- losophy of Heracl*tus. They have been arguing about names, and as each represents a point of view diametrically opposed to that of the other, they call upon Socrates to share in the discussion. He, as usual, professes ignorance of the subject, and then by questions draws out from each of his friends their respective theories. Having listened to them, Socrates criticises each, and in his turn enters upon some speculations of his own in a half-playful yet most suggestive discourse. Just as between Realism and Nominalism, Conceptualism stands as a compromise, and just as between the doctrine of Predestination and that

THE PR^-AIEXANDEIAN PERIOD 63

of the Freedom of the Will stands out Determinism, so the views advanced by Socrates represent a mean between the “ natural ” theory of Heracl*tus and the “ conventional ” theory of the Eleatics.

Language, he says, is natural, and it is also conventional, for it has in it elements that are natural and those that are conventional. It is originally a work of art, for names are, first of all, imitations of sounds, vocal imitations. Yet vocal imitations, like any other copying, may be most imperfectly executed, and this imperfection may involve the element of chance. For there is much that is accidental or exceptional in language. Some words have had their early meaning so obscured that they have to be helped out by convention. Yet, still, the true name is that which has a natural meaning. Thus, nature, art, and chance, all enter into the formation of language, and they are so closely intertwined as to make it often impossible to separate them. So far as we may hope, however, to discover the natural element and judge of it as derived from art and accident, we can do so only by applying to words a strict analysis. In the first place, many words, perhaps most words, are in their present form, not primary words, nor even simple words, but com- pound. These we must first resolve until we reach the simple forms. But the simple forms themselves are not the primary ones, for these have been altered by time. Hence, we must in the end resolve words into the letters which compose them, because these, or rather the sounds which

64

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHELOLOGY

they denote, must have a meaning. This was well known to the first makers of language. They observed that the sound of a denoted vastness and length; that p expressed motion as in pea, /5o^, rp6fw<}, pvp^em (“ whirl,”) because in uttering that sound the tongue was most agitated and least at rest; that (p, cr, and? required a great expend- iture of breath and were therefore used in imitative words such as (“seethe”), creitrpo'i, and in general when the thought of air is involved; that the limpid movement of X,, in whose pronunciation the tongue slips along, enables that letter to express smoothness as in Xeio?, XnraptSv, AsoX-XaSe? (“ gluey ”); that the sound of 7 detained the slipping tongue so that when united with X, there is given an impression of what is glutinous and clammy, as in Xi crxp(k, <yXvKik, ryXoLaSr]^; that v, being “sounded within,” gives the notion of inwardness; while 0 suggests roundness. Thus the first language makers impressed thought on names by a principle of imitation. Gesture is the method which a deaf and dumb person would use to make his meaning dear, and language is only vocal gesture, the gesture of the tongue. Yet though thought was stamped on words in their genesis, the lesson that we may learn from words is not philosophical or moral; for the use of words varies indefinitely. It may be metaphysical, accidental, conven- tional, or in some other way secondary, and so may have no real relation to the thought or feeling of the speaker at the time.

THE PRiE-ALEXAKDEIAN PERIOD

65

Such is an outline of the Platonic views on language as set forth in the Cratylus. They embody all that was best and most rational in ancient linguistic speculation, and contain principles that philologists have not yet rejected, Plato, in fact, is the first to draw attention to the distinc- tion between simple and compound words. In his men- tion of the Lautgeherden, he makes an immense advance in the physiology of language; and in speaking of the similarity of certain foreign words to the corresponding terms in Greek, he approaches the very verge of a great discovery. His classification of the letters of the alphabet is very much that which the most modern phoneticians agree to follow. He it is who separated them into voiceful letters, or vowels {jxovrievrci) , and voiceless letters, or conso- nants {d(j)Q)va), The letters he subdivides into semi- vowels \ p, <r) and true mutes {dcl>9oyja).

The really humorous part of the Cratylus is that in which Socrates burlesques the extraordinary etymologies of the Sophists, pouring forth a flood of conjectures on the com- position of the words which his listeners suggest to him, and playing havoc with all phonetic order and system. “ You know,’’ he says, that the original form of the word is always being overlaid and bedizened by people sticking on and stripping off letters for the sake of euphony, and twisting and turning them in all sorts of ways; and this may be done for ornament or it may be the result of time.” And so in restoring the original form, he gives

F

66 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Viirngplf a free hand and alters and syncopates and apoco- pates and extends and stretches until Hermogenes in a sort of half-skeptical admiration cries out, “ Well, Socrates, you have knocked them to pieces manfully.” Alffijp is aeiderip because it is “ always running ” about the earth; ri'xvri he derives from (“ possession of mind ”)

and says “ you have ordy to take away the t, insert o be- tween the X *'> another o between the v and

the y,” upon which Hermogenes very naturally says, “ That is a pretty tough etymology.”

Every one should read the Cratylus because in its serious parts it abounds in singularly acute speculations; and in its lighter passages it affords us an excellent notion of the absurdities of the word-mongers of the fifth century.' Many, in fact, were the vagaries of the Sophists in their guesses at etymology and at the principles of language- making; and it was not only among the philosophers and quasi-philosophers that this sort of thing prevailed, but it is seen equally in the writers of pure literature, who in this followed the prevailing fashion. As a matter of general interest, one should note that this et3mologising craze was something more than a mere fad. It was simply one manifestation of a very Greek trait, — a quickness of imagination which from the earliest times reveals itself linguistically in an almost childish fondness for playing upon words, for paronomasia, for punning. This is, in

‘ See Jowett’s translation of the Cratylus in his Plato, and especially the Introduction to the Dialogue in question (ad ed., Oxford, 1893).

THE PILE-AIEXANDRIAN PERIOD 6 ^

reality, an oriental trait, as the Hebrew Scriptures attest, and was never regarded as undignified or trifling. Hence, just as in the book of Genesis alone we find some fifty of these pseudo-etymologies, chiefly in plays upon proper names, so we find the Greek poets, from Homer down, seek- ing analogies and hidden meanings in words and names. Observe Homer’s explanation of Odysseus from 6 Sva<rofiM (Od. xix. 406); of At^, ^ icdvra'i aarat, ( 11 . xix. 91); of eXe^w and eke^aipofiai (Od. xix. 562 foil.). The great pun of .^schylus on the name of Helen, 'EX^ IXem? eXavBpa<; eXeVToXt?, (Ag. 689) has become classic in Eng- lish through Peele’s imitation (in Edward I.)

“ Sweet Helen,

Hell in her name, but heaven in her looks;” and in the most tragic scene of the same play (1040, 1049) two puns are found together.^ It is probable that this playing upon proper names and also its dignity depended upon the general belief in the so-called Onomantia, or de- duction of omens from names, which both Greeks and Romans believed in so devoutly that Leotychides pledged the Samian people to a great expedition merely because a perfect stranger who urged it happened to be called Hegesistratus.*

^Euripides was called rpayiKbs h-vfwXbyos. Cf. ^sch. Prom, 86, 87s, 742, 718; AjaXj S74 and in German, Lersch, Sprackphilosopkief iii. 11-17 (Bonn, 1841); Sturz, De Nominibus Graecis, in his Qpusc. p. 78 (Leipzig, 1825). Myths seem to have been built upon the basis of false etymologies, as and XSas.

2 Herod, ix. 91.

68

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Much as the Greeks of this period etymologised, how- ever, there is little evidence that they went so far as to deal with the general subject by itself and for its own sake. Such treatises as those of Gorgias On Names, of Protag- oras On Elocution, of Prodicus On the Propriety of Names, and of Licymnius On Phrases are more properly referred to the rhetorical and oratorical teachings of these men regarding which something has already been said. Licym- nius,^ however, did note and partly discuss and classify s3monyms, root-words, compounds, and cognates. This may be taken roughly as standing on the border-land of the first two periods in the history of Classical Philology, and as having shown some appreciation of formal gram- mar.

So far as the Prae-Alexandrians came to any etymolog- ical agreement, it was in generally admitting that three principles are involved in the development of words; (i) the principle of Imitation already discussed; (2)

the principle of Metaphor (Mera^opd), by which words lose their primitive meaning and are gradually extended in their application, as when the word “ head ” or “ foot ” is applied to a mountain, or when we speak of a man’s thought as “bitter,” of his voice as “ sweet (3) the prin- ciple of Antiphrasis (Avriippaari';) of which the ancients made much, and which they also called the making of

'A Sicilian teacher of Polus who also wrote a treatise on rhetoric. See Schneidewin in the Gottinger Gel. Anzdger for 1845.

THE PI^E-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 69

words Kara ivavricocnv, or the naming of things by their opposites. The philosophical principle on which this last is based is a sound one — i.e. that of two antithetical ideas, one is apt to suggest the other, as light suggests darkness, truth suggests falsehood, and so on; but the etymological application of it was grotesque. It appears to have occurred to them because of certain well-known euphemisms, as when, for example, they found the Furies styled Eumenides, “the well-disposed.” They also ob- served in Irony (Elpaveia) a similar principle; and there- fore, putting the two together, they inferred that there is something in the human mind which instinctively describes objects by recalling their opposites. Hence, they ex- plained many words on this h3q)othesis,‘ just as the later Latin etymologists derived aridus from apSevetv, helium from bellus, cadum from celare, and, above all, the famous Incus a non lucendo, which last is, however, a perfectly correct etymology, though the ancients misunderstood the manner of its derivation.

It will be seen from the preceding pages that language study among the Greeks at this time consisted mainly in ingenious guesswork and in large and loose speculations. As yet there was no such thing as Grammar in the later sense. The word r^pdppara meant “the letters of the alphabet”; ypappaTia-Ti^’; was an elementary teacher of reading and writing, beginning with the alphabet. A ‘ See Lobeck, De Antiphrasi et Euphemismo, (s. n. 1 . n.)

yo HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

tile found in Attica^ has syllables scratched upon it (a/>, yap, Sep and the like, which show that spelling was taught and, later, reading. But the word grammaticus {ypaiJLiJLaTLK 6 <;)j at the time of which we are speaking, did not mean a grammarian, but simply a person of ordinary education, — that is, one who was able to read and write.

Nevertheless, as already suggested, a nucleus had been formed around which grammatical teaching in our sense of the word was soon to be developed. Etymology was a favourite subject of discussion. Protagoras of Abdera (c, 411 B.c.) was the first to distinguish grammatical moods and also genders.^ Prodicus of Ceos had written a trea- tise on synonyms; while Plato is regarded as having recog- nised two distinct parts of speech, the noun (Hvofia) and the verb {p^p>o ); but the distinction which it draws be- tween them is not strictly a grammatical, but a logical, dis- tinction, corresponding to the difference between subject and predicate. The true distinction is made by Aristotle, who also goes much further and mentions conjunctions {(TvvSecriioC)^ a term loosely used by him, since it includes every kind of connecting particle. The term apOpa he

^ Roberts, Greek Epigraphy, p. 170 (Cambridge, 1887-1905).

^ Protagoras classified modes of expression as question, answer, prayer, and command. In the matter of gender, he divided nouns as eitlrer masculine, feminine, and neuter, this classification being, like our own, natural and not artificial. All male creatures were regarded as masculine, all female creatures as feminine, and all inanimate things as neuter. He uses the term which was afterward adopted by the grammari- ans in ihe sense of “gender” (Lat germ).

THE PRuE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

71

used in an indefinite way of both pronouns and articles. He distinguished between tenses, and classifies verbs as not only “active” and “passive,” but those which are known to us as “neuter” and “deponent.” He has something to say of punctuation, though he mentions only one punctuation mark — a short mark placed beneath the first word of the line which ends a sentence. This he called Trapaypacf^rj, and it is the origin of our word “para- graph,” applied to a long sentence or to a number of connected sentences. It is further to be noted that Aris- totle gives names to subject and predicate. All these dis- tinctions form no part of grammatical doctrine, since this did not as yet exist; but they were at the time logical or metaphysical in their essence. Later, the Stoics and the Alexandrian scholars narrowed the definition of grammar (97 rexvrj r^pap,p^aTifcrj), and our modern meaning of the word became familiar even while its wider significance still survived.

Literary Study was now undertaken from the stand- point of aesthetics, and Literary Criticism became more scientific. The period which immediately followed the Persian Wars was the richest and most fruitful in the intellectual history of Greece. The poems of Homer had been regarded as containing in their lines something super- natural and almost divine; and this feeling is set forth in the Ion of Plato. But popular belief also held that Homer’s inspiration was passed on from him to the great poets who

72 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

were his successors, just as certain branches of the Chris- tian Church assert the doctrine of an Apostolic Succession. Thus the lyric poets shared in this general reverence, and the great dramatic poets were ennobled by popular tradi- tion. We have seen that some rude form of tragedy was said to have originated with Thespis, who was encouraged by Pisistratus to present his plays at Athens. The great tragedians, .^Eschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, produced their masterpieces almost contemporaneously. Comedy (invented by Susarion) began to thrive and found its most brilliant exponent in Aristophanes (444-388 B.c.). A newer form of comedy, less harsh in its criticism and less personal in its allusions, was presently developed first by Aristophanes himself (Middle Comedy) and was per- fected by Menander (b. 342 b.c.) in the New Comedy. All these plays, both tragedies and comedies, were pro- duced at the great festivals of the Athenians, and prizes were given according to the decision of the people.^ The study of rhetoric and oratory, the popularity of the Drama, and the exceedingly great intelligence of the Greek mind led at once to a careful study of the most famous works in prose as well as poetry. Such study inevitably took the form of exegesis, as when Plato discusses a poem of Simonides in the Protagoras, taking up the questions as to the meaning of certain words in the poem; then as to the

^ So at first. Afterwards, the prizes were awarded by a committee of five judges chosen by lot

THE PR^-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 73

consistency of Simonides; and finally, a long disquisition on the poem as a whole. Thus says Socrates: “ A great deal might be said in praise of the details of the poem, which is a charming piece of workmanship, and very finished, but that would be tedious. I should like, how- ever, to point out the general intention of the poem.” And then he proceeds to do so at considerable length. This is essentially exegetical treatment and belongs to the science of Hermeneutics, or exposition. In the Republic we have .Esthetic Criticism. But it was Aristotle in his Poetica who produced a work of true aesthetic criticism, which, though brief and unfinished, is so full of suggestion and profound thought as to make it to-day perhaps the most widely studied of all his numerous writings.^ Professor Butcher calls attention to one feature of the treatise which emphasises an important fact in the study of Greek art. He says: —

“ The distinction between fine and useful art was first brought out fully by Aristotle. In the history of Greek art we are struck rather by the union between the two forms of art than by their independence. It was a loss for art when the spheres of use and beauty came in practice to be dissevered, when the useful object ceased to be deco- rative, and the things of common life no longer gave de- light to the maker and to the user. But the theoretic

^ See Butcher, Aristotys Theory of Poetry and Fine Art (London, 1902). This volume contains a critical text and a translation of the Poetics ^ with a most admirable discussion of its teachings and their meaning.

74 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

distinction between fine and useful art needed to be laid down, and to Aristotle we owe the first clear conception of fine art as a free and independent activity of the mind, outside the domain both of religion and of politics, having an end distinct from that of education or moral improve- ment.”

A famous passage in the Poetics is that which refers to the doctrine of “purgation” (Kadapa-K). Plato had said of tragedy that it satisfies “the natural hunger for sorrow and weeping,”* and that “poetry feeds and waters the passions instead of starving them.” Thus he would ban- ish the poets from his ideal State. Aristotle, on the other hand, “held that it is not desirable to kill or to starve the emotional part of the soul; and that the regulated indul- gence of the feelings serves to maintain the balance of our nature.” Professor Butcher, summarising an explanation put forth in 1857 by J. Bemays, says that katharsis is a medical metaphor and “denotes a pathological effect on the soul, analogous to the effect of medicine on the body.” The thought, as he interprets it, may be expressed thus; Tragedy excites the emotions of pity and fear — kindred emotions that are in the breasts of all men — and by the act of excitation affords a pleasurable relief. The feelings called forth by the tragic spectacle are not, indeed, per- manently removed, but are quieted for the time. . . , The stage, in fact, provides a harmless and pleasurable outlet

^ Republicj x. 606.

THE PR^- ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 75

for instincts which demand satisfaction, and which can be indulged here more fearlessly than in real life.*

It is popularly supposed that the doctrine of the Three Dramatic Unities is set forth in the Poetica of Aristotle. This is not strictly true, however, since Aristotle definitely demands only the unity of action, — namely, that “within the single and complete action which constitutes the unity of a play,” the successive incidents should be connected together by the law of necessary and probable sequence. One may read into the treatise a suggestion of the unity of time and the unity of place; yet these were not actually formulated until the sixteenth century by Castelvetro, an Italian editor of Aristotle.*

The Greeks of Aristotle’s time regarded tragedy as the highest form of literature. Certainly to them it was more moving and more profound in its interpretation of life than even the epic. We must remember, however, that the drama is more than literature, since it is literature blended with all the other arts. The dance, the song, the painter’s colouring, and instrumental music, too, are there, and the eflcct of animated sculpture is found in the living men and women who impersonate the characters. Hence the acted drama is not literature pure and simple, but it is a melange of all the arts.*

^ Butcher, op. cit. pp. 227-228.

^See Spingam, Literary Criticism in the Renaissance^ pp. 90-101 (New York, 1908).

3 Peck, Liter aturCi pp. 22, 28 (New York, 1908).

76

HISTOEY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

One dwells upon Aristotle’s Poeiica, because it is the most remarkable specimen of aesthetic criticism which we now possess. But criticism of various kinds was to be found in other writers, and especially in Heraclides Ponti- cus (fl. 340 B.C.), who came to Athens, where he studied under Plato. He is said to have written upon many sub- jects — philosophy, mathematics, music, history, politics, language, and poetry. Only fragments of these treatises remain, though we have a synopsis of one of his books on the subject of political science. There was also Theo- phrastus of Lesbos (b. 372 b.c.) who has left fragments of two works, one On Comedy and the other On Style. In the second he is said to have treated of metres and of solecisms.'

Much criticism must have been given orally by the Sophists in their lectures; and in the dramas themselves by the playwrights in their hits at one another. This was especially the case with comic poets, above all, Aris- tophanes, who was fond of gibing at Euripides and of praising .lEschylus. It is said that a whole passage of the Telefhus, by Euripides, was subsequently omitted because Aristophanes had made such game of it* Another form of criticism is to be found in the parodies of serious works.

•See Voss, De Heradidis Pontid Vita ef ScHptis (Rostock, 1897); and the dissertation, by Rabe on Theophrastus (Bonn, 1890).

' See Egger, Histoire de la Critique, pp. 45-70. Later Antiochus of Alesandria wrote a book on the poets who were criticised in the Middle Comedy. See Athenaeus, xi. p. 232.

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 77

Even the heroic poetry of Homer and of the Cyclic writers became a subject of burlesque. There is, in fact, scarcely anything more characteristic of the later Greeks than the extent to which parody prevailed. It indicates how far the critical spirit was supplanting the creative; for while few can create, any one can ridicule that which has been created.

In the fifth century, the mock-heroic was represented in the Batrachomyomachia^ or Battle of the Frogs and Mice, ascribed to one Pigres. It is not in itself, however, a direct parody any more than is Pope’s Rape of the Lock; but like that, it may be called pure literature. With Hege- mon of Thasos, however, true Parody begins. Hegemon directly burlesqued the epic Gigantomachia in a play to which the Athenians were listening when the news came to them that their Sicilian expedition in the Peloponnesian War had been utterly destroyed.^ A more audacious parodist was Matron of Pitana (c. 380 b.c.), who was the first to burlesque Homer. From him we have a fragment which mocks the opening lines of the Odyssey? The first line shows that this parody was of a gastronomical nature, for it reads; —

Aet-TTva /Aot ccTTrcrc, Movcra, ToXvrpo^a Kal fji.dXa iroXXd!

Sing to me, Muse, of the feasts that are filling and many in number!

The philosophers were parodied by Timon of Phlius,

'Athenaeus, i. p. 5; iii. p. 108.

® Athenseus, iv. pp. 134-137, and Moser, Ueher Matron dm Parodikef in Daub and Xreuzer’s Studim, vi. pp. 293 foil.

78 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

known as the Sillographer, whose silli {aCKKoi) ‘ guyed the teaching of the dogmatic philosophers in epic verse. The classic tragedy was burlesqued, though at a later period, by Rhinthon of T arentum (or Syracuse) in plays which gave rise to the so-called mock tragedy {iXaporpa^c^Ca), or la iragedie pour rire. It must be said also that a certain ironical spirit appears in a collection by Aristotle of ques- tions intended to point out some of the inconsistencies or absurdities in Homer (Jlpo^rjpaTa).

There are evidences that during the latter part of this period a good deal of confusion existed in the texts of stand- ard authors. It is known that Aristotle himself edited a special edition of Homer for the use of his pupil, Alexander the Great, — an edition known as “the casket edition.” It is also a tradition that Lycurgus {c. 350 b.c.), the Athenian (not to be confounded with Lycurgus the m3d;hi- cal Spartan legislator), erected bronze statues to the three great tragic poets, ^Eschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, and caused authentic copies of their plays to be made and preserved in the public archives. These copies were made after a careful collation of the actors’ copies. Concerning this recension, however, very little is known, though the fact itself is significant.* Even if the State codex prepared by

^Literally “Squints.’^ Cf. our theatrical slang, “Iris a scream!" See Paul, De Sillis (Berlin, 1821); Delapierre, La Parodie chez les Grecs, etc. (London, 1871), and Carroll, Aristotle^ s Poetics, etc. (Baltimore, 1895).

^ Wilamowitz, in Hermes, xiv, 151J and id., Introduction to the Hera^ klcs of Euripides (Berlin, 1889).

THE PRiS-ALEXANDIlIAN PERIOD 79

Lycurgus was only a careful exemplar and not very criti- cally made, it still remains a work of great importance in the history of Text Criticism, because down to the time of the Alexandrians, it remained a standard edition and was held in great esteem. It seems probable, however, that it really did rest upon a critical basis, since there was no lack of editions, nor could an arbitrarily chosen text have attained to so much authority. Granting also that the critical comparison of manuscripts had not long existed, there were certainly autographa preserved in the families of the tragic poets. Furthermore, there was an orig- inal codex in each instance, an assertion that cannot be made regarding the Homeric text. The original codex, however carefully copied, must still have contained errors, and may have been supplied with marginal notes after being compared with the version used by the actors in the theatre. More than this, however, it is impossible to say; for, regarding the methods of recension, no actual evidence survives.

Attention was much earlier given to Music than to the other arts, and the study of it had a scientific character. Many treatises are spoken of with the title He/jl Mou' and Henri, VEncaustique (Paris, 1884); and Bockler, Die Polyckromie i/n d&r antiken Sculptur (Ascherslebcn, 1882).

2 Pliny, H. N. xxvii, 76.

84

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

name has come down to us is Mnesarchus, the father of the philosopher Pythagoras {c. 600 b.c.). The most famous master of gem-cutting in Greek times was Pyrgo- teles in the fourth century B.C. He was the only artist whom Alexander the Great would allow to cut his like- ness. It may be added that not until later times did the love of precious stones such as pearls and emeralds become a passion.^

The Pras-Alexandrian Period may be viewed as end- ing with the death of Aristotle (322 b.c.) and the complete domination of Greece by the Macedonian kings. The supremacy of Macedon, in fact, marks the decadence of what had been most original and striking in the genius of the Greeks, whether political, literary, or philosophical. The history of this period reveals in Greece the gradual development and decline that have been repeated in the history of every other nation since the world began, when- ever that history has extended over a sufficient time to give play to the same creative and the same destructive forces. So in Greece we find at first a vigorous and quick-witted people, in its formative period, cherishing a comparatively simple and intelligible faith, and with a literature that springs up less as the result of conscious art than as the spontaneous outpouring of native genius,

1 See Middleton, The Engraved Gems of Classical Times (Cambridge, 1891); Murray, A Handbook of Greek Archaology, pp. 40-50, 146-173 (London, 1892); and Fowler and Wheeler, A Handbook of Greek Arch- ceology, ch. vii (New York, 1909).

THE PEJE-ALEXANDEIAN PERIOD 85

seeking to give fit expression to the national aspirations. Gradually the notion of formal art and formulaic teaching is implanted in men’s minds. Schools arise, and what the few have done before from natural prompting, the many learn to do according to rule and precept.

“ Most can raise the flowers now For all have got the seed.”

The first result is to develop to the full the powers of men of genius. There is a happy blending of the old creative gifts, and of the old freshness and spontaneity, with the power that comes from training and from the condensation of accumulated experience into definite rules. The Greek mind, thus stimulated and developed, attacks all of the great problems that confront and challenge the human intellect. The philosophy of language, the sources of style, the arts of expression, the theory of government, the laws of thought, the constitution of the universe, and the nature of the gods themselves, are all explained fear- lessly and often with an acuteness that has never found its parallel. But the limitations of the mind are at last reached, and its most earnest efforts appear to lead to nescience; so that Greece in the sphere of government ended with despotism, in philosophy with negation, in religion with scepticism. The Greek genius in its later struggles can best be described in Matthew Arnold’s exquisite words as “ a beautiful and ineffectual angel beat- ing in the void its luminous wings in vain.”

86

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

There is some truth in the belief that a general and highly developed culture is fatal to originality, because it inevi- tably leads to established standards and thus makes eveiy- thing conventional. A dead level of excellence takes the place of a few striking manifestations of creative power. The average man is more intelligent, but the exceptional man is less original, until at last exceptional men no more exist. Society becomes intellectually Uas6 and reduces everything to formulas. Creators give place to critics who are slaves to what they call good form.*’ But it is not consistent with good form to be imaginative and enthusi- astic and original. This is held to be eccentric. Thus in a highly civilised community the whole drift of thought is toward the commonplace; and thus in the later philosophy, the speculative and idealistic systems give way to a sort of mild eclecticism that does not go very far beyond the prac- tical questions which relate to the life of every day. The epic is supplanted by the drama with its many meretri- cious allurements. In the drama itself the intense and powerful tragedies of ^Eschylus and Sophocles are first thrust aside by the rationalistic and rather cynical plays of Euripides,^ until tragedy gives way to the elegant and amus- ing comedy of Menander, with its urbane dialogue and its realism, which takes it out of the realm of pure poetry.^

Euripides the introduction and pp. 257-60

(Cambridge, 1895); ^.nd Decharme, Euripides and the Spirit of his Dramas, pp. 74-92. Eng. trans. (New York, 1906).

2 Horace, Sat, i. 4, 46-47.

THE PII^-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

87

The Pras- Alexandrian Age ends, then, when the creative impulse had largely yielded to the critical. What remained for serious men, therefore, was not to attempt an3d;hing new, but rather to study what had already been produced

— to analyse, to criticise, and to classify. Thus there came into especial prominence the sciences that are col- lateral and subsidiary to literature and linguistic study

— hermeneutics, lexicography, text criticism, and formal grammar.

[Bibliography. — In addition to the hooks already cited in this chapter, see the anecdotal works of Diogenes Laertius, English translation (London, 1853), and Athenseus, English translation (London, 1854); together with Saintsbury, A History of Criticism, i., pp. 3-59 (New York, 1900); Jebb, The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry (London, 1893) j Haigh, The Tragic Drama of the Greeks (Oxford, 1896); Denis, La Co^nidie Grecque, 2 vols. (Paris, 1886); Croiset, An Abridged History of Greek Literature, English translation (New York, 1904); and Courthope, Life in Poetry: Law in Taste, 37-221 (London, 1901).]

III. THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

A. The Alexandrian School

In the year 306 b.c., Demetrius Phalereus, statesman, poet, philosopher, and orator, having been sentenced to death at Athens, left Greece and passed over the sea to the infant city of Alexandria in Egypt. It was exactly twenty-five years from the time when Alexander the Great, had, with his own hand, traced the general plan of the city to which he gave his name and as to which he issued the most peremptory orders that it should be made the metropolis of the entire world. The commands of a king cannot give enduring greatness to a city; but the natural advantages of Alexandria were such that a great commercial community, when planted there, was sure to live and flourish throughout succeeding ages.

Alexandria lay upon a projecting tongue of land, so situated that the whole trade of the Mediterranean centred in it. Down the Nile there floated to its wharves the wealth of barbaric Africa. To it also came the treasures of the East, carried over vast spaces by caravans — silks from China, spices and jewels from India, and enormous masses of gold and silver from lands of which the names were scarcely known even to contemporary geographers.

SS

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 89

In its harbour were the vessels of every country, from Asia in the East, to Spain and Gaul and even Britain in the West.

To the outward eye, Alexandria was extremely beautiful. Through its entire length ran two great boulevards, shaded by mighty trees, and diversified by parterres of multicoloured flowers amid which fountains splashed and costly marbles gleamed. One-fifth of the whole city was reserved for the Greek kings who succeeded Alexander, and was known as the Royal Residence. In it, before long, were the palaces of the reigning family; and there were, besides, parks and gardens, brilliant with tropical foliage and adorned with masterpieces of Grecian sculp- ture, while sphinxes and obelisks gave a suggestion of oriental strangeness. As one looked seaward, his eye beheld, over the blue water, the rocks of the sheltering island, Pharos, on which Ptolemy II. reared a pyramidal lighthouse of marble four hundred feet in height at a cost of eight hundred silver talents ($940,000), and justly numbered among the seven wonders of the world. At the time when Demetrius took refuge there, the city con- tained more than one himdred thousand inhabitants, and was humming with life. Its people were alert, energetic, proud of Alexandria’s distinction, and ambitious for its future. Dinocrates, its designer, had planned it with a sublime belief in its destiny, giving it a circumference of more than fifteen miles, and foreseeing already its coming

90

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Splendour. Ptolemy Soter, who was just about to assume the style and title of a king, was a man of large concep- tions and liberal ideas. His mother had been a con- cubine of Philip of Macedon, so that Ptolemy was believed to be half-brother to the great Alexander, under whom he had served with conspicuous success in Asia. A great soldier and a consummate statesman, he was also a true Greek in his love of art and science and literature. In fact, he had himself written a narrative of the wars of Alexander.^ He was still carrying on a campaign against Antigonus; but the contest was nearing its end, and al- ready Ptolemy was turning his thoughts to magnificent designs for enhancing the glory and splendour of his capital.

It was the psychological moment for some remarkable achievement. All the conditions were absolutely favour- able. Here was a rich, populous, and youthful city, possessing the Hellenic traditions of intellectual greatness, yet growing up in a world that was broader than little Hellas. Its people were receptive to new ideas, liberal- ised by contact with a civilisation far older than that of Greece itself, and filled with an intense desire to gain at once, not only the commercial, but the intellectual su- premacy of the world. The first Greek king of Egypt

‘This narrative was largely used by Arrian in preparing his chief work, the Anabasis of Alexander. The fragments of Ptolemy’s work can be found in the Didot edition of Arrian (Paris, 1848).

THE AlEXANDEIAN PERIOD 91

possessed practically unlimited resources. He was gifted with a trained intelligence and taste, and inspired with a splendid enthusiasm for all that was noble and refining. The suggestion alone was needed to employ these unusual opportunities in a way that should be worthy of their inherent possibilities. Such a suggestion came from the exiled Athenian, Demetrius Phalereus.

Demetrius himself was a man well fitted to influence even so independent a ruler as King Ptolemy. He was among the last of the Attic orators of distinction. He had governed his native city so ably that three hundred and ninety statues had been erected by the Athenians in his honour. He was also a highly cultivated scholar, the schoolmate of Menander, and a pupil of Theophrastus, who succeeded Aristotle at the head of the Peripatetic .School. To him was due the revival of Homeric recita- tion by the Rhapsodes, after these had fallen into disuse. He was himself the author of two books relating to the Iliad and four relating to the Odyssey, supposed to have dealt with text criticism. No one could have been better fitted than he to advise the king in whatever related to any project for the advancement of learning. There- fore, one is not surprised that to him is ascribed the sug- gestion which soon rendered Alexandria the intellectual capital of the world and profoundly influenced the sub- sequent history of Greek and Roman learning. The im- mediate fruits of his wise counsel were two — the estab-

92 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

lishment of a great Museum (to and also the

foundation of the famous Alexandrian Library.^

An account of the Museum is given by Strabo.^ It was attached to the royal palace in the most beautiful quarter of the city, overlooking the harbour, and sur- rounded by lawns, porticos, and marvels of decorative art. It contained an observatory for its astronomers, laboratories, a selected library, and a great hall which was practically a theatre of magnificent proportions arranged as a public lecture room. In a second hall, the scholars who were drawn to the Museum from all countries dined together, like the master and fellows of an English college. Attached to the Museum were botanical and zoological gardens. The object of the whole institution was to encourage original research. At first there was no teaching, so that the Museum bore a strik- ing resemblance to the Carnegie Institution in Washing- ton. Later it became in essence a great university in which the professors lectured, each on his own specialty, to students who numbered at one time as many as four- teen thousand. The professors were primarily under the supervision of principals whom we may call deans, chosen by the whole body; while the administration of the

^ Athenaeus, v. p. 203.

^ Strabo, xviii. p. 794. See also Parthey, Das Alexanirinische Museum CBerlin, 1838); Ritschl, Opuscula, i. pp. 1-70, 123-172, 197-237; Weniger, Das Alexandrinische Museum (1895); Walden, The Universities of Ancieni Greece^ pp. 48-50 (New York, 1909); Graves, A History of Education before the Middle Ages (New York, 1909).

THE ALEXANDEIAN PERIOD

93

Museum was in the hands of a priest appointed by the king and in later times by the Roman emperor. The expense of the whole was borne by the public treasury. The second Ptolemy grouped the lecturers under four faculties representing, respectively, Literature, Mathe- matics, Astronomy, and Medicine, corresponding to the modern divisions of Philosophy, Applied Science, Pure Science, and Medicine.

The administrative head of the Museum was not, how- ever, charged with all the functions of an American uni- versity president or chancellor. We find in Alexandria a practical division of duties such as has been proposed in very recent times, became it seems impossible for a single man to be at once the administrative and the edu- cational head of a great university. The educational head of the University at Alexandria was the person in charge of the great Library, which sprang up side by side with the Museum, and was necessitated by it The second Ptolemy collected from all parts of Greece and Asia an immense number of manuscripts, some of which, as already said, were stored in the Museum, while the rest were housed separately in another building known as the Serapeum. Foreign books were also pur- chased and translations of them were added to the Library.^ The Septuagint version of the Old Testament is said to

• Callimachus, the second librarian, was the first to introduce a num-

ber of Egyptian and Hebrew manuscripts.

94

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

have been thus made. Galen mentions the fact that the auiographa or original copies of ^Eschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides were purchased for the Library, which is believed at the time of its greatest fame to have contained between five hundred thousand and six hundred thousand volumes.* Even before the death of Demetrius there were some fifty thousand volumes on its shelves. Private collections such as that of Aristotle were purchased, as well as rare editions and especially authoritative copies.

It can readily be seen how the existence of an endowed school side by side with a library of such magnificent pro- portions would quickly foster the systematic and orderly study of many subjects that had previously been taken up at random by individuals, working independently and often with very unsatisfactory and inadequate materials. At last, in every sphere of learning, a large body of highly trained men, provided with every facility for research and freed from any pecuniary anxiety, could labour with- out haste and without rest, apportioning their work so as to bring into play the peculiar talents of each, and accumulating a great mass of data — of facts, results, and principles, which each succeeding generation found classified for its use and to which in turn it added. Hence, at once a great development of the scientific spirit in

^ See Ritschl, Die Alexandrinischen BiUiothcken (Breslau, 1838); Birt, Das Antike Buchwesen (Berlin, 1882); Geraud, Les Lkres dans V Antiquity ^ ch. X (Paris, 1840); Castellani, Delle BiUioteche nelV AntichitS (Bologna, 1884).

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

95

every direction followed almost immediately upon the establishment of the Museum and Library and what is roughly and somewhat inaccurately styled the Alexan- drian School. There were, in fact, several distinct out- gro^vths from the Alexandrian researches and training, but there was no school ’’ at all in the sense given to that word when we speak of the Ionic School, or the Pythagorean School, or the Stoic School. In each of these a number of able men were all dominated by cer- tain common philosophical principles and ideas and holding fast to a common theory. But at Alexandria such was not the case. The learned men who lived together in the Museum had no single philosophy and held no theory in common. Their activities took the most diverse direction. The only thing that all of them possessed together was a love of science and of scientific methods. It would be far more proper to speak of the ‘‘ schools ” at Alexandria, since there were really many, — a school of mathematics, a school of astronomy, a school of medicine, a school of philosophy, a school of literature, a school of grammar and linguistics, and finally, a school of textual criticism.^

Yet these different schools had one characteristic so

^ See St. Hilaire, De VEco*k d^Alexandrie (Paris, 1845); Simon, Histoire de VEcole d'Akxmtdne, 2 vols. (Paris, 1844-45); and Vacherot, Eistoire Critique de VEco*k d^Alexandrky 3 vols. (Paris, 1846-51). Kings- ley’s Alexandrian Schools (Cambridge, 1854) is disappointing and re- lates only to the philosophical side.

96 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

far in common as to give a sort of family likeness to all the productions of the Alexandrian scholars, and thus in some measure to justify us in speaking of the Alexandrian “school.” Just as the writings of the earlier Greeks exhibit a certain instinctive originality and freshness of thought, so the writings of the Alexandrians are steeped in erudition. They smell of the lamp. Before all else, they are learned productions; and this is the trait that belongs to every single work that came from their hands. It is seen no less in their literature than in their science. A German writer has very aptly said: “ It is as though the great library strove to reproduce itself in each indi- vidual work.” Therefore we find the Alexandrian Poetry, such as that of Callimachus, Aratus, and Apollonius, suggesting to the reader at every turn a learned treatise. So Philetas of Cos (c. 300 B.c.), though a writer of elegies, died from overwork in scientific study. It was he, in- deed, who made the first attempt at an Homeric lexicon ("ATa/rTa, TXacra-ai).^ The astronomers and the mathe- maticians were morbidly anxious about the rhetorical and grammatical merits of the language in which they wrote of the equinoxes and the ecliptic, or the solution of the quadratic equation. So, again, the geographers and his- torians supplied their treatises with archseological notes. And thus, at first, even the most abstract lectures were given in verse. It was an age of encyclopaedic scholar- ' See Couat, La PoSsU Alexandrine, pp. 68 foil. (Paiis, 1882}.

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

97

ship; and it tinges the Alexandrian epics and dramas no less than the treatises on grammar and lexicography. This is what is meant by the Alexandrian Influence, — an influence that was afterward so powerfully felt at Rome, where it reproduced itself in the writings of Varro, the polymath, no less than in the lines of Vergil, the most learned of all the Latin poets.

It is precisely because the whole tendency of the Alex- andrians was toward reflection and research that their work in pure literature was of slight aesthetic value, being formal, pedantic, and void of imagination, and that their philosophy was marked by a learned eclecticism. The highest philosophy, like the noblest literature, demands, in addition to mere learning, an intellectual subtlety and genuine inspiration. But the study of mathematics, of mechanics, and of physics was now fruitful, and in many respects so sure in its results as to be the admiration of scientific men to-day; while no one can overestimate the enduring value of that systematic labour in the study of language (lexicography and grammar) and in the criticism of texts.

So far as literature is concerned, the Alexandrians were at their best in collecting and preserving what had come down to them from the preceding centuries. What they added of their own was vast in amount and devoid of any great aesthetic merit. Little more than the names of the Alexandrian writers of epics and l5n:ics and dramas

98

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

are known to-day. Here and there a few fragments tell of vast volumes which were read and even admired at Alexandria, but which were either so obscure in their treatment or so technical in their themes as to deserve the oblivion that has come upon them.

On the other hand, the Alexandrians reduced criticism and the study of style to an exact science. The first libra- rian, Zenodotus of Ephesus (c. 300 b.c.), collected the epic and l3n:ic poets; Lycophron of Colchis, the comic poets; and Alexander of .^Etolus, the tragic poets. The second librarian, Callimachus of Cyrene (c. 275 b.c.), made a catalogue of the Library in one hundred and twenty books which may be said to have laid the foundation for a scientific study of Greek literature. The third librarian, Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 200 B.C.), wrote an admirable treatise on geography and another on the Old Comedy, in at least twelve books, bringing to bear upon the sub- ject a wealth of knowledge and excellent taste. The fourth librarian, Aristophanes of Byzantium (c. 200 B.c.), has been styled “the greatest philologist of antiquity.” It is he who is said to have invented the accents which are now employed in writing Greek, and also a system of punctuation. Likewise he suggested critical signs (a-r]fieta) and used them in his editions of Homer, Hesiod, of the three great tragic poets, and other famous writers. It is claimed also that he wrote the H3q)otheses or con- densed plots to the greater dramatists, with notes and

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

99

Eesthetic criticisms.^ Most important of all is his estab- lishment of what have become known as “the canons ” or lists of the very best authors of Greek antiquity. The Alexandrian Canon* was prepared with the greatest care, and it represents the matured and final judgment of the Alexandrian students of literature as to those names of Greek writers whose works embodied the very highest excellence in their especial spheres, and who were thought to be models for all future authors.

The details of the Canon are as follows; (i) Epic Poets, Homer, Hesiod, Pisander, Panyasis, Antimachus.

(2) lambic Poets, Archilochus, Simonides, Hipponax.

(3) Lyric Poets, Aleman, Alcaeus, Sappho, Stesichorus, Pindar, Bacchylides, Ibycus, Anacreon, Simonides. (4) Ele- giac Poets, Callinus, Miimermus, Philetas, Callimachus. (5) Tragic Poets (First Class), .^schylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Ion, Achaeus, Agathon. (Second Class, or Tragic Pleiades), Alexander the .^tolian, Philiscus of Corc)nra, Sositheus, Homer the Younger, .^Eantides, Sosi- phanes or Sosicles, Lycophron. (6) Comic Poets (Old Comedy), Epicharmus, Cratinus, Eupolis, Aristophanes, Pherecrates, Plato. (Middle Comedy), Antiphanes,

‘ See Gudeman, OuUines of the History of Classiad Philology, 3d ed., pp. 11-13 (Boston, 1902), and infra, pp. 100-102.

^The word canon {mviiv) meant originally a reed, and then a car- penter’s rule; so that, in a figurative sense, the word came to denote whatever served as a model or norm. The Canon Alexandrinus is really made up of several canons as may be seen in the text above.

lOO

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Alexis. (New Comedy), Menander, Philippides, Diphi- lus, Philemon, Apollodorus. (7) Historians, Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon, Theopompus, Ephorus, Philistus, Anaximenes, Callisthenes. (8) Orators (the ten Attic Orators), Antiphon, Andocides, Lysias, Isocrates, Isseus, ^schines, Lycurgus, Demosthenes, Hyperides, Dinarchus. (9) Philosophers, Plato, Xenophon, .(Eschines, Aristotle, Theophrastus. (10) Poetic Pleiades (seven poets of the same epoch with one another), Apollonius Rhodius, Aratus, Philiscus, Homer the Younger, Lycophron, Ni- cander, Theocritus.

This Canon was felt to be necessary owing to the great multitude of hooks that began to appear in the Alexandrian Age. There was a certain apprehension lest the weight of numbers should prevail against the claims of real merit, and lest the great classics should be lost in a flood of innovation. The Canon was intended to serve and it did serve as a standard of comparison by which all liter- ary productions must be judged; and thus it preserved purity of style and some definite laws of literary expres- sion. From the standpoint of our own times the estab- lishment of the Alexandrian Canon wrought both good and harm. It undoubtedly led to the preservation of some of the greatest works of antiquity; but it also led to the loss of other works that would be of inestimable value to the modern classical philologist. These latter works were allowed to perish just because they were not

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

lOI

included by the Alexandrian critics in their authoritative list. The mere fact that such a clearly defined standard existed, was also, doubtless, an injury to the most gifted writers of the following centuries. It fostered a spirit of imitation and discouraged the free play of their talents by compelling them to a sort of conformity with predeces- sors whose genius and temperament were of a very different type.^

Of original composition under the head of pure litera- ture, the most interesting genre is found in the Idylls of Theocritus, whose time is so well within the early days of this period as to make it doubtful whether it is wholly fair to class him as an Alexandrian. The lyric poets come next in order of merit, the best of them being Cal- limachus, of whose work, however, only a few hymns and fragmentary passages and epigrams remain. It may be said that in the writing of epigrams the Alexandrians were very felicitous, as might have been expected from those who so carefully studied the art of expression and who were always striving after neatness and precision of style. The dramatic works composed at Alexandria are now wholly lost. Of the epics, two famous specimens remain, — the Argonautica of Apollonius Rhodius, and the Alex- andra of Lycophron. The first is inordinately dull,

' See Usener, Dionysii Ealic. Lihrorum de Imitatione Reliquics (Leipzig, 1899); Steffen, De Canone qui Dlcitur Aristophanis et Aristarchi (Leip- zig, 1876); Hartmann, De Canone Decern Oratorum (Gottingen, 1891); and Susemihl, op, ciL i, pp. 445, 484; ii. 674 foil. 694-697.

102

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

heavily charged with ponderous learning, and reading in parts like a dictionary of antiquities. As to the second, its obscurity passed into a proverb even in ancient times. ^ More truly typical of the age are the so-called didactic epics of Aratus on astronomy and meteorology (after- wards translated into Latin by Cicero), and that of Ni- cander of Colophon on cures for poison and the bites of venomous creatures. As time went on, the literary work of the Alexandrians became more and more pedantic and far less imbued with the spirit of pure literature, until it came to an end not far from the beginning of the Christian era.^

The Alexandrian Philosophy was always characterised by eclecticism. It originated nothing. The most interesting school that arose in Egypt after the Library became established was Jewish or was, at any rate, due largely to the influence of Jewish rabbis who began to widen their religious teaching, so as to admit into it some of the philosophical conceptions of the earlier Greeks. The result was a body of semi-religious doctrine in which philosophy and theology were superficially har- monised. The most elaborate expounder of this har- mony was Aristobulus, an Alexandrian Jew (c, i8o b.c.) whose commentaries on the Mosaic Books, dedicated to Ptolemy Philometor, sought to show that the main teach-

^ Suidas called it a “poem of shadows.*’ The scholia by Tzetzes are however, very valuable.

• See Couat, La PoBsie Alexandrine (Paris, 1882).

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

103

ings of Greek philosophers, especially those of Plato and Aristotle, were derived from the Pentateuch. Three cen- turies later, when the influence of Christianity began to be felt, Neo-Platonism was thereby modified; but the later Neo-Platonists were hostile to Christianity; and their system, in the hands of lamblichtis and Julian the Apostate, was set forth as a substitute both for Chris- tianity and the older pagan faith. ^

In the Pure and Applied Sciences, the achievements of the Alexandrians lie somewhat beyond the strict limits of classical philology. It may, however, be well to enu- merate some striking results which were attained. These comprise the measurement of the sun and moon by Aris- tarchus of Samos (310-250 b.c.); the first systematic treatise on geometry by Euclid {c. 300 B.c.); the develop- ment of the geometry of three dimensions by Archimedes (287-212 B.C.), as well as the first application of mathe- matics to hydrostatics by the same scholar; the first scientific treatise on conic sections by Apollonius of Perga (260-200 B.C.); the working out by Eratosthenes (275-194 B.c.) of what was later called the Julian Calendar; the determination of the true length of the solar year (within six minutes) by Hipparchus (c. 160 b.c.), after whom no real advance in astronomy was made imtil the time of Copernicus, some sixteen hundred years later; the

^ See Kingsley, op, cU,; and Whittaker, The Neo-Platonists (Cambridge, 1901).

104 HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

mvention of trigonometry, also by Hipparchus; and finaly, the construction of the fire-engine, the steam-engine, the nickel-in-the-slot machine, and many curious mechanical toys by Hero (c. 125 b.c.), to whom have also been ascribed writings on the solution of the quadratic equation and the introduction of algebra/

As Aristophanes was essentially the great <l)iX 6 Xoyoi among the Alexandrians, so Aristarchus was essentially the great KpiriKoi of all antiquity. Born in Samothrace, he was a pupil of Aristophanes at Alexandria, where his stupendous labours as a critic of literature made his name afterwards, and even to this day, proverbial. It is with him that text criticism reached its highest development until recent times.

It is evident that the literary study of an author, pur- sued in a thorough and systematic way, will soon result in questions relating to the integrity of the text, especially when the author has been long dead and when there exist variant versions from which one has to choose. It has already been shown that something had been done pre- viously toward the criticism of the Homeric texts and also the texts of the great dramatists. This work was now taken up at Alexandria in a spirit of scientific inquiry and with ample means for its prosecution. As time went on,

'See Berry, A Short History of Astronomy CLondoa, i8gg); Ball, Great Astronomers (New York, i8gg); Ball, A History of Mathematics (London, igoi); Cajori, A History of Mathematics (New York, igo6);

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD 10$

a definite School of Criticism was established. The first librarian, Zenodotus of Ephesus, may be regarded as the founder of this school. The fact that his duties were partly those of a cataloguer, purchaser, and classifier led him to look with especial interest upon the work of mak- ing collections, so that one finds him preparing a sort of corpus of the epic and lyric poets and elaborating the Homeric glossary of Philetas into a more ambitious work. He also put forth an edition which may be called the very first scientific edition of both the Iliad and the Odyssey, It was published shortly before the year 274 b.c. Hence Zenodotus is called BiopOcoTijs, and his work the BiSpOcocrts^ or Recension.

In preparing the text of Homer, Zenodotus introduced four kinds of corrections: (i) Elimination, the complete omission of certain lines that he regarded as absolutely spurious; (2) Query, the marking of certain lines as very doubtful, though still not so doubtful as to justify their omission altogether; (3) Transposition, the rearrangement of the order of certain lines; (4) Emendation, the sub-

Fink, A History of Mathematics (Chicago, 1900); Hankel, Zur Geschichte der Mathematik im AUcrthum und MiUelalter (Leipzig, 1S74); and the treatise on Hiero^s ingenious mechanical toys with drawings to illustrate them in Greenwood, Pneumatics (London, 1851). As to algebra, this was in reality an invention of the Egyptians. The first treatise on algebra dates back to the year 1700 b.c., when Ahmes, an Egyptian scribe, copied part of an algebraic work written eight hundred years before his time. The book of Ahmes has been edited by Exsenlohr (Leipzig, 1877)*

io6

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

stitution of new readings for the old.^ As was natural in a lexicographer, he paid great attention to the vocabulary of Homer, and his corrections appear to have been made chiefly upon the verbal side. His proof of what could be done by a minute study of word and phrase began a new era of philological study, and one in which language, as distinct from style, received a very close attention. The processes of text criticism now began to be extended to other texts than those of Homer. We have already mentioned the great edition of the tragic poets by Alex- ander iEtolus, and the edition of the comic poets by Lycophron. The JUvaK&s of Callimachus, previously spoken of, were really more than a catalogue of the books in the Alexandrian Library, since they contained critical observations on the genuineness of each volume, an indi- cation of the first and last word of each, and a note regard- ing its size.^ This was essentially Bibliography employed in the service of criticism.

The third librarian, Eratosthenes, of whose scientific studies something has been already said, compiled a treatise on the Old Comedy in not less than twelve books. In it he seems to have given for the first time, not only a complete and critical treatment of the language and sub- ject of the comedies, but also an exhaustive series of excursus on such themes as were of collateral interest and

^ Examples of his corrections may be found in H. F. Clinton’s Fasti Bdlenicij iii. pp. 491 foil. (Oxford, 1824-1834).

® See Egger, Cdlimaqm d VOrigim de la BiUiographie (Paris, no date).

THE ALEXAISIBRIAN PERIOD 107

importance, — e,g, the structure of theatres, the scenic apparatus, the actors, the costumes, the different kinds of elocution, and, in fact, everything pertaining to the general subject.^

His successor, Aristophanes of Byzantium, availed him- self fully of the material which was now at hand. The Alexandrian Library had already existed for an entire cen- tury, and it had been thoroughly sifted, arranged, and classified, so that there was needed only a great mind to put it to the best possible use. Much had already been done toward the establishment of some principles of criticism; but the results of previous successes and failures were now to be utilised to the full, and in a broad and liberal spirit. The whole sphere of Greek literature be- came a field for the labours of Aristophanes; and in taking upon himself so heavy a task, he set to work in a spirit of catholicity. His criticism was not wholly verbal, nor was it even wholly diplomatic, — that is, criticism based upon the comparison of manuscripts. It was both of these, and it was inspired and tempered by the senti- ment critique. His o-rjfji^eca were of various sorts. Ten of them were known as the Sefca wpo<r(pScat, or ten markings of Aristophanes. These were the two breathings, the three accents,^ the two quantity marks (the long and the short),

^ The fragments of his writings will be found in Berhardy, Eratos- thenica (Berlin, 1S22),

® Breathings and accents, however, were not regularly written in Greek manuscripts earlier than the seventh century a.d.

Io8 HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

the mark of separation inserted between words where the point of separation might not be obvious, the hyphen (a curved line drawn under the letters to show the connection, as in compound words), and finally, the apostrophe used either to mark elision or the end of a foreign name. It was regularly written after a word ending in «, %, 'f', or

p. When a double consonant was found in the middle of a word, an apostrophe was placed above the first or between the two letters.

Besides these, Aristophanes also made use of the full point or period, whose value depended upon its position. The high point was a full stop. The point on the line was a semicolon. The point in a middle position was a comma. The last disappeared from use in the ninth century A.D., when it was replaced by the mark which we now call a comma.

Aristophanes also edited critically a great number of texts. He prepared a supplement to the catalogue of Callimachus; he helped compose the Canon already given; he wrote a treatise on metres, and also the first scientific work on lexicography, of which about one hun- dred fragments are still preserved. ‘

We need not dwell in detail upon the critical methods of Aristophanes, since they can be much better seen in the work of his remarkable pupil and associate, Aristar-

' The fragments of Aristophanes are edited by Nauck, Amtofhanis ByzaniU Fragmenta (Halle, 1848).

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

109

chus of Samothrace (c. 217-145 b.c.). He is the best type of the Alexandrian critic, since he confined himself to the single field of criticism and did not seek to be known as a polymath. He first completed the general terminol- ogy of formal grammar, setting forth the eight parts of speech — noun, verb, pronoun, adverb, participle, article, conjunction, and preposition.^

Aristarchus finally determined the fixed critical prin- ciples that were to be applied in establishing the correct text of an author. These principles he employed in editions of Archilochus, Aloeus, ^Eschylus, Sophocles, Aristophanes, Hesiod, Pindar, and especially the Homeric poems, of which he published two great editions, writing notes on special points together with commentaries. It is in the editions (^«So<rets) that one can best judge of his ability as a critic, since in them the difficulties were far the greatest because of the long lapse of time, because of the large number of manuscripts, and because of the variations due to the preceding recensions. There were political interests involved in many of the changes made in the Plomeric text, precisely as some earnest theologian must have made the famous interpolation in the New Testament to establish the doctrine of the Trinity (i John,

^The mterj'ection was not recognised by the Greeks as a part of speech. It came into formal grammar with the Roman teachers (Quint, i. parts 4. 20). The Alexandrians claimed that Homer recognised the eight parts of speech, and they cited two passages of the Iliad (i. 185 and xxii. 59) each of which contains them all.

no

HTSTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

V. 7).^ It was probably because of his knowledge of these interpolations and of the reasons for them, that Aristar- chus approached the work of recension in a sceptical spirit like that of F. A. Wolf in later times. His main purpose was to rid the text of the additions and corrup- tions of the three preceding centuries. It is interesting to note the details of his system, which can best be seen by taking up some of the concrete examples preserved for us in the Venetian scholia.

The examination of an author by Aristarchus involved five processes: (i) the arrangement of the text; (2) the determination of the accents; (3) the determination of forms; (4) an explanation of the words, allusions, etc.; and (s) Kjowrt?, or criticism proper, including all questions of authenticity and the final judgment that is to be passed upon the author and his work as a whole.

In carrying out his work as a text critic, Aristarchus employs all the sources of information used by his pred- ecessors, but always in a spirit far more scientific than theirs had been. Thus, like Zenodotus, he studies the Homeric use of words, holding with him that a knowledge of the substance must be based upon a knowledge of the language. Yet he does not confine himself to the archaic, rare, or foreign words. He, as an “ analogist,” * considers

^ See Lebrs, Dc Arisiarchi Studiis Homericis (Konigsberg, 1833 1 3^ ed. 1882); Ludwich, Aristarchs Eomerische Textkritik (Leipzig, 1884- 1885); Jebb, Homer f pp. 91-98 (Glasgow, 1887).

^ Infra y pp. 119-120.

these as being less important, from the very fact of their rarity, than the words and phrases that lend colour and individuality to the work as a whole and which, since they are familiar, give a clue to the Homeric sense. So, for ex- ample, Aristarchus remarks that in Homer, &Se always has the meaning “ thus ’’ and never “ here or “ thither that ^dXXetv refers always to the hurling of missiles, while ovra^eLv is used of striking or wounding at close quarters; that ^o/3o9 has the sense of “flight’’; that ttoVo? is employed especially in reference to combat; that ’OXv/x7ro9 in the Iliad means the actual mountain, and so on. This careful study gave him a standard of usage when called upon to decide between two conflicting read- ings in two manuscripts of equal value; for in such a case he gave the preference to the reading that was the more consistent with the general usage of the poet (to eOcjiiov Tov 7roi>7jrov),

Again, in establishing his text, he ascribed great weight to manuscript authority, just as Zenodotus and Aris- tophanes had done before him; but Aristarchus exhibits an acuteness and system in his classification of the manu- scripts not to be found in the work of his predeces- sors. He seems to have grouped them generally in “families,” and to have determined both by compari- son and by the internal evidence of a codex its value in the establishment of a canon. Thus we find “ private editions,” the work of individual editors; “city editions,”

112

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

made xmder State supervision; ^ and popular editions,” among which he distinguishes those that are more inaccu- rate and those which are fairly accurate.

That Aristarchus made no such minute divisions and subdivisions of manuscripts in their families” and “ groups ” as are found in the work of modern critics in texts like that of Horace, for example, is due to the impor- tant fact that in his time the variants in Homer were variants of words and particular verses; while the limits of divergence being very narrow, the omissions and addi- tions were of a comparatively unimportant kind. This implies a common basis of tradition, embodied in a vulgate text, possibly that of the Pisistratidean recension. The better judgment of Aristarchus, as contrasted with Zenod- otus, is seen in his treatment of the so-called formulaic lines. This repetition, line for line, was too much for Zenodotus, who rejected the frequent appearance of it, for instance, in the Iliad, where the ‘‘ baneful dream ” of Zeus to Agamemnon occurs three times in the second book. Aristarchus, however, rightly saw in this the naif redundacy of the primitive story-teller, and so he let it stand. On the whole, though Aristarchus was sceptical, he was very much averse to altering his text; and for this conservatism he has been censured in modem times, for instance, by Wolf and Lehrs. Aristarchus questioned and doubted, but he did not often introduce an emendation.

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD II3

In his critical work he employed various signs {(rrjixela). The most important of these were

(1) The oySeXoV or spit, to indicate that a line was spurious. Such lines were said to be athetised ” {aOerelv) , This obelus is still used in critical texts by German scholars.

(2) The SlttXtJj or <J , or , used either for exposition, to call attention to some especial point, or to mark a word which is used only once, or to indicate that the construction is the same as in Attic Greek.

(3) The dotted dipl6, Ej-, to denote that the reading adopted by Aristarchus differed from that of Zenodotus.

(4) The asterisk, to mark a genuine formulaic verse as distinct from one regarded by him as spurious. If the repeated verse was spurious, it was marked in one of the two places where it occurred, with the .asterisk or the obelus prefixed to the line.

(5) The antisigma, D, and the stigma, r, were used together to denote repetitions of the same idea.^ The stigma, alone, denoted only suspected spuriousness. It is interesting to know that out of the 15,600 lines of the Iliad and the Odyssey, 1160 were athetised.

The criticisms of Aristarchus were not, apparently, embodied in any one great standard work, but were spread

^ For instance, lUad, viii. 535-537, was marked, and so was passage 538-541, because the last-named verses seemed to repeat the sense of the former. For the best account of these critical signs see Gardt- hausen, Palaographie, p, 288 foil. (Leipzig, 1899) and Susemihl, op. cit, ip. 432 foil.

I

1 14 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

over a great quantity of monographs, marking each the development of a new line of research or the statement of a new principle. Hence it is that his critical work never was canonised in one single standard text. Hence, also, it is so difficult to distinguish what is the work of Aristarchus himself from that which belonged to the Aristarchean School, — to the great number of students and scholars who carried out his ideas. This difficulty, in fact, was felt even in ancient times, as in the Augustan Age; and we find Didymus Chalcenteros trying to ascer- tain what readings of Homer were approved by Aristarchus — and this only about a century after his death.

The imperfect knowledge that we have of the critical work of Aristarchus as a whole is due to the roundabout way in which notices of it have come down to us. Didy- mus, just mentioned, collected the Homeric writings of Aristarchus. Aristonicus of Alexandria, a contemporary of Didymus, wrote a treatise on the critical signs employed by Aristarchus in his text work; and in connection with this matter, incidentally quoted the arguments relating to the verses marked with these signs. About the year B.C. i6o, Herodianus wrote a treatise on the accentuation and prosody of the Homeric poems. Nicanor about the same time improved a work on Homeric punctuation. Now between the years 200 and 250 a.d. some imknown scholar made an epitome of these four writers — Didymus, Aristonicus, Herodianus, and Nicanor — in such a way

THE ALEXANDEIAN PERIOD II5

as to form a continuous critical commentary on the Homeric text. The Epitome of the Four Treatises (usually spoken of simply as “the Epitome,” and in Germany as the Viermanner Scholien),^ was in the tenth century a.d. copied into the margin of a codex of the Iliad. This Codex is the very famous Codex Venetus A of the Iliad, No. 454, in the Library of St. Mark in Venice. It con- tains (i) the Epitome, undoubtedly somewhat altered from its original form, as the language, etc., shows; and (2) other scholia. This MS. is almost the only source from which we can get any definite knowledge in detail of the views of Aristarchus. It is also the only MS. pre- served in which the critical signs of Aristarchus are em- ployed. The scholia of this Codex were first edited by Villoison in 1788.'

Text criticism in antiquity reached its highest point with Aristarchus. His followers were often men of great ability and indefatigable industry, but their attention seems to have been directed more minutely to verbal, i.e. gram- matical criticism, and to have become narrower and more pedantic as time went on. The Alexandian School was, in fact, essentially a school of grammatical scholarship, accurate, careful, and deeply learned, but with perhaps too great a fondness for regularity, for strict rules, and a sort of Procrustean willingness to secure absolute uniform- ity in language and in its laws by crushing out that idio-

‘ See Httbner’s EncyclopSdie, pp. 37-40 in the second ed. (Berlin, 1893).

Il 6 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

matic freedom of both form and expression which is the essential attribute of a living language.

After Aristarchus, who died about 143 B.C., critical studies were continued at Alexandria by his successors, among whom may be noted Hermippus of Smyrna, a writer of biographies, much drawn upon by Plutarch; Apollodorus of Athens, who wrote in trimeters, a work on chronology from the fall of Troy to 1444 b.c., and a com- mentary on the Homeric catalogue of the ships. He like- wise composed a treatise On the Gods in twenty-four books which was a treasury of minute and curious information “freely and extensively pirated by later writers.” The successor of Aristarchus was Ammonius, who had been his pupil; and after him came Didymus Chalcenteros of Alexandria (c. 65 b.c. -c. 10 A.D.), who is said to have written nearly four thousand books, lexicograph- ical, critical, grammatical, exegetical, and archaeological.^ About the year 75 b.c. there appeared anon3Tnously a great manual of mythology — the first of its kind — from which many of the later writers drew extensively. One should also speak of the grammarian Ttyphon, and the com- mentator Theon who lived in the first century A.15. The Alexandrian School grew less and less important after the middle of the first century b.c. A good part of the Library was destroyed during the siege of Alexandria by Julius

^ See Blau, De Aristarchi Discipulis Qena, 1883); and the edition of the fragments of Didymus by Moritz Schmidt (Leipzig, 1854).

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

II7

Caesax (47 b.c.). Later, when Theodosius the Great gave his consent to the destruction of all the pagan temples in the Roman Empire (389 a.d.), a mob of fanatical Chris- tians demolished the temple of Jupiter Serapis, and with it a large portion of the Library. From this time, Alexandria, as a centre of learning, ceased to exist; and when the Arabs in 641 took the city, they merely completed a work of devastation that had been going on for centuries.

[Bebliography. — See, in addition to the works already cited, Susemihl, Geschichk der grkchischen Litter atur in der Alexan- drinerzeit, 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1891-1892); Bernhardy, Geschichte der griechischen Litterakir^ 5th ed. (Halle, 1877-1892); Renan, Milange d^Histoire et de Voyages dans VAntiquiti, pp. 389-410, 427-440 (Paris, 1898); and the special biographical articles in Pauly’s ReaUEncydopddie (Stuttgart, 1893 foil.); also Mahaffy, Bistory of Classical Greek Literature, vol. i. pp. 35 foU. and vol. ii. pp. 427-438 (New York, 1880). ]

B. The Pergamene School and Other Centres OF Learning

The School at Alexandria had for a long time attracted those who were at once men of genius and of profound learning. After the death of Aristarchus, however, it tended to become more and more a gathering-place for near-sighted critics to whom formulas were more important than facts. To them a rule of grammar or a paradigm was sacred, and their reverence for symmetry in language was carried so far as to provoke an inevitable opposition,

Il8 HISTOE.Y 01- CLASSICAL PHILOLOGV

which was organised at last in the famous School at Per- gamum, which arose to meet and assail the theories of the Alexandrians. Pergamum was an ancient town, about fif- teen miles from the coast of Mysia in Asia Minor.‘ It was ruled by a dynasty founded in the Alexandrian Age; and in 263 B.C. Eumenes I became a patron of the arts and sciences, inviting philosophers and sculptors to his court, among them being Arcesilaus, who had first presided over the Middle Academy at Athens, and the Peripatetic phi- losopher Lycon. The successor of Eumenes was Attalus I, who assumed the title of king, won victories over the invading Gauls, and then began to gather the books for the Pergamene Library that was to rival the collection at Alex- andria. He laid out grounds for an academy like that in Athens, and sought the friendship of philosophers, histo- rians, and mathematicians.® The king himself conde- scended to authorship, though his taste was more for sculpture. His victories over the Gauls were commemo- rated in a set of magnificent bronzes. A copy of one of these in marble is the famous figure known as “the Dying Gladiator,” but more properly “the Dying Gaul,” and now preserved in the Capitoline Museum at Rome. Of the artists whom he patronised, one recalls especially Antigonus of Carystos, who wrote on art and likewise

^ The name for parchment {perganwm) is derived from Pergamum, where it was first made.

• It was to King Attalus that Apollonius of Perga dedicated his work

on Conic Sections.

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD II9

uu natural phenomena. Pergamum was adorned with splendid buildings, above which rose the Acropolis, a thousand feet above the sea level, and protecting, as it were, the court of the goddess Athena, a vast quadrangle bounded by colonnades and adorned by majestic statues of Homer, Herodotus, Alcaeus, and other great writers of the past. These and similar works were carried out by the kings of Pergamum until in 133 b.c. Attains III bequeathed his entire realm to the Roman people.

The scholars of Pergamum were, on the whole, more varied in their interest than those of Alexandria. The Stoics controlled the teachings, and the real founder was Crates of Mallos {c. i68 b.c.), who became to the Per- gamene School what Aristarchus was to the Alexandrian. Aristarchus reverenced rule in language, while Crates based his teachings upon exception; and the catchwords which represented the distinction were avdXo^ia and avcafiaXia} Crates and his followers regarded the mere verbalists of Alexandria with a species of contempt. He held that text criticism, and especially the text criticism of Homer,

^ Crates derived the expression dvcjfiaXLa from the treatise of Chrysip- pus, On Anomaly. The fragments of Crates with a commentary on them will be found in Wachsmuth, De Cratete Mallota (Leipzig, i860); and on the Pergamene School see Wegener, De Aula AUalica (Copen- hagen, 1836). For some discussion on Analogy and Anomaly, see Aulus Gellius, ii. 5, where reference is directly made to Aristarchus and Crates. 'AvtaXoyla est similium similis dedinatio; . ..dvca la est incequaUtas dedinationum consuetuMnem sequensJ^ On Analogy and Anomaly, see also Sandys, op, cit. i. pp. 156-158.

120

HTSTORY OP CLASSICAX PHILOLOGY

ought to embrace the whole mass of problems — historical, physical, mythological, and philosophical — suggested in the Homeric poems. He saw in the text, allegories and allusions to the cosmical and astronomical theories of the Stoics. In fact, he regarded Homer more as a teacher than as a poet, placing his BtSacricaXia before his^Irv^aycayHa. The importance of this view of Crates is found in the fact that because of his desire to read into the text the alle- gories which he saw there, he was led to propose a large number of conjectural emendations in which the principle of anomaly gave full play to his ingenious mind. Thus, while Aristarchus represents cautious diplomatic examina- tion of the text and a reluctance to alter what he finds in it. Crates is the type of the brilliant conjectural emendator, the Bentley of antiquity. Only fragments have come down to us of his writings; but they include a commen- tary on the Homeric epics, on Hesiod, Euripides, and Aristophanes; a catalogue of the Pergamene Library like that which Callimachus made of the Library of Alexandria; and a work on the Attic dialect in at least five books. It may be noted, en passant, that Crates laid the foundation of the study of grammar at Rome, to which city he was sent as an ambassador in 157 b.c.’- His most important successor was Demetrius Magnes, who flourished in the first century b.C. and who wrote on synonyms together with some biographies.

• See infray p. 157.

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

I2I

It might well be assumed that Athens should have been the seat of a great institution of learning; and such was indeed the case. So far back as the time of Pericles, it had been called “the school of Greece,” and even in its decadence it long kept the fire of learning bright. Both before and immediately after the beginning of the Christian Era, it contained an organised faculty of accom- plished professors who lectured to students from all parts of the civilised world. The University at Athens was the result of two previously existing institutions — the organ- isation of the and the schools of the philosophers

and Sophists. The Ephebi, or free Athenian youths, were in early times enrolled into a corps that was primarily 'Intended for the defense of the State. They were educated both physically and mentally, and they formed the nucleus of what became the student body of the university. Two changes in the constitution of this body prepared the way for its transformation from a quasi-militaiy organisa- tion to a university. These changes were: —

(1) The neglect of the principle of compulsion. Not all were enrolled, but only those who chose.

(2) Membership was no longer confined to Athenians or even Greeks.

These changes left a body of young men, organised and regularly enrolled, free to follow such a course of training as best suited their inclinations and capacities, and ready to be turned to any line of study that had the advocacy

122

HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

of brilliant, energetic, and popular men. The schools of the philosophers supplied the influence necessary for completing the change from a military college to a great university.

Four schools of philosophy had since the time of the Macedonian wars been flourishing at Athens. These were the Academic or Platonic School, the Peripatetic or Aristotelian School, the Stoic School, and the Epicurean. Each of these schools from the time of its foundation had received an endowment sufficient to maintain and per- petuate it. Plato had purchased a small garden near the Eleusinian Way, in the grove of Academe, for three thou- sand drachmas. His philosophic successors, Xenocrates and Polemon, continued to teach in the same spot; their wealthy pupils and the friends of learning added to the grounds and bequeathed sufficient funds for the support of the philosopher, and thus practically endowed an aca- demic chair. In like manner, Aristotle left to his successor, Theophrastus, the valuable property near the Hyssus; and Theophrastus, in the will whose tejct has come down to us in Diogenes Laertius,* completed the permanent endow- ment of the Peripatetic chair. So Epicurus left his prop- erty in the Ceramicus to be the nucleus of an endowment for his school,^ and the Stoics were probably in like manner made independent. Around these four schools of phi-

^ V. 2 . 14.

• Diog. La 6 rt. sx. 10.

THE ALEXANDEIAN PERIOD

123

losophy, which, being endowed, taught gratuitously, a multitude of teachers of rhetoric, grammar, literature, logic, physics, and mathematics clustered. The world soon learned to think of Athens as a great seat of learning and culture, brilliant and renowned. Students flocked to her from every quarter and country. It appears to have been necessary to become enrolled among the Ephebi, but the scholars selected for themselves their own instruc- tors, and attended such lectures as they chose. The number of these students became enormous. Theophras- tus alone lectured to as many as two thousand men. The records show the names of many foreign students, some of them being of the Semitic race. From later sources we learn that matriculation took place early in the year; that the students wore a gown like that of the undergraduates at the English universities; that they pursued athletic sports with much ardour; that at the theatre a special gallery was reserved for them; that certificates of attendance at the courses of lectures were required; that they were under the general direction of a president; that fees were exacted in the shape of an annual contribution to the university Library; that breaches of discipline were punished, as at Oxford, by fines; that the relation between student and professor was very close, so that for a student to cease to take a course was very cutting; and that the students themselves “ touted ” for the professors. “ Most of the young enthusiasts for learning,” says Gregory Nazianzen,

124

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

^‘became mere partisans of their professors. They are all anxiety to get their audiences larger and their fees increased. This they cany to portentous lengths. They post themselves over the city at the beginning of the year; as each newcomer disembarks he falls into their hands; they carry him off at once to the house of some countryman or friend who is best at trumpeting the praises of his own professor.’’

Private tutors (<j>vXafC€^) were often employed. They looked over the students’ notes, '^coached” them on the subjects in which they were most interested, and helped them at their exercises. At the end of the year there seems to have been an examination.

Freshmen seem to have been subject to a sort of hazing. Gregory, in a funeral address over his friend Basil, recalls some of the memories of their sport with freshmen. We find one of the professors, Proaeresius, asking his class not to haze a new student, Eunaphius, because of his feeble health. Sometimes the inferior officers of the university were subject to similar annoyances, and Liba- nius tells of one of the tutors who was tossed in a blanket.

There were likewise other famous schools given over to the higher education in the East and in the West ^Es- chines, the great rival of Demosthenes, is said to have founded a school for oratory in the island of Rhodes, and there were famous teachers in Lesbos. Tarsus, in Asia Minor, had faculties representing all the branches of

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

I2S

humanistic studies. In like manner, Massilia (Marseilles) rivalled even Athens and drew students away from it. The further development of endowed education will be spoken of as belonging more particularly to the Grasco- Roman Period.^

After the time of Didymus Chalcenteros, already noted, there is nothing in the history of text criticism among the Greeks that needs especial mention. As men of genius became rarer, formal grammar, lexicography, and the epitomising of earlier writings occupied the time of those whose minds were satisfied with the purely mechanical phases of scholarship. To this later age we owe the great collections of Scholia that have come down to us from the codices of classical authors and that are important (i) becauseof their value in determining the true reading of the classical texts; and (2) because in many cases, by reason of the blunders of subsequent scribes, they have sometimes slipped into the text itself, there to become a source of learned controversy. A note on the ancient glosses may be of some value for reference in speaking of text criticism hereafter. This will necessarily anticipate a portion of the narrative; but it is best considered in this place.

^ See Capes, University Life in Ancient Athens (London, 1877); haffy, Old Greek Education (London, 1882); Eckstein, Lateinischer und Griechischer Unterricht (Leipzig, 1887); Wilkins, Natmial Education in Greece in the Fourth Century before Christ (London, 1873); and the first five chapters in Walden, The Universities of Ancient Greece (New York, 1909).

126

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

A gloss (7\(3cr<ra) was, in the language of the Greek critics and grammarians, the name given to a word in the text that required explanation, e.g. Kopea-a-KpopijTov} in II. viii. 527. In course of time, ordinary words may become obsolete or may acquire a new shade of meaning, or may be employed in a technical and peculiar sense. As these words would require a special explanation for the benefit of the general reader, the name yXSia-a-a was given to all such. Thus, Plutarch speaks of the words which belong to the purely poetical language, and those that are purely local, as yX&TTai {DeAudiendis Poetis, § 6). Galen applies the term to the obsolete medical expressions of Hipparchus. Aristotle uses it of provincialisms (Poet. 21. 4-6).^ Quintilian employs the synonymous term yXaxrerljp.ara to voces minus usitaias (i. 8. 15; cf. i. 1 . 35). Originally the word that needed explanation was simply defined by writing its simpler synonym, the word in common use (ovopa Kvpiov, Arist.), in the margin of the text beside it. Then the term yXaxsaa meant the pair of words, i.e. the word in the text and its explanatory word in the margin, the two being viewed as constituting a whole. Ultimately the explanation alone was called yX&a-aa. With these glosses begins the history of lexicography; but the glosses soon ceased to be purely lexical and became encyclopeedic in character, — geographical, biographical, historical, or

‘Cf. id. Rhel. iii. 3. 2. As early as the fifth century b.c., we find glosses spoken of, since Democritus of Abdera (c. 410 B.C.) wrote a treatise on them (Hepl V'hair<riii>v).

THE ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

127

philological, according to the purpose or the tastes of the glossographer. The chief of these glossographers we have already mentioned, — Philetas of Cos, Zenodotus, Aristophanes of Byzantium, Aristarchus, Crates, and Herodianus.^ In later times, the glosses were regularly collected and arranged as running commentaries on the language of the text, — the best-known collectors of these being Hesychius, Photius, Zonaras, Suidas, and the com- piler, of the Etymologicum Magnum. In its developed meaning, the word “gloss” is to be understood in the same sense as scholium. Very few scholia have come down to us with the author’s name attached; but such as exist are usually written upon the margin or between the lines of a codex and copied from the work of the earlier scholiasts. The scholia generally bear evidence of having been written much later than the date when the codex itself was written. Scholia in the margin are known as glosses marginaks; those written between the lines are called glosses inter- Uneares.^

Something must be said here of the study of Art among the Greeks. So far as any evidence remains, their early writings on this theme must have been very limited in extent so far as they concern aesthetics. There is

^Athenasus, writing about the year 250 a.d,, alluded to thirty-five glossographers.

2 See Matthai, Ghssaria Graeca (Moscow, I774“i775); a list of the most important (Gk.) scholia is given by Gudeman, op, cU, pp. 20-2!• Cf. also Hubner, Encyclop, pp. 37-4o> 2d ed. (Berlin, 1892).

128

HISIORY or CLASSICAL PEOLOLOGY

scarcely a mention of any formal discussion on the history of architecture, sculpture, painting, or music. The historians, and also the philosophers, merely give, in an incidental way, detached and inadequate suggestions as to art, artists, and works of art. As in literature, so in music, the Greeks of the Pras-Alexandrian Age devoted them- selves more to creation than to criticism. Philostratus remarks, however, in the first book of his Lives of ilte Sophists, that Hippias (c. 420 B.c.) of Elis was wont to dispute on the subject of painting and sculpture; and that Democritus of Abdera wrote a work on painting from the living model (Ile/jl Zajpa(j)i'a'i). Other treatises, of which we know, were practical in their character and were writ- ten by artists for artists, regarding the “canon” or mathe- matical demonstration of those proportions which produce beauty in the human form.^ There are, however, acute criticisms of painting scattered throughout the writings of Aristotle; and by the beginning of the Alexandrian Period, we come to criticisms which are not technical but aesthetic. Thus, Duris of Samos was among the first to collect anec- dotes and aphorisms with regard to painting. Many representatives of the Peripatetic School busied themselves

1 The first of these canons was that of Polycl*tus in the fifth centuiy B.c. After Polycl*tus, came many to write upon the technical side of sculpture; but not imtil after Aristotle was there much written on the aesthetics of the plaistic and graphic arts. Vitruvius in the preface to his seventh book names a number of writers who concerned themselves with the principles of artistic symmetry.

THE ALEXAJSTDRIAN PERIOD

129

in the same way. As a rule, the artists themselves — men who understood sculpture and bronze casting — were the authors of these treatises. At Pergamum, in particu- lar, much attention was paid to sculpture, as we have already seen, and it was there that the Canon of Ten Sculptors ^ was probably drawn up to match the Alexan- drian Canon of the Ten Orators. Most of our informa- tion with regard to these early writers comes from Roman scholars, especially from Pliny the Elder; or else from late Greek writers such as Strabo and Pausanius and Lucian.^

^ Quintilian, xii. 10. 7.

^ See Jones, SeUct Passages from Ancient Writers lUusirative of the His- tory of Greek Sculpture (London, 1895); Overbeck, Geschichte der griech- ischen Plastik (Leipzig, 1894); and Fowler and Wheeler, Greek Archaeology . (New York, 1909).

IV THE GRECO-ROMAN PERIOD

Tradition ascribes the date of the founding of Rome to the eighth century b.c. It was long, however, before the Roman people either acquired or attained anything that deserves the name of literary culture, polite learning, or philological study. Unlike the Greeks, the Romans were a rugged race, an inland race, apart from the magic and the mystery of the sea. The small settlement along the Tiber was pastoral and agricultural for many centuries, having little commerce with external peoples, dwelling in constant danger from formidable neighbours, against whom it could prevail only by the strictest discipline and the intensest concentration of interest. Thus, the Romans came to possess the civic virtues in a high degree. Primarily, their ideal was efficiency, intelligent cooperation, and a love of the concrete. Their patriciate was formed of the fighting men. Their arts were arts relating to military science and statesmanship and religion. One distinctive quality which they possessed was a wonderful tenacity of purpose. Later, when they had vanquished their enemies throughout Italy and had builded a great nation, the characteristics which had been wrought out in them by centuries of toil and effort were to be seen not only in what they created, but in what they took from others and transmuted into something that became almost purely Roman.

By the fourth century b . c . they were reaching the point where a literature of their own was beginning to display an evolution quite independent of any impulse from with- out. Their annals were set down in simple prose. Their laws were expressed precisely and with clearness. It is, indeed, quite characteristic of the difference between the Greeks and the Romans that Greek children should have been set to learn by heart long passages from the Homeric poems, while Roman children were compelled to memorise the Laws of the Twelve Tables. Yet there were at Rome at least the beginnings of poetical com- position in lyrics sung in artless rhythms. Lyric Poetry at Rome was first found, not as an exotic, but in the nenia, the spells, the charms, the lullabies that were crooned over little children, and in other songs that were chanted to the accompaniment of the dance.* A native Drama — a sort of extemporaneous comedy — was not imknown. We find even the traces of a gradual drift away from the ancient versus Italicus to the more regular

^ See Pais, Ancient Legends of Roman History j Eng. trans., pp. 1-59 (New York, 1905); Michaut, Le Genie Latin (Paris, 1900); and Weise, Charakteristik der laieinischen Spracke (Leipzig, 1905).

2 See the pages on very early Latin — the hymns, the Ktanies, the folk- poetry, the priestly literature, and the legal writings — in Duff, A Literary History of Rome, pp. 63-89 (London and Leipzig, 1909). See also De- douvres, Les Latins, pp. 39-79 (Paris, 1903).

132 HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

form of the Saturnian measure. This last, though it was often rude, was capable of a really artistic treatment, and it was to the early Romans what the dactylic hex- ameter was to the early Greeks. Nor is there any doubt that Oratory was fairly well developed, since oratory, as has been rightly said, belongs to “ the literature that tends to statesmanship.’’^ Eloquence was necessary for the senator, or the popular leader, and it was necessary also for the commander of an army in the field. Therefore we can reasonably assert that even had Rome not come into contact with Hellenic influences, there would still have been created, slowly, but quite surely, not only a literature but a learning, absolutely Roman both in form and content.^

There had been some desultory relations between the Romans and the Greeks farther back than is recorded by authentic history. From the Chalcidian Greeks of Cam- pania the Romans had borrowed their Alphabet.® From the Etruscans also the Romans had acquired certain

^ The earliest Roman oration written out for publication almost ante- dates formal Roman poetzy. It was delivered in 280 b.c. by Appius Claudius against the terms of peace offered by Pyrrhus, and was read and studied at Rome for at least two centuries. See Sears, op. ciL, p. 94.

2 See Ihne, Early Rome (New York, 1902); Mommsen, A History of Rome (Eng, trans.) vol. ii, pp, 23-315 (New York, 1903-05); and the early chapters of Bemhardy, Grundriss der romischen Litteratur, 5th ed., (Brunswick, 1875).

®See Lindsay, The Latin Language, pp. 1-12 (Oxford, 1894); Peters, Recent Theories of the Alphabet,^* in vol. xxi. Journal of the Orimtal Society (1901); and Clodd, The Story of the Alphabet (New York, 1903).

THE GR^CO-ROMAN PERIOD

133

religious beliefs and practices as well as arts. But when the Roman arms advanced southward and began to con- quer the Greek cities of Magna Graecia and Sicily, then there came a direct contact with Hellenic culture. This was in the early part of the third century b.c. At that time, the Romans, in their war with the Greek king Pyrrhus, overran the luxurious towns of southern Italy and seized the rich and splendid city of Tarentum. The knowledge which thus came to them of the magnificence of Greece was a startling revelation. To the rough sol- diers, and rustic cultivators of Latium, Greek art, Greek science and Greek literature and learning became realities to fascinate and to encourage imitation. Little by little there sprang up in Rome a sort of Graecomania compar- able with the Etruscomania of the later imperial age and with the successive Gallomania and Anglomania of our own country in the last century. The Romans learned the sister language, and many of them spoke and wrote it in preference to their own; while men of genius adapted the still rude Latin tongue to the varied forms of Hel- lenic literature. Not long afterward, the First and Second Punic Wars burst forever the bonds of Roman isolation. Because of them the Roman people gained an outlook that was not Roman merely, nor even Latin and Italian, but in the end broadly cosmopolitan. As by a flash, Rome saw at once what high civilisation and exquisite culture really meant. In a single generation, Greece gave to

134

HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Rome the treasures which she had been garnering for centuries. The effect upon the whole subsequent develop- ment of the Roman people was profound and lasting. The ablest minds among them grasped the significance of the revelation. Men like the Scipios and the Metelli wel- comed the graces of life. By this time there was a so- called Greek set which grew in influence, despite the gibes and sneers of Cato and other partisans of the ancient order. In time, thousands of captive Greeks, including men of the highest attainments, were scattered over Italy as hostages, ambassadors, and teachers.

The first evidence of Hellenic Influence is probably to be found in literature when Livius Andronicus (c, 250 B.c.), by birth a Greek, was brought as a slave to Rome, and, after receiving his freedom, made a living by teaching his native language. It was he who translated the Odyssey into Saturnian verse. It was a rude and uninspired piece of work, yet for generations it remained a schoolbook for Roman boys and girls. In 240 b.c. he set upon the stage the first of many dramas which he laboriously constructed after Grecian models. He likewise attempted Ijnric poetry, being commissioned by the State to write a hymn in honour of Juno.^ Guaeus Naevius, who was freeborn and the citi-

^ See Ribbeck, Geschichte der rdmischen Dichtung, 2d ed., i, p. 15 foil. (Leipzig, 1897-1900); and Mommsen, History of Rome, Eng. trans., ii, p. 498 (New York, 1903); the chapter in Mackail's Latin Literature (New York, 1907); and that on “The Earliest Italian Literature” in Nettle- ship, Essays in Latin Literature (Oxford, 1885).

THE GRiECO-ROMAN PERIOD I35

zen of a Latin town in Campania, really marks the begin- ning of Latin literature. He was no foreign sycophant, but had the independent spirit of his race. He mote much, adapting often from the Greek, but also producing dramas based upon Roman history. In these and elsewhere he did not hesitate to attack the most powerful patricians, especially the Metelli. For this, in the end, he was impris- oned and banished and died in exile. He was, in truth, a Roman of the Romans. He clung to the native Satur- nian verse, and in his Punka, writing of the First Punic War, he introduced that legend which links the Trojan ^neas with Roman history. Thus, he was the precursor of Vergil, for his Epic was long read, and parts of it are embedded in the Mneid} To Naevius are also due the beginnings of Satire, whereof Quintilian long afterward remarked that “ satire, indeed, is wholly ours.” Not only did Naevius use the native Saturnian verse, but he held fast to the Roman love of alliteration and repetition which were distasteful to the Greek poets; ^ so that when he died he left behind him a mass of literature which was neither Greek nor imitated from the Greek, but was rather Roman in spirit and in form. He and those who followed him prove that if Rome had never felt the deft touch of the

^ Quintilian, x, i, 93. Also, on the Roman satire, Nettleship, Lectures ard Essays (second series), pp. 24-43 (Oxford, 1895).

^On alliteration, see Bdtticher, De AlUterationis apud Romanos Vi et Usu (Berlin, 18S4); and on d3aiamic repetition, Abbott, The Use of Repetition in Latin (Chicago, 1902).

136 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Hellene, it would still have given birth to prose and verse worthy of a great nation. Professor Duff has rightly said, in speaking of this Roman strain, which is never missing: —

This native literature, then, is often cumbersome, and as yet lacks the highest distinction of style and grace, but is no less often solemn and dignified — it is always masculine. However power- ful and brilliant the incoming Hellenic influence, these pre-Hellenic products of Rome must not be disdained as feeble and discon- nected with the literature that was to follow. Impotence cannot create; and this early work had issue. It contained the germs of later success. Genius cannot be borrowed: it can be modified and developed. Above all, it can borrow, and make the loan its own. That was the case with Rome.

In truth, no nation possessing the power of growth, endued with energy, and able to make history, can long remain in its literature a mere imitator. In a thousand directions it must strike out for itself, conquering its own difficulties, fulfilling its own ambitions, and achieving great things which alter its own character. Since, then, literature is a mirror to reflect this character and the achievements that are allied with it, it will soon reflect the interplay of mjnriad forces, the presence of innumer- able cross-currents, the perpetual shifting and changing of the golden sands of thought. For a while it remains in leading-strings, but after a time it will evolve its own masterpieces and will work them out in its own way. Let us take an example from modern times and compare the literature of England with that of the United States.

^ Duff, op, dt,f p. 91.

TKE GRiECO-ROMAN PERIOD I37

The language of the two nations is the same, but Americans were at first too much cumbered with material affairs to attempt in any serious way the literary art. They read English books or they imitated them in a pathetically humble fashion. But in time, after the Republic had shaken off its political bonds and had developed new interests of its own, its literature began to show that it, too, was attaining independence. It found new themes and it had new modes of treating them. One sees the first departure from the English model in Irving and in Cooper. After that, and when the young nation had grown conscious of his own power, there arose authors such as Emerson and Thoreau, Walt Whitman, Bret Harte, Clem- ens, Howells and a score of others who were American to the very core in all they wrote.

And so in Rome the imitative period lasted only a very little time. In the feeble, creeping, childish sense, it ends with Gnaeus Naevius, and soon afterward there bursts forth into full flower a literature whose technique came from Hellas, but whose spirit and character were Roman. Latin literature, in fact, was revolutionised by two men, both of Italian birth, who by their genius gave to Latin the initial impulse which freed it forever from any slavish subservience to the Greek. The earlier language in which Livius Andronicus wrote his stumbling measures, and which even Naevius used clumsily, though with force, lacked that lightness and mobility which would

138 HISTORy OF CXASSICAL PHILOLOGY

make it fit for poetry and for the finest prose. It lacked also an ampler and fuller vocabulary which should give both to the poet and to the prose writer a more varied instrument of expression. It was Quintus Ennius (239- c. 172 B.c.) who made the Latin language fit for noble poetry; and it was Titus Maccius Plautus (c. 254-184 B.c.) who gave it a wealth of new words, which, to be sure, in his time did not all win general acceptance, but which in a later century received the approval of the still greater master, Cicero.

Like Livius Andronicus, Ennius was a teacher; and like Livius, his personal influence helped to make his literary innovations successful, — a circ*mstance also due to the tact and linguistic skill shown in everything he did. Ennius held precisely the position in the Roman world to give weight to his teaching and example. He had personally trained in letters many of the. young nobles who were taking their places at the head of the State. He was the intimate friend of several of the Scipios, and he has been said to have taught Greek even to the Elder Cato, who was famous for his hatred of all that was Greek. Eimius was himself a man of most engaging personal qualities, well-read, genial, courteous, and refined; and with these natural gifts and artificial advantages, he carried forward the work of Naevius. His sensitive ear and correct taste rebelled against the heavy and lumbering verses which were at first his models and which were the

THE GEiECO-ROMAN PERIOD I39

best that could be written under the limitations of the language as it had hitherto been used for literary purposes. He set himself the task of infusing into it some of the Greek lightness, the Greek smoothness, and the Greek grace. The greatest obstacles in the way of this were two: first, the obstinate adherence by his predecessors to the natural or word-accent, which kept the verse on the level of prose; and second (partly because of this accentual limitation), the extraordinary number of long syllables.^ He now attempted an experiment that was destined to give to Roman literature not only stateliness but style. With much sagacity he refrained from making any innovations in iambic and trochaic poetry. There, tradition had already established a usage which he did not care to combat; but he turned to an entirely new kind of verse and to a new theme, which might justify and render natural a new system of Prosody.

It has been a mooted question whether the dactylic hexameter had been used at all in Latin before the time of Ennius. There exist no literary remains of such verse that can be confidently called genuine. According to Varro, Plautus wrote his own epitaph in hexameters, but it cannot be shown that he did it earlier than the composi- tion of the great epic of Ennius — the Annales. The so- called Marcian Oracles were possibly in hexameters, though the quotations given by Livy do not justify this view. Yet

^ Horace, Ar$ PoeUca^ 25^260.

140

HISTORY OE CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

even if some few stray attempts had been made at imposing this metrical form upon Latin, certainly no extended literary work had ever been written in it; and Ennius, in writing the Annales^ had the field entirely to himself. As it was distinctly a new field, such changes as he might make in the matter of forms and measures and quantities would arouse less criticism than like changes in a more familiar sphere. The alterations that he effected by his own example may be roughly summarised as follows: —

(1) A fairly frequent use of a metrical accent as distin- guished from the natural, colloquial accent of a w'ord.

(2) A diminution in the number of varying quantities. Ennius regarded as short nearly all the syllables as to which there had previously been any doubt, as, for instance, musd, patre. Thus dactyls were made possible and easy.

(3) By way of compensation he regarded all vowels that stood before two consonants (not a mute and a liquid) as being long by position, after the rule of the Greek.

(4) The elision of a final vowel, or of a syllable ending in m before a vowel Ennius himself also made little account of a final s, in this following the pronunciation prevalent at that period and long after.^

^Birt, Historia Hexametri Laiini (Bonn, 1876); Muller, Greek and Latin Versificationf Eng. trans. (Boston, 1895); Klotz, Grundziige der altrSmischen Metrik (Leipzig, 1890); Plessis, Mitrique Grecque et Latine (Paris, 1889); Westphal, Allgemeim Metrik (Berlin, 1892); and the treatise by Gleditsch in Iwan Muller’s Handhiich^ ii. Compare also Havet, De Saturnio Latinorum Versu (Paris, 1880); Thurneysen, Der Saturnier (Halle, 1885); and du Bois, Stress Accent in Latin Poetry ^ pp. 24-74 (New York, 1906).

THE GEJECO-ROHAN PERIOD I41

These changes seem comparatively simple, yet they were sufBcient to alter radically the whole structure of Latin verse. The number of doubtful vowels which were now converted into short ones gave to the language of poetry that ease and lightness which are to be found in later dramatic compositions. Whatever was done by succeed- ing writers in giving mobility to the language, was done wholly because of the example which Ennius first set in relieving the heaviness of verbal structure. After he had made all his changes, there were still left many long syllables which Lucretius, and Vergil after him, found it expedient to shorten. But it is because, of Ennius that the language of Latin poetry has definiteness and form, that it became better fitted for the use of those who were further to polish and enrich it; while, on the purely literary side, he set a very high standard below which no writer could fall and hope to receive an equal share of honour.

Ennius, as already said, was a great innovator in form and style. He was not a creator of language, in spite of the praise given him by Horace. ‘ There remain to us about twelve hundred fragments of the different writings of Eimius; but in all of them there are to be found only twenty-two words that are peculiar to him, while in 430 lines of a writer like Pacuvius, who prided himself upon his conservatism, there are thirty-three elprjfiiva.

From this comparison one can see how little Ennius prob- ‘ Horace, Ars Poetka, 54-56.

142 HISTORV OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

ably added to the vocabulary of the language. The verbal enrichment which it needed came from another source, and one which would at first sight have seemed a most unlikely one.

It is in Titus Maccius Plautus that one finds, after surveying all literature, ancient and modem, the closest parallel to Shakespeare, — modified, of course, by many essential differences, but on the whole true enough to be very striking. Like Shakespeare, Plautus was of humble origin and the native of a country town. Like Shake- speare’s, his education seems to have been chiefly of that sort which comes from association with men rather than with books. Like Shakespeare, he was at first a subordi- nate, attached to a theatre; then a hack writer who modern- ised old plays; and finally, a dramatist who apparently wrote with little care for fame, but with the thought of his audience always before his mind. The age in which Plautus wrote resembles in many ways the age of Eliza- beth and James. There was in the air the stirring of an adventurous spirit. The nation was awakening to a sense of its own power, and entering upon an era of conquest and supremacy. Rome was touched by something of the mercurial temper of Greece, just as the England of Shakespeare displayed much of the gayety and reckless- ness of France. Rome, too, was facing the Carthaginians in battle, just as England was confronting the armies and fleets of Spain. The victory of Duilius off Mylae, and the

THE GRffiCO-ROMAN PERIOD

143

defeat of the Armada by Drake, the conquest of Sicily, and the colonisation of the New World, — these, each in its own time and in its own way, stirred Rome and Eng- land to their depths. There was an intellectual and po- litical quickening which stimulated both the Roman and the English people to look with favour upon whatever was new, original, and strong.

If the people for whom Plautus and Shakespeare wrote were much alike; if the ages in which they lived were not dissimilar, so the cast of mind and the richness of intellectual endowment of these two great masters of language have a kinship of their own.‘ The differences, of course, are all immensely in Shakespeare’s favour. In Plautus there is nothing of the spirit of pure poetry which breathes through almost everything that Shakespeare wrote. His tone is many degrees lower. The fact that he wrote comedy alone, while Shakespeare composed immortal tragedies as well; the occurrence of the same t3q)es — the foolish old man, the austere old man; the swindling slave, the faithful slave; the loose young man, and the precise young man; the lying, foul-mouthed courtesan, and the inexperienced, affectionate meretrix; the parasite, and the bullying soldier, — all this repetition, despite the writer’s extraordinary inventiveness and vigour, becomes monotonous and perhaps makes us feel that we

‘ See, in general, Ribbeck’s comments in the first volume of his RSmische Dichtung, i (Leipzig, 1897-1900).

144

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

have been tarrying too long among the slums of the ancient world. Very much, however, of this absence of what is elevating and refined, much of its coarseness and vulgarity, were imposed on Plautus by the conditions under which he wrote. Forbidden to touch upon Roman topics, and warned by the fate of Nrevius, with an audience that did not yet contain the well-bred portion of the community, and being thus practically forced to model his plays upon the New Comedy of the Greeks, one must not criti- cise him too severely. Plautus was working in a harness which sorely hampered him. Then, too, his own sensibil- ities were not nice. He had been himself a slave and he had consorted with other slaves; and never, like Ennius and Terence and Shakespeare, was he a prot^g^ of the great. He saw only one side of life, and that the side which verges on the gutter. And it was this side that his audiences most of all delighted to see reproduced upon the stage. Hence we must compare Plautus not with Shakespeare as a whole, but with those portions of Shake- speare where the themes and the motives of the two dramatists are similar. Judged in this way, it cannot be said that Plautus is inferior. His buffoons, his hypocrites and sharpers and slaves and courtesans are as richly humorous and doubtless quite as true to life in their way as those whom Shakespeare drew. Pjrgopolinices is merely Sir John Falstaff turned into Latin. Megar- onides in the Trinummus is the twin brother of Polonius,

THE GRiECO-ROMAN PERIOD I45

while the Dromios of Shakespeare are actually taken from the Mmachmi of Plautus.

But it is not from the literary, but from the linguistic, standpoint that we have now to look at Plautus; and it is in his language, if anywhere, that Shakespeare finds his rival. After studying Plautus carefully, we are conscious more and more of the enormous debt which the Latin language owes him. He alone, by his individual and unaided genius, transformed it from an awkward, cramped, imgraceful dialect into an instrument of speech fit for expressing a wide range of human thought with ease and clearness and precision. Plautus was a great language- maker, and not merely an improver. His fancy not merely caught at an idea, but flung it out at once into an appro- priate verbal form. If he had not the word he wished, then he made the word; and when he had made it, it was, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, the very word which the language lacked, so that it fixed itself firmly in the vocabulary of the people, and remained there because it was an actual necessity. Plautus as a word-maker seems inexhaustible. His fertility is as boundless as his wit. No Latin writer except Apuleius, three centuries afterward, ever coined so many words. The comparison of Plautus with Apuleius shows exactly where the great- ness of the former lies. Apuleius coins words from mere eccentricity or because he will not take the trouble to find the fitting ones. Plautus strikes out a new phrase, a

L

146 HISTORV OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

striking combination, a picturesque epithet, because the existing vocabulary is too poor to furnish an equivalent. To sum it up in a sentence, the invention of Plautus proves the poverty of the language; the invention of Apuleius proves the poverty of the writer.

Plautus is the one who, in this period of transition, doubled the capacity of the Latin language. The words that he invented were made by him instinctively, accord- ing to the various formulae which Horace afterward de- scribed^ with so much insight. The additions which he made to the Latin vocabulary fall under various heads: —

(1) Words borrowed directly from the Greek: e.g, dica

dapsilis; dulice (SovXi/ceS?); eusckeine

(€vcrxv/^^^)l logos (X0709); sycophantio {<TVtco<pavTeco); tar- pessita (Tpa7r€^LT7]<;); etc.

(2) Comic words, chiefly patronymics and long com- pounds: e,g. VirginesvendonideSj the son of a pander, and, comically again, pernonides, “ a flitch of bacon ” de- scribed majestically as the son of a ham. So, again, scu- talosagittipelliger. There is very little doubt that Plautus here in a semi-comic way tried to do what the learned Pacuvius seriously attempted, — that is, the formation in Latin of compound words, — but Plautus failed as did Pacuvius.

(3) New words formed after the analogy of other words near which they stand in the text, or which suggest them:

^ Horace, Ars Poetica, 46-72.

THE GILECO-ROMAN PERIOD I47

e.g. perenticiia suggested by parMticidi; sicelicisso sug- gested by atticisso; and recharmido and decharmido sug- gested by charmido (from Charmides).

(4) Compound words freely made and generally there- after adopted into the language: e.g. opiparus, parci- promtis, pauciloquia, salipotens, siuUiloqueniia; and even better, opimitas, mendicitas, minaiio, moderatrix, oratrix, perdisco, perlibet, etc. Words of this class are either based upon existing words and modified to give a different shade of meaning, or they are invented of necessity: e.g. osor, perplexibalis, pollentia, trakax, etc., or else they are verbs boldly formed out of existing nouns and adjectives: e.g. paro, parasitor, pergmcor, scortor, sororio, etc.

It will be seen that Plautus enriched the language with words for common use. His word-formations were brought about with that unerring judgment which makes the new word, from the very moment when it is uttered, seem Latin and utterly indigenous. If it be a Greek word, it is so modified as to take on a Latin form. If it be a new word, it is formed upon the analogy of words already existing. If it be an old word used in a new sense, this new sense is given it where the context makes the new sense absolutely plain. Plautus is the first of language-makers. Those who followed him employed his methods though they wrote for the learned. Thus T. Lucretius Cams, in the first century B.C., gives to Roman literature a philosophical terminology so far as he

148

HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

needed it in setting forth the teachings of materialism.^ Cicero still later enlarged the philosophical vocabulary by coining words to express thoughts for which the Latin language then had no equivalent.^ When Christianity began to spread over the Empire, African writers such as TertuUian and Augustine and St. Jerome introduced a theological vocabulary; but they all fashioned their words on the principles which Plautus in the early days of Ro- man culture had grasped by instinct.® Apuleius, with his fantastic combinations, is the Carlyle of Latin litera- ture, while Plautus, as was said before, is the Roman Shakespeare.

Thus the Latin language and the Latin literature de- veloped side by side, in a growth that was steady and continuous. The drama was enriched by Marcus Pacu- vius, who represents a succession of the work of Ennius. His docirlna, for which he was so famous in antiquity, is seen in his attempt to make long compounds, in his syntac- tical carefulness, and in his introduction of philosophical

^ See such words as corpus in the sense of “matter”; cxtus, and glomera- mm^ “a mass”; corpusculim, or principium, or primordium, each mean- ing “an atom”; semus» aicdTja-ts] rerum summUf “the universe.” See Polle, De Artis Vocabulis Quibusdam Lucretianis (Dresden, 1866); Merrill’s Introduction to his Lucretius, pp. 42-47 (New York, 1907); and Reiley, The Philosophical Terminology of Lucretius and Cicero (New York, 1909).

®Note such words as ratio {\ 6 yos)j qualitas {rroibTrii^ , species {eT 8 os). See Reiley, op. cit.

® See Schmidt, De Latinitate Tertulliani (Erlangen, 1870); Condamin, De Tertulliano . . . Christiance Lingua Artifice (Lyons, 1877); Cooper, Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Plebeius (New York, 1895) .

THE GHfiCO-ROMAN PERIOD

149

speculation after the manner of Euripides. Then there follow Lucius Attius, with a much more original mind, and probably the greatest of all Roman writers of tragedy; and the young African, Publius Terentius (185-159 b.c.), w’ho composed comedies which in their own manner are most admirable. He gives us, in fact, the urbane and polished comedy of the drawing-room, all with singular refinement and a remarkable appreciation of character. Later, the legitimate drama declined, and mimes took the place of tragedy and comedy. Yet even in these mimes — as, for instance, those of Publilius Syrus and Decimus Laberius, there is the true Roman sententiousness, shrewd practical wisdom, and abundant humour.^ Attempts were made in the Augustan Age to revive the drama in its ear- lier form, but of these attempts we have no remains, as we have of the tragedies of the younger Seneca written in the time of Nero and influencing the dramatists of France and England in recent centuries. Ennius had invented a form of satire as a sort of literary miscellany. It was taken up with much force and fire by Gains Lucilius, from whom Q. Horatius Flaccus developed a genial form of poetical composition in hexameter verse, in which he pointed out good-humouredly the follies of his contemporaries. After him, Aulus Persius Flaccus, a rather prim and bookish youth, imitated Horace without his first-hand knowledge

• Otto, SprichtvSrter der RSmer (Leipzig, 1890); and Sutphen, Latin

Proverbs (Baltimore, 1903).

150 HISTORy OR CLASSICAL PHTLOLOGY

of life; while later still, Decimus Itinius luvenalis converted satire into a whip of scorpions, and lashed the hideous vices that he saw about him, infusing into his lines a cer- tain grim irreverence which has led him to be styled the first exponent of American humour.

The Greek influence was responsible for what we have of philosophical writing among the Romans. In 155 B.c., Cameades, a vehement and rapid speaker, representing the New Academy, with its essential scepticism, came upon a diplomatic mission to Rome from Athens. While there, he publicly discoursed with eloquence and subtlety on the advantages of justice. The next day, with equal elo- quence, he refuted all his arguments of the day before. This was, in fact, a practical demonstration of his belief that human knowledge is uncertain and that we have no absolute standard of truth. His orations won him much applause, but he was sent back to Athens without loss of time, as being one whose tenets were essentially immoral. Nevertheless, from this time, philosophy — especially that of the ethical schools — found disciples and expounders among the Romans.^ Roman philosophers gave to the world nothing that is new; yet we owe to such writers as Lucretius the Epicurean, to Cicero the Aca-

^ See Usener, (Leipzig, 1887); Martha, Le Foime de Lucrkcy

4th ed. (Paris, 1885); Thiaucourt, Le$ Traites Philosophiqtces de Ciciroit et Lews Sources Grecques (Paris, 1885); Zeller, History of Eclecticism^ Eng* trans. (London, 1893),* Lecky, History of European Morals^ i (New York, 1884); and Binde, Seneca (Glogau, 1883).

THE GEiECO-EOMAN PEEIOD I51

demic, and to Seneca the pseudo-Stoic, a body of literature which is both interesting in itself, and valuable as supply- ing a knowledge of those Greek treatises which have been lost. Lucretius, in particular (96-55 b.c.), is perhaps the greatest of all the Roman poets in originality, in power, and in the peculiar appeal which he makes to the inherent materialism of millions, even at the present day. His technique in his use of the hexameter is still imper- fect; but the genius of the writer and his passionate spiri- tual melancholy overcome defects of style and make him in some respects a model even for Vergil and the cloyingly exquisite Ovid.

Epic poetry was continued from the rough Saturnian in which Naevius wrote his Punka until it culminates in the splendid national poem of the Mneid — a marvellous mosaic of all that was finest in both Greek and Roman literature, woven together by P. Vergilius Maro with con- summate skill. Later, the Spaniard, Lucanus, composed in the Pharsalia an epic of almost contemporary events, following the model of Naevius and Ennius, but suc- ceeded only in writing brilliant lines which have added largely to the world’s collection of epigrams. The epic on a Grecian theme, and known as the TJielais, by Statius, marks the end of serious epic poetry among the Romans.*

Lyric poetry in native rhythms, as already said, ante- ' See Gubemads, Stma deUa Poesia Epica (Milan, 1883).

152 HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

dates Hellenic influence, though of course this early poetry was informal. But we have already noted that Livius Andronicus composed a set lyric in honour of Juno at the request of the State. However, this attempt was unfruitful, since the Latin language was not yet adapted for lyric composition that could vie with that of the Greeks. It was not until the time of Quintus Valerius Catullus that we find l3n:ic poetry in Latin; for Catullus, an Italian to the core, poured forth in sapphics and easy metres the wild longing of a heart surcharged with intense emotion. In many respects Catullus was an Alexandrian by train- ing; but in the lyrics addressed to Lesbia, his tortured mingling of love and hate are so free from the pedantry of Alexandrianism as to make him seem the predecessor of Gabriele d’Annunzio. With no such passion, yet with infinite grace, dignity, humour, wit, or melancholy, accord- ing to his subject, Horace followed Catullus, and to-day must be styled the greatest master of lyric verse among the Latins; for he managed with perfect ease the more diflScult measures of the Grecian lyrists, and remained less Alexandrian and more truly Roman than any of his contemporaries. Elegiac verse in Rome was especially represented by Ovid, and Propertius, and Tibullus, — con- temporaries, or nearly so, of Horace.^

^ See Ribbeck, op. cit. i; Werner, Lyrik und Lyriher (Leipzig, 1890); and Sellar, The Roman Poets of the Augustan Age (Oxford, 1892), Cf. also du M6ril, Poesies Poptdaires Latines (Paris, 1843); and Weissenfels, Horaz (Berlin, 1899).

THE GB-ECO-ROMAN PERIOD 153

Roman prose begins practically with Cato the Censor (234-149 B.c.) — soldier, statesman, orator, farmer, and also writer; for he produced works on military science, on agriculture, and what would to-day be of vast interest to us, a treatise entitled Origines,^ in which he discussed the history, antiquities, and language of the Roman people. Some slighter treatises of his relate respectively to medicine, to epistolary composition, and to anecdotes. Practically all that we have left is the little monograph, De Re Rustica, a practical handbook on the management of a farm. Other Romans at a comparatively early period wrote the annals of their own country, but they employed the Greek language until the time of Cato. This form of narrative, with its patriotic background, was very attractive to the Romans; so that, after Cato and his contemporaries, we find History written by Varro, Atticus, Hortensius, and Cicero himself, whose two famous contemporaries, Julius Caesar and G. Sallustius, reached a very high degree of eminence. Sallust, indeed, may be thought to challenge Thucydides, whom he imitated, just as Titius Livius, in the Augustan Age, wrote almost as delightfully as had Herodotus. After him Tacitus, in his two remarkable works, the Annales and the Hisiorice, brought his- torical writing to a climax of excellence; for after him we find only biographies like that of Suetonius on

iThe fragments are collected in a commentary by Bormann (Bran- denburg, 1858).

154 HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

the Twelve Caesars or else epitomes and fragmentary sketches.^

In their prose-writing the Romans developed, first among western peoples, prose fiction in the form of the novel and romance, in which they were imitated by the later Greeks. But while the Greeks in fiction were almost always prolix and unreal, the Romans, as might have been expected from their love of the concrete, struck out at a single blow, as it were, the realistic novel in the so- called Saiira of Gains Petronius {i, 66 A.B.), which is won- derfully modem in its treatment of character as well as in its sound criticism of life and learning. Only a portion of it remains, yet it is one of the choicest fragments of ancient literature as well as a clew to much that would otherwise be obscure in the life and language of the com- mon people. Lucius Apuleius (second century a.d.), of Medaura in Africa, represents better the earlier form of fiction in which short stories (generically known as Mi- lesians), are strung together by a thread of plot, but are

^ The fragments of the Roman historians are collected by Peter, Eis- ioricorum Rommorum Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1883). See Ulrici, treatise on the general characteristics of ancient history (Berlin, 1833); Gerlach, Die GeschicJiischreiher der Rotner (Stuttgart, 1855); and the introduction to Mommsen's history of Rome. On biography, see West, Roman Auto^ biography (New York, 1901); Wiese, De Vitis Scriptorum Romanorum (Berlin, 1840); and Suringar, De Romanorum Autobio graphis (Leyden, 1846). Much biographical material is found in the form of letters — especially those of Cicero, Pliny, Seneca, S3nnmachus, St. Jerome, St. Augustine, and Cassiodorus. See Roberts, History of Letter-Writing (London, 1843).

THE GILECO-ROMAN PERIOD 1 55

not as yet woven into an)rthing like a definite unity of form. It is odd that these two writers are practically the only ones who in Roman literature have left behind them anything like completed works. The Greeks of the same period as Apuleius, and later, poured forth a vast number of romances,* a number of which have been preserved. The best of them is the Mthiopica by Helio- dorus, composed in the fourth century, and the curiously symbolistic novel, Daphnis and Chloe. The author of the latter is unknown, but the book has exercised a strong influence upon modern prose fiction from St. Pierre to fimile Zola. A collection of imag'nary letters written by Alciphron, a Greek sophist of the second century a.d., give us very piquant pictures of Bohemian life in Athens.

In addition to these various forms of pure literature, there were written Epigrams of which the master in Latin is Martial, though the Romans seem to have relished no less the pointed lines of Plautus and Horace and Lucan in poetry, and the sententious aphorisms of Seneca and Tacitus in prose.* These accorded well with the spirit of

• See Cliassang, Histoire du Raman (Paris, 1862); Dunlop, A Eislory

of Fiction, last ed. (London, 1896); Salverte, Le Roman dans la Grice Ancimne (Paris, 1894); Warren, A History of the Novel (New York, rSps); CoUignon, Etude stir Pitrone (Paris, 1892); the Introduction by Hilde- brand to his edition of Apuleius (Leipzig, 1842); and the Introduction to Peck’s translation of the Cena Trimalchionis, 2d ed. (New York, rpoS).

3 See Booth, Epigrams Ancient and Modern, 3d ed. (London, r874); and for the rough and rather coarse epigrams directed against the emperors, see Bemstrin, Vo’stis hadicri in Ccesares Priores (Halle, 1810).

156 HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

homely wisdom that was to the Romans what speculative philosophy was to the Greeks. So comedy of the farcical type and the cynical shrewdness of the mimes were pre- fered to tragedy at almost every period of Roman culture. The truth is that only on the surface were the Romans ever Hellenised either in language or in literature. In language, highly educated men wrote in the so-called sermo urbanus, corresponding to the estilo culto of the Castilians. In the easy converse of daily life, among their friends and intimates, they used a much looser and less formal sort of Latin — the sermo cotidianus of Cicero’s letters, for example. The man in the street spoke the sermo plebeius, which was nothing more than the older Latin which had at one time been current everywhere, but which now was held by the literati to be the shib- boleth of ignorance.^ As to literature, ornate orations, exquisitely wrought lyrics, learned epics, and carefully penned histories have come down to us bearing the impress of Grecian models; but we know that for the people at large there existed an immense mass of popular composi- tions, sometimes transmitted orally and sometimes not — nursery songs, lines sung by children at play, the tri- umphal chants of the common soldiery, as well as fables, familiar letters, riddles, and acrostics. Against Terence we must set Plautus; against the epic of Vergil we must

^ See Cooper, op. cit., Introduction; Olcott, Studies in the Word Forma- tion of the Latin Inscriptions (Rome, 1898); Grandgent, Vulgar Latin (Boston, 1908); and du Mdril, op. cit.

THE GILECO-EOMAN PERIOD 1 57

set the satires of Horace and Persius; against the stately prose of Cicero we must set the slangy and ungrammatical and yet vivid jargon which flew back and forth between Trimalchio’s guests.*

Again, Roman taste is seen in the choice of those literary forms which were regarded as most admirable. The Greeks might hold tragedy to be the noblest form of composition, but the Romans gave the first place to oratory and history, while they enjoyed the epic only because (as in the case of the jEneii) it ministered to their pride of nationality. If we look at their philological studies, we shall see that they gave the preference to such as were of a practi- cal character. As early as 159 B.c. there came to Rome Crates, the grammarian from Pergamum,* and, as said, during his stay he excited much interest in theoretical grammar and linguistic studies generally. Even earlier than this time essays had been written on the ancient literature, partly to explain its meaning and partly its allusions.® After Crates there was much attention paid to etymology, and in fact, two schools arose, one deriving Latin words from Greek, which was the practice of Hypsi-

• See Petronius, chs. 27-78, translated as TmtuuMo^s Dintter by Peck, 2d ed. (New York, 1908).
• Supra, p. 120,
• Lucius Attius wrote a history of Greek and Roman poetry (Didascalica), and made some reforms in Roman orthography, abandoning the use of the letters z and y, and denoting the quantity of a, e, and u by doubling them when they were long, thereby imitating the usage in other Italic dialects. See Boissier, Le PoUe Attius (Paris, 1857).

crates (c. 100 B.C.), and the other explaining everything on the basis of Latin itself. The great name in the latter school is that of M. Terentius Varro (116-28 b.c.), a man of prodigious erudition, which caused him to be styled "the most learned of the Romans.” Varro was one of the great scholars of all time, to be compared with Eratosthenes and Aristarchus among the Greeks, with Scaliger and Lipsius just after the Renaissance, and with Mommsen in very recent years. Before giving any account, however, of his philological labours, an incident should be mentioned, the influence of which has continued to the present day. In the year 80 b.c. there came to Rome a roving scholar, a native probably of Alexandria. He had been trained both in his native city and at Pergamum. He had listened to the disputes of the linguists of each school, and was well versed in all their doctrines. This person, Dionysius Thrax, is an admirable type of the middleman who stands between the creative mind and the mind that is entirely receptive. Until his day, grammar, as we have already seen, was not so much an art in itself as an adjunct to logic and philosophy. Dionysius Thrax made digests of the lectures which he had attended, putting down the results in a didactic manner. This was precisely what most appealed to the Roman mind — something definite, concrete, and dogmatic. One treatise of Dionysius, his VpannaTL/ctj, set forth certain principles which made it the first treatise on Formal Grammar.

THE GR^CO-EOMAN PERIOD

159

Translated into Latin, it became a standard text-book, and from it there have come ti us the technical terms of formal grammar employed in modern languages.^

A Roman contemporary of this Greek grammarian was L. ^lius Praeconinus Stilo, of whom we have notices in many of the later writers, although even fragments of his writings do not remain. He was the first Roman to deserve the name of philologist. He was of knightly rank, an aristocrat by birth and training, and had a gift of natural oratory; though he sought no political office, and merely wrote orations for his friends, after the fashion of the Greek orators. He was a type of the patrician scholar, and had the true patrician’s taste for antiquarian knowledge. Therefore he came to be a profoundly learned authority upon everything relating to ancient Latin, both in the matter of antiquities and in the usages of the earlier language. Cicero styles him “ most learned in Grecian

^ In the fourth century the book was translated into Armenian, while the original was somewhat curtailed. The Armenian version has given us back five more chapters than any of the later Greek manuscripts con- tain. See the edition by Uhlig (Leipzig, 1883); and the French trans- lation by Cierbied, Mimoires et Dissertations (Paris, 1824). Cf. also Grafenhan, op. cU. i. p. 402 foil., and the account in Steinthal, op. cit. A list of these grammatical terms in Greek, with their Latin equivalents, may be found in Gudeman, Outlines of the History of Classical Philology, 3d ed. pp. 30-32. Thus, we have ivofxa. = nomen, “ noun”; irrloo'is «casust “case”; «trnipus, “tense”; crvlvyLa = conjugaiio, “conjugation”;

“gender”; ey/eWts «= “mood”; 7rpo<rwirop = “per-

son”; &pi. 6 fios^ numertis, “number.” As the ablative case does not ap- pear in Greek, it was first called “the Latin case” (casus Latinus), and by Quintilian, dblaiivus.

l6o HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

literature as well as in Latin,” while his pupil, Varro, speaks of him as Uiieris ornatissimus memoria nostra. He was undoubtedly the first of the Romans who had any claim to be regarded as a classical philologist. It was very likely he who took up the teachings of Dionysius Thrax and applied them to Latin, thus becoming the First of the Roman Grammarians. Likewise, he wrote commen- taries on such ancient works as the Carmina Saliorum and on the Twelve Tables. Gudeman believes that he even prepared an edition of Plautus with critical signs; yet of this last there is no direct evidence.

His greatest fame comes from the fact that he was a teacher of Marcus Terentius Varro, the most learned, the most indefatigable, and the most prolific of any Roman scholar who ever lived. In a later century St. Augustine says of him: “ Varro had read so much that we ought to feel surprised that he found time to write anything; and he wrote so much that we can hardly believe that any one could find time to read all that he composed.” In fact, he wrote at least six hundred.*

Varro was, however, no mere recluse. He commanded a squadron in the war against Mithradates; he served as a general of Pompey in Spain, and though he was com- pelled to surrender his troops to Caesar, he escaped him- self and remained steadfast to the aristocratic cause until

‘ So Auson. Prof. Burd, zx. 20. Cf. Boissier, Etudes suf M. T. Varron (Paris, 1861).

THE GR^CO-ROMAN PERIOD l6l

the final battle at Pharsalus. Since resistance to the dic- tator was then useless, Varro returned to Rome, expecting perhaps to be put to death. But the high-minded Caesar, who was himself a scholar, and wished to promote scholar- ship, received Varro most graciously, and gave him the agreeable task of founding a great public library in Rome.^ This was the more pleasing, since Varro^s own splendid private library had been destroyed in the Civil Wars, just as his beautiful villa at Casinum had been plundered and defiled by Antony, — a scene which Cicero has depicted with almost hideous realism in his second Philippic oration.

Out of Varro’s encyclopaedic works, not many remain, partly because they were too numerous, and partly be- cause it was the habit of Roman scholars to condense and abridge long works, taking from them whatever seemed most interesting. It is for this reason that we have the most valuable part of Livy only in the form of an epitome; that the greater portion of Petronius has been lost, and that of Varro’s six hundred or more works there re- main to us only his treatise on husbandry {De Re Rustica)^

^ Suetonius, Julius, 44. Vairo never completed the task which had been assigned him. The first public library was opened by the private munificence of Asinius PoUio (34 B.c.). At last, five imperial libraries, of which two are the most celebrated, — first that founded by Tiberius and famous for its complete collection of State papers and public docu- ments, and the Bibliotheca Traiana, the most magnificent of all, since most of the books in it were written or inscribed upon thin leaves of ivory. SeeLandani, Artcient Rome in the Light of Recent Execrations, pp. 178-205 (Boston, 1889).

i 62

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

a number of quotations and references scattered through- out the pages of Latin literature, and jSnally, a very much corrupted collection of six books taken from his great treatise on the Latin language {De Lingua Latina) — about one-quarter of the whole/ The book which gave him his highest reputation among the ancients, who con- sidered it his masterpiece, has practically perished and, in truth, it probably did not survive the end of the sixth cen- tury A.D. This was his Antiquitatum Libri, divided into forty-one books, and crowded with the vast knowledge which its author had acquired by years and years of patient reading and research* To be noted also are his SententicB, a collection of pithy sayings, much quoted in the Middle Ages, and his Saturn written in a mixture of prose and verse {MenippecR).

It is the treatise on the Latin language (one part of which was dedicated to Cicero) that is most interesting, both because of the subject itself and because we still possess a portion of the book. The treatise seems to have been arranged in three great divisions. The first seven books dealt with the origin of words and phrases, and was, in fact, a history of the Latin language largely from the point of view of- etymologists.^ The next six books were grammatical,^ relating chiefly to the forms and

^Edited by A. Spengel (Berlin, 1885).

® Supra, p. 146 foil.

• In these books Varro examines the natural and arbitrary divisions

in nouns and verbs. Words are “ naturally ” divided according to anal- ogy, and “ arbitrarily divided according to anomaly.

THE GRiECO-ROMAN PERIOD

163

inflection of nouns and verbs, since Varro regarded these as the only two real parts of speech — in this respect resembling the Semitic grammarians. The last eleven books have to do with the laws of syntax {ut verha inter se coniungantur) . The six books w'hich we still possess are, as is seen above, partly etymological and partly re- lating to inflections. They give us incidentally a great deal of information about curious points of ancient usage at Rome, and Varro shows wisdom in not attempting to derive the vocabulaiy of his language from the Greek. On the other hand, he etymologises entirely by ear, so that many of his derivations are as absurd as those which were prevalent in the Middle Ages.^

This monumental work, even in the scanty fragments which remain to us, has always been studied with great profit, especially the purely lexical portion (v-vii). Its arrangement is not alphabetical, but the words that Varro treats in it are taken up by groups based upon their association with one another. Thus the author begins the fifth book (after a short introduction) with names re- lating to places, discussing first the word locus and its derivatives locare, locarium, and so forth, following this by a division of places in heaven and places on earth. Turning to the former, he regards caelum as the antith-

^ Thus Varro says that cams is derived from cam because dogs give signals {canere) at night; that stags are called cmi from gero (quasi cero)i because they carry huge antlers; and that dives is from divus^ because a rich man is like a god in wanting nothing.

164 HISTORV OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

esis to Urra and its partial synonym humus, which sug- gests humor, humidus, udus, sudor, and other words relat- ing to moisture, as puteus (a well), locus, palus, stagnum, fluvius, Jiumen, stillicidium, amnis. The sound of amnis suggests to him the place-names, Interamna, Antemnae, and Anio. Because the Anio empties into the Tiber, he discusses the etymology of Tiberis. And so one word suggests another, and he takes each of them and defines it, giving the etymology and citing from both poets and prose-writers in illustration of the various uses of the word or name in question. In this way we receive the impression of a familiar, oS-hand lecture, and such seems to have been his intention; though K. O. Muller has set forth an hypothesis that in the De Lingua Latina we have only the rough unfinished notes of a book rather than the book itself in its completed form.^

Whatever one may say of Varro’s rather childish ety- mologies, he does give the explanation which the Romans themselves were wont to hold as to the origin of certain words. But his citations from authors now lost, and the occasionally full explanations which he gives of matters of usage and law, are a source of information to which scholars will always resort. On such matters, Varro’s position as the most learned of the Romans gives his utterances the weight of unimpeachable authority.

^It may be that Varro published an epitome of the work in nine books. See Roth, LAen Varros (Basle, iSsj)-

THE GR^CO-ROMAN PERIOD 165

Especially important was his labour as a critic of texts, since it resulted in the establishment of a Plautine Canon, It is the one instance of such a canon created among the Romans and lasting to the present time. In his treatise on the comedies of Plautus, he appears to have discussed with much acumen the question as to which comedies bearing the name of Plautus were genuine and which were spurious. As is well known, the number of such plays had become very great, owing to the fact that the name Plauiina was used as a generic term for a certain type of fabula palliata; ^ and because the plays of Plautus had become confused with those of another writer, Plau- tius. Hence Gellius says that, in all, 130 comedies were generally styled ‘‘Plautine.” To the separation of the true from the false among these, Varro set himself to work, using both the traditional information that had descended to his time, and also the texts which he compared, col- lated, and criticised with great acuteness. The number of genuine plays he set at twenty-one. The general acceptance of his dictum is seen in the fact that of the whole list of 130, only the twenty-one fabulae Varronianae have survived to modem times, one of them, the Vidularia, having been practically lost during the Middle Ages.^

Glossography flourished in Rome, though it was

^ Gellius, iii. 3.

2 See Ritschl, ii. (1868); Neue PlmUinische (Leipzig,

1869); and on the lost Vidtdariaj Leo, De Vididaria Plauti (Gottingen,

1895)-

i66

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

almost wholly of a lexical and grammatical character. During the Ciceronian, Augustan, and Silver Ages it served to explain and illustrate the meaning of archaic Latin and also the plebeian form of speech. The dis- tinguished glossographers Prseconinus Stilo and Aure- lius Opilius created a scientific basis for the study of the Latin language by going back to the oldest records and studying them. The results of their work and that of their contemporaries have in many cases come down to us in special glossaria (e.g. to Plautus, Terence, Vergil, Sidonius, and others), from seven of which Cardi- nal Alai, in the nineteenth century, compiled his great Glossarium Veins} Roman grammarians and critics early began to edit Latin texts. M. Antonius Gnipho (c. 114 B.C.) published commentaries on the Annales of Ennius. Cicero (or his brother Quintus) published an edition of Lucretius.*

It is unfortunate that no exact details concerning the Roman criticism of texts have come down to us. Alost Roman scholars appear to have confined themselves to the writing of marginal glosses. They distinguish the various processes: emendatio, distinciio, and adnotatio, which last word means the adding of notes, these notes being sometimes brief sigm, and sometimes brief com-

^See Lowe, Prodromus Cor^orus Glossariorum Laiinorum (Leipzig, 1876).

® See Mimro, Lucretius, Intr. ii. pp. 2 foil.

THE GRiECO-ROMAN PERIOD 1 67

mentaries in the modern sense of the word. Suetonius wrote a treatise on these notes, part of which has come down to us written in Greek. He mentions twenty-one critical signs, chiefly variations and combinations of the obelus, asterisk, dipl^, antisigma, and point (punctum); yet they appear to have been used less for textual than for aesthetic and literary criticism (/cpurt? or distinctid), for which there were also other symbols that Suetonius merely mentions without describing.^ To the Latin critics is due the so-called subscriptio, of which one hears a good deal in the study of manuscripts. A subscriptio is a note added to a manuscript. It usually begins with the word legi (also recognovi, coniuU), fol- lowed by the name of the reviser, with the date, place, time, circ*mstances, or other details regarding the re- vision. This revision indicated by the subscriptio is usually not a critical recension of the text, but only a sort of proof-reading, i,e. a guarantee of the correctness of the copy from an original.^

It is to be noted that the Romans paid considerable attention to Epigraphy. Inscribed stones on which the

'^E.g. notae simpUces, One of these is of some importance as being a distinct addition. It is the sign h, called alogus, and marks an anacoluthon, or a difficult expression, such as the aequore iusso Am, X. 444, so marked by Probus.

^SubscripHones are found in manuscripts of all the best Latin writers, including Caesar, Cicero, Vergil, Horace, livy, Persius, Martial, Quintilian, Juvenal, and Mela. See Haase, De Lat, Cod, MSS, Sub- scriptionibus (Breslau, i860).

i68

msTORV or classical philology

Greeks preserved their public documents were stored in the temples of every Hellenic city, and records were hewn upon the walls and pediments and altars, so that, as Hiibner says, “ the history of a Greek city was liter- ally written upon her stones.” These inscriptions were frequently cited as documents by the Greek orators and afterward by the historians, but it was not until the Alexandrian Age that regular collections of them were made by such scholars as Philochorus (300 B.c.) and Polemo (200 B.C.), who was nicknamed erT 7 ]XoK<k-ais be- cause the study of inscriptions was a passion with him. At Rome from about 50 b.c. until 200 a.d. they are quoted by the orators and historians, and studied by some of the grammarians, such as Varro, Verrius Flac- cus,^ and Probus * of Berytus; while they are collected for legal purposes by the writers on Roman jurisprudence.

Passing over Ateius Praetextatus (c. 29 b.c.), who was called fhilologus,^ and Asconius Pedianus (3 A.D.), the well-known commentator on Cicero, and the annalist Fenestella (19 A.D.), we come to the next great name, which is that of Marcus Verrius Flaccus (c. 10 B.c.), tutor to the children of Augustus, and a scholar who deserves especial mention for his rank in both philological study and the general history of education. Verrius Flaccus may fairly be described as the compiler of the first Latin

^ Infra, p. 169.

^ Suetonius, Gram. 10.

’‘Ibid.

THE GE^CO-ROMAN PERIOD

169

lexicon ever written, though perhaps it might be more truly called an encyclopaedia. Its title was De Verhorum Significatu, written in more than twenty-four books. It was a lexicon because it defined and illustrated by citations the words of the Latin language in their alphabetical order. It was an encyclopaedia because it gave infoimation on innumerable topics concerning history, antiquities, and grammar, and with exhaustive and elaborate quotations from every class of writers — poets, jurists, and historians, as well as from ancient legal documents, rituals, and sacred formulae. This great work in its original form is now lost. In the second century a.d. it was abridged by a grammarian, Pompeius Festus, in an arbitrary fashion which allowed only one book to each of the letters of the alphabet, and this abridgment by Festus was itself com- pressed into a still briefer epitome by the monk Paulus or Paul Wamefrid, usually spoken of as Paulus Diaconus. The epitome by Paulus, dedicated to Charlemagne (c. 800 A.D.), is now the principal source of our knowledge of xhe original treatise; but many fragments of the notes by Festus remain, while Gellius here and there cites exten- sive passages at first hand from Verrius. These show how the original treatise was mutilated both by Festus and by Paulus.^ Yet badly as the remains of Verrius were treated, they are perhaps the most valuable source of information remaining for the study at second hand of

1 All theremains have been editedbyThewrewkdePonor (Prague, 1891).

170 HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

archaic Latin and for curious information on the subject of Roman antiquities.^

Veixius is to be remembered for another thing — his system of education, which for the first time among the Romans appealed to a spirit of emulation and ambition rather than to the dread of punishment. In teaching, Verrius offered prizes for proficiency in study, and laid stress upon the reward of merit rather than upon the chastisem*nt of neglect and ignorance.^

It was at this time, after the beginning of the first cen- tury of our era, that the Greek and Roman learning be- came so blended as to be thereafter, in the sphere of the higher studies, substantially a single field. Henceforth all Romans of cultivation were not only familiar with Greek and with its literature, but the Greek world had become largely Romanised in its institutions and in many of its customs. Greeks flocked to Rome in such great numbers that we find Juvenal, a little later, complaining that the Roman capital had become a Greek city. Both languages were spoken side by side; Romans wrote in Greek or in Latin as they chose; the pages of their most familiar and intimate compositions (the letters of Cicero, for example) were studded with Greek phrases and allusions; while the Greeks, though they never took so kindly to the Roman speech, busied themselves in reading and writing Roman

^ See the chapter on Verrius Flaccus by Nettleship in his Essays in Latin Literature, pp. 201-247 (Oxford, 1885).

® Suetonius, Gram, 17.

THE GE^CO-ROMAN PERIOD

171

history and in the scientific study of Roman institutions. Dionysius of Halicarnassu wrote of the archaeology of Rome. Plutarch, that remarkable master of literary portraiture, found parallels in the lives of Greeks and Romans, and in his Atria 'Poafiai/cij investigated the meaning of Roman customs. One of the best-known Roman historians and scholars, Gaius Suetonius Tran- quillus, composed partly in Greek and partly in Latin his learned summaries of the usages of both peoples.^ The intellectual imity of Hellas and Rome became clearly visible in the system of education now finally accepted by the Romans, uniting as it did the early theory of the Latin people with that of the more highly intellectual Greeks. As Roman thought and literature in this period grew more and more academic, it is proper here to summarise the principal features of the Graeco-Roman Educational System, as giving a general conspectus of the progress of learning in the ancient world.

The Roman training, as a whole, may be described as a Greek structure on a Latin foundation. The elementary part of it is native; the more purely scientific part of it is

^ Suetonius is best known for bis biographies of the Twelve Caesars; yet he wrote many treatises, chiefly on antiquarian subjects, such as the names of articles of clothing, the origin and early import of imprecations and words of abuse, an account of celebrated courtesans, a manual of court etiquette, and a collection of miscellanies in ten books. The frag- ments of these lost treatises are edited by Reifferscheid (Leipzig, 1S60). It is not known which of them were written in Latin and which in Greek. See the preface to the edition by Roth (Leipzig, 1886).

172 mSTOEY OF CLASSICAL PHaOLOGY

foreign. This represents, of course, the history of Roman education, in which simpler forms were developed before the Greek influence had been felt at Rome; while the scientific features were introduced after the time of Livius Andronicus and Ennius. In other words (to use modem terms), the common-school system at Rome was Roman; the secondary and higher education were Greek. The very names given at Rome to the three classes of teachers were most significant. The elementary teacher is called by a Latin name {litterator or magisier litterarius ); while both classes of advanced teachers had titles borrowed from the Greek (grammaticus, rhetor).

In early Rome, education was regarded as important, though it was not obligatory by law, as it was at Athens and in other Greek States. Schools were few. Most fathers taught their own sons at home. This in itself implies that the teaching was very simple and of a utili- tarian character. Reading, writing, arithmetic, and the memorising of the Twelve Tables comprised nearly every- thing that was taught in the elementary schools after these had been established in the fourth or fifth century B.c.^ Plutarch’s statement* that Spurius Carvilius was the first person to open a school at Rome (231 b.c.) must be understood as referring to the secondary schools alone. In the elementary schools the course, as stated above,

‘Livy, iii. 44; V. 44; vi. *5*

• Qmesiiones Romanaej 59.

THE GMCO-ROMAN PERIOD

173

was one of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Reading was made attractive at first by using ivory letters and other devices. Writing lessons were given on wax tablets ruled with lines. Arithmetic was regarded as extremely im- portant, though it was not pursued much further than addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Great stress was laid on mental arithmetic, which consisted of a rigid drill in calculation on the fingers up to sums of four and five places of figures; while complicated prob- lems were solved by means of the abacus or calculating board. Fractions were viewed as very difficult. The Roman system of reckoning was originally duodecimal (by twelves) , but later decimal (by tens) . Boys of wealthy families, after finishing their elementary studies, were sent to the grammar school, where they received instruction in the first principles of a liberal training {eruditio Uberalis)?- The chief object which the grammaticus had in mind was to impart a thorough knowledge of the Greek and Latin poets, this knowledge covering not only purely literary discussions of style and metre, but also the subject-matter, such as historical topics, geography, mythology, and ethics.® Long passages of favourite authors were learned by heart, and writing verse was also practised. Late in the first century B.c. there were added the subjects of music and geometry.*

^ Cicero, Tusc. ii. ii, 27.

• Cicero, In Verrem, i. 18, 47; Quintilian, i. 4.

«Seneca, EpisU 88, 9; Suetonius, Tih 3.

174 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

History and geography were, as time went on, more and more valued as a part of a liberal education. We have seen that even about the beginning of the Alex- andrian Period, Descriptive Geography took definite shape and form. It was then that Scylax, a Carian Greek, sailed down the Indus and around through the Indian Ocean and the Red Sea, occupying thirty months for the voyage. His name is attached to a so-called Periplus, which, however, could not possibly have been written by him.^ A little later, Eudoxus of Canidus proved mathe- matically the spherical shape of the earth, and first divided the globe into five zones. The campaigns of Alexander the Great laid the western and southern parts of Asia open to Greek research. Physical geography was developed by the Ptolemies in their commercial expeditions; and all geographical knowledge, so far as it then existed, was used with scientific skill by the Alex- andrians, such as Eratosthenes, Hipparchus of Nicasa, and Posidonius of Apamea (90 B.C.). We have only frag- ments, however, of most of these geographers. A very great and enduring work is that of Strabo of Amasia (c. 20 A.D.), which combines descriptive geography with ethnology. To what the Greeks had learned he added a knowledge of the Roman conquests. And though his historical work is lest, his treatise on geography (Trjaypa^ifcd) in seventeen books is the most complete

‘ See the edition by Fabridus (Leipzig, 1883); and Antichan, op. cit.

THE GILECO-ROMAN PERIOD

I7S

geographical treatise of antiquity. It is, indeed, very far from a dry and monotonous screed. It was meant to be read, and it is very readable, so that it has been called a sort of political or historical geography. Napoleon caused it to be rendered into French, with notes.^ During the wars in Gaul and the East, maps (tabulae) were prepared at Rome and displayed in the porticos, where all could see them and understand the despatches which came from the Roman armies. M. Vipsanius Agrippa, by order of Augustus Casar, made a great map, on which were indicated the distances between important places throughout the Roman Empire. This map was the origin of modern maps, and contributed greatly to our knowledge of Topography. It was often copied in whole or in part, and from it were made the so-called Itineraria, or maps intended for particular expeditions. The most interesting of such now in existence is the so- called tabula Pmtingeriana, preserved in Vienna. Its date is about 250 a.d., and it consisted of twelve slips of parchment which originally marked out all the world as known to the Romans. At present the pieces which should contain Spain and Britain are lost with the exception of a part of Kent.^

Rivalling Strabo in science but not equalling him

^5vols. (Paris, 1805-19). See the Introduction by Tozer to his English edition of selections (Oxford, 1893).

• For a representation of this geographical curiosity, see the Atlas

AntiqutLS of Justus Perthes (Gotha, 1893).

176 HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

m interest or breadth of knowledge, the Alexandrian astronomer, Claudius Ptolemseus, made lists (c. 150 a.d.) of places, with their latitude and longitude, and an atlas — the first known — which shows the Indian Ocean as a closed sea. After this time there is nothing novel in geography and topography except the great work of Pausanias (c. 175 A.D.), who wrote an itinerary of Greece in ten books, ^ which is an invaluable study of Hellenic topography. Pomponius Mela, a native of Spain, composed a clear and concise account of the world as known to the Romans of his time.® At the end of the Graeco-Roman Period, Stephanus of Byzantium compiled a geographical dictionary, of which the substance is taken from older and better writers; and in the sixth century, one Cosmus described India in a book where occurs for the first time the name of China (Simrum Regnwn).

After completing his studies under the grammaticus, a Roman was held to have received a fairly complete edu- cation. But such as were desirous of more special and scientific teaching had their choice between the schools of the rhetors and the universities — at Athens, Rhodes,

• Translated with a commentary by Frazer, 6 vols. (Oxford, 1898).

• See Frick, Pomponius Mela und seine Chorographie (Leipzig, 1880).

The remains of the minor Greek geographers are edited by Mfiller, 2 vols. (Paris, 1882); those of the Latin geographers by Reise (Frankfort, 1878). For a study of early cartography, see Nordenskjold, (Stockholm, 1897).

THE GRJSCO-EOMAN PERIOD

177

Alexandria, or Pergamum, or Massilia.^ The schools of the rhetors were more immediately directed to rhetorical teaching so as to ht the student for public life as an orator and statesman. Here was taken up the study of prose, beginning with the simple narratio, passing on to the declamatio or suasoria^ and ending with the controversial which had to do with legal points and complicated ques- tions of practical life. In all this there was nothing to appeal to that numerous class of students who, setting aside any political or legal ambition, desired to cultivate as specialists the field of the natural sciences, of pure mathematics, of medicine, of philosophy, or of linguistics. If these persons remained in Rome, they could carry on their work only by employing at great expense the services of a private instructor in the person of some learned Greek,^ Thus Cicero, when a boy, had in his father’s house various Greek tutors, among them the celebrated Archias of Antioch, while only one of his masters (Quintus .®lius) was a Roman bom. Later, he studied under

^ See stipra, pp. 88-125.

® See Saalfeld, Der Hellenismus in Latium (Wolfenbiittel, 1883) J Eck- stein, Lateinischer und Griechischer Unterricht (Leipzig, 1887); Compayr6, History of Paedagogy^ English translation (Boston, 1886); Clarke, The Education of Children at Rome (New York, 1896); and Munroe, op. cit. Petronius satirises the ineffectiveness of private instruction (1-4) when the teacher was dependent on the good-will of the student, and there- fore let him choose advanced studies prematurely. "Now as boys they fool away their time in the schools, as young men they are jeered at in the forum, and what is still more disgraceful, the thing which they have learned wrong they are ashamed to admit when they grow up.”

N

lyS HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Philo the Academic, while he learned rhetoric from Apol- lonius Molo of Rhodes and trained himself in close think- ing under Diodotus the Stoic. Then he went to Athens, where he attended the lectures of Antiochus and subse- quently heard the chief philosophers and rhetoricians of Asia. It was his practice eveiy day to declaim in both Greek and Latin with other young men, so as to acquire fluency and style. At this time he seems to have given serious attention to only one of his own countrymen, the great lawyer, Scaevola.

The Roman theory of education was fully set forth in the first century a.d. by M. Fabius Qtiintilianus (35- c, 97 A.n.), a very cultivated Spaniard who lived and taught at Rome. This was, indeed, the so-called Period of Spanish Latinity, represented not only by Quintilian but by the two Senecas,^ the epic poet Lucan and the epigrammatist Martial. In this same century, indeed, Rome had its first foreign emperor in the person of Trajan, who was a Spaniard, bom near Seville. Quintilian’s work in twelve books is entitled Institutio Oratoria, It gives his view of tlie complete training of an orator, beginning with early childhood. He makes it evident' that to him, as to the Romans generally, oratory is the supreme art. The orator must be trained in grammatical studies, he must be a master of language and skilled in all the arts

^ The Elder Seneca was a professional rhetorician, and we have from his pen a number of suasoriae and controversiae, which are edited by Kiessling (Leipzig, 1872), and H. J. Muller (Prague, 1887).

THE GILECO-EOMAN PERIOD

179

of persuasion; but he must also be much more than this. He must be deeply versed in the learning of his time, in the history of his own country, in philology, in law, and in science, in order that as an orator he may draw upon an inexhaustible store of illustration, allusion, ornament, and anecdote. Finally, he must be a man of exalted character, for no oratory is truly effective unless it is imbued with moral earnestness and absolute sincerity. “The perfect orator is the perfect man.’’ The first book of Quintilian’s treatise is peculiarly interesting because in it, speaking of the early grammatical training of a child, he discusses minutely the alphabet, the parts of speech, word-changes, spelling, punctuation, barbarisms, sole- cisms, analogy, the influence of custom, and at last ety- mology. All these things he illustrates by a number of examples and anecdotes, which have been to later genera- tions a treasure-house of curious facts regarding the Latin language. Throughout the book the tone is very modem, and some of his precepts lie at the very foundation of modem teaching. Thus, in speaking of corporal punish- ment in school, he says very sensibly: —

“That boys should suffer corporal punishment, even though this custom be common, I can scarcely allow; in the first place, because it is disgraceful and a punishment fit only for slaves; and in the second place because, if the disposition of a boy is so base as not to be affected by reproof, he will become hardened, like the worst of slaves, even to lashings; and finally, if a person who regularly has charge of his tasks be with him, there will be no need of any

l8o HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

sucli punisliment. . . . Moreover, after you have cowed a boy with blows, how are you to treat him when he grows to early manhood when no such threat can be employed, and when even more difficult studies must be pursued? Add to these con- siderations that many things often occur to boys while being whipped which are unpleasant to mention and likely afterward to cause shame imder the sway of pain or terror. Such shame enervates and depresses the mind and youths then avoid others, because they have lost their seK-respect.” ^

Note also the following brief dictum: —

“ Give me a boy who is stimulated by praise and who is down- cast when he fails. His powers must be cultivated under the in- fluence of ambition. Reproach will sting him to the quick. Re- ward will incite him. In such a boy I shall never fear any indiflerence; nor will a love of play in boys displease me. It is a sign of vivacity, and I cannot expect that one who is always dull and spiritless will be eager in his studies, when he is indifferent even to that excitement which is natural to his time of life.^ . . . Therefore, as early as possible, a child must he taught that he should do nothing in a harum-scarum way, nothing dishonestly, and noth- ing without self-control. We must always keep in mind the maxim of Vergil: ' So important is habit in the case of the very young.’ ” *

The Tenth Book sums up Quintilian’s general literary criticism of the Roman authors, carefully comparing them with the writers of like genres in Greek. This com- parison has made the book much read; for the criticism, not being that of a bom Roman, is temperate, impartial, and written with a certain mellowness of tone. Its con-

^ Quintilian, Inst. Oral. i. 3, 14.

® Cf. “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.”

® Ai&o in teneris consuescere mulPum esU

THE GRiEC0-E03iiAN PERIOD l8l

elusions are essentially those of modem times. Thus he places the Roman epic poets not far behind the epic poets of Greece, the Roman orators such as Cicero practically on a level with the great orators of Athens, and he regards satire as an independent creation of Roman genius.^ His own style is marked by that tempered epigrammatic spirit which was characteristic of the time. Thus he says, ‘^Though ambition is in itself a fault, it is still often the source of achievement.’’ ^^In almost every undertaking, experience counts for more than theory.” “He is equal to any task who believes himself to be equal to it.” “ Noth- ing is trifling in our studies.” “The pen is often most useful when it erases.” “We do not come to write well by writing quickly, but we come to write quickly by writing well.” “An evil speaker differs from an evil doer only in opportunity.” “It is a full heart and mental power that make men eloquent.”

A more famous piece of literary criticism had already been written (about 20 b.c.) by Horace, and it became known to scholars, though not to its author, as the Ars Poetica, It is written in the discursive fashion which Horace loved; and is full of brilliant lines which embody the wisdom of a skilled writer and accomplished man of the world. Such, for example, are the following sentences and phrases. Each of them contains a world

^ See Peterson^s edition of the Tenth Book, with his introduction (Oxford, 1891); and a separate edition of the First Book by Fierville (Paris, 1890).

1 82 HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

of keen observation, and some of them belong to the language of universal criticism: —

Purpureus adsuitur pannus.

Difficile est proprie communia dicere.

Parturiunt montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Ne pueros coram populo Medea trucidet.

Scribendi recte sapere est et principium et fons.

Ut pictura poesis.

Nescit vox missa reverti.

Dr. 0. W. Holmes once said of Emerson: “His paragraphs axe full of brittle sentences which break apart, and are independent units like the fragments of a coral colony.’’ The poems of Horace are also full of these “ brittle sentences ” and, taken together, these sentences crystallise the body of his doctrines. The Ars Poetica lacks proportion and is ill-knit; but the essence of it is an injunction to hard labour on the part of the man of letters, to much reading, to self-criticism, and to a deep knowledge of human life. Without these the poet is merely a declaimer who deals with words rather than with things,^ Very much the same thought is elaborated

^This poem of Horace has been imitated in modem times by the Italian scholar, Gerolamo Vida, in his De Arte Poetica^ written in the sixteenth century; by Boileau in his Art Poitique (1674); by Alexander Pope in his Essay on Criticism (1711); and by Lord Byron in his clever but less serious Hints from Horace. See Cook, The Art of Poetry (Boston, 1892), and Weissenfels Aesthet.-kritische Analyse der Ars Poetica (Gdrlitz, 1880). The best commentary in English is by Wilkins in his edition of the Epistles of Horace (London, 1885). Cf. also supra^ p. 180.

THE GILECO-ROMAN PERIOD 183

by Persius Flaccus, in the first of his satires, which ridicules the artificial character of the literary language of the day.

Quintilian was a winning, graceful writer; he was also a student of language, and a critic of literature. The period in which he lived and taught saw many other at- tractive writers, and it saw also the pursuit of linguistics in the form of grammar, and likewise an abundance of sound literary criticism. His contemporaries were the Spaniards already mentioned, and likewise Tacitus, the historian, both Plinys, Petronius, Persius, Juvenal, Statius, Silius Italicus, and Suetonius. The teacher of Quintilian himself, Q. Remmius Palaemon (c. 35-70 a.d.), was perhaps the first author of a school grammar in the modem sense. He distinguished four declensions, and his Ars Grammatica (published c. 70 a.d.) contained rules which were more rigid and less elastic than those of the early Roman grammarians. Bom a slave, originally a weaver by trade, and noted for his most disreputable character, he was nevertheless extremely popular as a teacher because of his remarkable memory, his glib speech, and his truly Roman gift for serving up knowledge in set formulas,^

^ See Marschall, Be Q. Remmii Palmonis Libris GrammaHcis (Leipzig, 1887); also Suetonius, Gram. 23. Cf. Nettleship’s study of Latin grammar among the Romans in Lectures and Essays^ 2d series, pp. 145- 171 (Oxford, 1895); Schmidt, Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Gram-

matik (Halle, 1859).

184 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Teachers of grammar became very numerous during and after the time of Quintilian, and the remains of their treatises have been collected into seven volumes and a supplement by Keil.^ It may be said, however, that only a few of these so-called grammarians have any genuine knowledge of their subject. They copy from one another, and this copying displays not only their lack of ethics, but their lack of knowledge. Some of the later grammarians do not even understand the teachings which they copy. Remmius Patemon is mainly responsible for having made Vergil the centre of scholastic instruction for the Roman world, just as Homer was for the Greek. After the first century a.d., the Roman grammarians show little independent research. Their manuals (known as arks) were merely school-books relating to the simplest rules of orthography, syntax, and prosody. Such are the works of Marius Victorinus, Servius, Charisius, Diomedes, and Terentianus Maurus, this last scholar devoting his atten- tion to metres. Two grammarians stand out with de- served prominence. One of them is .ffilius Donatus, who lived in the fourth centuiyof our era and was one of St. Jerome’s teachers. Apart from his commentaries on Vergil and Terence, Donatus wrote a treatise (Ars Donati Granmatica) in two parts. The first part is called Ars Minor and in it he treats only of the eight parts of speech. In the other, called Ars Maior, he discusses grammar ^ Keil, Grcmmatici Latini (Leipzig, 1855-1880).

THE GRiECO-ROMAN PERIOD 185

more elaborately. The book was so much thought of as a practical treatise, that it was continuously used down through the Middle Ages, and the word Domtus (in Chaucer “donat”) came to be synonymous with the word “grammar,” just as in English “a Webster” means a dictionaiy, and as in French un Bottin means generically a city directory.^

The other Roman grammarian whose work has many merits was Priscianus of Constantinople, who taught Latin there in the sixth century a.d. After compiling a number of small grammatical treatises, he published the most complete and systematic Latin grammar that has come down to us from antiquity. It is called Institu- tiones Grammaticae, and is divided into eighteen books. Its importance is largely due to its full quotations from ancient literature.* An epitome of it by the mediaeval scholar Rabanus Maurus (c. 776 a.d.) vied with the work of Donatus throughout tbe Middle Ages.* For the general principles of grammar, Priscian drew largely on Apollonius Dyscolus, of Alexandria,* who was the founder of scien- tific syntax (c. 140 a.d.) and of whom Priscian him- self said that he was the greatest authority in technical

1 See Keil, op. cit. iv, and Grafenhan, op. cit. iv. p. 107.

• He quotes especially from Plautus, Terence, Cicero, Sallust, Vergil,

Horace, Ovid, Lucan, Persius, Statius, and Juvenal; and less freely from Cato, Ennius, Lucretius, Catullus, and Caesar.

• See infra, p. 229.

^ See Skrzeczka, Die Lekre des Apollonius Dyscolus (1869).

i86

mSTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

grammar, though in this respect his son ^lius Herodianus was undoubtedly a formidable rival, dedicating to Marcus Aurelius a work on prosody in twenty-one books. The grammar of Priscian was so often copied that more than a thousand manuscripts of it still exist.

Contemporary with Quintilian was M. Valerius Probus Berytius, who has been called “the greatest Roman phi- lologist”; but like many of the later Latin scholars his work was almost entirely in the field of text-criticism, with critical signs, as for instance upon Vergil, Horace, Terence, Lucretius, Persius, He likewise wrote a treatise on these symbols.^ It will be observed that the later grammarians were not of Roman or of Italian birth. Thus, Quintilian was a Spaniard; Probus a Syrian; Suetonius probably a Spaniard; Priscian a native of Caesarea in Mauretania, though he lived mainly in Con- stantinople. This plainly shows us that Rome was no longer Roman, but cosmopolitan. After the Spanish Period of its literature came the African Period, repre- sented by such well-known names as Apuleius, Fronto, TertuUian, and perhaps Aulus Genius. The golden Latin of the Ciceronian and Augustan Ages had changed to the “silver^’ andlatferto the “bronze” Latinity. The small group of those who had set the fashion in language at Rome were imitated painfully enough, yet quite inaccu- rately, by writers of foreign birth. Of this Dr. F. T. Cooper has well said: —

^ Steup, De Prohis GramfftaMds Cfena, 1871).

THE GRiECO-ROMAN PERIOD

187

“There was a growing proportion of writers on architecture, surveying, medical and veterinary topics, gastronomy, etc., whose attainments were too meagre to enable them to write correctly, however much they wanted to; and their works naturally contained a strong colouring of plebeian vocabulary. An important influence was also exerted by the no less numerous class of writers whose birthplace was outside of Italy, and whose speech, in spite of education and long residence at the capital, retained, to a varying degree, traces of their alien origin. Even Livy, bom in northern Italy, incurred censure for his Patavinitas. Under the Empire, the provinces became even more fertile than Rome itseK in the pro- duction of men of genius; Spain and Africa especially became the centres of veritable schools of literature, possessing marked characteristics, which reacted strongly upon the literature of Rome.” 1

It is because the people who had received Roman citizen- ship, though bom and living outside of Italy, were anx- ious to acquire a correct use of the Latin language, that we find so many grammarians. The very last of them is the Spaniard Isidorus, who died about 636 a.d. He had been Bishop of Seville, and was a man of very wide read- ing, an eloquent speaker, and one who had been trained in the ancient learning as well as in that of his own time. He never visited Rome until nearly twenty years before his death, whither he went to confer with Gregory the Great. His grammatical writings are two in number, relating to the distinctions and the proper use of words. He likewise wrote a collection of glosses, beside numerous

^ See Cooper, Word Formation in the Roman Sermo PldeiuSi Introduc- tion, xxxv (New York, 1895). '

i88

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHTLOLOGY

treatises on historical and theological subjects. With him ends the production of grammars that show any original research or that represent original sources. But just as foreigners desired to know the rules of the language which their masters spoke, so they also liked to inform themselves on all sorts of subjects relating to the earlier Roman history. Hence we have a series of Encyclo- paedists who supplemented the work of the grammarians.

Varro, already mentioned, was the first of these, ^ and from him many succeeding writers borrowed. The Elder Pliny (23-79 A.D.) in his Historid Naturalis had got together an enormous mass of “general information,” ranging from prescriptions for the sick, to jewels worn by fashionable women. In the second centuiy, Anlus Gel- lius wrote his Nocks Atiicae in twenty books, on eveiy- possible sort of subject — philosophical, grammatical, his- torical, and legal, — drawing upon many sources that are now unknown to us.^ One may get an idea of the variety of these scraps by a citation of some of the topics; as, for instance, “The fact that Women at Rome do not Swear by Hercules nor Men by Castor”; “That It is More Disgraceful to be Damned with Faint Praise than to be Bitterly Rebuked”; “Why the Stomach is Relaxed Be- cause of Sudden Fear”; “Concerning King Alexander’s Horse which was Called Bucephalus”; “Concerning the

^ Sup'a, p. 158.

®See Ruske, De AiM Gdlii Nodium Atticarum Fontibus (Breslau, 1883). Best edition of the Nodes by Hertz (Leipzig, 1886).

THE GILECO-ROMAN PERIOD 189

Ancient Snmptuaiy Laws”; Whether Xenophon and Plato were Jealous or Ill-disposed Toward Each Other”; “ Concerning the Race and Names of the Porcian Family”; "The Force and Derivation of the Particle Saltern J' Mainly grammatical, but partly encyclopaedic, is the treatise by Nonius Marcellus, an African, in the fourth century. He copied from earlier writers, and most of all perhaps from Aulus Gellius. His book, though not in the least original, has a value of its own for what he has preserved in it.^ Similar works of easy erudition may be illustrated by St. Jerome’s translation of the Chro 7 iicle of Eusebius (264- c. 340 a.d.)^ with additions which bring it down to the year 378 a.d., and in the same century the very interesting medley by the Graeco-Roman senator, Macrobius, whose Saturnalia in seven books is crammed with interesting though by no means authentic anecdotes and conversations, together with jokes and bits of criti- cism. The form of the whole is copied from the Banquet of Plato, and the substance is derived from many a source.® A lively turn is given to the Saturnalia by the fact that it is cast in the form of table-talk. The last and almost

^ De Compendiosa Doctrina, edited by L. Muller (Leipzig, rS88), and Lindsay, (Leipzig, 1903). See Nettleship, Lectures and Essays, pp. 277- 331 (Oxford, 1885).

® St. Jerome’s rendering of the Scriptures into idiomatic Latin gave following generations a chance to study the plebeian speech.

• See Wissowa, De MacroUi Saturnalium Fontibus (Breslau, 1888).

Text edition by Eyssenhardt (Leipzig, 1893). There is a good translation of the Saturnalia into French by de Roson (Paris).

1 9 ° HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

the greatest of these encyclopaedic works is that of Isi- dorus, called Origines, in twenty books, — an immense sun^ey of all knowledge. Its title is derived from the fact that it professes to give explanations of the various subjects of which it treats. It is in reality nothing but a compilation; yet this and his other similar work, De Natura Rerum, were widely read throughout the Middle Ages and furnished many a hint for those who put together the Gesta Romanorum} It is astonishing how wide was the reading of Isidorus. As Bishop of Seville he allowed his monks to read nothing of the pagan compositions except the grammarians; but he himself raked the litera- tures of Greece and Rome, picking out with almost a journalistic sense whatever was diverting. He was a great lover of books, having in his library fourteen large book- cases, while his walls displayed the portraits of twenty- two favourite authors. Isidorus was one of the few ecclesiastics who in the sixth century still retained a knowledge of Greek. With him, in fact, the Graeco- Roman Period had more than reached its end. The West of Europe was yielding to new masters, Gauls and Goths, and Visigoths, and Germans; and the Dark Ages had, in fact, begun.

pn addition to the other works dted in the present chapter, see Boissier, La Fin du Paganime (Paris, 1891); id. La Religion

^ See Dressel, De Isidori Oripnum Fontihus (Turin, 1874), and infra, pp. 224, 225-

THE GR^CO-ROMAN PERIOD I9I

Romaine Auguste aux Antonins (Paris, 1906); Michaut, Le Genie Latin (Paris, 1904); Hardie, Lectures on Classical Subjects (London, 1903); Duff, A Literary History of Rome, pp. 664-670 (London, 1909); Teuffel-Schwabe-Warr, A History of Roman Literature, ii. (London, 1892); Kortiim, Geschichtliche Forschungen (Leipzig, 1863); Zingerle, Zu Spdtern Latein. Dichtern (Innsbriick, 1873); Arbenz, Die Schriftstellerei in Rom zur Zeit der Kaiser (Basle, 1877) i Nettleship, Transactions of the Oxford Philological Society for 1880-81; Boissier, Roman Africa, Eng, trans.,pp. 238-2S9 (New York, 1899); Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders, 8 vols. (Oxford, 1880-1899); Curteis, A History of the Roman Empire from 27 5- 800 AJ). (London, 1875); Suringar, Historia Critica Scholiastarum Latinorum (Leyden, 1834-5); Norden, Die Antike Kunstprosa, (Leipzig, 1898); Church, The Beginning of the Middle Ages (Lon- don, 1895); and Bemont and Monod^s Medics^d Europe, pp. 33-124, Eng. trans. (New York, 1906).]

V THE MIDDLE AGES

A. The Monastic Learning

The gloom of the Middle Ages is foreshadowed in the general vitiation of literary taste which began to be notice- able as early even as the second and third centuries a.d. The immediate causes of this decline are two: (i) the cosmopolitanism of the later Roman Empire; and (2) the spread of Christianity, Rome, as soon as it had fairly secured the masteiy of the whole world, ceased, in the course of a single century, to be Roman. The capital became a great gathering-place for men of every rank and language, “The Syrian Orontes,” says Juvenal, “has turned its course into the Tiber.” ^ Rome’s mer- chant-princes, its knights, its senators, its jurists, its pro- vincial governors, and at last even its emperors, were Greeks, Gauls, Spaniards, Africans, — almost anything but Roman, or even Italian. Brunner has shown almost conclusively that the whole history of the Later Empire is the history of a continuous struggle between the Ger- manic and the Iberian elements for the control of the government.

In no sphere of activity is this cosmopolitanism more apparent than in literature, when, after the second century A.D., and even earlier, one finds the great names of its masters to be the names either of Spaniards, or Gauls, or Syrians, or Sicilians, or Africans. The result of this denationalising of Roman literature showed itself before veiy long in the neglect of all that was best in the native literary traditions. Not only Ennius, Plautus, Terence, Lucretius, and Varro ceased to be read; but even Vergil, Horace, and Ovid were regarded as old-fashioned. It is, indeed, evident that Gauls and Spaniards and Africans, learning Latin as a foreign language, would be unable to appreciate the niceties of diction, the exquisite appro- priateness of phrase and epithet, and the more delicate cadences and rhythms that mark the work of the highly trained writers of the Golden Age of Latin literature. Prosody was the first to suffer, since in Latin it was always an artificial thing and largely foreign to the un- educated, who more readily caught the accented beat of the Satumians or the alliterative jingle of the carmina triumphalia. Hence, as early as 250 a.d., we find Com- modianus writing his Carmen Apologeticum in hexameters that frankly discarded syllabic quantity and accepted accent as the basis of his metrical system; and it is un- likely that very many of his readers knew the difference. The language itself also suffered in the mouths and on the pens of foreign writers. Prepositions govern what- ever cases appear to be most convenient. Nouns become beterocl*te with surprising facility. Conjugations change places; and there is a wild dance of genders. Of course these extreme breaches of morphology and syntax are far from imiversal; but the nicer distinctions of the language were lost to the perceptions of both readers and writers. Hence it was that, the sense of style having been blunted and destroyed, the second and third centuries studied the rhetoricians, and read not so much the great writers of Rome, as abridgments of them. It was an age of epitomes, of condensations, of scrap-books and elegant extracts; of fiorilegia and spicilegia. This explains why so many of the most valuable productions of the earlier centuries have not come down to us at all; and why others have been preserved in meagre abridgments, or in abridgments of abridgments. Such were the treatises in Greek by King Juba of Mauretania, whose ©earpcxi] ’laroph, is now lost, though much used by Julius Pollux, in his 'Ovo/iaan/cop, a dictionary in ten books arranged by subjects; Hephaestion, a writer of a work on metres in forty-eight books, all lost, though his own epitome of them survives; Valerius Harpocration, who wrote a lexicon to the ten orators; Herennius Philon of Byblos (sometimes called “Philobyblos”), whose books were mainly lost except in one; and Pamphilius, whose ninety- five books on glosses were epitomised until they were only five.

The spread of Christianity was perhaps even a more important factor in blotting out a taste for literature and destroying the literary records of the past. The general failure to appreciate and admire what was fine in the productions of the preceding centuries was only a negative injury. The teaching of the Christians, on the other hand, was aggressively and offensively directed toward their destruction. In the early days of the Church, Chris- tianity spread chiefly among the ignorant, who not only failed to value what was aesthetically precious, but felt that suspicion and dislike which the vulgar always exhibit toward what they cannot understand. Later, when men of education and culture — men like St. Augustine and St. Jerome — appeared, they regarded the writings of the pagans as thoroughly pernicious in their influence, — all the more because they could themselves appreciate their attractiveness and power. St. Jerome was, in fact, a scholar and thoroughly familiar with classic literature; and this was even made the basis of an accusation brought against him by his fellow Christians. He was at last openly charged with defiling his works with quotations from pagan authors; of having employed monks to copy the writings of Cicero; and of having even on one occasion polluted the minds of some children at Bethlehem by explaining to them various passages of Vergil. He tells us in one of his Epistles how he was rebuked in a

^ hx; adv, Rujinainj I. ch. X3X

dream for his guilty admiration of Cicero, being borne in the night before the throne of Christ, accused of “being a Ciceronian rather than a Christian,” and scourged by the angels so that when he awoke in the morning his shoulders were covered with bruises.^ Pope Gregory I (the Great) rebuked Desiderius, Bishop of Vienna, for having taught the classics and thus “mingled the praises of Jupiter and Christ . . . polluting the mind with blas- phemous praises of the wicked.” ^ It was believed and taught that the writers of the classics were burning in hell. In such monasteries as still kept any of the manu- scripts of the secular literature, and where vows of silence were imposed, it was customary when any monk wished a copy of Vergil, Horace, or Livy, to indicate it by scratch- ing his ear like a dog, this being the animal whom the pagan 'writers were supposed to resemble.®

With men of a sterner and fiercer type, — zealots like Tertullianus and fanatics like Montanus, — the whole mass of pagan literature was sweepingly and savagely con- demned, Its philosophy was a snare and a stumbling- block; its history lies and slanders; its poetry licentious and obscene; the mythology of its graceful fables, a plain enticement to the worship of demons. Tertullian in a

^ EpisU xxii.

• Lecky, voL ii. p. 201.

• Maitland, Dark Ages, p. 403. (London 1853). Because of their hos-

tility toward the classic writers, Julian the Apostate forbade Christians to teach rhetoric and grammar (classics) in the schools.

fieiy passage of his De Spectaculis denounces the gods of the mythologues as devils, the worship of them as devil- worship, and the prose and verse that celebrates them as devil-literature. This was the age when asceticism suddenly burst into life to teach men that salvation in the next world was incompatible with comfort in this; that the enjoyment of the beautiful in literature and art was of the flesh; and that squalor and filth and intellectual ignorance paved the way to a heaven beyond the grave. To the early ascetics, the refined pleasure of pure litera- ture was as dangerous and little less sinful than the love of women. Hence, we find St. Anthony, the founder of monasticism, refusing to learn the alphabet. Hence, an- other priest, who was famous as a linguist, voluntarily im- posed upon himself the penance of silence for thirty years; and another who foimd in the cell of a brother monk a few books, reproached him with having defrauded of their property the widow and the orphan. All learning was pernicious, and it was the boast of St. Benedict to be described as nescius ei indoctus. “It is the duty of a monk,” said St. Jerome, “to weep and not to teach.”

Literature, in fact, was in the minds of the early Chris- tians as much associated with the cult of paganism as was art; and both suffered alike as soon as the Christians gained control of the civil power. The images of the gods were mutilated and broken; the most famous master- pieces of ancient art were destroyed because they de-

198 HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

picted subjects from the classic myths; and so, the rolls of papyrus and vellum which contained the writings of the myth-makers shared a similar fate. It was an anticipation of the Puritan fren2y of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when so many cathedrals were desecrated, so many paintings of the saints destroyed, and so many priceless carvings broken into bits, because they gave beauty and significance to the ritual of the Catholic Church. The same species of fanatical frenzy marked the course of the early Christians. Innumerable rolls of papyrus covered with copies of the great masterpieces of Roman literature were used for wrapping goods. Parch- ments were scraped of their original texts and used again (palimpsests) for religious writings. The libraries that contained them were pillaged by mobs. In 389 (or 391), under Theodosius, that part of the Alexandrian Library which then stood in the Serapeum was sacked, and the books partly burned and partly scattered. The library at Nisibis and the greater one of 100,000 volumes at Con- stantinople were both burned (477); and Pope Gregory I {c, 600) is said to have allowed the noble Palatine Library at Rome to be destroyed.^

^This, towever, is only traditionally reported. The favourite say- ing of Gregory was that the oracles of God are greater than the rules of grammar”; and he is discreditably distinguished for his zeal in burn- ing the manuscripts of Livy because they ascribed so much power to the heathen gods. — See Draper, Eist. of the Intellectual Development of Europe (New York, 1899); Lecky, ii, 201; Guingeri6, EisU LittSraire de ritdiey i, pp. 29-31,

THE MIDDLE AGES

199

Other causes than the two already mentioned greatly diminished the world’s supply of books and rendered more difl&cult the renewal of that supply. The separation of the Eastern from the Western Empire had had a very unfavourable effect upon the collection and preservation of books, dividing, as it did, the learning of the East from the learning of the West. The Roman librarians ceased to collect works written in Greek, and the Byzantian librarians, who had never cared much about Roman literature, now felt no interest in it whatsoever. Finally, the conquest of Egypt by the Arabs in a.d. 641, destroyed at a blow what still remained of the Alexandrian libraries and shut off from Europe the supply of papyrus upon which the makers of books depended.

All these facts must be considered in accounting for the loss of so many works of classical literature whose re- nown ought to have preserved them, and also for the comparatively few manuscripts of early date that are now known to exist; the neglect of good literature, the growing ignorance of the people, the hostility of the Christians to classical learning, the destruction of books and libraries, and the barbarisation of the Empire. In the sixth century, one might, amid the deepening social and intellectual darkness of the Western World, have felt safe in predicting that the literary splendour of Greece and Rome would soon be only a faint and dying memory, never again to be quickened into a living fact. That this

200

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

was actually not the case is in a very large degree due to the energy, the influence, and the example of a single man.

Early in the sixth century occurred an event which in itself would seem to have no possible connection with the history of classical philology or the preservation of classical learning, and yet which was, in fact, one whose importance to the student of paleography can scarcely be exaggerated. About the year 529, one Benedict, a native of Nursia, founded the order of monks that took from him the name of Benedictines. Monachism had already arisen and had an extraordinary vogue in the Eastern Empire, having begun with St. Anthony and spread so rapidly that his first disciple, Pachonius, lived to see himself the head of seven thousand followers. Within a single century we find it recorded that in the one district of Nitria, in the Egyptian Delta, there were no less than fifty monasteries.^ Yet in the East, almost from the beginning, the system was notorious for its gross abuses. There sprang up a class of monks called Sarabastae, who lived in small com- munities, and frequently wandered about the country, leading in many cases a life of idleness and open profligacy. Even in the monasteries, the want of any well-defined regulations left the door open to all sorts of licentious practices Tvhich tended to bring the whole institution into contempt and scandal. In fact, the Christian Church in

1 See Mahler, GescUcUe des Monchthums (Regensburg, 1866-^8); Hamack, Das Monchthum (Giesen, 1895).

THE MIDDLE AGES

201

its early years really found its greatest danger not in the persecutions of the pagan emperors and governors, but in the character of many of its own members. “Men entered the Church to escape from military service, or to avoid burdensome municipal ofBces^’; worn-out rakes who had exhausted every other form of excitement, hare- brained enthusiasts in search of a new sensation, vicious and depraved men and women impelled by curiosity, — all these flocked around the teachers of the new faith in the expectation of a fresh stimulus to their jaded fancies. Hence, almost immediately, arose scandals and extrava- gances of which the details are given by contemporary writers.^ The festivals of the martyrs were at one time suppressed by the authorities because of the licentious manner of their celebration. The pilgrimages to Pales- tine attracted such motley crowds that the Holy Land is described by St. Gregory of Nyssa as a hot-bed of de- bauchery. Even the Agapae, or love-feasts, often became drunken orgies. All these evils were concentrated and condensed in many of the oriental monasteries, which were often filled by men who made the profession of Christianity only a pretext for the practice of the most filthy vices.

It was at a time when monachism as then understood

^ See Jortin, Remarks on Ecclesiastical History , 5 v. (1751-53); Cave, Primitm Christianity ^ pt. I. ch. xi (London, 1687); Muller, De Genio Aevi Theodosiani (Copenhagen, 1797); Lecky, History of European Morals, ii, pp. 149 foil. (Am. ed., New York, 1884),

202

HISTORY OP CLASSICAX PHH-OI-OGY

and practised had fallen into such disrepute, that St. Benedict (529 A.D.), founded his famous Order at Monte Cassino, about halfway between Rome and Naples. It was a place destined to be of the utmost importance in the history of classical texts and learning. Benedict was a man of little education, but of a very spiritual mind, of an unblemished character, and gifted with an unusual amount of common sense as well as of piety. He had been made the abbot of a monastery of the Eastern type, and had left it in disgust at the license which he found prevailing there; but his experience was useful in suggesting to him the defects of monachism as then imderstood. He saw that it was not enough that the monks should be required to fast and pray and sing at certain times, while their remaining hours were left to idleness; but that some rule should be devised to give them rational and wholesome occupation and to provide for a stricter discipline. To this end he composed in the year 515 ^ his famous Regula Monachomm, which ultimately became the universal rule of monachism in the Western Church. It is not neces- sary here to go into its details. It required continual residence in the monastery; laid out a scheme of manual labour for the monk’s spare hours; and above all, it recog- nised the desirability of mental as well as bodily occupa- tion, permitting such monks as were qualified, to engage in teaching and in copying manuscripts for the library.

^ The date is only traditional. Some give it as 520,

THE MIDDLE AGES

203

St. Benedict had, of course, no thought of preserving the secular learning of the age, and intended the literary labours of the monks to be spent wholly upon ecclesiastical and theological writings; but he did not so specify, and the permission given by his Rule soon received an inter- pretation fraught with momentous results to modem scholarship.

In the year 540, Flavius Magnus Aurelius Cassiodorus, a Roman patrician of senatorial rank, descended from a rich and noble family of Bruttii, pmefectus urhi under four of the Gothic kings, and secretary to King Theodoric, entered the Benedictine monastery of Vivarium which he himself had founded (529), and took the vesture and the obligations of a monk, Cassiodoms had been during his public life not only a man of the world and a statesman, but a scholar and writer, one of the few men remaining in the Western Empire who had studied with care the earlier literature of both Greece and Rome; and after his retirement to the monastery, his tastes remained un- changed, while the more ample leisure of his new life gave him far more opportunity to cultivate them. His own writings as a monk were purely theological;^ but, taking advantage of the rule which enjoined copying and teaching, he began systematically to train the younger

^ During Ms public life he wrote on the liberal studies, and put forth a treatise, Be Arte Grammatica, which was used as a text-book throughout the Middle Ages. See Hodgkin, The Letters of Cassiodorus (London, 1886 ); Church, Miscellaneous Essays^ pp. 191-198 (London, 1888),

204

HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

monks to an appreciation of the value of the secular literature and to encourage by every possible means both the collection and preservation of classical manuscripts and the multiplication of them in careful copies. Pos- sessed of a very large fortune, and being a man of great influence and energy, he laboured incessantly to the end of his long life for this important object, with such success that he actually succeeded in making every great monastery of his Order “ a sort of Christian Academy,” a storehouse of classical literature, with its scriptorium or writing-room especially set apart for the copying of parchments. More than this, he made the Benedictine Order essentially a learned Order, with traditions of scholarship which have been honourably maintained to the present day.^ How great a debt is owed to Cassiodorus in modem times, and how general had been the destruction of manuscripts that were written near the time of their original composition, is seen by recalling the dates of the early codices in existence. Thus iEschylus, and a part of Sophocles, are found in the so-called Laurentianus (or Mediceus) at Florence, belong- ing to the eleventh century. The oldest manuscript of Herodotus goes back to the eleventh century, that of Thucydides to the tenth century, and that of Plato to the ninth century, — though this is incomplete. The oldest manuscript of Plautus is a palimpsest preserved at Milan,

^See OUeris, Cassiodoret Conservatur des Livres de VAntiquiti Laiine (Paris, 1884); Montalambert, The Monks of the West, Eng. trans., pp. 71- 78 (London, 1861).

THE MIDDLE AGES

205

and was written as early as the fifth century; but it con- tains only a few odd sheets, the other codices being as late as the eleventh or twelfth century. The oldest codex of Horace belongs to the ninth century; the oldest of Lucre- tius to the tenth century. The oldest codices of Vergil are as ancient as the fourth century, — two of them being in th Vatican and one at Florence/ — this latter having correc- tions made by Asterius, Roman consul in the year 494 A.i\

^ Fragmentary papyri as old as the iBrst century b.c. exist, and a in fragments of the sixth century.

2 It may be interesting to mention some of the other important h ‘mv,- scripts. Thus, of Homer, the oldest codex is the Codex Venetus I thi tenth centuiy {Iliad), and of the twelfth century {Odyssey)\ of He: ' fcLus, the Codex Florentinus or Mediceus in the Laurentian Library of '.be tenth century; of ^schylus, a Codex Laurentianus (or Mediceus) of th'3 eleventh century; of Sophocles, the same codex with iEschylus; of Euripides, a Codex Vaticanus of the twelfth century; of Aristophanes, a Codex Raven- nas of the eleventh century; of Thucydides a Laurentianus of the tenth cen- tury; of Plato, a Codex Clarkianus (Bodleian) of the ninth century; and of Demosthenes, a Codex Parisinus of the eleventh century. Of Latin authors, among others we have of Plautus a Codex Ambrosianus (Milan) of the fifth century (palimpsest); of Terence, a Codex Bembrosias (Vatican) of the fifth century (mutilated), the rest of the ninth century; of Lucre- tius, aLeidensis of the ninth century; of Catullus, a Codex Parisinus of the ninth century (only a part), the rest of the fourteenth century; of Cicero, six Codices Parisini of the ninth century; of Caesar, a Codex Amstelo- damensis A of the ninth or tenth century; of Sallust, two Codices Pari- sini of the tenth century; of Vergil, a Codex Vaticanus of the fifth century; of Horace, a Codex Bemensis (incomplete) of the ninth century; of Ovid, a Codex Petavinas (from A. Petavius, Cy. xvi.) of the eighth centuiy; of Livy, the Codex Veronensis (bks. iii.-vi.) of the fifth century (palimpsest); of Tacitus, a Codex Mediceus of the ninth century; of Juvenal, the Codex Pithoeanus (from P. Pithou) at Montpellier of the ninth century; of Mar- tial, a Codex Parisinus T of the ninth centuiy; of Pliny the Elder, a

2o6

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

These facts are quite sufHcient to show that with scarcely exception the only manuscripts of the best classical hors that give anything more than isolated fragments copies made later than the fifth century. Had it not n for the labours of the Benedictines and of those who _owed their example, the remains of classical literature aid have been so scanty as to give us no real conception hat literature and learning as a whole.

Vith St. Benedict must be mentioned the Roman patri- u and scholar who is said to have been his friend. This was Anicius Manlius Torquatus Severinus Boethius (or Boetius), almost the last of the Western Romans to possess a good understanding of Greek. He gained the esteem of Theodoric, King of the Ostrogoths, who made Rome his capital in the year 5000. Over the Goths, Boethius exer- cised such influence that his countrymen found little oppres- sion in the Gothic rule. In the end, however, he was ac- cused of treason, his property was confiscated, and after being imprisoned, he was executed (c. 524) with terrible cruelty. While in prison, Boethius wrote his dialogue en- titled De Consolatione Philosopkiae. It was divided into five books, and was written in a close imitation of the best Latin models, while the poetry which is interspersed shows

palimpsest from the monastery of St. Paul in Carinthia of the sixth century (bks. xi.-xiv.); of Pliny the Younger, a Codex Laurentianus (Mediceus) of the ninth century; of Quintilian, a Codex Bemensis of the tenth century (incomplete); of Suetonius, a Codex Memmianus or Parisinus of the ninth century.

the suddle ages

207

metrical accuracy. For seven centuries he was held in great reverence, and even in later times his work was not forgotten. He is the first writer who shows a knowledge of the Arabic (Hindu) numerals. The Consolatio found many translations, among them one by King Alfred into Anglo-Saxon, and by Chaucer and Queen Elizabeth into English.'

Now that western Europe had been overrun by foreign- ers speaking every sort of language and dialect, one might have supposed that the Latin language would have sunk into disuse. But just the contrary was the case. It was the only stable language known to men of that time. Its dignity and masculine brevity made it a fit medium of intercourse between kings and princes. Finally, it was the language of the Church, and the Church was slowly con- quering the barbarians who had overrun the provinces of ancient Rome. Nevertheless, as the spirit and history of Latin literature were imknown, merely the faintest possible tinge of grammatical and technical knowledge could be imparted to students who tried to get a smattering of the language for practical purposes only. Even those who knew how far they were from any real knowledge of what they were studying, gloried in their ignorance, and made a boast of it. Grammar was regarded as pedantic. A

^ The most modem translation is by James, (London, 1897). See, also, Hildebrand, Bo&itcs und seine Stellang zum Chnstenthum (Regensburg, iS&s); andSteswaxt, BoetUiis (Edinburgh, 1891).

2o8

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

knowledge of its rules was held to be somewhat discredit- able. One of these scholars (Wolfhard in the Life of St. Walpurgk) speaks of his own barbarisms of style, but tells the reader that his dung-heap is, nevertheless, full of pearls. Gregory the Great had spoken still more forcibly at an earlier date. “ The place of prepositions and the cases of no;ms I utterly despise, for I consider it indecent to confine the words of the heavenly prophets within the rules of Donatus.” A priest of Cordova uttered the same thought with a vigour that verges almost upon ferocity. “ Let philosophers and the impure followers of Donatus,” he says, “ ply their windy problems with the barking of dogs and the grunting of swine, snarling with skinned throat and bared teeth: let the foaming and bespittled grammarians belch wind, while we remain the evangelical servants of Christ.” Even as late as the fomteenth cen- tury the well-known anecdote of the Emperor Sigismund at the Council of Costnitz is characteristic of the popular feeling about grammar. In a speech against the Hussites he had used the word “schisma” as a feminine noun, for which he was corrected by a monk, who called out that schisma was a norm of the neuter gender. Whereupon the emperor asked, “How do you know it?” “Because Alex- ander Gallus says so.” “ And who is Alexander Gallus? ” “ A monk.” “ Well,” said Sigismund, “ I am the Emperor of Rome, and I fancy that my word is as good as any monk’s.”

THE MEDDLE AGES

209

That the Church did not do more to keep alive the spirit of learning is not, however, to be counted against her. We ought rather to feel surprised that she did so much. The conditions of her existence and the difficult mission that she had to perform have been very fairly summed up by Mr. J. A. Symonds: —

“The task of the Church in the Middle Ages was not so much to keep learning alive as to moralise the savage races who held Europe at their pleasure. . . . After the dismemberment of the Empire, the whole of Europe was thrown open to the action of spiritual powers who had to use unlettered barbarians for their ministers and missionaries. To submit this vast field to classic culture at the same time that Christianity was being propagated would have been beyond the strength of the Church, even had she chosen to undertake this task, and had the vital forces of antiquity not been exhausted.” ^

The worst feature of the mediseval spirit was that it had lost the power of appreciating, even in the slightest degree, the classic sentiment. To scholastics, classicism was absolutely a sealed book. The free air of paganism, its passionate love of beauty, its abounding life and viril- ity and colour and richness were as remote from the conception of the mediaeval monks as the sunlight is remote from the conception of one who is congenitally blind. Whatever they studied they studied in the spirit of Scholasticism. Their criticism was warped and cramped and distort^ by theology. If, for instance, they

^ Symonds, History of the Italian Renaissance, i. pp. 61, 62 (London, iS7S)-

p

210

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

admired Vergil’s famous Fourth Eclogue, they admired it, not because it was in itself a beautiful piece of verse, but because they thought it a prophecy of the approaching birth of Christ. The most licentious passages of Ovid were explained allegorically, just as modem commentators have explained the sensuous Hebrew of the Song of Songs. If they taught grammar, they filled it full of strange sub- tleties, discovering the three Persons of the Trinity in the verb, and mystic numbers in the parts of speech. Words were even defined theologically, as when the scholastics after defining voluntas as expressive of the nature of God, and volupias of the nature of the Devil, then coined the blended form volumtas as expressive of the mixed nature of man. It is easy to imagine what remarkable feats of ingenuity their etymological speculations exhibit.

Nevertheless, although the Church’s task was to moralise the barbarians, education was one of its chief instruments. It rejected the pagan literature while it retained the lan- guage in which that literature had been written; and after paganism was thoroughly extinct, the literature itself was revived and taught in the monastic and other schools during the Middle Ages. It is somewhat diflScult to define exactly what period of time lies properly within the medi- aeval age. The decline began when Constantine trans- ferred the seat of the Empire from Home to Byzantium (Constantinople) in 330, because, after that, Rome itself lost its chief significance both politically and from the

THE MIDDLE AGES

2II

standpoint of scholarship. Its records become more and more melancholy with advancing time. Its officials flocked to another and a foreign city. The emperors had not only turned their backs upon its gates^ but upon its language and its civilisation. Henceforward Romeos population diminished. Its temples fell into decay, and there began to brood over it the portent of destruction. The new Caesars carried away the archives, and it lost the prestige of the imperial court. Some of its rulers never visited it at all. The Emperor Constantins had been in power several years before he saw the former capital of the Empire, and then he journeyed to it only at the request of a barbarian prince whom he was entertaining, and who was anxious to behold the city which had once been mistress of the world. The historian, Ammianus Marcellinus,^ (c, 330 -c. 378 A.D.), gives an interesting accoimt of this visit. Constantins himself seems to have been astonished by the magnificence of Rome.

“As the Emperor gazed upon the vast city spreading along the slopes, in the valleys, and between the summits of the hills, he declared that the spectacle which first met his eyes surpassed every- thing that he had yet beheld. Now his gaze rested on the temple of Tarpeian Jupiter, now on baths so magnificent as to resemble entire provinces, now on the massive structure of the Colosseum, mightily compact, the summit of which seemed scarcely accessible to the human eye; now on the Pantheon, rising like a fairy dome, and its sublime columns with their gently sloping stairways adorned

^ Ammianus Marcellinus was himself a Greek by birth, though he wrote in Latin — the Latin of a foreigner, often dumsy and often affected.

212

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

with statues of heroes and emperors, besides the Temple of the City, its Forum, the Forum of Peace, the Theatre of Pompey, the Odeon, the Stadium, and all the other architectural wonders of Eternal Rome. When, however, he came to the Forum of Trajan, a structure unequalled by any other of its kind throughout the world, so exquisite indeed that the gods themselves would find it hard to refuse their admiration, he stood as if in a trance, surveying vsdth a dazed awe the stupendous fabric which neither words can picture, nor mortal again aspire to rear. Being asked what he thought of Rome, the Emperor replied that in one respect only was he disappointed, and that was in finding that its inhabitants were not immortal.”^

Not long afteraard, in the reign of Honorius, Rome witnessed her last great imperial spectacle when that em- peror entered the city to celebrate his triumphs over the Goths (403). There is something pitiful in the attitude of this great city, which was still the most magnificent of any in the world, accepting with almost hysterical gratitude the visits of curiosity which its emperors from time to time condescended to give it. Its very beauty, its maze of por- ticos, its wilderness of marble, bronze, and gold, and its gigantic palaces gorged with pictures, statues, and jewels, only heightened the melancholy of its decadence, with a diminishing population now grown too small to crowd its streets and too unwarlike to defend its 'walls.

It is really then from the year 330 that we must date The Beginning of the Middle Ages. In 395 , the Roman Empire practically embraced the entire Christian world from East

^ Res Gestae, xvi. 14 foil.

THE MIDDLE AGES

213

to West, and southward to the great Sahara. Yet already there were stirrings in the North and West, among the Germans whose six tribes^ were already rolling like a wave toward Italy and the western possessions of Rome. In 410, Alaric headed the Visigoths, penetrated Greece, and later, streaming through Italy, sacked the great city which for eight hundred years had never fallen into the hands of an enemy. In 415, Spain became an independent kingdom under Teutonic invaders, the Burgundians established themselves in southeastern France and Switzerland, and later were amalgamated with the new Frankish kingdom. In 449, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes invaded and con- quered Britain. Worse than all, there menaced Italy the savage and ape-faced Huns of Ugro-Finnic stock, whose hideous customs made them seem a host of demons rather than an army of mortal men. Yet they did not remain very long on Roman soil, since they were routed in Gaul (at Chalons) by the allied Romans and Teutons (451), one hundred and sixty thousand men having perished in the battle, which was even more epoch-making than those of Thermopylae and Marathon. But the Roman Empire in the West was destined to destruction. In 455, the Vandals sailed across the Mediterranean from Africa, and plundered Rome. In 476, the Herulian Goth, Odoacer, became emperor of the West, receiving a timorous consent

^ Ostrogotlis, Visigoths, Vandals, Burgundians, Franks, and Suevi. See Gregorovius, History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, Eng. trans., i. chs. iv-v (London, 1894).

214 HISTORY OF CLASSICAi PHII.OLOGY

from the emperor in Constantinople. Thus, one may say that the Middle Ages began, either with the transfer of the capital to Constantinople in 330, or with the establishment of Gothic power in Italy in 476. A convenient time from which to date The End is the year 1453, when the Eastern Empire fell, and the triumphant Muhammadans poured through the gates of Constantinople.

The history of scholarship in the Middle Ages, so far as concerns western Europe, is conveniently divided into the Early Christian Period (300-751), the Carolingian Period (751-911), and the Period of Scholasticism (911- 1476). Duriug the first of these three periods, the leaven of civilisation was at work trying to bring about something like order among the rude barbarians who had shattered and mastered the Western Empire. One great source of civilisation lay m the retention of the Latin language. It was not, as is often said, the influence of the Church alone that made Latin the chosen speech of the invaders as soon as they had become settled in their new possessions. It was also the urgent need of having some one intelligible medium of communication, — a language which Goths and Visigoths, Franks, Burgundians, and Vandals could use with the certainty of being understood. All the dia- lects and patois of Germany and Jutland were cast, as it were, into the one great crucible. They were simmering and uniting and separating, and taking on continually new forms and new idioms. There was a chaos of human

THE MIDDLE AGES

215

speech, and amid it the Latin language alone was the one stable, settled, and fit instrument for the purpose for which men used it. A little later, the Church confirmed tbin selection; and when, even in the Dark Ages, men still attempted to write and teach philosophy or theology, and the elements of a learning that had been well-nigh lost, it was but natural that they should employ the only lan- guage which they knew, and which was capable of express- ing accurately and easily their conceptions. All these reasons together, — the need of a universal language, the usage of the Church and the requirements of scholarship, gave Latin very great prominence. It spread from the courts and monasteries and churches, into the mouths and the understanding of the common people, so that it was once more almost a genuine vernacular. Of this fact proofs are not wanting. In the fourth century, during the reign of Theodosius, a Gaul addressed the Roman senate in the lingua Romana rustica, rude and rough, but still intelligible to his hearers. There were still compositions written in Latin during the fifth and sixth centuries, and intended for the common people. Fortunatus,i writing in Latin the life of Saint Aubin, says in his Introduction that he will be careful not to use any egression that may be unintelligible to the populace. A popular song in very good Latin has come down to us celebrating the victory of Clotaire II over the Saxons in 622. In the same century,

• 535-600. Edition by Leo and Kruscb (Berlin, 1881-1885).

2 i6

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Baudemind composed the life of Saint Amandus for public reading, and wTote it in fairly grammatical Latin. Latin was also imiversally employed in public documents and public correspondence. And not merely was it written and spoken as a matter of necessity, but some of the men least capable of succeeding were fired with an ambition to gain honour from its use. Gregory of Tours* informs us that Chilperic I. attempted Latin verse; and there still exists a letter written in metrical Latin by Auspicius, Bishop of Tours, to a Count who bore the barbarous name of Arbogastes. The growth of the papal power did a great deal to propagate and protect the use of Latin. There was constant communication between the Papal Court and the newly foimded States, and it was all in Latin. The bishops of the Church were nobles of the kingdoms and of the Empire, and they made Latin the language of the courts. The papal legate presided over royal and imperial councils,

^ The Latia of Gregory himself is mteresting as seen in his History of the Franks. It shows how even with educated men like himself Latin hterature was fading from remembrance. He quotes Vergil, but un- metrically. His citations from other Latin writers are probably borrowed. He uses the accusative absolute and apparently does not know that sub- ject and verb should be in agreement. In him e and i are confounded; aspirates are practically disregarded; and he pronounces c before i and e like ^ . See Bonnet, Le Latin de GrBgoire de Tours (Paris, 1 890); Monceaux, Le Latin Vulgaire, in the Revue des Deux Mondes (July 15, 1891); du M^ril, Poesies Populaires Latines antirkures au Douzieme Siecle (Paris, 1843); Nisard, Essai sur les Poetes Latins de la Decadence (Paris, 1867); Olcott, Studies in the Word Formation of the Latin Inscription (Rome, 1S98), and Grandgent, Vulgar Latin (Boston, 190S).

THE MTODEE AGES

217

and so the deliberations were in Latin. Indeed, the breach between the Greek Church and the Roman Church was due very largely to the fact that the Eastern Church would not accept the Latin language as its official tongue. The Roman Church did well in not yielding. Latin is essentially a liturgical language. Lacking some of the Hellenic grace, its sonorous sentences and majestic peri- ods seem made for the stateliness of worship.

Of course the mingling of Latin with the so-called bar- barous tongues, injected into its vocabulary a large number of unusual words, just as the syntax was violently deranged. Paratactic sentences and illiterate spelling were to be expected, and likewise an extensive use of prepositions. On the other hand, it must be remembered that all these things had been common enough in the language of the ignorant, even during the Golden Age, as may be seen plainly in the plebeian inscriptions, and in such -mriters as Persius and Petronius and St. Jerome. The Latin of literature was never identical with the Latin of men’s daily speech. Therefore, when we come upon a period of literary steril- ity, we find what should be called a reversion to popular usage rather than an absolute corruption of what had previously been refined and regular. The plebeian speech comes to the surface evex3rwhere, and sweeps away book language. This vulgar Latin lasted long, even in remote parts of Europe, and among the illiterate; so that Dante calls the Sardinians “ apes ” (simiae) because of their

2i8

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

assiduous imitation of Latin. In like manner, so soon as there ceased to be any definite standard of versification, the nicely balanced quantitative system so carefully wrought out, from Ennius to Ovid, gives way to an accentual system which is not new, but really very old — older even than the Hellenizing Period of Latin literature. Before Ennius, the populace chanted rude ditties that were rhymed and full of alliteration. After the downfall of western culture, the same sort of poetry again is common. Indeed, accentual rhythm and rhyme were not established by the Church in the Christian hymns; but rather did the priestly poets compose hymns in the sort of metres that were most familiar to their congregations. Some of these hymns are very beautiful, and they retain their place in the literature of succeeding ages, — such of them, for example, as the Dies Irae^ Veni, Creator Spiritus, and Mortis Portis Fractis, Fortis, this last by Peter the Venerable.^

A good example of semibarbarous Latin prose is given by Drager in the Introduction to his Historische Syntax, It is from a life of Theodoric the Ostrogoth {c. 454-526): —

Rex vero vocavit Eusebium, praefectum urbis Ticeni, et in- audito Boetio protulit in eum sententiam. Qui mox in agro Cal- ventino, ubi in custodia havebatur, misit rex et fecit occidi. Qui accepta corde in fronte diutissime tortus est, ita ut oculi eius creparent. Sic sub tormenta ad ultimum cum fuste occiditur.’’ ^

^ See Duffield, Latin Eyinns (New York, 1889); and du Meril, Foisies Laiines du Moyen Age (Paris, 1847).

• A very admirably written monograph, full of illuminating illustrations,

is Clark’s Studies in the Latin of the Middle Ages (Lancaster, Penn., 1900).

THE MIDDLE AGES

219

As is well said by Dr. V. S. Clark: “Barbarism in Latin- ity is a relative term, and it is impossible to set an exact date for its beginning. It was a matter partly of individual writers as well as of age.” We can find barbarisms in Latin during the classical period that match precisely some of the barbarisms of the medisevals.^ We must remember that Latin remained throughout the Middle Ages practically the mother tongue of all the professional and official classes, for it was the language of the Church, the law courts, and of both religious and secular instruction. On the other hand, among the peasants, it gradually de- cayed or rather, perhaps, was transmuted into the Romance languages; so that the literary language was styled lingua Latina, while the common speech was called lingua Ro- mana. “ It is probably impossible to determine just when Latin ceased to exist as a spoken language among the com- mon people. But the question of peasant dialects, while it may be interesting from the standpoint of Romance phil- ology, has very little to do with the transmission of literary Latin through the Middle Ages. What we are concerned with is the extent to which Latin was imderstood by people who, even though illiterate, or nearly so, on account of their position in social and economic life, correspond in a general way to what we now sometimes term ‘ the reading classes,’ — townspeople and small landholders, traders, and the better class of artisans and craftsmen, — the Canterbury

220

HISTORY OR CIASSICAX PHELOLOGY

pilgrims of the latter half of the first decade of Christian centuries. It is natural to suppose that people of this class imderstood Latin and continued to employ it occasionally long after it had ceased to be the ordinary medium of com- munication.” ^

Something like a definite learning appears during the reign of Charlemagne (c. 800). This monarch’s chosen adviser was the great medieval educator, Alcuin, who Latinized his name into Flaccus Albinus. He was born at York, where he became the head of a large school. Later, in Italy, he met Charlemagne, who said, “Come to my court and teach my subjects the liberal arts.” Alcuin gladly accepted the invitation, and at first taught the Emperor himself in rhetoric and logic. To aid him in his work, Charlemagne established a court school (Schola Palatina). Alcuin also founded new schools throughout France and improved those which already existed. At Tours he set up a seat of learning modelled after his own school at York. Alcuin, though imperfectly trained, was the greatest scholar of his time; for, in addition to knowing Latin fairly well, he had a smattering of Greek and Hebrew. Among his works are especially to be noted a Rhetoric and a Grammar, the principles of which are drawn and partly garbled from the

• See Muratori, Anl. Ital. Disserlatio XLma. Cf. also du M6ril, Po&ies

Populaires Latines, p. 264 (Paris, 1843). Poggio in his Historia Comimdis mentions the fact that Latin was spoken by the women of Rome in his day (1380), and that he had learned from them Latin words that he had never heard before. See Clark, op. cU., p. 15.

THE MIDDLE AGES

221

writings of Cicero. Both of these books are ill-digested, and are imbued with a clumsy wit, intended, no doubt, to divert the scholar. Thus, Alcuin gives an imaginar}" dia- logue between himself and his imperial pupil

Alcuin. What art thou?

Charles. I am a man {hom*o).

Alcuin. See how thou hast shut me in.

Charles. How so?

Alcuin. If thou sayest I am not the same as thou, and that I am a man, it follows that thou art not a man.

Charles. It does.

Alcuin. But how many syllables has hom*o?

Charles. Two.

Alcuin. Then art thou those two syllables?

Charles. Surely not; but why dost thou reason thus?

Alcuin. That thou mayest imderstand sophistical craft and see how thou canst be forced to a conclusion.

Charles, 1 see and understand from what was granted at the start, both that I am hom*o and that hom*o has two syllables, and that I can be shut up to the conclusion that I am these two syllables. But I wonder at the subtlety with which thou hast led me on, first to conclude that thou wert not a man, and afterward of myself, that I was two syllables.

Still more characteristic of Alcuin’ s teaching is a part of the dialogue in which Pepin, a royal youth,” questions Alcuin (Albinus) as follows: —

Pepin. What is writing?

Albinus. The guardian of history.

Pepin. What is language?

Albinus. The betrayer of the soul.

Pepin. What generates language?

222

HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Albinus, The tongue.

Pepin, What is the tongue?

Albiniis. The whip of the air.

Pepin, What is air?

Alhiniis, The guardian of life.

Pepifi, WTiat is life?

Albimis, The joy of the happy; the expectation of death.

Pepin, WTiat is death?

Alhiniis, An ine\itable event; an uncertain journey; tears for the living; the probation of wills; the stealer of men.

Pepin, What is man?

Albimis. The slave of death; a passing traveller; a stranger in his place.

Pepin. What is man like?

Alhinns, An apple {i,e. because he hangs between heaven and earth).

It will be seen from these dialogues that w^hile Alcuin, like all the mediaeval scholars, knew something of the classic tongues, he had lost entirely the classic spirit, and indeed his knowledge was rather fanciful. Thus, in the true spirit of a monk, he derived coelebs (a bachelor) from ccelum (heaven), and then gives the sapient explanation that a bachelor is one who is on the way to heaven. The parts of an hexameter line are called pedes because the metres w^alk on them. Littera is leg-entibus4ter^ because the liitera prepares the path for readers. Mdlus (a mast) has the penult long, as against mdlus (with a short penult) because a ynSlus hom*o does not deserve to have a long a! The vowels are the souls of words, and the consonants are the bodies. The soul moves itself and also the body,

THE MIDDIi) AGES

223

while the body is immovable apart from the soul. Thus the consonants may be written by themselves, but they cannot be pronoxmced when separated from the vowels.

It is reported that Alcuin forbade any one to read the classic poets. So, while he did much to prepare for the great revival of learning, five centuries later, his immediate influence was rather harmful than otherwise. The cathe- dral schools taught what they could, but even their ablest scholars spent their time in constructing ingenious but foolish Latin trifles to show their cleverness. Thus they wrote for their own amusem*nt what they called echoici versus, or lines of poetry which read the same both backward and forward, “serpentine verses” and reciproci versus. ‘ It is interesting to know how many of the classical writers were read at this time. Putting aside the Church fathers, we have mention by Alcuin of Pliny, Cicero, Vergil, Statius, Lucan, the grammarians, and Horace.* Where the classical writers were not locked up in bookcases, they were sometimes paraphrased, or else

^ Examples of these are found even in the classical writers, as the follow- ing from Sidonius: —

Praedpiti mode quod decunit tramite flumen Tempore consumptum iam dto defidat.

{Epist. ix. 14.)

where the distich, if read backwards, word by word, gives a second distich.

2 This list is taken from a poetical account by Alcuin of the Library at York. One might add also from other sources Juvenal, a part of Livy, Martial, Ovid, a part of Persius, Phaedrus, Propertius, Seneca (in part), Silius Italicus, two plays of Terence, Tibullus, and Valerius Flaccus.

224

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

ce?tto7ies, or patchwork variations, were made from them. Thus, the conversation between Dido and Anna (Aeneid) iv.) is imitated: —

Anna, dux Mea lux,

Iste quis sit ambigo,

Quis honor,

Quis color,

Voltu quis intelligo;

Ut reor,

Ut vereor,

Hunc nostra connubia Poscere,

Id vere

Portendunt mea somnia.

If the learned had so little share of the classical spirit, it is not hard to understand how dense was the ignorance of the imeducated layman. The names and some faint echo of the exploits of the heroes of antiquity still floated through men’s minds: Alexander the Great, as a remark- able conqueror; Hector of Troy, as a bold knight and lover; Helen, who set the town of Troy on fire; Vergil, as a power- ful wizard who had once gone down into hell and told of what he saw there {Ae?i. vi.); Venus, as a woman of wonder- ful beauty, — these were all imperfect memories flitting about in legends, and fabliaux, and minstrels’ songs, and all confused with tales of chivalry and magic, and forming part of innumerable stories about giants and dragons and dwarfs and demons, — specimens of which are faithfully

THE MTDDIE AGES

225

preserved for us in the Gesta Romanorum/ and the Alex- ander Saga, and faintly indicated in the Faustus-legend and the Niebelungenlied.^ Even in Italy, where one might suppose that the great architectural works of the Romans would have kept their history in part alive, men had forgotten it entirely, and explained the Colosseum, the Palatium, the Pantheon, and the great triumphal arches as the work of demons and sorcerers, much as the German peasants of to-day speak of the Roman military works in Wiirttemberg as Teufelsmauer. In Naples the carved figures of Roman heroes, men, and statesmen were sup- posed to be talismans. Many of these ancient structures were ascribed to Vergil, who was said to have known a spell so powerful as to compel devils to come from hell and build for him,® The wandering reprobates, known as Goliardi, went about singing half-lyrical songs celebrating love and wine.

Nevertheless, the Carolingian Age left deep traces upon

^ A collection of curious anecdotes borrowed from all sources and written in Latin. Most of them have “morals” attached to them, and they are written in almost childish Latin. Some of them in later centuries were borrowed by Shakespeare, Chaucer, Gower, and Schiller for their plots or themes. See the English version edited by Hooper (London, 1894); and Howells, My Literary Passions ^ p. 14 (New York, 1895).

^See Engel’s bibliography of the older Faust-literature (Aldenburg, 1885); and for the Niebelungenlied, Lichtenberger, Le Poeme et la Legende des Niebelungen (Paris, 1891).

® See Comparetti, Vergil in the Middle AgeSj pt ii., Eng. brans. (London and New York, 1895) , and Leland, The Unpublished Legends of Vergil^ (New York, 1900). On the Alexander-Saga, see Spiegel (Ldpzig, 1851).

Q

226

HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

mediaeval Europe. Alcuin^ may be said to have originated the University of Paris; and his schools sent out teachers into the far North, so that even Ireland became an im- portant home of learning, with schools and abbeys and monasteries of great repute. The oldest manuscript of Horace (the Codex Bemensis) was undoubtedly copied by an Irish monk in the eighth or ninth century, since on the margin are found words written in the Erse or Irish alphabet.

But the first impulse toward a revival of classical study imder Charles the Great died out within the period of a few generations. The immediate reasons for this new decadence is partly to be found in a superstition which seized upon all Christendom in the tenth century. Men were obsessed with the belief that the world was to be destroyed in the year looo. With the horror of this approaching dissolution before their eyes, — a horror that deepened as every day brought them nearer and nearer to the time of the expected cataclysm, — all learning fell into absolute neglect It is difficult for us to conceive of the profound gloom that brooded over the peoples of Europe as the thousandth year approached. Men ceased to build

^ See The Life of Alcuin by Lorenz, Eng. trans. (London, 1837) > West, Alcuin aitd the Rise of Christian Schools (New York, 1S92); Mul- linger, The Schools of Charles the Great (London, 1877) j Rasbdall, The Universities of Europe during the Middle Ages (Oxford, 1S95); Putnam, Books and their Mahers during the Middle Ages^ i. (New York, 1896); and Sand}^, op. cit., i. 466, 497.

THE MIDDLE AGES

227

houses, to buy, or to sell. They forsook their domestic du- ties and betook themselves to the churches and the shrines of the saints; all worldly interests were swallowed up in the great dread that oppressed their souls. When the dreadful year arrived, it brought with it everything that could heighten and intensify the universal terror. A hideous plague broke out, the crops failed, the very seasons seemed to have been checked in their courses. Such imperfect accounts as have come down to us of that period give us, as it Vr'ere, only glimpses of the fearful scenes that were enacted, — the wailing of women, the prayers of the priests, the lamentations of the diseased, many becoming mad with fright, half-naked fanatics stalking through the streets of cities and invoking damnation upon the wicked; while those lost souls whose own sins had driven them to despair of pardon threw off all restraint and with a sort of blas- phemous defiance plunged into every form of lust and crime. When the year 1001 was ushered in, and the world remained still unvisited by the angel of death, a great reaction came. Many went back to their old life; but the Church, with a profound feeling of gratitude and relief, resolved to signalise the respite by a new activity. It is to this fresh enthusiasm that the second impulse toward a revival of study must be traced.

A whole century, however, elapsed before much progress had been made; but with the end of the eleventh century the great movement known as Scholasticism was fully

228

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

under way. Scholasticism was rather an intellectual than an esthetic development. Its chief features are dialectic and not philological. The whole movement re- volves about the philosophical question of Realism and Nominalism; but this discussion, while it sharpened men’s wits and made them acute in reasoning, was, after all, little better than the labour that is done in a treadmill; for the schoolmen were not free to question anything fundamental. The Church prescribed for them a ready-made solution of every great philosophical problem, so that the dialecticians and casuists of the Middle Ages were only travelling in a circle, making no progress at all, but only vexing their souls and beating against the bars of an intellectual cage. This narrowness and lack of freedom became more and more oppressive as time went on, and more and more vexatious to the bolder spirits of the age.

The time from the eighth century to the fourteenth is divisible into two periods, viewed from the standpoint of classical learning. The first period begins at the end of the eighth century when Charles the Great established Monastic Schools, and made the first attempt, probably in the history of the world, to provide for a universal gratui- tous primary education, and for Higher Schools. This period is a short one, inasmuch as the educational establish- ments of Charles died out within a few generations to make way for a new barbarism. The second period begins with a second restoration of learning under the guidance of

THE MIDDLE AGES

229

Scholasticism — a period which saw the Founding of the Great Universities. This second revival of learning was not, however, permanent, and the new love of study again decayed and was followed by the Renaissance, that final im- pulse toward liberal culture which forms the beginning of all modem educational history. These three revivals of learning, which were really revivals of classical study, were each stronger than its predecessor, and each prepared the way to some extent for the next. The first, under Charle- magne and Alcuin, though it lasted but a short time, left a body of men devoted to teaching, and gave some slight degree of continuity down to the founding of the universities, as Professor West observes, “so sheltering studies in various monasteries and cathedrals that some of the greater schools, thus kept alive, afterwards became natural receptacles for the new university life of the next age.”

The first of these periods just mentioned was marked by a more systematic study of the Latin language. The im- portance of grammar began now to be recognised as the only safeguard against the absolute corruption of that tongue. One of the great French monastic schools took for its motto the sentence, In omni doctrina grammatica praecedit. Its study was made the basis and starting- point of all secular learning, and the minuteness with which it was pursued proved an admirable corrective to the slovenly carelessness in the use of Latin which had marked the ecclesiastical writings of the preceding centuries.

230 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

In the twelfth century three great schools survived of the numerous establishments founded by Charles the Great, and are distinguished for their influence in the preservation of classical learning. These were at Laon, at Paris, and at Chartres. In them a number of famous teachers ushered in the scholastic period and did much to keep alive the forms at least of pure Latinity. Of these three schools, the School of Chartres is the most remarkable because its interest was less theological and dialectical than literary, so much so that Poole justly says of it that its character was that of a premature humanism.*’ Associated with it are the names of Fulbert, whose pupils styled him Soc- rates,” and who died in 1029;^ of St Bernard (1091-1153); and of Abelard (1079-1142), who boldly appealed to reason as against authority and thus foreshadowed freedom of speech and of research, which ultimately became the watch- word of the nascent universities.^

In this school Bernard of Chartres composed hexam- eters on the model of Lucretius, wrote a commentary on the first six books of the Aeneid^ and drilled his pupils

^ Not the canon associated with the story of Ab 61 ard and H 61 oise. The great Fulbert was bishop of Chartres.

^ See the biography of St. Bernard by Sparrow-Simpson (London, 1895); McCabe, Peter AbHard (New York, 1901); and Compayr6, AbSlard and the Origin aiid Early History of Universities (New York, 1893). St. Bernard, the great controversialist and mystic, is usually called Bernard of Claitv'aux. Bernard the writer of beautiful h ymn s is known as Bernard of Cluny. The two men were, however, contem- poraneous.

THE MEDDLE AGES

231

in the forms and rules of grammar as he understood them, introducing, at an early period of the course, the reading of the classical texts. Upon these he commented freely, besides treating them grammatically, pointing out the difference between the prose and the poetic style, and de- veloping his system in a way that suggests the enlightened methods of a later age. Everyday exercises in prose and verse composition were required, and an insistence upon good models marked his teaching. One of his maxims, which has been quoted by John of Salisbury, is significant of the originality of his mind: Among the \drtues of the grammarian this is one, to be ignorant of some things These schools, as has been already said, formed centres about which ultimately rose the earliest Universities. Any cathedral school which boasted of the presence of a famous teacher drew to it a crowd of students, such an institution being called at first studium generale. These finally re- ceived a sort of incorporation by papal bulls and royal charters, with the power of perpetuating themselves by en- dowing their graduates with the right of teaching every- where. This license to teach was the origin of the academic degree, and as soon as the studium generale had become a corporation it received the name of Universitas. Perhaps the oldest university was that of Bologna, which was founded in 1093, while Paris had a separately organised teaching body as early as 1169. Oxford became a imiver- sity at about the same time; Cambridge, perhaps a little

232 mSTORV OP CLASSICAL PHIXOLOGV

earlier. The oldest German university is that of Prague, whose foundation dates from 1347. During the whole period of scholasticism which practically ends in the thir- teenth century, while the Latin language was greatly used as a medium of communication and while its general forms were studied, it cannot be said that the classics were either read or appreciated outside of a few centres like that of Chartres. The teaching of the age was as narrow as its thought. Latin was studied only as a vehicle for scholastic disputation. It was spoken fluently by all scholars, but the classics were very little read; while the vocabulary of the language was filled with a swarm of new words and expressions partly theological and philosophical, and partly legal and political.* The only persons who kept alive the older classical tradition were a few Italians who left Italy and established themselves in various parts of Western Europe. Among these were Anselm, who became Arch- bishop of Canterbury in the year 1093, and whose prede- cessor Lanfrauc, together with men who, like John of Salisbury and a few of the French scholars, still knew something of the Latin of ancient Italy.

That so many manuscripts have survived to us dating from the eleventh and twelfth centuries, is due to no wide- spread love of classical learning, but rather to the fact that

• Cf. such words as nontinalismus, fnaieriaHsmus, reaUsmus, quidditas,

haeceUas, and see Du Cange’s Glossarittm ad Scriptores Mediae et Infinae Laiinitaiis (last ed., 1884 folL), passim.

THE MIDDLE AGES

233

in the monasteries copying was imposed upon the monks by way of penance. There was also a certain pride in pos- sessing books, irrespective of any desire to read them. This pride was wholly the pride of the collector and not at all the pride of the scholar; nevertheless, to it is largely due the preservation of such manuscripts as we now possess. Among these storehouses in which were hoarded the treasures of classic literature, are especially to be noted the libraries of Monte Cassino, Naples, Bologna, Milan, and Bobbio in Italy; Fleuiy, Tours, Cluny, Mont- pellier, Chartres, Grenoble, Lille, Lifege, Paris, Marseilles, and Caen in France; Augsburg, Freystadt, Strasburg, Leipzig, Wiirzburg, Mainz, Konigsberg, Zweibrucken, in Germany; Leyden, Utrecht, and Dordrecht in Holland; St Gallen in Switzerland; Copenhagen in Denmark; Stockholm in Sweden; Seville and Saragossa in Spain; and Oxford, Cambridge, Salisbury, and York in Eng- land.^ So true was the remark ascribed to Geoffrey of Sainte-Barbe-en-Auge: Claustmm sine armaria (est) quasi castrum sine armamentaria. It may interest the reader to see which are the oldest classical codices now extant:

• See Clark, Libraries in the Medimd and Renaissance Period (Cam-

bridge, 1894); Dugdale, MonasticumAnglicanim, 8 vols. (London, 1849); Wattenbach, Das Sckriftwesen imMittdalter (Leipzig, 1875); Deschamps, Dklionnaire de GSographie i VUsage du Libraire (Paris, 1870); Wehle, Das Buck (Leiprig, 1879); and Putnam, op. cit. (New York, 1896-97).

234

HISTORY OE CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

A List of Some of the Oldest Classical Manuscripts^

I. Greek.

a. Fragments of Euripides’ Antiope and Plato’s Phcsdo, 250 B.c. (Flinders Petrie PapjTi, ed. Mahaffy, Dublin Academy, 1890.) The oldest specimens of a classical text known. d. A few lines of the XI. Iliad (ante-Aristarchean and non- Zenodotean), 240 b.c.

c. Lou\Te Fragmenta of Euripides, second century b.c.

d. Aleman, second to first century, b.c. (Paris).

e. niad fragmenta (Banks, Harris), second century b.c.

/. Papyri from Herculaneum, 79 a.d. (Epicurus, Philodemus). Aristotle. 1

, „ , -o T 1-j r First to second century a.d.

//. Herodas, Bacchyhdes.J

i, Menander (discovered in Eg37pt, 1905).

L H3q>erides, 150 a.d. (London, Paris).

L Berlin fragments of the Melanippe of Euripides, third to

fourth century.

ni. Papyrus fragments of Isocrates, fourth century (Marseilles). n. Codex Ambrosianus of the Iliad (Milan).

0. Codex Vaticanus of Dio Cassius.

p. Euripides’ Phaeton j and Menander, Fragments.

q. Fragmenta of Aristoph., Birds (Paris), n. Latin.

a. Fragments of the Younger Seneca, first century (Hercu- laneum).

h, Alanuscript of Vergil, fourth to fifth century (chiefly Flor- ence, Vatican).

c. Fragmenta of Sallust’s HistoricB, third to fourth century

(Orleans).

d. Codex Bembinus of Terence, fourth to fifth century (Vatican) .

e. Codex Puteaneus of Livy, sixth to seventh century (Paris).

^ Many of the dates in this list are conjectural, though agreed upon by scholars.

Fifth to ► sixth century.

THE MIDDLE AGES

235

Palimpsest.

Juvenal and Persius, fragmenta in codice Vaticano, third to fourth century.

Codex Veronensis and Codex Vaticanus of Livy.

Lucan (Vienna, Naples, Rome), fourth century.

Cicero’s De Republican fourth to fifth century (Vatican).

Cicero in Verrem, fragmenta in Codice Vaticano, fifth century.

Gains, fifth century (Verona).

Platus (Codex Ambrosianus), fifth to sixth century (Milan).

Gellius and Seneca, fragmenta, fifth to sixth century (Vatican).

Fronto, fragmenta, fourth to sixth century (Vatican, Milan).

Livy, fragmenta (Vienna), fifth century.

It has been said that most of the codices preserved in these and other libraries were, for the most part, Latin and not Greek. By the eighth century, Greek, even as a tradition, had faded from the memory of Western Europe. Hellenic literature was little more known at that time than was Sanskrit dovn to the end of the eighteenth century. The names of Greek poets, philosophers, and statesmen were familiar only from tlie mention of them in Latin authors. Their actual personality, their time and country, and their places in history, were all a blank. Thus we find Smaragdus, a mediceval grammarian, so ignorant of the meanings of Greek words as to think that Euntichus Comcedia and Orestes Tragoedia were the names of authors.^

1 Almost the only exception to this general ignorance of Greek is to be found in Ireland, whither Greek was probably brought from Gaul in the fifth century. The Irish schools were admirably conducted, and for a time the country was unmolested by the dwellers upon the Continent. While in Gaul and Germany and Italy there was continual strife and

236 HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Even when a little Greek had filtered its way into the knowl- edge of the mediaevals they used it to vitiate and render barbarous the Latin which they wrote. Thus, the gram- marian, Vergilius Maro, in the seventh centuiy (whose preceptor wrote a work in which he discusses twelve kinds of Latin), coined new words on the analogy of the Greek. For example, scribere was supplanted by charaxare, while rex became thors (from 6p6vo9)^ so that the mixture of Greek with Latin and the garbling of Latin forms to re- semble Greek, resulted in an argot which is difficult to understand and which might well have justified the theory that there were t^^elve kinds of Latin, or, indeed, as many kinds of Latin as there were monks who knew a little Greek. There remains a composition by an Irish monk ^ which contains the sentence: antes ^ solitum elaborant

agrestes ‘ orgium,^ two out of the five words being Greek. These are only a few of the quaint things that were con- ceived by the mediaeval grammarians, who made even a deeper darkness out of a glimpse of daylight. Thus we hear of long discussions on what was the vocative of ego, and of furious debaters rushing at one another with drawn swords because they could not agree as to inchoative verbs.^

a deepening of intellectual darkness, Irish scholars preserved the older learning and carried it to Bobbio and Pavia and St. Gallen. See Cramer, De Grads Medii Md Studiis, i. 24 (London, 1849); Hyde, A Literary History of Ireland (Dublin, 1899); Newell, SU Patrick, his Life and Teachings (London, 1890); and Bury, Life of SL Patrick (Cambridge, 1905),

' Hisperica Famina, edited by Stowasser (1887).

• See Sandys, op. cit. i. p. 450, with the references there given.

THE MIDDLE AGES

237

Another thing that interested the mediseval scholars, as it had the Romans and even the Aristotelian Greeks, was the so-called Liberal Arts (artes liberales ) . Aristotle ^ made a distinct division betweeli the liberal and the practical or technical arts. Varro and Cicero carried over the distinction to Roman culture, and Varro set forth nine subjects which made up the training of the Roman gentleman {liber hom*o). These nine were gram- mar, logic, rhetoric, geometry, arithmetic, astrology, mu- sic, medicine, and architecture.^ The later Romans, under Alexandrian influence, sought to lessen the number of liberal arts, and it is probable that they dropped medi- cine and architecture, though we have no direct proof of this. About the beginning of the Middle Ages, the Western Church, which had at first discouraged liberal studies on the ground that they were pagan, gradually came to cultivate them because they ministered to the higher spiritual truth. In this the Church was, curiously enough, going back to Aristotle, and even to Solon, who taught that fiovcrc/crj or liberal culture is the training of the soul. St. Augustine (a.d. 354-430) altered the number of the liberal arts, so that his category contained only seven; and in this he was followed by the famous gram- marian, Martianus Capella, a native of Africa, but a teacher at Rome, where he wrote, somewhat earlier than a.d. 439, a sort of educational allegoiy called De Nuptiis Philo- logies et Mercurii.

^ Politics, viii. i. * Ritschl, Opusc. iii. 371.

238 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

This work is as important in the histoiy of prose fiction as it is in the history of education; for its author dragged fiction into the service of grammar and tried to sugar-coat the pill of philology with myth and story. Martianus strikes out medicine and architecture on the ground that they are utilitarian studies.^ In Boethius we find a separation of the liberal arts into two groups: first arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy, which form what was afterwards called the Quadrivium; while gram- mar, rhetoric, and logic form a trio which was soon known as the Trivium. Cassiodorus wrote a work upon the liberal arts, fixing the number at seven and even asserting that this number had a mystical meaning, since he quoted the text: “Wisdom hath builded her house; she hath hewn out her seven pillars.’’ ^ This classification and this mystical interpretation of the number seven continue ® down through the writings of Isidorus,^ and was especially favoured by Alcuin® and by Alcuin’s pupil, Rabanus Maurus.® This famous teacher (whose name is also written Hrabanus) was bom at Mainz, of which city he was later made Archbishop. Studying imder Alcuin, he compiled

1 Martianus (ed. by Eyssenbardt, pp. 332 and 336).

2 Prov. ix. I.

® Seven was a mystic number, not only among the Jews, but among all the great nations of antiquity. See an interesting chapter on the subject in Hadley, Essays (New York, 1873).

• Supra, p. 190. ® Supra, pp, 220-223.

® His collected works are to be found in Migne's Patrologia Latina, vois. cvii-cxii. Cf. the monographs by Kdhler (1870) and Richter (1882).

THE MIDDLE AGES

239

an abridgment of the Latin grammar of Priscianus which was much used throughout the Middle Ages. He is a connecting link in the development of classical study, as are his own pupils Rudolphus and Trithemius, who wrote biographies of their master which can be found in Migne’s Patrologia.

Toward the end of the Middle Ages, there appears the remarkable figure of Roger Bacon; an Englishman bom at Ilchester, educated at Oxford and Paris, and finally enrolled in the Franciscan Order. In his writings one can find that clearness of vision and keenness of criticism which were inimical to scholastic teaching. Bacon reaches out and figuratively clasps hands with men of modern times. His chief works are the Opus Maius the Opus Minus, and the Opus Tertium (fragmentary). He also wrote a compendium on philosophy and another on theology. His originality gave great force to his learning, which was beyond that of any contemporary. He thought much, and he set down what he thought in a vigorous style and with a certain audacity which was rare among his fellows. So far in advance was he of others in the sphere of physics, that in his own time he was regarded as a sort of wizard or necromancer. It is likely that he had a knowledge of gunpowder and that he had experimented with the steam-engine as well as with a number of chemical compounds. Taking up his doctrines briefly, we may note that he criticised the Fathers for spending too little time in studying the ancient languages, and thus by neglect of them failing to understand the wisdom of the ancients. Furthermore, he declared that no perfect knowledge of the Scriptures can be had without knowing Hebrew and Greek, or that philosophy can be thoroughly pursued without studying Arabic. All current translations are inaccurate, because the translators are not familiar with foreign words and leave many of them standing in the text; whereas Bacon says very acutely, that a translator ought to be familiar, not only with the language that he is translating and also his own language, but likewise with the subject to which the text relates. These are golden words, and they deserve the serious attention of modern publishers.

Bacon says that there are not five men in the Western world who are acquainted with Hebrew, Greek, and Arabic grammar. He shrewdly notes the difference between having a purely colloquial knowledge of any language and a knowledge which is scientific, which goes down to the very foundations, and which is therefore the knowledge of a philosophical linguist. Bacon, consequently, insists upon grammar, grammar, and still more grammar; and in this he is the forerunner of a philological school of modem times. He criticises even the errors of translation to be

1 Referring to the Arabic translations of Aristotle of which the originals were practically unavailable to the Western world.

THE MIDDLE AGES

241

found in the Vulgate, and he hits hard those critic- asters who have ventured to change the text. He says: ‘‘Every one has the impertinence to alter whatever he does not understand — a thing which he would not do in the case of classical poets.^^ Here, Bacon drops a hint or two for the criticism of the texts of tlie Scriptures, — hints that were to be fruitful in the time of Valla and Erasmus.^

Bacon was by no means one who merely criticises the work of otliers. He showed his interest in grammatical study by writing a Greek grammar, a manuscript of which, now in the library at Corpus Christi College, Oxford, has the Greek characters beautifully written and contains a short Greek accidence ending with a paradigm of the verb TVTTTCD.^ A Greek lexicon has also been ascribed to Bacon. Nevertheless there was little Greek known to the scholars of that time, and at Oxford so much of Aristotle as was read was read in a Latin translation. It is worthy of remembrance that another Franciscan, the famous traveller, Raimundus Lullius, tried to persuade, first the Pope and then the University of Paris, to establish a school of oriental languages (Greek, Arabic, and the Tartar

^ It is worth noting that an Oxford scholar of this time spent forty years in correcting and explaining the Vulgate. Cf. Martin, La Vulgate Latine au xiii s. d^apres Roger Bacon (Paris, 1888); and Gasquet in the DtiUin Review for January, 1898.

2 Dr. Sandys observes {pp. cit. i, p. 595) that “Bacon's own knowledge of Greek was mainly derived from the Greeks of his time, and it is their pronunciation that he invariably adopts.”

R

242

HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

dialects), thus anticipating the great oriental schools which thrive to-day at Paris and Berlin.^ Bacon’s opuscula, gathered from the fragments of his minor work, are very interesting as showing his unusual mental activity. He had a sort of glossary of Latin words derived from the Greek. He corrects a number of common errors in spell- ing, quantity, and etymology. He tells some anecdotes, as, for instance, that he himself has seen the Greek text of the fifty books of Aristotle’s Natural History, mentioned by Pliny (viii. p. 17), and altogether takes us back to the many-sided curiosity of Aulus Gellius.^ Altogether he is very fairly described by Hallam in a single sentence: The mind of Roger Bacon was strangely compounded of almost prophetic gleams of the future course of science and the best principles of the inductive philosophy, with a more than usual credulity in the superstitions of his own time.” '

Medisevalism is something very diflScult to understand, and many views are taken of it. Its spirit, when properly apprehended, was certainly not a spirit of desolation and decay. It sprang out of the ruins of antique greatness

1 Rashdall, op. cit. ii. p. 96.

2 See supra, p. 1S8.

® There is an edition of Bacon^s works edited by Brewer (London, 1859). A very excellent and comprehensive study of Bacon is that by Charles (Paris, 1861); and a later monograph by Parrot, Roger Bacon, sa Personne, son Genie, ses (Rimes et ses Contemporains (Paris, 1894). His Greek grammar was published, with notes and an introduction, by the University of Cambridge (Cambridge, 1S92).

THE MH)DLE AGES

243

from which it drew much of its own knowledge, though often without any consciousness of its value. The Middle Ages appear to some as having been wholly a time of gloom when intellectual pursuits were discouraged, partly through lack of knowledge, and partly by the discourage- ment which came from an almost savage environment, pierced only here and there by rays of light and glints of colour. Yet in reality the true Middle Ages were very different from this description. There was a gradual pro- cess of assimilation, by which the highest thought of an- tiquity was to be transformed into something different and new. So we have the blending of the pagan past and the Christian present, combining what was beautiful in the antique world with what was spiritual in the Chris- tian teaching. As we look at Mediaevalism it often shocks us, since so much raw brutality was everywhere in con- tact with that which was in the end to master it. We seem at first to be standing on the borders of a dark and almost fearful waste, from within which we can hear the rending sound of continuous devastation. Yet when we give our patient study to it, we grow conscious that the process is not one of destruction, but rather of germi- nation. Instead of a chilling cold, there is something warm and stimulating, that is always noticeable.

Thus its Art may have been rude, yet the originality of it has appealed most strongly to artists of modem times, while the grandeur of its Gothic architecture attains the

244 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

height of the sublime. Even its Philosophy, as wrought out by the scholastics, has been revived and has flourished for two centuries, not merely within the great schools of the Catholic Church, but among men of every mode of thought, from Kant to Leo XIII.^ As to the political side — the clash of principalities and powers and the almost incessant strife of kings and popes and mercantile communities, — Professor J. W. Burgess has admirably written: —

Men have been wont to call the Middle Ages, 'Dark Ages. ’ On the contrary, they are fuU of light. In them the great questions of the relationship of individual right to political right, of local government to central government, and of ecclesiastical govern- ment to secular government, were raised and drawn into conscious consideration. Had the European empire of Charlemagne been perpetuated, Europe might have become a second China, but would never have been what it is — viz., the source of the civilization of the modem world. The unceasing conflicts of the Middle Ages between private right and public law, local government and central government, state authority and Church authority, were necessary to bring men out from under the monotony of slavish subjection to the artificial, external Church-state system of the Carlovingian empire, and develop them by the antagonism of thought and wiU into the power of producing systems more reflected and more free.”

In Letters and Learning, we owe a great debt to the Middle Ages. For a time, the fanaticism of the Early Church destroyed much; but from the eighth century a

^ See Picavet's remarkable monograph entitled Esquisse d^une Histoire Ginirale et Comparee des Civilisatims Medi^ales (Paris, 1905); and Perrier, The Revival of Scholastic Rhilosophy (New York, 1909). See also Allbutt, Science and Medicsval Thoughty pp. 72, 78 foil. (London, 1895).

THE MIDDLE AGES

24S

great deal was done to preserve and transmit the classical tradition, although by no means in the classical spirit. The use of Latin as a Ungm franca, even in a corrupted form, made of it a thread that pierced the mazes of the mediaeval labyrinth. One recalls the names of the great hymn writers, of the great teachers, from Alcuin and his im- mediate pupils, such as Rabanus Maurus, who lectured at Fulda, Servatus Lupus, Walafrid, who was in literature the precursor of Dante, ‘ John of Salisbury, who was a naighty figure in English classical scholarship, Joseph of Exeter, Albertus Magnus,^ Thomas Aquinas, his favourite pupil, and finally Roger Bacon himself, who stands, as it were, not far from Dante in the first faint light of the com- ing Renaissance. As we have seen, many of the Latin classics were read in part and some of them in their entirely. Many that were not read were nevertheless copied in the monastic scriptoria. Of those ancients who were well known (in addition to the Fathers) are Terence, Horace (who was much admired by Alcuin), Ovid, to whom many spurious poems were ascribed, Lucan, who was supposed to be an authority on geography and astrology, Statius, Martial, Juvenal, who with Persius was esteemed for his stem morality, Cicero, of course, with the younger Seneca, the Elder Pliny, Quintilian, Cornelius Nepos, Csesar, Sallust, Livy, Suetonius, and the historical anecdotes of

• See Ker, The Dark Ages, p. 159 (New York, 1904).

® See d’Assailly, Albert le Grand (Paris, rSyo).

246 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Valerius Maximus. The fragment of Petronius De Bello Civili was fairly well known, and was used for reading in the schools. Of all the classics, Vergil held the foremost place largely because he was believed to have been one of the “ Christians before Christ.”

As to the adjuncts of classical literature, there was the • small grammar of Donatus^ and many compilations of Priscian’s great work, of which there exist to-day more than a thousand manuscripts. Sometimes bits of text were quoted in illustration of the rules of grammar, though this was unusual.^ There were also produced a number of lexicons, or rather glossaries and vocabularies. The mediaeval teachers used to dictate to their students word- lists which were carefully copied and then often abridged, corrected, and enlarged according as they passed from one .possessor to another. One of these glossaries, compiled as early as the ninth century, has been edited with a com- mentary, while containing also the substance of twelve others. Something like a genuine lexicon was produced by one Papias, the Lombard scholar, about 1063, though it was in reality a sort of encyclopaedia. The Low Latin word Dictionarium did not come into use for a long time.

^ Supra, p. 184,

2 See the monograph on grammar contained in I. Miiller^s Handbuch,

V. i (Leipzig, 1902).

^Gottingen, 1854. See also the elaborate description of mediseval glossaries in Lowe, Frodromus Glossariorum Latinorum (Leipzig, 1876).

A collection of these glossaries was begxm in 1876 by Goetz under the patronage of the Royal Literary Society of Saxony.

THE MIDDLE AGES

247

Papias called his own dictionary, Elementanum Doc- trincB Erudimentum. It circulated in manuscript until after the invention of printing, when it was issued at Venice in 1491. In the twelfth century an English monk, Osborn of Gloucester, made an attempt at an etymological diction- ary, which he called Panorama, About the year 1200, Hugutio, Bishop of Ferrara, compiled a Liber Deriva- tionum. Eighty-six years later, the two works last men- tioned were used by Balbi of Genoa, who based on them his famous Catholicon, which was not only a manual of grammar, but also of rhetoric and criticism, with a rather extensive lexicon of ecclesiastical Latin. These were the best dictionaries known to the Middle Ages.^

Thus far we have regarded the Middle Ages wholly in their relation to the history of Western civilization, from the downfall of the Western Empire to the beginning of the thirteenth century. It remains for us to consider here the Eastern or Byzantine Empire (also called New Rome), which had its seat at Constantinople (Byzantium) and which outlived the Western Empire by more than a thou- sand years. The Eastern Empire was practically estab- lished in A.D. 330, when Constantine made Byzantium the capital of the whole Roman world; but the actual breach between the East and West came in a.d. 395. In that year

^ See the monograph on Lexicography in I. Muller’s Eandbuch, i. (Nordlingen, 1902); De Vit, Preface to the Lexicon of Forcellini (Prato, 1879); Mahn, Darstellung der Lexicographie mch alien ihren Seiten (Rudolstadt, 1817).

248 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

the Roman Empire was divided between the two sons of Theodosius. Arcadius took the Eastern half, with his capital at Constantinople, while Honorius received the Western half, with his capital at Rome. The long and tangled history of the Eastern Empire is the record of constant strife, sedition, folly, treachery, misgovemment, and murder. Thus it has been neglected until the last few years. Even Gibbon called it “ a tedious and uniform tale of weakness and misery.” Montesquieu sweepingly declared that “ the history of the Greek Empire from Phocas on was merely a succession of revolts, schisms, and treacheries.” Taine vindly condemned it as being “ a gigantic mouldiness, lasting a thousand years.”

It has been computed that of the 107 persons who ruled from 395 to 1453 (when Constantinople was stormed by the Turks), 20 were murdered, 18 were mutilated, 12 died in a monastery or a prison, 12 abdicated, 3 starved to death, 8 died in warfare — in all, 73 out of 107 met with violence or disgrace. Perhaps the best excuse for the existence of the Byzantine Empire is found in the fact that it formed for centuries a barrier between Asia and Western Europe, so that the latter had time to attain cohe- sion and a sort of unity of purpose, to develop a new civilisation and the military power necessary to repel wild hordes, such as the Saracens whom Charles Martel shattered at Tours in the eighth century, or the Turks who were hurled back from Vienna in the sixteenth century.

THE MIDDLE AGES

249

If we look more carefully into the history of Byzantium in its later years, we shall find that while religious schisms, civil wars, and violence of every kind shook it to its centre, there are eveiywhere traces of the older Roman spirit, surviving and making themselves visible. Indeed, the history of Old Rome is very largely a history of civil war, and so we must not be surprised that New Rome showed many of the same characteristics. It differed from Old Rome in being far more oriental. Its rulers were despots; its people were, as has been said of the Parisians, “ half tiger and half ape.” In other words, princes and populace alike alternated between the most childish amusem*nts and the most bloody strife.^ Yet, it had the Roman power of assimilation, and of recuperation after periods of ex- hausting warfare. Some of its emperors, such as Con- stantine Copronymus (741-773), were great soldiers and organised more effective armies than the world had yet seen. The boundaries of the Empire were extended, both in Asia and Europe. Again and again the administration was reformed and commerce stimulated. Against the Hungarians, the Turks, the Armenians, and the Bulgars, successful wars were waged.^ Byzantium itself was a

^ For a diverting account of life in Byzantium, see Marrast, Esquisses Byzantines (Paris, 1874).

• See Gibbon, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire^ edited by

Bury (Cambridge, 1899); Bury, A History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1890); and Oman, The Story of the Byzantine Empire (London and New York, 1892).

250

mSTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

magnificent city. Rome on the Tiber was ransacked to make the new capital deserve the title of “ Imperial.” Statues and paintings and jewels gleamed and flashed in all its public buildings. Its architecture has been styled “ the complete monumental expression of Greek Chris- tendom.” It was the Greek architectural genius which chose the Roman dome as its fundamental unit in place of the wooden roof, and then, by using lofty piers, was able to suspend the dome and use it with any kind of ground- plan. Domes were even multiplied at will; and this (with semi-domes) is characteristic of the Byzantine architecture wherever it can be found, especially in the great master- pieces of St. Sophia and the Church of the Apostles in Constantinople, as well as in many churches in Russia, Northern Italy, and Asia Minor. In" fact, the Byzantine types were Graeco-Asiatic in their origin, and this is why they suggest at once an Orientalism which we can trace in almost everything which the Eastern Empire originated.

As for other forms of art, there are few remains of Byzantine Sculpture, partly because there existed, first, an oriental lack of skill in drawing the figure, and second, because many of the Greek Christians were iconoclastic in the literal sense. Fresco-painting, Mosaic, and Panel- painting were practised by the artists of Byzantium. Most of the frescoes and panels have now disappeared. It is only from the mosaics made prior to the twelfth cen- tury that modem archaeologists can get any good idea of

the middle ages

251

the early Byzantine painting. We know, however, that it greatly influenced the Christian artists throughout the Middle Ages, and it was felt even in tlie later frescoes in the catacombs at Rome. Toward the middle of the eleventh century, the Italian States and the Norman Kingdom at the South imported Byzantine artists in mosaic who trained Italian pupils and thus spread the Byzantine influence throughout Italy. It is in the Minor Arts, however, which have to do with decoration, such as the illuminating of manuscripts with gorgeous colours, ivory carving, tapestry weaving, rug-making, and the carving of cameos, together with embossing, chasing, and enamelling the most exqui- site bits of gold work, that the skill of the Byzantine artists was supreme.^

Byzantine Literature has in itself (with one excep- tion) ^ very little to interest any one save the historian. Scholars and priests of Byzantium wrote innumerable tracts and controversial treatises, which have mostly per- ished, as they deserved to do. The Byzantine Histo- rians form a group of writers who busied themselves with the history of the Eastern Empire down to its destruction by tire Turks, and there were some who kept on writing even after that. Five of them have con- siderable value. These are Zonaras, Nicetas, Nicephorus,

1 See Texier and PuUan, Byzantine Architecture (London, 1894); Essenwein, Byzantinische Baukunst (Darmstadt, 1896); Bayet, L’Art Byzantin (Paris, 1892).

• See infra, pp. 254-257.

252 HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

ChalcoHdylas, and Procopius. The first four of these give a continuous history of the Byzantine Empire from its beginning down to the year 1470. Procopius is noted as a collector of scandalous stories which he jotted down in his Anecdota, or “ secret history.” In it he gives his private notes relating to the court-life with which he was very intimate; and the book reminds one of some of the French memoirs which reveal to us the piquant sayings and doings of the French court under the old regime. This book of Procopius was not published until after his death. It is written in a fresh and interesting style, and in consequence has been read more than almost any other production of the Byzantine historians.^ There are fifteen other writers of Byzantine history whose united works are published with a Latin translation in the Corpus Scriptorum Historia Byzantina?

Really remarkable among the Byzantine writings is the codification of the Roman Law made by the Byzantine lawyer, Tribonianus, an Asiatic Greek, at the command of the Emperor lustinianus. It was a collection of authori-

^ For a separate edition of Procopius, including his orations, the reader is referred to Dindorf, 3 vols, (Bonn, 1838)* There is an old and rare translation of Procopius into English by Holcroft (London, 1663). The most amusing or startling passages of Procopius were transferred by Gibbon to the footnotes of Ms Decline and Fall,

• In 36 vols., edited by Labbd (Paris, 1711; reprinted at Venice in

1733)* A similar collection in 48 vols. was begun at Bonn in r828, but is badly executed, although parts of it were done by such distinguished scholars as Niebuhr, Bekker, and the brothers Dindorf.

THE MIDDLE AGES

253

ties, and to it we owe the treasures of ancient jurisprudence which must otherwise have been lost. The whole has been known since the sixteenth century as the Corpus luris

It will thus be seen that so much of the literature of the Eastern Empire as has been preserved was of a formal and not very artistic character. Doubtless the populace had its own ephemeral prose and verse, of which there are some fragments left, — for instance, in the so-called politici versus (crixo^ voXitikoi) written in popular metres, and the cheap novels composed by Theodorus Prodromus of Constantinople. He was imitated by Nicetas Euge- nianus, and there are also eleven books on the adventures of Hysmine and Hysminias, which are perhaps the original source of the world-famous story of Don Juan.*

To Byzantine Scholarship, Classical Philology owes an enduring debt. The learned men of Byzantium lacked ■originality, but they had the gift of patience to an ex- traordinary degree. Like the historians, they were tireless in collecting scraps and fragments, in making up excerpts and compilations, and in this way preserving the wealth of rich material for modem times. Almost all their material was derived at second hand, whether it was lexicographic,

^ It is in four parts, known as (a) Codex lustinianeus; (b) Pandectm or Digesia; {c) InstiMiones; (d) Novdlm, this last mostly written in Greek. Edited by Mommsen and others.

• See Waxman, The Don Juan Legend in LUeraturef in Journal of

American Folk-Lore (April, Sept,), 1908.

254 HISTORV OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

historical, or etymological. Thus Photius (c. 820-c. 891) wrote many things, among them two volumes which are of great ser\'ice to the student of the Greek language and literature. He was sent as an ambassador to Assyria and beguiled his stay there by making abstracts of 280 books, many of which are now lost. Sometimes he varied his abstracts by criticisms and comments so that the whole, which is called Myrobiblion^ (Mvpio^i^iov) , gives us a synopsis of much ancient and valuable literature. Remarkable for its extent and for its preservation of early historians was the encyclopaedia of history compiled by one of the emperors, Constantinus Porphyrogenetus (reigned from 915 to 959). This book was something like the Historian’s History of recent times, since, while it was airranged according to the subject-matter, its text was that of the earlier authors who had treated these themes.

An extremely important work in the growth of Lexi- cography is the Lexicon of Suidas {c. 976). This is a remarkable monument to the erudition which is encyclo- paedic. The sources upon which Suidas drew are still only partly known; but his reading must have been mon- strous in its scope and range, as his book is almost mon- strous, rudis indigestaque moles. It is a grammar, lexicon, and geography all in one. The subjects are arranged in alphabetical order, but with little care or skill, and it is full

^ See ICrimibaclier in Muller’s Eandhuchi ix. i (Nordlingen, 1897), pp. 1193 foil.; Hergenrother, Photks, 3 vols.

THE MIDDLE AGES

25s

of serious mistakes which show that Suidas was not pos- sessed of the critical spirit. Still, the work is extremely valuable because it contains so much information that can be found nowhere else.^

Following Suidas came loannes Tzetzes, who was also a very voluminous writer, mainly of scholia; for besides his allegories of the Iliad and Odyssey in ten thousand verses (hence Chiliades), interpreting Homeric mythology in a rationalistic way, he prepared a commentary to the Iliad, the Pseudo-Homeric works, and has left scholia to Hesiod, to Aristophanes, to Oppian, and especially to Lycophron’s Alexandra. Here he gives us the only clew that we have to that obscure and mystical poem.^ He also epitomised the rhetoric of Hermogenes. He was fond of writing the so-called versus politici.^ Eustathius, Archbishop of Thessalonica, wrote about 1175 a valuable commentary on the Homeric poems which is based upon sound Homeric scholia and other excellent sources, while we also have from his pen a fine preface to a conamentary on Pindar. The body of this work itself has been lost.** From the stand-

^ The best edition is that of Bekker (Berlin, 1854), but see also the Prolegomena to Bernhardy^s edition, pp. 25-95, ^ind Krumbacher, op. cit. pp. 562'-57 o.

2 Supra^ p. loi. Some think that this work was written by his brother, Isaac Tzetzes. See Hart, De Tzetzarum Nomine, Vita, Scriptis (1880).

• Supra, p. loi. His works are edited separately by Bekker (Berlin,

1816), the Chiliades by Kiessling (Leipzig, 1826), and Lehrs (Leipzig, 1840). See Krumbacher, op. cit. pp. 526-536.

^ See Krumbacher, pp. 536-541. The preface to Pindar has been edited by Schneidewin (Gottingen, 1837).

256 HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

point of pure literature, the most interesting Byzantine writer is Maximus Planudes (1260-1310). Though he wrote scholia and a treatise on syntax, it is more to the point that he translated into Greek a number of Latin authors such as Cassar, a part of Cicero, the sayings (disticha) of Cato, the Metamorphoses of Ovid, and espe- cially the Heroides of Ovid, basing his translation on a valuable manuscript which is now unknown. Most important of all is the Anthology which he compiled with much taste and which is the younger of the two great Greek Anthologies. This one is called Anthologia Planudea. It was really based on earlier anthologies, the first having been made by Meleager of Gadara about B.c. 60. To it Meleager gave the title ’Av$o\oy(a, or “ The Garland.” This original Anthology was made up of poems by Meleager himself and forty-six other poets, including Alcffius, Anacreon, Sappho, and Simonides. The poems were all of the first order and were epigram- matic in the Greek sense, — briefly embodying a single thought, either tender or humorous or pathetic, and all of them exquisitely polished, so that they glowed and glinted with light and colour. This work was immensely popular, and continual editions were made to it throughout the centuries, until in the tenth century A.D. one Cephalas edited the mass of poems and made practically a new compilation. Planudes did the same, though with far less literary taste. Nevertheless the Planudean Anthology was

THE MIDDLE AGES

257

the only one known in Western Europe until the seven- teenth century. It is the basis of the famous translation by Grotius.^ In 1606, Salmasius (Claude de Saumaise) found in the library at Heidelberg the older and finer collection of Cephalas. This, however, was not published for one hundred and seventy years, when it was included by Brunck in his Analecta; nor was it critically edited until there appeared the edition of F. Jacobs in 1803.^ No skill and no modem language can fitly and artistically translate these wonderful poems. They are the embodi- ment of Greek genius, and they sweep the whole gamut of human feeling with a sureness of touch and an exqui- site artistry that are utterly inimitable.

Another means by which Western civilisation was mod- ified came from the Crusades, which indirectly brought Western Europe into contact with the Byzantines, and also with the Turks, Saracens, and Arabs. The First Crusade occupied the years 1096-1099. The Seventh or last Cru- sade began in 1270 and ended in 1272. It is impossible that hundreds of thousands of Europeans could have be-

1 Infra, p, 349.

2 In 13 vols.; revised in 1817. A recent edition is that in Didot’s Bibliotheca (Paris, 1872), while a fine critical edition was begun by Stadtmiiller in 1894. See Thackeray’s Anthologia Grcsca with English notes (London, 1877) and Mackail, Select Ej^igrams (London, 1891). Stadtmiiller has added to the Palatine collection a number of the most brilliant poems from ante-classical sources down through the Byzantine period, so that, in all, not less than three hundred poets are rep}’esented. The Heidelberg collection is called Anthologia Falaiina,

258 HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

come acquainted with the ways and customs and art and learning of older civilisations than their own without re- ceiving impressions which they carried home with them. In fact, the Crusades are generally held to have checked the advance of the Muhammadans, to have enriched Eu- rope by promoting trade and establishing new industries, by bringing into circulation great quantities of money which had hitherto been hoarded, and by making more im- portant the free cities of Europe. Finally and most per- vasive was the intellectual effect of contact with the higher culture of the Byzantines and Arabs. Those Europeans who had been fond of philosophy found in the sages of the East men who were their masters, and who could teach them even Greek philosophy far better than they could learn it in the schools and universities of their native lands. This led to a certain toleration, and often to a liberality of thought which verged on skepticism. Some Crusaders even became Muhammadans. As has been said, “ The roots of the Renaissance are to be found in the civiliza- tion of the Crusades.” ^

So much for Byzantine and oriental influence through-

^ See Wilken, GeschicUe der Kreuzziige, 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1807-1832); Michaud, The History of the Crusades, Eng. trans. (London, 1881); Kug- ler, Geschichie der KreuzzUge (Berlin, 1891); Von Sybel, Geschichte des ersten Kreuzzilges (Leipzig, 1900); Archer and Elingsford, The Crusades (New York, 1898); Rohricht, Geschichte des Konigreichs Jerusalem (Berlin, 1898); and especially Prutz, Kulturschickte der KreuzzUge (Ber- lin, 1898).

THE MIDDLE AGES

259

out the Middle Ages. It was for the most part represented by men of erudition rather than of taste, who turned their backs in large measure on the old learning in order to engage in theological controversy or political strife. But they at any rate preserved the manuscripts of the true Greeks, and they were to exercise a direct influence at a time when the mist of the Middle Ages was dispelled in Western Europe and when mankind awoke to what was a new heaven and a new earth.^

^ On the literature of the Byzantines, see Krumbacher, op. cii.; Wil- amowitz, Euripides und HerakleSy i. pp. 193-2 19; Gibbon, op. ciL, and Hankius, De Byzantinarum Rerum Scriptorihus Greeds (Leipzig, 1677)- Cf. also Sandys, op. dt. i. pp. 387-439; Mr. Frederic Harrison’s Byz- antine History in the Early Middle AgeSj p. 36 (London, 1900). It is in- teresting, though inexplicable, that Dr. Gudeman in his Outlines of the History of Classical Philology should have devoted nearly five pages to the Byzantine scholars of the Middle Ages, while the scholarship of West- ern Europe for nearly a thousand years is put ofli with a mere biblio- graphic notice filling half a page.

VI THE RENAISSANCE

The Renaissance — the most remarkable intellectual movement that the world has ever seen — is too often regarded as being primarily nothing more than an intellectual reversion to the great models of classical antiquity, — as being almost exclusively literary, artistic, and archaeological. Yet this is only a narrow and imperfect view. The Renaissance which began in Italy was rather a profound and far-reaching revolt against the narrowness and mental routine of mediaevalism. It was the waking of humanity in Western Europe from a prolonged lethargy, to burst all the fetters that ages of tiresome tradition had forged for it, and to struggle up into the sunlight of intellectual freedom. It was a great declaration of independence, the effects of which were ultimately to be felt in every sphere of human activity. In philosophy it overthrew scholasticism. In religion it paved the way directly for the so-called Reformation. In art it inspired the masterpieces of Michelangelo, Rafaelle, and Da Vinci in Italy, and the great schools of painting that soon afterward sprang up in the Netherlands and Flanders. In architecture it restored the beautiful classic models. In politics it finally abolished feudalism by giving birth to the sentiment of nationality, and sowing the seed from which constitutional government was to spring. In science it made astronomy truly scientific through Copernicus and Galileo. It invented printing and, by the employment of the compass, was enabled to discover the New World and the Indian Ocean. It would be impossible to exaggerate the tremendous and far-reaching influence of this wonderful movement whose effects have permeated every department of intellectual effort and left enduring traces in every sphere of modern life.

The Renaissance began in the fi.eld of scholarship, and for our purposes we need consider its importance only from that particular point of view. One of the first significant signs of the coming change is to be seen in Dante, ^ who not only broke away from mediaeval tradition in using the vernacular Italian verse, while taking Vergil as his model, but who likewise wrote a number of treatises in the Latin language that were the foreshadowing of the new spirit. In one way, Dante does not belong to the history of the Renaissance. He is in many ways a pure mediaeval in his sympathy with the world for which he wrote; yet in a large sense he is truly the herald of the coming dawn. ^^In him the modem mind first found its scope and recognised its freedom; first dared and did what placed it on a level with antiquity in art. Many ^ 1265-1321.

262

HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

ideas, moreover, destined to play an important part in the coming age received from him their germinal expression. It may thus be truly said that Dante initiated the move- ment of the modem intellect in its entirety, though he did not lead the Revival considered as a separate movement in this evolution.” ^ The Renaissance in its first period began in Italy (1250-1453), and was marked by a wide- spread revival of interest in classic literature and classical ideals. Its first sign was a passion for the largeness and the richness of the pagan world, and this we see in the vigour and magnificence of Dante’s own verse, in striking contrast to the dull formalism of those who had before his time written for the medi^vals,^

It is a popular error which ascribes the Renaissance to the influence of the Byzantine Greeks. Some wrongly say that after the capture of Constantinople by the Turks in 1453, many scholars and writers fled westward and im- parted their learning and their knowledge of the Greek classics to the Western peoples, especially in Italy. But, as a matter of fact, the Renaissance began at least a century before the fall of Constantinople, as can easily be seen by considering the brilliant career, not merely of Dante, but of the true protagonist of this period, Francesco Petrarca, whom we shall mention a little later. We have

^ S3anonds, The Renaissance in Italy, p. 69.

® See Fedem, Dante and, His Time, Eng. trans. (New York, 1902); and Scartazzini, A Handbook to Dante, Eng. trans. (Boston, 1897).

THE RENAISSANCE

263

also seen that Roger Bacon, who flourished in the thirteenth century, composed a Greek grammar and pronounced his Greek after the manner of the Byzantines. A few Greek teachers of eminence had been known in Europe,^ but they seem to have excited no great interest outside of a very small set. Nor was the mediaeval mind necessarily cramped and its culture crude. One could hardly say that, after recalling such names as those of Gregory the Great, of Cassiodorus, Alcuin, Charlemagne, and the great scholars and teachers who were best known in France and England. The Renaissance means rather a new inspi- ration and a new desire. It was essentially secular and almost pagan in its irresponsibility, its love of life, and its thirst for mental freedom. The mediaevals had been al- most wholly under the guidance of the priesthood, and their chief concern had been with the mysteries of faith. Their philosophy was ingenious, but it was very narrow. It could split hairs most dextrously, but finally men grew weary of the splitting of hairs and shook themselves into a realisation of what a larger life must mean for them. So the Englishman, William of Ockham, expresses the new feeling in a new philosophy of Nominalism. Mar- sigilo of Padua teaches the importance of the individual and that the individual has a right to think and organise as seems best to him. Wiclif in England, and John Huss in Bohemia, and many other independent minds organised

^ Boethius, Isidonis, Alcuin, Rabanus Maurus, Bacon, et al.

264 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

at their pleasure throughout Europe. They taught the importance of the individual Christian to Christianity and the right of individual interpretation of the Scriptures.

A brief survey of Francesco Petrarca’s activities will give an understanding of what was actually done at the begin- ning of the true Renaissance. It was he who took the first positive steps in the revival of learning.^ Possessing the fire and the passion of a Catullus, he openly revolted against the dimness and bareness of mediaevalism. He reverted with an almost fierce intensity to the pagan free- dom and spontaneity of thought. He travelled widely and visited the learned men of France and Germany and Flan- ders. He saw a larger world than his predecessors knew, and he took a more comprehensive view of human life. His poetic instinct and exquisite taste rejected the dull writings of the scholastics with their barbarous and clumsy satires. For his own inspiration he went to Vergil, and in his studies he enlarged his Latin vocabulary from the Cic- eronian and Augustan writers. Apart from his Italian verse, he composed an epic in Latin entitled Africa. Its subject was the Second Punic War, and it was received with an entiiusiasm that can now scarcely be realised or understood. But it recalls to us the significant fact that one of the great motives which led to the Renaissance was a renewal in Italy of the national spirit, so long stifled both in politics and art. The petty republics and small

» (1304-1374.)

THE RENAISSANCE

265

principalities had almost blotted out the memory of the time when the great Roman Empire had been mistress of the world and when Rome gave law to Spain and Gaul and Africa and Asia Minor. A recollection of this fact now thrilled through the minds of all Italians and inspired that sentiment for Italian unity which was destined to re- main a vital thing down through the succeeding centuries until gradually the Kingdom of Sardinia gave it actuality when in 1870 the King of a United Italy burst through the walls of Rome and made that ancient city the splen- did capital of a new and powerful State.

As to Petrarca’s Latin epic on the Second Punic War, its verse is imperfect. The Latin poets of the Renaissance period were still obliged for a long time to guess at many of the quantities in the words which they employed, and they often guessed wrong; yet there are in this poem many splendid passages of which perhaps the most significant of all is one of nine lines in the ninth book,^ which is a spirited and striking prophecy of the Renaissance itself.

One more important fact remains to be mentioned. To Petrarca’s mind, it began to be apparent that the classical texts known to his world formed but a small part of the great and splendid mass of literature that had once existed; and he appears to have set himself to the task of its recov- ery. Wherever he went in his travels, he searched for manuscripts of classic authors, and with some measure of

273-282.

266

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

success. At Lifege he discovered two new orations of Cicero and a part of Cicero’s letters. At Verona he found a portion of the InstituHo of Quintilian, — then practically unknown. More important in its way than all the rest as a philological discovery, he recognised and acknowl- edged the very close relation of Latin to Greek, — a won- derful achievement for the time, as strange, in fact, as the much later discovery of the relation of Sanskrit to both Greek and Latin. In his old age, Petrarca, like Cato, made an efiort to master the Greek language. Unluckily there was no one in Florence at that time who was capable of teaching him, and he died without learning enough to read a copy of Homer which had been sent him from Constantinople.^

Petrarca was the first true son of the Renaissance, in that his love for classical antiquity was not in the least degree overlaid by mediaevalism, as was that of Dante. Despising all that had been done in the preceding seven hundred years, he struggled passionately to return to the spirit and life of the classical age. Before his death he had attained to a Latin style of remarkable purity, and in his Epistolce, his De Viris lUustribus, and his dialogues he struck the note of classicism so clearly and so splendidly as to waken the dormant genius of Italy once more to

^ Petrarca urged Ms friend and disciple Boccaccio to render tMs copy of Homer into Latin, and the task was very imperfectly performed with the aid of a Calabrian Greek, one Leonzio Pilato.

TEE RENAISSANCE

267

life.* Petraxca’s gifted secretary, Giovaani da Ravenna (or Giovanni Malpaghini), an accomplished Latinist, was the most noted missionary of the new movement. Travelling from city to city all over Italy, he gathered about him a host of pupils to whom he taught the Latin, not of the monks and schoolmen, but of Cicero and Caesar, communicating to tliem the new impulse, and stirring them with a new enthusiasm that had been felt both by him- self and by his inspired master.

Giovanni Boccaccio,* who is best known to moderns by his Decameron, was an enthusiastic son of the Renais- sance. His mother was French, but he was soon taken to Italy, where he flung himself into the gay life and natural beauty of the city of Naples, which was then, under King Robert, a centre of culture and learning. At the same time he became interested in classical study and had spent much time in copying manuscripts of Terence and Apu- leius. It is likely that the latter author, whose book is professedly a collection of Milesian tales, gave Boccaccio the first suggestion for his Decameron, which is, in arrange- ment and manner, a collection of Milesians, tliat is to say, of short, witty stories as we know them now. But from

^ There is a critical edition of the Africa by Corradini with an Italian translation (Oneglia, 1874), On Petrarca himself, see M&d^res, PHrarque (Paris, 1867); Geiger, Pekarca (Leipzig, 1874); Robinson and Rolfe, Petrarch (New York, 1898), and de Nolhac, Pitrarque et VEumanisme, 2d ed. (Paris, 1907).

• I3I3-I37S-

268

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

the standpoint of a classicist, Boccaccio is most impor- tant because of the fact that he attained to an excellent Latin style and wrote a number of treatises in Latin on various subjects, quite after the manner (let us say) of Varro or Suetonius.^ His disciples and those of Giovanni Malpaghini in their turn preached the gospel of classi- cal culture at Venice, Mantua, Rome, and other Ital- ian cities. Leonardo Bruni^ made excellent translations of Aristotle, Demosthenes, and Plutarch; while Barbaro, Strozzi, and others shared in tbe enthusiastic labours. One of them, Colutius Salutati (Coluccio di Salutato) , chancellor to the city of Florence in 1375, first used in the public docu- ments of his office the sonorous Latin of Cicero, and thus forced upon popes and princes the necessity of securing for themselves scribes and secretaries who were masters of the classic stjde. The interest which pertained to every- thing which had to do with classical antiquity led Ciriaco de’ Pizzicolli (Cyriacus of Ancona) to feel a strong enthu- siasm for archaeological rather than literary remains. He ransacked every part of Italy and the Greek islands, collecting, besides manuscripts, bits of sculpture, gems, medals, and coins, and taking note of such inscriptions as seemed to him significant. When asked what was his object in these endless joumeyings, he replied, “I go to

^ See Korting, Boccaccio's Leben und Werke^ pp. 742 foil. (Leipzig, t88o); Symonds, op. cit. pp. 87-97, 133; Cochin, Boccaccio ^ etc. (Paris, 1890). 2 1369-1444.

THE RENAISSANCE 269

awake the dead and this reply has been regarded as the key-note of the early Renaissance.^

The recognition of the value of Greek which had come to Petrarca in his later years now became a part of every scholar’s training. Giacomo da Sciaparia visited Con- stantinople in 1375, the year of Petrarca’s death, for the purpose of learning Greek from those who spoke it. Salutato and Strozzi founded a chair of Greek at the University of Florence. In 1396 Manuel Chrysoloras, a learned Byzantine, came from die East to Italy; and while teaching Greek at Florence, established schools for the study of that language at Padua, Milan, Venice, and Rome. Cosimo de’ Medici, then head of the Florentine Republic, founded a special academy for the study of Plato. The rich citizens of Florence vied with one another in their munificence and enthusiasm for the furthering of classical learning. Niccolo de’ Mccoli, Pietro di Pazzi, Manetti, and Palla Strozzi are but a few of many famous names. The first gave his entire fortune to the collection and reproduction of ancient manuscripts. Di Pazzi kept a teacher of Greek and Latin always in his house, and com- mitted to memory the whole of the Mmid and long chapters of Livy. Manetti devoted his life to the further- ance of what has been called Humanism in opposition to

^Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, ii. pp. xxii. 129 foil.; Hilbner, Romische Epigmphik in Muller Eandbuch, i; Symonds, op, cit. pp. 155 foil, and infra^ p. 270.

270 HISTORY OH CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Mediaevalism.^ He strove also to harmonise the teach- ings of Christianity with those of paganism. Strozzi employed all the facilities which his great commercial in- terests in other countries gave him for the discovery and purchase of manuscripts.

It is perfectly clear from all this, that it was not the down- fall of Constantinople and the dispersion of Greek scholars that brought about the Renaissance, since the thirst for learning, the reversion to the classical spirit, antedated the end of the Byzantine Empire by nearly eighty years:

“Circ*mstances favoured a rapid spread of the new culture. The Italian cities, grown rich under democracy, but having tired somewhat of its responsibilities, had been passing into the control of that extraordinary series of despotic rulers who united with a brutal unscrupulousness of character a taste for the best in litera- ture and art without a parallel. It was one of the chief aims to power for a new-made tyrant like Cosimo de’ Medici that he pro- vided the means of existence for talent of every sort. Even the bloody ruffians who, one after another, held power in Milan, made places for scholars and artists, maintained libraries, and encouraged learned research. The ancient universities of Bologna, Padua, and Salerno were reinvigorated by the healthful breath of the new learning and stimulated by the rivalry of the new schools founded by the younger republics. The Papacy, with a free hand after the Council of Basel (1431-1449), passed into the control of a series of men like Nicholas V., Pius 11 ., and Leo X., in whom the interest in learning and art was an absorbing passion. In fact, learning, under the Italian humanistic impulse, may be said to have taken on the form of a fine art and thus to have concealed much of its serious import. Under all these favouring conditions it is not strange that ^Infraj p. 271.

THE EENAISSANCE

271

a certain flippancy of character came to be associated with the clev- erness of the fifteenth-century scholars. The lightness of Boc- caccio had seemed the natural expression of exuberant joy in the natural things of human life. A century later, this sincerity had largely given way to an over-refinement that knew no limits. Everything was permissible in the name of aesthetic experiment. Without in any formal way renouncing their allegiance to Chris- tianity, many became more really interested in philosophy than in doctrine, and increasingly lax in following the ordinary forms of devotion.^’ ^

Here, then, is to be seen what is meant by Humanism as opposed to Mediaevalism. Humanism of course sug- gests humanitas, which to the Roman mind meant fine breeding combined with geniality, careful cultivation, and a certain urbanitas — in other words, the characteristics which to-day mark the one whom we would describe as a gentleman and a scholar. The key-note of Humanism is a toleration of individual tastes and an objection to every form of dogmatism. The mediaevals were dogmatic to a degree. The men of the Renaissance imposed no check upon the aesthetic tastes of others, though they were all bound together by a common love of what was fine and gracious and beautiful.^

Returning to the relations between Byzantium and Italy, we can readily see in the first place that the Renais-

^ See infraf p. 272.

2 Voigt, Die Wiederhelebung des klassischen AUerthums oder das erste Jahrhundert des Humamsmusj 3d ed. (Berlin, 1893); Burckhardt, The Culture of the Renaissance in Italy, Eng. trans. (London, i8g8); and Gasquet, The Eve of the Reformation (London, 1905); Emerton, op, ciU

272 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

sauce antedated the sack of Constantinople by the Turks (1453)- is, indeed, of the utmost importance to clas- sical literature that the general interest in the Recovery of Greek manuscripts began while Constantinople was still an independent Grecian city. Had the Renaissance been postponed, many of the literary treasures brought to Italy in the early part of the fifteenth century to supply the demand of Italian scholars must have remained in Greece to be destroyed in the pillage of Byzantium, where it is traditionally said that at least 120,000 books were taken and burned by the fanatical Turks. As it was, from the year 1400 to 1450, there was an increasingly brisk im- portation of Greek texts into Italy, and an even greater demand for translations of them. Thus, Nicholas V., who, as a monk, had run deeply into debt for manuscripts, became, when Pope, a munificent collector and patron. It was his purpose to have all the Greek classics rendered into idiomatic and lucid Latin. He main- tained himdreds of copyists in his service, and agents in foreign countries were employed by him wholly for procuring codices. It was he who gave to Perotti five hundred ducats ($1200) for translating Polybius into Italian, and to Guarino a thousand gold florins for a like version of Polybius into Latin. He also promised Filelfo the sum of ten thousand gold florins for a metrical render- ing of Homer. Even when the plague drove him and his court from Rome, he took with him all his copyists and

THE RENAISSANCE

273

translators lest he should lose any of them. His collec- tion of books numbered at his death two thousand volumes and became the nucleus of the Vatican Library, Car- dinal Bessarion, the translator of Aristotle and a part of Xenophon, collected, at a cost of thirty thousand gold florins, manuscripts to the number of six hundred. For the safe keeping of these, the Venetian Republic, in 1468, erected a massive building, and thus laid the foundation of the great Library of St. Mark. The noblest Italian collec- tion which existed at this time was that of Frederick of Urbino (1444-1482).^ Even as a boy he had begun to purchase books, and as soon as he reached manhood he kept some forty copyists continually at work. His library was one of the most complete of the age, including a wide range of literature which represented not only theology, but philosophy, medicine, and a list of Greek authors, com- prising all of Sophocles, all of Pindar, and all of Me- nander.^ In his possession were catalogues of all the great libraries of Italy and of foreign libraries, including even

1 Also called Federico di Montefeltro.

2 The complete Menander was probably lost at the sack of Urbino by Cesare Borgia. Scholars hope for the ultimate recovery of books that have been regarded as wholly lost. The Egyptian papyri may prove a valuable source. Thus very recently they have yielded parts of Bac- chylides and Menander. The mediaevals possessed MSS. of authors now lost. We may now look for the missing books of Livy, for the MSS. of Petronius, for all of Menander, and perhaps for the lyric poets like Sappho, Alaeus, and others of whose writings only the veriest fragments are now known to exist. See Burckhardt, op. cU. i. p. 268.

T

274 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

those so far away as Oxford. It is worth noting that his collection contained not only ancient works, but what was then “ modem,” that is to say, contemporary literature — Dante, Petrarca, and Boccaccio. Here was the true type of humanist, and one that modem classical scholars would do well to emulate. Too often they narrow their knowledge to a small comer of a specialty which profits only tvi’o or three, and they ignore the great golden world outside, pulsating with life and filled with millions of things of which no one should be altogether ignorant. The present writer has himself come in contact with pur- blind ignoramuses who were supposed to be classicists but who really knew nothing of the classics, because they were ignorant of the thousand and one things which shed an interpretative light upon classical learning through the varied, multicoloured sources of general literature and history and politics and art These are the creatures who have too often dragged the classics down to the level of their own ignorance. One may wish to-day for a new Renaissance which shall be actuated with the same wide sympathy and the same comprehensive learning that marked the great Revival in the fifteenth century.

But, after all, the greatest services in the recovery of classical texts were rendered, not by popes and princes, but by less distinguished persons who, having little money to , spare, gave the more freely of their time and labour. These went forth like seekers after hidden treasure in a search

THE RENAISSANCE

275

that had for them, in their enthusiasm, all the romantic zest of a new Crusade. It must be remembered that while Italy was ablaze with the ardour of the new revival, the rest of Europe was still plunged m the dulness of Medias- valism. Only here and there had some single scholar yet caught the spirit of the Renaissance. The monasteries were still as somnolent as ever. The schoolmen were still threshing out tlieir mouldy theological chaff. The copy- ists of the North were still erasing Vergil and Catullus and Lucretius to make room for Rabanus Maurus and Duns Scotus.

Into these sleepy haunts came the scholars of Italy, eager to search among the parchments that lay in dusty bundles in the scriptoria, the cellars, and sometimes even the out- houses, for any scroll or scrap that contained the Latin of pagan Rome. The story of these explorations, of the difficulties encoimtered, of the rebuffs experienced, of the disappointments undergone, and of the splendid discoveries achieved, would read like a romance; but it cannot be related here. One name in the history of this period is, however, so closely linked with the recovery of priceless manuscripts, as to justify at least a passing mention, be- cause of the services which he rendered in the revival of learning and more especially in what we may call the exca- vation of texts hitherto unknown. Many scholars have shown their gratitude to him by calling the first half of the fifteenth century “ The Age of Poggio Bracciolini.”

276 HISTOEY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGy

Gian Francesco Poggio Bracciolini ‘ was a Florentine, who, as a young man, gained his living by copying manu- scripts. From his fees he was able to pay for instruction imder two of the greatest teachers of his time — Giovanni da Ravenna in Latin and Manuel Chrysoloras in Greek. Later he became secretaiy to the Roman Curia, and in this capacity he accompanied the great dignitaries of the Church on their ofScial visits to Switzerland, Germany, and even England, so that the notes of these journeys which he made are very interesting from their quaintness and naivete. In 1453, he was made Chancellor to the Republic of Florence, Prior, and Historiographer, in which capacity he wrote the annals of the city in Latin modelled upon that of Livy. Poggio was a man of great versatility, wdde sympathy, and an intense enthusiasm for classical literature. His literary activity was remark- able, even in that era, for he won distinction as an orator,* as an historian,* as a keen though scurrilous controver- sialist,^ as a satirist,* as a writer of very readable epistles,* as an essayist,’ as a translator from the Greek,* and as a compiler of witty though indecent anecdotes and epi- grams.® It is not, however, for these things, nor for his fluent and easy Latin, that he is now remembered. His

^ 1380-1459. * Orator JPublicus of Florence.

® E isiory of Florence. * Against Filelfo (q.v.).

® He attacked chiefly the dergy. ' Espedally regarding his travels.

^ Imitating Seneca. * He translated Xenophon’s Cyropadia.

• Collectively styled Facetia.

THE EENAISSANCE

277

fame to-day rests upon his remarkable discoveries of manuscripts in the convent libraries of Germany and Switzerland chiefly, at Weingarten, Reichenau, and St. Gallen. Without recalling minor details, it is suflicient to say that he brought to light the whole of Quintilian, twelve plays of Plautus, Asconius Pedianus, Ammianus Marcellinus, Nonius Marcellus, Probus, and Flavius Caper, together with a part of Valerius Flaccus. Among his other trouvailles were valuable manuscripts of Lu- cretius, ‘ Columella, Silius Italicus, Vitruvius, Livy, Ma- nilius, Priscian, Frontinus, the Silva of Statius, the oration of Cicero Pro Cacina, and the Aratea. If Poggio’s means permitted him to buy a manuscript, he bought it. If he could not buy it, he copied it. If he could neither buy it nor copy it, he stole it, as in the case of a valuable manuscript of Livy and one of Ammianus at Hersfeld.*

No pains were spared by him, and no fatigues or diffi- culties could discourage him. As his friend Francesco Barbaro wrote: “ No severity of winter cold, no snow, no length of journeying, no roughness of roads, pre- vented him from bringing to light the monuments of literature.” He used his influence with the prelates of flie Church to aid him. A certain Dane had informed

1 This manuscript is one of the three-copies made from a single arche- type which has long been lost. From Poggio’s copy were made all the Italian manuscripts of Lucretius.

^ At least there is no record of his having returned them, as it was his usual practice to note.

278

HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

the Pope that in a Cistercian convent at Roskilde there was a manuscript of Livy containing all of the lost books. Poggio at once persuaded Cardinal Orsini to send a special messenger in search of it, while Cosimo de^ Medici bestirred himself and despatched agents to secure this treasure. The Dane, however, had probably lied, for the manuscript could not be found. Poggio^s own ac- count of how he discovered Quintilian ^ is interesting because it shows that even in the most famous libraries of the North, the books which they contained were very little valued for their own sake. Poggio writes: —

“The monastery of St. Gallen lies some twenty miles from the city. Thither, partly for amusem*nt and partly for the sake of finding books, of which we had heard that there was a large collection in the convent, we directed our steps. In the middle of the weU-stocked library, we discovered Quintilian safe as yet and sound, though covered with dust and filthy from neglect and age. You must know that the books are not housed as they de- serve, but were lying in a most foul and dismal dungeon at the very bottom of a tower, — a place into which condemned crimi- nals would hardly have been thrust. . . . Quintilian was indeed right side to look upon, and ragged like a felon with rough beard and matted hair, protesting by his countenance and garb against the injtistice of his sentence. He seemed to be stretching out his hand and calling on the Romans, begging to be saved from so undeserved a fate.” ®

^ This complete manuscript of Quintilian, Poggio copied with his own hand in thirty-two days and sent it to Leonardo Bruni, who wrote back to him: As Camillus was called the second founder of Rome, so may you receive the title of the second author of the works which you have restored to the world.”

• There is a life of Poggio in English by Shepherd (Liverpool, 1837).

THE RENAISSANCE

279

Side by side with this narrative, we may set the similar account of Boccaccio’s visit to Monte Cassino: ^ —

“ Desirous of saving the collection of books ... he modestly asked the monk to open the library for him as a favour. The monk stiffly answered, as he pointed to a steep staircase: ^ Go up; it is open.’ Boccaccio gladly went up; but he found that the place which held so great a treasure was without a door or key. He entered, and saw grass sprouting on the windows, and all the books and benches thick with dust. Astonished, he began to open and turn the leaves of first one tome and then another, and found many and various volumes of ancient and foreign works. Some of them had lost several sheets. Others were snipped and pared all around the text and mutilated in different ways. . . . Coming to the cloister, he asked the monk whom he met, why these valuable books had been so disgracefully mutilated. The answer was given him that the monks, in order to gain a little money, were in the habit of cutting off sheets and making psalters which they sold to boys. The margins they made into charms and disposed of them to women.”

Other famous discoveries that were made about this time were those of fairly complete manuscripts of Cicero’s letters by Leonardo Bruni (1409), of Cicero’s rhetorical works by Gherardo Lanbriano, at Lodi (1425), and of a fairly complete manuscript of Plautus by Nicholas of Treves (1429). Of the Greek classics the most famous collector was Giovanni Aurispa. In 1423, he arrived at Venice with 238 volumes which he had purchased in Constantinople. Among these were the celebrated Codex

^ Quoted from Benvenuto da Imola, by Symonds, op. cit., pp. 133-134.

28 o

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Laurentianus ^ written, in the tenth century and now pre- served in the Laurentian Museum at Florence. It con- tained six plays of ^Eschylus, seven of Sophocles, and the Argonaiitica of Apollonius Rhodius. There were also the Iliad (Venet. A), the complete text of Demos- thenes, besides Plato, Xenophon, Diodorus, Strabo, Arrian, Athenreus, Lucian, Dio Cassius, and Procopius. So great a mass of treasure in the field of manuscript- collecting was never found by any other individual.

It was about this time that some of the later Byzantines began to be kno'nm in the countries of the West. The name of Manuel Chrysoloras has already been men- tioned. He taught Greek in Florence, Venice, and Rome, and pursued his journeying to the North, where he died, in Germany (1415). He made a literal translation of Plato’s Republic; and his contemporary, Plethon, did much to spread the Platonic philosophy. Theodorus Gaza, in the early part of the fifteenth century, wrote an elementary Greek grammar, and made translations of Aristotle, Theophrastus, .^lian, and Dionysius, besides

^ CodeXj originally meaning a log of wood, later meant wooden tablets covered with wax for writing on, and in after times, when parchment or paper or other materials were substituted for wood and put together in the shape of a book, the name codex was applied to it. In the language of classical scholarship, codex is used of any manuscript edition preserved in the libraries of Europe. Codices are sometimes named after persons ■who possessed them, e.g. the Codex Vossianus, named after the Dutch scholar Voss; but oftener after the places where they had been kept, e.g. Codex Britannicus from the British Museum.

THE EENAISSANCE

281

tu rnin g the De Senectute and the De Amicitia of Cicero into Greek. It must be said, however, that the Italian humanists stood high above the Greeks who came to teach them. The latter were slow and unimaginative and plodding — essentially Byzantine. They were hewers of wood and drawers of water to such brilliant Italians as Francesco Filelfo, itinerant, lecturer and teacher, witty controversialist, collector of manuscripts, and transla- tor of Homer; or his brilliant contemporary, Laurentius Valla (Lorenzo della Valla); or Marsilius Ficinus (Mar- siglio Ficino); or the immensely erudite Angelus Poli- tianus; and especially Petrus Victorias (Pietro Vettori).‘ The men just mentioned have been made the subject of many volumes, and in their lives, their achievements, and their controversies, one finds displayed the virtues and the vices, the enthusiasms, and the illuminating ardour of the Renaissance. Filelfo, roving from place to place, seems like one of the greater Sophists of the time of Socrates.* Valla, though scurrilous like Poggio, prepared in 1444 a volume which he called Elegantie Latini Sermonis. It was essentially a treatise on style, on purity of diction, practically on Ciceronianism. Dur- ing the Middle Ages and later, it was difficult to write Latin with any assurance, since there were no full lexi- cons whose makers had sifted out the classical words from the barbarisms of the preceding centuries, nor

1 1499-1584.

• Supra, pp. 49-51.

282

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

were there any gr amma rs which taught authoritatively what was right and what was wrong in the syntax of the Latin languag;e. Valla did not attempt to indicate bar- barisms; but he took a safe stand on the basis of Cicero’s Latinity. could say that such and such a sentence or such and such a phrase or word was right because it N^s Ciceronian. Other sentences and phrases and words THignt be quite correct, but one could not be sure. That is to say, Valla’s book was a guide to Ciceronians, and was executed with so much care and taste that it imposed upon Italians the Latin that was Cicero’s, and in less than a hundred years it had reached its fifty-ninth edition. Even to-day it may be consulted with profit. Valla, likewise, translated Homer, Herodotus, and Thucydides; while he made an edition of Quintilian with careful attention to the text and doctrine.^

Politianus, who took his name from Monte Puliciano, had a wonderful reputation in his time. He began his studies in both Latin and Greek at Florence under the best teachers, and w'hen scarcely fifteen years of age, he wrote a poem of 140x2 lines celebrating the victory of one of the Medici at a tournament. At seventeen he wrote exquisite Greek poems. Lorenzo de’ Medici made him tutor to his two sons, and afterward gave him

1 See Vahlen, Lorenzo Valla (Vienna, 1870); Nlsard, Les Gladiaieurs de la lUpubliqtie des Lettres, etc. (Paris, 1889); WolfE, Lorenzo VaUa (Leipzig, 1893); Schwahn (Leipzig, 1896); and Symonds, op. oii. pp. 258-265.

THE RENAISSANCE

283

a charming villa where he could study under the most favourable conditions. Being sent as an ambassador from Florence to Rome, he was received in the most flattering manner by the Pope. At the request of His Holiness, he translated Herodianus and received 200 gold crowns as a reward. As a translator, he was inimitable, but he preferred professorial work, filling a chair* of Latin literature in Florence, and also teaching Greek. His fame spread all over Europe, and pupils flocked from the great cities to study under him, among them being the first two English teachers of Greek — Grocyn and Linacre — and Michelangelo. One may rightly say that Politianus was perhaps the most brilliant scholar of the first period of the Renaissance, since he was not only vigorous but original. While able to reproduce the noble periods of Cicero, he could write with equal ease pages which recalled the elegance of Livy and the strength of Tacitus. His Latin verse is especially to be noted for its beauty of expression and for the glow of its author’s imagination.^

As for Victorius, he stands as the greatest philologist and critic of his century. His life was one of wide experi- ence, for he was at various times a soldier, a diplomat, and a teacher of Greek and Latin. He made text editions and commentaries on Cicero, which surpassed in acute- ness the work of his contemporaries. Like Politianus,

^ See Grcsswell, Lif& of Politian (London, 1805).

284 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

he translated some of the works of Aristotle. Editions with notes were put forth on parts of iEschylus, Sophocles, Xenophon, Terence, Sallust, Varro, Isasus, and some less known Grecians. But his most remarkable production is his VaricB Lectiones^ in thirty-eight books (1582). It shows beyond all question the acuteness of his criticism and the vast extent of his reading.^ He had the honour of being painted by Titian, and of being sought out by students from all countries in Europe.

Victorius was especially interesting in his criticism and exposition of Aristotle’s Poetics- He interpreted the famous KddapcrLi in 1560, very much as Roborteli had done twelve years before, and as Castelvetro did ten years later. In his criticism, he attacks the notion of poetic prose, because Aristotle in defining the poetic forms makes verse always an essential. Professor Spin- garn notes that the phrase poetic prose” is used, perhaps for the first time, by Minturno (1564) in his Arte Poetica-

The two great names of Politianus and Victorius shine forth to give splendour to the closing years of the first period of the Renaissance, which is perhaps best called the Italian Period. It had witnessed the dawn of the Rew Learning. It had watched the enthusiastic revival of pagan culture, and it had restored to Western Europe immense treasures of ancient lore.^ By the end of the

^ See Creuzer, Opusc, ii. pp. 21-36 (Frankfurt, 1854); Rudinger, Petrus Victorius (Halle, 1896).

^ The immense demand for manuscripts of lost authors rather natu-

THE RENAISSANCE 285

fifteenth centuiy, and even by the middle of that cen- tury, this remarkable movement had swept onward to the North and was nearing its height in countries re- mote from Italy, but owing to Italy their inspiration. The first breath of the Renaissance was soon felt in France, with which Italy had such close relations, then in Germany, in Belgium and Holland, in England, and in Spain and Portugal. Perhaps the close of the Italian Renaissance may be regarded as almost coincidental with the Introduction of printing. The typographical art was very gradually developed in Italy and Spain. At first, initial letters in manuscripts were stamped in ink from engraved blocks of wood. Then these engraved blocks were used for making playing cards, for orna- menting woven fabrics, religious pictures with or without lettering, engraved words without pictures, and finally the wooden blocks developed into types of single letters founded in a mould.

Who first employed these movable types, no one can surely say. It makes no difference, however, whether

rally led to an extraordinary number of literary frauds. A great many skilful scribes who were also men of ability made large sums by writing on parchments spurious works which they ascribed to the Greeks or Romans of renown. This was not a new thing, since as far back as the Alexandrian School many fictitious odes of Sappho were in circula- tion, and likewise didactic sayings wrongly ascribed to Theognis, and erotic songs to Anacreon. See Gudeman, “Literary Frauds among the Greeks” in Classical Studies in Honour of Henry Drisler (New York, 1894).

286

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

we name Gutenberg or Coster or the unknown workman who is said to have stolen the invention from Coster at Mainz in Germany and then to have made small mov- able printing presses. There are also the names of Fust and Schoffer. Certain it is that printing was known about 1430, and that regular presses were set up about 1448. We may, therefore, say that the year 1450 marks the End of the Italian Renaissance. The introduction of printing was of immense importance to men of learning, for it multiplied copies of the best-known classics, and by putting the apparatus for critical work into the hands of every scholar, it paved the way for a general and com- parative scientific study of classical texts.^ The use of printing spread with remarkable rapidity. The great centres of book production were Venice, Rome, Cologne, Strassburg, Nuremberg, Augsburg, and Mainz. Before the close of the fifteenth centuiy, there were twenty-two printing establishments at Cologne, twenty at Augsburg, seventeen at Nuremberg, and sixteen at Strassburg.^ The most famous printers, whose names continually appear in the history of early editions, were Fust and Schoffer at Mainz, John Auerbach at Basel (1492-1516), Zell at Cologne, the Aldi at Venice (1490-1597),® John Froben

^ See Prutz, TJie Age of the Renaissance (New York, 1902).

2 See Cotton, Typographical Gazetteer y 3d ed. (Oxford, 1832-1866).

• See Brunet, Manuel de LibrairCj etc., 8 vols. (Paris, 1880); De Vinne,

The Invention of Printing (New York, 1878); Hoe, A Short History of the Printing Press (New York, 1902); and Faubnan, Geschichte der Buch^ trwkverkunst (Vienna, 1882).

THE RENAISSANCE

287

at Basel (1496-1527), and Christopher Plantin at Antwerp (1554-1589). The first press to be set up in England was that of William Caxton in 1477. The first press in the Western Hemisphere was established in the city of Mexico in 1540; and the first to be set up in the British Colonies in North America dates from 1638 at Harvard College and still survives under the name of the University Press.^

Hence, the first great impulse toward the freer spirit of ancient times swept over Italy, surging on to other countries, where its influence took many forms. The Renaissance was in reality not so much a new epoch, but rather a harking-back to the civilisation of classical antiquity, which it modified to suit the New World of Southern Europe. In classical scholarship, we find, as in the early days of Greece and Rome, first, the accumu- lation of material for study; the expansion of that study in various ways; the development of Criticism^ which calls into its service many ancillary studies — Palaeo- graphy,® Epigraphy,^ Numismatics, a knowledge of the

^ The first printed editions of classical authors is interesting. Thus the editio prmceps of any ancient was printed at Rome and was a copy of Cicero, De Officiis, in 1465. The first work printed in Greek was the 'Epwrijyuttrtt of Constantinus Lascaris (Milan, 1476). Theretofore, in printed Latin books, Greek words had been inserted with a pen. This work of Lascaris was set up according to its parts at various places and times, and gathered together by Aldus into one book (1495).

2 See Spingam, History of Literary Criticism in the Renaissance (New York, 1899).

® As with Giovanni Aurispa.

^ As with Cyriacus of Ancona, who said that inscriptions seemed to give a greater reason and a truer knowledge than even books themselves.

288

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Graphic and Plastic Arts,^ Architecture,^ and Jinally the invention of a means for making the apparatus criticus of learning accessible to every one.

Thus, the Renaissance, though not, as Michelet de- scribes it, “ the discovery of the World and Man,’’ was, as Walter Pater said, a love of the things of the intellect and the imagination for their own sake.” It was an intellectual sunburst, which restored to modem times all that was glorious in the centuries of Greek and Roman culture. Dr. Sandys points out that the metaphor of a new birth was first associated with the earliest revival of learning, under Charlemagne, by Modoin, the Bishop of Autim, in this golden line: —

Aurea Roma iterum renovata renascitur orbi.®

^ As with Donatello and later with Michelangelo and Bramante.

2 As with Brunelleschi (1377-1446), one of the greatest architects of the Renaissance. It was he who, more than any other, revived the Ro- man or classic forms of architecture.

® For a critical history of the Renaissance see Voigt, Die Wiederbe- lebung des KlassiscJmi AUerthums, 3d ed. (Berlin, 1893); Burckhardt, GeschicJite der Renaissance in Italien (Stuttgart, 1890-1891); id., KuUur der Renaissance in Italien^ 8th ed. (Leipzig, 1901); Symonds, The Re- naissance m Italy (London, 1887); Walter Pater, Studies in the History of the Renaissance (London, 1888); Vernon Lee, Etiphorion (London, 1 884); Scott, The Renaissance of Art in Italy (London, 1888); Einstein, The Italian Renaissance in England (New York, 1902); Miintz, Precursori e Propugnatori del Rinascimento (Florence, 1902); Sandys, Lectures on the Reroival of Learning (Cambridge, 1905); id., op. cit. pp. 1-123); Saintsbuiy, A History of Criticism, i. pp. 456-466; ii. 1-108 (London, 1901-1902); and for a convenient summary, Pearson, A Short History of the Renaissance (Boston, 1893). See De Vinne, Notable Printers of Italy during the Fifteenth Century (New York, 1910).

VII DIVISION INTO PERIODS

As we have seen already, the inspiration given by Ital- ian scholars extended rapidly over the whole of Europe. The first century or more is what is properly to be called the Renaissance itself; but since its effects have lasted down to the present day, it may be said that we, our- selves, are still living and experiencing the results of that great revival. Many scholars, therefore, would regard the Renaissance as continuing down into the twentieth century, calling the periods (i) the Italian, (2) the French, (3) the English and Dutch, (4) the Ger- man, and (5) the Cosmopolitan. This is a convenient mode of grouping the great personalities who were con- spicuous in their respective periods; but roughly we may set down the fifty years or so which followed the begin- ning of the Italian Renaissance as the Post-Renaissance Period, In it we see the fruits of Italian culture gradually distributed throughout the different countries of Europe, until there were developed many schools of learning, each having a tinge of distinctive nationality,^

^ See Nisard, op. ciU, passim; P 5 kel, Schriftstellerlexikon (Leipzig, 1882); and Michaud, Biograpkie Universelle^ Ancienne et Mod&rne, last edition, 45 vols. (Paris. 1843-1 S65).

VIII. THE AGE OF ERASMUS

While the impulse given by Italy and Italian scholarship was quickly felt in every country, the other countries needed someone of commanding personality who should be able to interpret this great intellectual movement to the schools and peoples of Northern Europe. The New Learning must not be imitative, and therefore it must not remain Italian; but after its fundamental principles should be accepted, they must be dealt with according to the national instinct and temperament of each of the peoples of the North. He whose mission it was to per- form this splendid work, and thus to stamp his memory upon the period of transition, was Desiderius Erasmus, the greatest humanist who has ever lived, and in whom Humanism itself is vividly personified. The facts about his life, as Professor Emerton has said, form a sort of Erasmus-legend, since they are taken from passages in his writings which have been styled autobiographical, though the author himself never so allowed them to be called. There remain also 1500 letters from his pen (for he was a voluminous and ready writer); representing at least 500 different correspondents — people of every grade in

290

ERASMUS

291

life, from the most lowly to those who sat on thrones. It may be added that a letter from Erasmus was regarded by a king as being no less precious and no less an honour than was a letter from the same writer to a village school- master. So great became his influence and so widespread his fame, that the fifty years from i486 to 1536 constitute in themselves a period which may itself be called almost

The Age of Desiderius Erasmus.’’

Desiderius Erasmus was bom at Rotterdam. Ac- cording to tradition he was an illegitimate son, who was, nevertheless, lovingly cared for by his parents until they both died when he was fifteen years of age.^ He was taught in the well-known school at Deventer, and later at Bois-le-Duc, where he says that he wasted ” some three years, suffering from the narrowness and the discomfort of his life. Finally, he entered the monastery near Gouda, and during the ten years of his stay there, he took priestly orders. In 1492 — significant year! — he left the mon-

^ The father of Erasmus was called, in his native Dutch, Gsert or Gerard; hence the name of Erasmus in the vernacular was Gaert Gaert’s. This name, Erasmus himself Latinized and Graecized into Desiderius Erasmus. The powerful and historically accurate novel by Charles Reade, The Cloister and the Hearth, gives a fictitious account of the elder Gsert. The book may be commended to the most serious reader, since it displays the later Middle Ages and the early Renaissance in minute detail, while yet its careful knowledge has been fused by the genius of a great writer into something that is singularly consistent and alive. George Eliot’s Romola is pale and introspective beside this masterpiece of Reade, in which every page displays the author’s virility and erudition.

292 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHTLOLOGY

astery, and, taking up his abode at Paris, he began what we should now describe as a literary career. But having regard for the different conditions at that time, he might better be termed an independent scholar, teaching and writing, and thus making an income which brought him, together with fame and many favours, the right of living as he would and where he would. His mind was stimu- lated by much travel, for he passed to Louvain, to England, to Basel, to Freiburg, and he spent three years of his life in Italy. But here we note a curious fact: that the man w'ho was to spread Italian culture through the North ■was himself a son of the North, receiving in the North the foimdations of his genial and brilliant scholarship. He was, however, in fact, a genuine citizen of the world, a true cosmopolite, equally at home in every country, and always sure of a friendly greeting. How thoroughly denational- ized Erasmus 'was may be seen in the fact that when he was offered a readership at Louvain he declined it, because he was not sufficiently familiar with the Dutch language — his native tongue! It is, indeed, quite certain that, though he lived at times in Paris, he understood little French; that, though he was frequently in Germany, he knew no German; and that, however greatly he admired Italy, his kno'wledge of Italian w^as very slight. In fact, his only language was the language of the cultivated world over which he reigned as king, — a sort of Latin, which he spoke ■with the utmost fluency. Its syntax was

EEASMUS

293

purely classical. Its vocabulary was adapted and en- larged so as to mention modem things. But this adapta- tion and enlargement were largely effected by the influence of Analogy, so that his newly coined words seemed as purely Roman as did the newly coined words of Plautus.^ Having a perfect command of this noble instrument of speech, he could travel from country to coimtry, and meet the distinguished men of every centre of learning without considering whether their native tongue happened to be French or English or Dutch or German or Italian. Latin, adapted to every condition or state of life, rich for the eloquence of the orator, easy and playful for the genial converse of social life, majestic and sonorous for die stately ceremonies of religion, — here was the lingua lingmmm in ■ this Golden Age of scholarship and letters.

The personality of Erasmus was so delightful that in every county, in every town, and especially in every abode of learning, he was welcomed as a friend and almost as a monarch. Indeed, more than one king urged him to attach himself to the royal court, and by his mere presence give to it an additional lustre. But Erasmus cared little for courts. He preferred the sympathetic companionship of such men as William Grocyn, who first taught Greek at Oxford, of the great Chancellor of England, Sir Thomas More, and of Archbishop Warham, who settled upon him a liberal income for life. He was one of the group

• See sv,pra, pp. 145-147.

294 HIST 05 .Y OF CLASSICAL PHLCOLOGY

of cultivated men who gathered around the famous publisher, John Froben, at Basel; and in like manner, he was an intimate friend of the Venetian publisher, Aldus Manutius, and knew well all the members of the circle associated w’ith the Aldine Press.*

His writings fall under several heads. At first, he criticised some of the abuses which had sprung up in the Catholic Church, and he made fun of the scholastic method in philosophy. The drift of many of his works is to show that forms are of little value in religion, while the spirit of genuine piety is everything. A second phase of the life- work of Erasmus is found in his editions of the works of Aristotle and Demosthenes, with translations, in part, of Euripides, Lucian, and the Moralia of Plutarch. Of Latin authors, not including the Patristic writers, he edited Terence and parts of Cicero and Livy. More important than these achievements, and in fact quite epoch-making, was his critical revision of the New Testament. We have already seen that such a stupendous undertaking had been suggested by Lorenzo Valla, in his Annotations to the New T estament? Erasmus, in a preface to this work of Valla’s, pointed out the obvious fact that no correct translation of the Bible could be made except by a trained linguist, and

^ See supra^ p. 286.

® Supraj pp. 241, 281-2. This tractate by Valla seems to have been recovered by Erasmus in the year 1505. It represents the starting-point in Biblical criticism and exegesis.

ERASMUS

29s

that the original Greek manuscripts ought to be carefully revised and compared. Evidently, he began at once to equip himself for such an undertaking; for in 1 5 1 2 — seven years later — he writes to the Englishman, John Colet, the founder of St. Paul’s School, and says that he has already collated the New Testament with the ancient Greek manu- scripts, and that he has annotated it in more than a thou- sand places.

The work, when completed, was published at the press of Froben in Basel. It is very easy to criticise it now, and in its own time it was criticised chiefly because Erasmus never attained the sure knowledge of Greek that some of his contemporaries possessed.^ He himself once said:

My Greek studies are almost too much for my courage, while I have not the means of securing books or the help of a master.” He also wrote that “ without Greek the amplest erudition in Latin is imperfect.” This, of course, was in his early years. Long afterward he rendered into Latin the Greek grammar of Theodorus Gaza, while his Greek texts mark the climax of his learning.^ It is also to be noted that in 1528 he published a dialogue called Ciceronianus, in which he discussed Latin style, protesting against limiting modem Latin to a pedantic imitation of

^For instance, Guillaume Bud6 (Gulielmus Budaeus), the French philologist, who was a distinguished Grecian, much superior to Erasmus. See his Life by E. de Bud6 (Paris, 1884).

® Such as his translations and editions already mentioned, besides his critical works on some of the Greek Fathers.

296 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

the vocabulary and phraseology of Cicero.* This was interesting as marking the coming break between the Italian School of Latinity, which was strictly Ciceronian, and the other schools which were presently to arise in Northern countries. In the same year he also wrote his treatise on the correct pronunciation of Latin and Greek.* With regard to Greek, he established a pronunciation which has been practically adopted in all the Northern countries of Europe and in the United States, and which is known after him as “ the Erasmian Prommciation.” Somewhat later another method, called “ the Reuchlinian Method,” was proposed,* and was known for its “lotacism” because of the vowels, % v, ei, and vi, all have the sound of i in the word machine. It might have been argued that, since Greek remains a living language, scholars ought to pronounce it as the Greeks of that day pronounced it; but many changes had crept in since the classical period, so that the pronunciation of educated Greeks was known to differ very largely from the ancient pronunciation. Hence, as a common standard, most countries have held to the Erasmian method.

As to the pronunciation of Latin in the time of Erasmus, it was largely that of the Italians, a fact made

‘ Infra, p. 303.

• See W. G. Clark in the (English) Journal of Philology, i. 2; 98-108.

• By Johann Reuchlin (loannes Capnio), an admirable Grecian, and also an erudite Hebrew scholar, who lived in the time of Erasmus, and was regarded as second in learning only to him.

ERASMUS

297

evident by Erasmus himself in his use of one pronuncia- tion in whatever country he might be, and before what- ever universities he might lecture. Scholars retained for all practical purposes the most essential features of it, because, coming from all the countries of Europe and fraternising everywhere, this intercourse tended to main- tain a general tradition which was not seriously disturbed for some time after.*

Erasmus, though easy-going and fond of social pleasure, nevertheless accomplished an amount of serious work which is prodigious when one gathers it together and views it as a whole. Concerning his semi-theological works this is no place to speak; and yet they give a very char- acteristic picture of his mental attitude toward life, and toward all things that have to do with life. In the early part of his career he wrote books which, with keen wit, satirised the failings of the clergy. Such were his Adagia (1508), his Encomium Moria, or Praise of Folly (1509), and especially his famous or dialogues (1524),* which

abound in lively satire, and flashes of inimitable wit.

' See Erasmus, De Recta Latini Grceciqm Sermonis Promnciatione (Basel, 1528); Zacher, Die Aussprache des Griechiscken (Leipzig, 1888); Blass, The Fromnciation of Ancient Greek, Eng. trans. (Cambridge, 1890); and Corssen, UeberAiisspracke etc, der Lateinischen Sprache (Berlin, 1870).

^ His writings may be classed as {a) theological; (b) satirical; (c) educational; (d) philological; {e) critical; (/) literary; as in his very numerous letters, and (g) expository in such lectures and discourses as he chose to give in a delightfully unconventional way.

298 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

But when Martin Luther broke with the Church, and declared his independence of the Papacy, Erasmus could not follow him. His tranquil good sense, while it ad- mitted that certain abuses were temporarily to be seen, had no sympathy with Luther, but believed that all these wrongs would right themselves through the wisdom of the Church itself. Therefore, he refused to break with the splendid traditions of papal Rome, and he died a Catholic, although not greatly heeding external forms in his religion. This fact deserves mention here because it shows how truly and unfeignedly Erasmus was a hu- manist — as truly as was Horace in the Augustan Age at Rome. His motto might well have been that of the genial poet who praised the Golden Mean, and who declared: —

“Est modus in rebus, sunt certi denique fines,

Quos ultraque dtraque nequit consistere rectum.”

Professor Emerton does not admit that Erasmus was a genius; yet who but a very great genius could have accom- plished what was accomplished by Erasmus? Who, at that particular moment, could have been so absolutely the Man of his Time? He exercised, by his peculiarly winning personality, an influence which was felt all over Europe. He was a king of letters, a man of extraordinary reading, of a sane and yet brilliant and original mind, a contributor in a score of ways to the progress of learning and the uni- fication of classical philology. All his influence was for

ERASMUS

299

good. There was no blot upon his character, and his aspirations were always noble. He had no personal pride as to his own accomplishments; he was a friend of all the world.^’ The work which he performed in all these different ways was a serious one, and it was seriously expressed by Erasmus in two sentences that were penned by him in the year before his death: —

I used my best endeavours to free the rising genera- tion from the depths of ignorance, and to inspire it with a thirst for better studies. I wrote, not for Italy, but for Germany and the Netherlands.’’ ^

Important Editiones Prinopes op the Fifteenth Century I. Greek

1481. Theocritus {Id, i.-xvm.), together with Hesiod, Works and Days,

1488. Homer (ed. Chalcondylas). Valla’s Latin trans. of the Iliad was printed as early as 1474.

1495. Hesiod, Opera omnia (Aldus).

1495-98. Aristotle (Aldus).

^ Erasmus, Operas ix, 1440 (Basel, 1540). See the lives of Erasmus and the studies of his character and work by De Laur (Paris, 1872); Nisard, Erasmi Epistolm, i (1484-1514), edited by P, S. Allen (Oxford, 1906); Jebb, Erasmus (London, 1890); Froude, Erasmus (London, 1894); Emerton, Erasmus (Cambridge, 1899); Pennington, Erasmus (London, 1901). See also Nichols, The Epistles of Erasmus (1901-1904); Wood- ward, Erasmus on Education^ (New York, 1904); De Nolhac, Erasme en Italie (Paris, 1888); and Sandys, Lectures on the Remval of Learning, pp. 162-167, and pp. 177-178 (Cambridge, 1905).

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

300

1496. Euripides, Med., Hypp., Ale., Androm. (Lascaris), Apollonius (Lascaris), Lucian (in Florence).

1498. Aristophanes (exd. Lys. and Thesm.).

1499. Aratus {In Astronomi veil. ap. Aldum).

EE. Latin.

1465. Cicero, Be Qfficiis. First printed edition of a classical author. Cf. art. ‘‘Typography’’ in Encycl. Brit. Lactantius (Rome).

1469. Cassar, Vergil, Livy, Lucan, Apuleius, Gellius (Rome).

1470. Persius, Juvenal, Martial, Quintilian, Suetonius (Rome).

Tacitus, Juvenal, Sallust, Horace (Venice), Terence (Strassburg).

1471. Ovid (Rome, Bonn), Nepos (Venice).

1472. Plautus (G. Merula), Catullus, Tibullus,' Propertius

Statius (Venice).

1473. Lucretius (Brixise).

1474. Valerius Flaccus (Bonn).

1475. Seneca (Prose Works), Sallust (first volume issued in

octavo).

1484. Seneca (Tragedies) at Ferrara.’

1485. Pliny the Younger (Venice).

1498. Cicero, Opera Omnia}

^ See Brunet, Manuel de Libraire, 8 vols. (Paris, 1880); Schuck, Aldus Manutius und seine Zeitgenossen (Berlin, 1862); Didot, Aide Manuce, pp. kviii and 647 (Paris, 1875).

IX. THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM

The task of Erasmus had been the binding together of Northern energy and Southern culture. He had prac- tically made the whole world of Western Europe one in everything which pertained to scholarship. Learned men came and went with perfect freedom from country to coimtry, from monastery to monastery, and from court to court, needing no passport, save the cachet of a liberal education. But this age of enlightenment was to last only for a short time. Even while Erasmus lived, the so-called Protestant Reformation burst forth in Germany, and soon divided all of Europe into hostile camps. What- ever may be one’s religious belief, he can but regret the effect which this religious antagonism had upon the immediate future of classical scholarship. It divided coimtries according to the dogmas of their princes. It put a sudden and grievous end to the genial intercourse of humanists. It made the great universities appear like hostile fortresses, from which the inmates no longer sent forth works of learning for the benefit of every land alike; but rather missiles in the shape of angry tracts or ponderous tomes that wasted learning and altered the mellow geniality

301

302

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

of Humanism into yelpings and vituperation, scattering vile language all over Europe. Thus, the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge in England, of Leyden and Utrecht in Holland, of Marburg, Konigsberg, and Jena in Germany, thundered out their theological fulminations on the Protestant side, while from Wurzburg, Gratz, Innsbruck, Paris, and Louvain, learned treatises were mingled with the most scurrilous abuse of Protestant scholars who had written on the same subject.^ Nevertheless, the odium theologicum could not alto- gether eliminate the love of what had belonged to the earlier epoch. Luther might rage in Germany; and the papal sword might flash in Italy; while Holland and England drew together in a political and scholarly union, and France went its own way. Catholic as yet, but liberally so. The difference lay in the fact that scholarship took on different forms in different countries. The learned world was not united as it had been in the days of Erasmus. Young Englishmen had formerly visited Italy and Paris to pursue their studies; but now they went to Leyden or to Utrecht. The German student, according to his faith, went to a school or university where that faith was taught. The young Frenchman studied at one or another of the universities that were Catholic. Thus, classical scholar- ship in Europe became national rather than universal. As for Italy, its scholars had remained true to the early ^ See Nisard, Les Gladiateurs de la RipubUque de Lettres (Paris, 1889).

THE PERIOD OP NATIONALISM 303

Renaissance, so that the Italian School remained Cicero- nian to the last degree, following closely the precepts of Lorenzo Valla. Its Latin was wholly that of Cicero. Not a word, nor a phrase, nor a line was tolerated, save when it could be shown absolutely to have the purity of diction and the rhythmic cadence of the great Roman orator. It is extraordinary to leam what pains were taken to secure this perfect imitation. Thus Cardinal Pietro Bembo was probably the most perfect imitator of Cicero that ever lived.^ His Latin in every shade, in every note, in every inflection, recalls the Latin of his master and model. It is related that he would not speak Latin with any casual scholar, lest by doing so he should mar the perfection of his own Latinity. Herein he was very different from Erasmus, whose colloquial style had been syntactically correct, while yet allowing his own personality to appear in everytliing that he wrote and said. This individual touch of his gave popularity to all his writings. He had special characteristic, of his own, — so that one could feel in all that was Erasmian the pungent wit, the sympathetic mood, and the geniality of the man him- self. But Bembo and his fellow Cardinal, Sadoleto,^ the most distinguished representatives of the Italian School, wasted themselves on style alone. What they wrote and spoke was delightfully conceived in the Ciceronian manner.

• 1470-1547. See S3rmonds, The Renaissance in Italy, ii. pp. 409-415.

’ 1477-1547. See Joly, Ektde sur Sadolet (Caen, 1857).

304 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

but it had no force, no personal power to attract the listener. One felt that the writer or speaker was too self-conscious, and too much afraid of making a slight slip here or there. Hence the Italian School remained a school of literature, contenting itself with the authors of the Golden Age, whom they read and reread and annotated from a strictly literary point of view. It was a school of style — style always, and, therefore, style that degenerated into puerility.

As classical learning penetrated the countries North and West of Italy, it took on a more independent form. It, likewise, began to show a touch of the critical element, and also a desire to provide both instruments and aids for scholarly activity. Thus, in Italy, although many vocabu- laries and glossaries were produced, they were scattered and fragmentary, and each represented half a dozen others. It was in 1483, that loannes Crastenus printed the first Greek-Latin vocabulary, which increased in size as it passed through several editions. In 1497 a much more complete work of the same character was issued from the Aldine Press, and this was speedily followed by lexi- cons bearing the name of Calepinus, Budd (Budasus), Gessner, Constantine, and others. Most important is the dictionary of Budd (Paris, 1529; Basel, 1530). It was re-edited and much enlarged by Robert Etierme, (Paris, 1548). This dictionary is the first to have been published after the Renaissance. It is particularly exact in its explanation of legal terms. Robert Etienne, or, as

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM

305

he called himself, Robertas Stephanas (absurdly styled by the English, “ Robert Stephens was at once a printer and a man of learning; and his son, Henri Etienne, or, as he called himself, Henricus Stephanas,^ were two very important figures in the history of classical studies in France. The father issued carefully collated editions of Horace, Dionysius Halicamassensis, and Dio Cassius. But his most important production was his Latin dic- tionary {Thesaurus Linguce Latina)^ which appeared in parts during the years’ 1531-1536. It was not an entirely original work, being based upon the vocabulary of Bude, yet for a long time no better lexicon was known to Europe. Henri Etienne, in 1572, published a work that is most remarkable. It was a Greek lexicon in five volumes {Thesaurus Linguce Grcecce ) . It defined more than 100,000 Greek words with references to authorities. It was a compilation of remarkable industry and scholarship, and was many times re-edited — last of all by Dindorf (Paris, 1856 foil.). To this day, it remains unrivalled as being the most complete lexicon of Greek known to the world.

France was now the mother of a brilliant group of schol- ars, or at least the centre to which they flocked. The College de France, established by Francis I, gave shelter and recognition to many very remarkable men, constituting

1 See Egger, VHelUnisme en France, 2 vols. (Paris, 1869); id. pp. 198 foil.; Pattison, Essays, i. 62-124 (Oxford, 1889); Feug^re, Essai sur la Vie et les Ouvrages de Henri Etienne (Paris, 1853); P6kel, s.zi.; and Lefranc, Eistoire du ColUge de France (Paris, 1893).

3o6 history or classical philology

what may be roughly called the French School of Classical Philology. This school was noted for its acute criticism and its wide range of encyclopaedic knowledge. With the Etiennes must be reckoned the memorable names of Adrien Tumebe (Hadrianus Tumebus),^ who was the greatest Greek scholar of his time; Denis Lambin (Dionysius Lambinus) Director also of the Royal Printing Establish- ment; Marc Antoine Muret (Marcus Antonius Muretus),^ one of the greatest stylists of any period; Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange/ a writer on Low Latin, whose glos- saries are still in vogue, and have been many times re- edited; Bernard de Montfaucon,^ the founder of scientific Palaeography; and greatest of all, Isaac Casaubon (Casau- bonus),6 whose prodigious learning was surpassed by only one man of his own time or for centuries after.

^ 1512-1565, See Pokel, op. cit.j s.v.; and Clement, De Adriani Turnenbi Fraefationihiis, p. 7 (Paris, 1899).

^ 1520-1572. See Mattaire, Historia Typographorum Aliquot Parisi- endum (London, 1717); the appendix to OTfAH, Onomasticon CiceroniSj i. pp. 478-491 (Zurich, 1861), 3d ed.; and the preface to Munro’s Lucretius i pp. 14-16.

^ 1526-1585. His orations and a part of his other works are printed; Teubner edition, ed. by Frey (Leipzig, 1887-1888); Pattison, Essays, i. 124-132, last ed. (Oxford, 1889); and Dejob, Marc Antoine Muret (Paris, 1861).

^ 1 61 0-1688. See Hardouin, Essai sur la Vie et les Ouwages de du Cange (Paris, 1849).

® 1655-1741. See de Broglie, La SocUU de VAhhaye de Saint-Ger- main, 2 vols. (Paris, 1891).

®.i559“i6i 4. The standard life of Isaac Casaubon must apparently always remain that of Mark Pattison, ed. by Nettleship, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1892).

THE PEEIOD OF NATIONAXISM 307

Tumebus was the most celebrated Grecian, of this period, and his mind was intensely critical. Beside editing several Greek and Roman authors, he wrote commentaries on Varro de Lingua Laiina, and on Horace. He likewise left thirty books of Adversaria, consisting of notes and critical comments, many of which were brilliant and of great value. Lambinus is to be remembered as having first made the text of Lucretius fairly intelligible. Before his time, whole passages had been impossible to read. But the critical mind of Lambinus threw light upon what had been dark, and by judicious emendation he gave to the world an edi- tion of the great Epicurean, upon which Lachmann after- ward based his epoch-making work. Lambinus spent eleven years in Rome and devoted himself to the collation of manuscripts in the Vatican Library. At the end of that time (1561), he was called to Paris as Professor of Greek and Latin, and employed his profound learning with sobri- ety and admirable results, so tliat not only his editions of Lucretius, but those also of Plautus, Cicero, and Horace make his memory a very special one in the minds of classi- cal scholars. Few of his contemporaries had such vast learning, and few had such profound knowledge'of an au- thor’s style. He died of apoplexy, caused by the murders of St. Bartholomew’s night. Modem commentators owe to Lambinus much of the material which they use without giving credit to this splendid scholar of the French Renais-

sance.

3o8 history of classical philology

His contemporaiy, Muretus, spent several years as his companion in Rome, and became well known for his work in editing various classical authors, such as Terence, Ca- tullus, Tibullus, Propertius, and Seneca. As a critic he produced a volume of Varies Lectiones, but he was most renowned for the purity of his Latin style. At the age of eighteen he wrote Latin with great fluency and ease, and afterwards in the University of Paris his orations in Latin seemed as splendid as those of Cicero. They were read indeed in schools side by side with Cicero as late as the end of the eighteenth century, and various editions were made of them.

One of the greatest of the Post- Renaissance scholars was Isaac Casaubon (Casaubonus), who deserved the title which Varro bore of being essentially a rroXvta-rap. One of his contemporaries declared: “ He is the most learned of all men who live to-day.” He was bom in Geneva, the son of a Huguenot minister, from whom he received all his instruc- tion until he reached the age of nineteen. In these troubled years the family often had to flee from home to save their lives from their armed opponents. Pattison relates that, while hiding in a cave, Isaac received his first lesson in Greek. At nineteen he was sent to the Academy (now the University) of Geneva, where he studied Greek under Portus, a Cretan. When Portus died he recommended his learned pupil as his successor, and thus at the age of twenty- three he became Professor of Greek. Four years later he

THE PERIOD or NATIONALISM 309

was called to a like position in Montpellier, but there, as at Geneva, he suffered from lack of a sufficient library. Shortly afterward he went to Paris, owing to the influence of Henry IV. His Calvinism prevented him from receiving a professorship in the University, and instead he was made Royal Librarian, a position which he held until the murder of the King, when he felt his position insecure; so that in 1610 he crossed the Channel to England, where James I showed him great favour and made him prebendary of Canterbury Cathedral and Westminster. In the great abbey he lies buried. Casaubon was immensely erudite both in theological and in classical scholarship. As a theologian he wrote a work on ecclesiastical freedom (1607) > and especially his Exercitationes Contra Baronium (1614), in which he sharply attacked the chronological work of Cardinal Baronius.^

Casaubon was not brilliant, nor was he possessed of so keen and searching a mind as that of his great contem- porary Scaliger, but his tolerant spirit and enormous read- ing made him famous throughout Europe. Until he came to Paris he had been greatly hampered by the lack of books.

1 Caesar Baronius, who became Cardinal in 1596 and librarian of the Vatican (1597), was the author of the work mentioned above, a chronology from the birth of Christ to 1198 a.d. It cost him twenty-seven years of labour, and has been added to in modem times, even as recently as 1864. Baronius was a clever and diverting writer, but Casaubon charged him with many errors, owing to his ignorance of Greek and Hebrew. He died in 1607, and, therefore, never lived to read the attack upon him by Casaubon.

310 HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGy

At Geneva and at Montpellier there were no libraries of importance. He was obliged to borrow necessary volumes from other scholars to whose homes he walked great dis- tances. These volumes he copied laboriously with his own hand, and it is said that in the case of smaller books, he memorised them. Such practices, while tiresome, fixed in his memory the texts themselves and made him exceedingly exact in his learning. Many coimtries sought him out; but it was in England that his final home was made. He was welcomed at all the universities, and was especially agreeable to the King (James I), who was fond of theo- logical discussion. In fact, on one occasion, when there was some difficulty about paying his pension, the King wrote with his own hand: —

“ Chanceler of my Excheker, I will have Mr. Casaubon paid before me, my wife, and my bames.”

It was also by the personal intervention of King James that Casaubon’s library, which had been stored in Paris, was sent over to England. The English people could hardly understand such favour, and Casaubon became very unpop- ular. He could speak no English, and his scholarship was not appreciated by the mob. Consequently, he was always in danger of some ruffianly assault. At night his windows were broken, and by day his children were stoned in the streets. In France, of course, after he had definitely de- cided not to return from England, he was equally disliked, being regarded as a renegade who had sold his religious

THE PERIOD OP NATIONALISM 3II

belief for English gold. He died in the year which wit- nessed the publication of a great controversial work which was, nevertheless, wholly unworthy of his powers.

Casaubon was a man of encyclopaedic knowledge. He was as familiar with out-of-the-way authors, such as those of the Historia Augusta^ and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, as with the better-known classics, such as Persius and Polybius. During the four years of his visit in England, he contributed little to Classical Philology. In fact, his most memorable books were those which antedate his stay in Paris, and at a time when his reading was done under so great difficulty. It was given to him to take up a number of authors, and so thoroughly to comment on them as to leave little for succeeding scholars in the way of exegesis. Thus he brought out an edition of the of Theophrastus as early as 1592, and an extraordinarily complete Athenaeus in 1598.^ His exhaustive edition of Persius^ was called by Scaliger “divine”; while his Suetonius passed through three editions in the course of a few years. In his Polybius® is a remarkable introduction on the subject of Greek Historiography. Less full and of less lasting value were his aimotations of other authors, but he deserves great and enduring credit for having been the first to study Roman

• Incorporated into Schweighauser’s edition (1840).
• Published in 1605, and pillaged by every commentator since that time.
• Published in 1609.

satire,^ — a subject which was, and has been since, of remarkable interest to all classicists.^

Still representing the French School of classical study, we have the remarkable lexicographer, Charles du Fresne, sieur du Cange, who did for Low Latin what Valla in an earlier century had done for the Ciceronian tongue. Hold- ing a lucrative office in Paris, this scholar gave himself up for twenty years to unremitting industry, so that it has been said that the number of his books would be incredible if we had not the original manuscripts all written by his own hand. To enumerate them would here be impossible, but the two by which he is best known deserve especial mention. The first of them is a glossary, as he modestly called it, to the writers of Mediaeval and Low Latin; ® and a like glos- sary to the writers of Late Greek.** Into these tomes he gathered all the words that he could find in legal docu- ments, charters, manuscripts, diplomas, titles, and many printed documents, all written in the mixed language which prevailed in the Middle Ages and for some time afterward. His sources were drawn from the archives of Paris; and, therefore, ponderous though they were, suc- ceeding scholars have added to them almost in each decade, until at present every issue is practically an Antibarbarus. From his pen came also an excellent edition of the Byzan- tine Historians, His Greek glossary was hardly so com-

1 De Satyrica Graca Poesi et Romanorum Satira (1605).

2 The original was edited by Rambach (Halle, 1774).

2 Glossarium ad Scriptores Media et Infima Latinitatis (1678).

• Glossarium ad Scriptores et Infima Gradtaiis (1688).

THE PERIOD OP NATIONALISM 313

plete as his Latin one, and in fact was published in the year of his death. His son lived only four years; and finally, the French Government, knowing how valuable were the writings of Du Cange, collected the greater part of his manuscripts, which are now contained in the Bibliothfeque Nationale in Paris.^

Worthy of recollection was another Frenchman of this period, Bernard de Montfaucon, a nobleman by birth, but forced through ill health to a life of seclusion and study. There are few incidents in his career which present much variety, since he passed successively from one abbey to another, examining and annotating their numerous manu- scripts. From 1698 to 1701, he spent most of his time in Rome. His first publication was a work entitled Analecta Grceca (1688) , never completely finished. But he is best re- membered in Archaeology by his work in ten folio volumes, ^ in which drawings made by him of antique objects and monuments gave to the world something that was wholly new. It was one of the most interesting contributions made to the study of Archaeology; and his Palceographia

1 See Hardouin, op. cit. The last and most complete Glossarium to the mediaeval Latin is that edited by Favre, 10 vols,|[(Niort, 1884-1887).

® UAntiquiU Expliquie et RepresonUe en Figures. This book was a wonderful storehouse of antiquities. It was first brought out by sub- scription in 1719, and in less than two months the first edition (18,000 volumes) was sold, and a new edition of 2500 volumes was printed in the same year, with a supplementary edition of five more volumes. A full list of his contributions to Archaeology will be found in the Nou- veUe Biographic Gineraley s.v.

314

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

GrcEca has never yet been superseded. Somewhat earlier (i68i), there had appeared a work on Palaeography/ written by Jean Mabillon, an inmate of the beautiful abbey of Saint Germain/ the earliest seat of the learned Benedic- tine Order in France. The validity of the abbey’s charters had been attacked, and Mabillon wrote the work just men- tioned to show how false documents could be distinguished from genuine ones, and how to determine the date of a manuscript by comparison with others. The difference between the work of Mabillon and that of Montfaucon lies in the fact that the latter dealt with Greek manuscripts alone, of which he gave a list of 11,630, whereas Mabillon had dealt alone with Latin.

The close of what has been called the French Period, though it shows us the colossal figure of Casaubon, has no one who can rival him. Nevertheless, a great cluster of ac- complished scholars enter into the annals of the end of the seventeenth century. Such, for example, is the man of letters, Jean Bouhier (1673-1746), who cited the Petronian fragment De Bello Civili, besides translating it, and con- tributing to the PalcBographia of Montfaucon. The most important consecutive portion of Petronius (i.e, the Cena Trimalchionis) was recovered at Trau (the Roman Tra- gurium) in 1663 by the Frenchman Pierre Petit (Marinus Statilius) and published by him at Paris in 1664.^ There

^ De Re Dipiomatica.

® See Vanel, Les Benidiciins de Saint-Maur (Paris, 1896).

® See Introduction to Peck’s Cena TrimaickioniSi 2d ed. (New York, 1908).

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 315

were editions of Horace by Pbre Sanadon and others, while parts of Demosthenes and Cicero were translated by the learned Father de Thoulie, also known as Olivetus, who finally edited the whole of Cicero.

Classical Archaeology was at this time further promoted by Bunduri, who wrote a prodigious work on the antiqui- ties of Constantinople; by Michel Fourmont, who collected many inscriptions and forged many others; by Burette, who studied Greek Music; and by Nicolas Fr^ret, whose attempts in Ancient Geography and History were fairly accurate. A Frenchman (d’Anville) , who lived four decades later than Fr^ret, published seventy-eight geographical treatises and two hundred and eleven maps, all admirably executed. A group of French scholars collected Greek and Roman coins as well as ancient gems. Among these collectors were Charles Patin, J. F. F. Vaillant, J. Pellerin, and P. J. Mariette, the last reproducing a large number of gems in his Pierres Gravies (1752). A French nobleman, the Comte de Caylus, who had served in the army, went to the East in disguise, visited Smyrna, Ephesus, and Colophon, actually traversed and examined the plain of Troy, and then, returning, carefully studied the monuments of Constantinople. He was a man of great wealth, and de- voted more than two-thirds of it to his passion for antiqui- ties. His magnificent house he filled to overflowing with works of ancient art — not only Greek and Roman, but also Etruscan and Egyptian. Whatever was interesting

3 i6 history op CXASSICAL PHILOLOGy

and beautiful he endeavoured to add to his collections. Two sumptuous works of his are the seven volumes which make up his Recueil d’Antiquit^s, and the reproduction by P. S. Bartoli which he caused to be made of the mural paintings found in the sepulchre of the Nasones.^

The greatest masters of the French school had ceased with Montfaucon, or even earlier with Casaubon. Casau- bon’s final years in England seem to identify him with a different type of scholar. In fact, among his contempora- ries, a number were in many ways different from the learned yet brilliant Frenchman whose style was almost that of the Italians in its purity, and whose criticism and comment were puissant and profound. The Netherlands, small, but full of intellectual life, produced a cluster of learned men, unrivalled in the history of the modem world. Of course, Erasmus had led the way, since by birth he was a Nether- lander; but he belonged to no country and to no school. In his own time he was essentially a cosmopolitan, at home alike in Italy, in England, in Germany, and in France. It was, as we have said, the so-called Protestant Reforma- tion that made it quite impossible for another Erasmus to exist until several centuries had passed. Between 1540, however, and 1650, the universities of Holland,® had bred or had called to their chairs some of the most remarkable

^ Pdniures Antiques (1757).

’ The University of Leyden was founded in 1575; that of Louvain in 1610; and that of Utrecht in 1636.

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 317

classicists that the world had ever seen. We may include among these Casaubon, though he studied at Oxford and spent his declining years in England, and with him we must group the famous Joest Lips — better known as Justus Lipsius,* and finally the greatest scholar of all time, Joseph Justus Scaliger.^ These three men towered above all their contemporaries, who called them The Triumvirate.® The rather uneventful story of Casaubon has been already told. The life of Justus Lipsius was fairly tranquil. But round Scaliger, the greatest of the three, there raged a conflict of wit and learning, which ultimately caused his death, and which gives us an illustration of how the division of Catholic and Protestant, both of them extremely militant, was inimical to learning.

Lipsius was educated in a Jesuit College, and had been at the Catholic University of Louvain. This, perhaps, is the reason why of the three great contemporaries, he alone died in the communion of the Church. His life was that of a wanderer. He roamed through Burgundy, Germany, Austria, Bohemia, and Italy. Though Pattison speaks of him as “ a narrow pedeint,” he must have had something of the personal charm of Erasmus, for he made friends among the scholars whom he met. His first published work was a volume of critical miscellanies, which he dedi- cated to Cardinal Granvella, who secured for him an

’ 1547-1606. * 1540-1609.

• See Nisard, Le Triumvir at Littiraire au XVV^^ Sihcle. (Paris, no

da^e^»

3i8 history or classical philology

appointment as Latin secretary and a visit to Rome, where he remained two years, studying carefully the monuments and inscriptions, and especially examining the manuscripts in the Vatican. A second volume of VaricR Lectiones (1575), after his return from Rome, showed a decided advance in critical ability. He no longer leaned on con- jectural emendation, but preferred to emend by the com- parison (collation) of manuscripts, and he had learned to distinguish between what palaeographers call “ good manu- scripts,” and “ bad manuscripts.” His intercourse with scholars was as varied as that of Erasmus, but his theologi- cal difficulties were far greater. Thus, for a year, he taught in the Lutheran University at Jena. Soon afterwards we find him at Cologne, which was Catholic. Presently he returned to Louvain, whence he retired to Antwerp, where he received (1579) a call to the newly established Univer- sity of Leyden as a professor of history. In his eleven years at Leyden (the Protestant University) he passed his time in classroom drudgery, and yet he found time to produce his two great masterpieces, — his edition of Seneca (1605) and of Tacitus (1574). This last work is a superb monu- ment to his genius. It was published by a sort of growth, from one edition to another, until it became the most re- markable commentary on that difficult author. Lipsius had studied him so continually and with such intensity that he could repeat the whole of everything that Tacitus had written; and if any one doubted this, he would say:

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 319

“ Put your sword to my throat and thrust me through if I make a mistake in a single word.” His hooks were largely published by the famous press of Plantin at Antwerp, and there his completed opera were set up in four volumes (1637). In all, he prepared forty-eight separate publica- tions, but most of them were of a controversial character, and had no relation to scholarship.^ After his long stay at Leyden, he returned to Catholic intimacies, and was re- ceived, by the Jesuits especially, with open arms. Courts and universities in Italy, Austria, and Spain poured invi- tations upon him; but at last he settled at Louvain, where he was made Professor of Latin without being expected to teach, and having also the appointments of privy councillor and historiographer to the King of Spain. From Louvain he sent out many clever and amusing pamphlets, writing them at the request of the Jesuit Fathers. He was indeed the scholarly champion of the Catholics, as Scaliger and Casaubon were the champions of the Protestants. But Lipsius had a genial mind, and he seldom sought to wound. He even maintained a friendly personal intercourse with Protestant scholars of distinction, and with him great learn- ing blotted out religious acrimony. He died at Louvain, leaving his Greek books and manuscripts to the college there. Lipsius had a profound knowledge of Roman antiquities, but a very slight acquaintance with Greek.

^ Besides his Tadtus and Seneca, he edited Velldus Paterculus, and Valerius Maximus.

320 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Even in Latin he had no ear for metres, and very little true appreciation of poetical phrasing. Yet no man ever so completely knew the Roman historians, especially Tacitus, whose pages he had begun to read as a boy, and whom he kept studying and revising until the very last year of his life.'

Great, however, as Lipsius was, there towers above him in the history of learning the wonderful figure of Joseph Justus Scaliger,* a contemporary of Lipsius, and described by Pattison as “ the most richly stored intellect which ever spent itself in acquiring knowledge.” Scaliger was born of a father so remarkable as to make it surprising that even his son could surpass him. This was Julius Caesar Scaliger. An eminent scholar has said that none of the ancients could be ranked above him, while the age in which he lived could not show his equal. He claimed to be one of the illustrious Italian house of La Scala, and to have been born at their princely castle on the Lago de Garda. At twelve he was presented to the Emperor Maximilian, and became one of his pages, frequently showing himself a miracle of personal bravery. He was also given to arts and letters, stud)dng under Albrecht Dürer. In 1512 he fought at the

^ The only complete life of Lipsius was written by Le Mire (Antwerp, 1607). See, however, Reiffenberg, DeJusti Lipsi Vita et Scriptis Com- mentarius (Brussels, 1823), and the pages referring to him in L. Muller’s Geschichte der Klassichen Philologie in den Niederlanden (Leipzig, 1869), a work which is commended to students of the Dutch-English period.

» rS4o-i6o9.» 1484-1588.

battle of Ravenna, where his father and elder brother were slain beside him; but there he performed such incredible deeds of valour that the Emperor conferred upon him personally the highest tokens of chivalry, — the spurs, the collar, and the golden eagle. Receiving no more substantial rewards, he left the military service and became a student at the University of Bologna. There and elsewhere he studied as vigorously as he had fought, dividing his time between medicine, natural history, and the classics.

This autobiographical account would be of compara- tively little interest had not the truth or falsehood of it played so important a part in the later life of his illustrious son, and, in fact, plunged him from the heights of glorious distinction to the depths of humiliation. As to the elder Scaliger, however, he was undoubtedly a man of unusual powers, whether he were descended from the family of La Scala (Fr. de I’Escale), or whether, as his enemies in after years declared, he was the son of an obscure teacher at Verona. This much may be said: during his life-time no one questioned his noble ancestry, while many undoubted facts verify his narrative. Certain it is that he was a brill- iant classicist and spent the last thirty-two years of his life in such a way that on his death (1558) no scholar’s repu- tation equalled his. He was essentially one of the French school with an Italian colouring, and the last part of his life was spent in France at Agen, where he fell violently in love with a beautiful young orphan of thirteen. Her

Y

322 HISTOE.Y OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

frieads objected to her marriage with a person whom they called a mere adventurer; but he attacked her with as much success as he had stormed fortresses, and finally married her when she was sixteen. The marriage proved to be a very happy one; and it endured until his death, twenty- nine years later, signalised in those years by the birth of fifteen children. In 1531, this J. C. Scaliger published an oration against Erasmus in answer to that great scholar’s Ciceronianus. It was astonishing in its vigour and com- mand of every shade of Latin, ranging from brilliant rheto- ric to foul abuse. Erasmus, however, treated it with silent contempt, which caused Scaliger to write another oration of the same sort, and a number of Latin verses, which were stiU less successful. From his pen came also a treatise on comic metres, and the first known scientific Latin grammar. After his death there appeared his Poetica, — filled with many paradoxes and boasts that nevertheless were mingled with much acute criticism.^

Modem writers who estimate his genius regard him rather as a philosopher and man of science than as a student of the classics. His early training as a physician made hi m care more for physics than for literature. Hence his writings of enduring worth are monographs on many subjects relating to the physical sciences. Although Daude speaks of his intellect as “ teeming with heroic thought,” he was not an investigator nor one who arrived 1 See Spingam, op. dt., pp. 150-153, 176.

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 323

at new truths. He clung to Aristotle and to Galen, and rejected with arrogance the theories of Copernicus. Nevertheless, his philosophical Exercitationes on Cardan (1557) passed through many editions, and was a popu- lar text-book as late as the middle of the seventeenth century. Even in our own times, men like Leibnitz and Sir William Hamilton have called the elder Scaliger the best modem exponent of the physics and metaphysics of Aristotle.^

His gifted son, Joseph Justus Scaliger,^ has come to be recognised as the greatest scholar of the modem world. He was the tenth child of the elder Scaligerj and it was fortunate that an outbreak of the plague compelled him to remain at home for a few years, and to become his father’s continual companion. This companionship was worth far more to him than instruction in any school. Association with a man of the world and an acute observer made young Scaliger much more than a mere scholar. It gave to his mind the breadth and also the accuracy, both of which a true scholar should possess. It was the chief pleasure of the elder Scaliger in his later years to write Latin verse; and daily he dictated to his son from eighty to more than a hundred lines. The boy was also compelled each day to write a Latin theme or declamation. Thus, when he was eighteen years of age, and after the

^ See Magen, Documents sur J. C. Scaliger et sa FamiUe (Paris 1880).

• 1540-1609.

324 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

death of his father, he went to Paris, and spent four years at the University. His scholastic life there was very inter- esting. Hitherto he had known only Latin and had given no study to Greek. But at this time the French schools and universities were throbbing with the early glow of Hellenism,^ and the great French scholars were almost entirely bent on Hellenic studies.

This was a surprise to Scaliger. He had devoted his early youth to Latin; and now, of a sudden, he was made to feel that ignorance of Greek was ignorance of every- thing. Therefore, he enrolled himself under the cele- brated Grecian, Tumebus (Tumebe), and attended his lectures for several months. But presently he found out that he could learn but little Greek in this way. He could not rush into the lecture-room of a great scholar and under- stand the lectures that were given there. He must him- self do much preliminary work. Therefore, he shut himself up in his rooms, and resolved on teaching himself. He read all Homer m twenly-one days (presumably both the Iliad and Odyssey) and then devoured all the other Greek poets, orators, and historians. As he proceeded, he formed a grammar for himself, noting the paradigms, and reducing the words to their proper order. He seemed to find this easy. Before listening to Tumebus again, he essayed to teach himself both Arabic and Hebrew, and acquired a very fair knowledge of both, though nothing ^ Egger, of. cU; passim.

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 32 $

like a critical mastery. There was another teacher of Greek, named Dorat,^ who had the official title of Poet Royal.’’ He certainly justified this title, in a way, for he published more than 50,000 Greek and Latin verses, of which 15,000 are preserved. He had no great profundity as a scholar, yet he was most admirable as a teacher; while Tumebus could only lecture and not teach. The name of Doratus stood very high, and he was fortunate in his pupils, among whom was Scaliger and also Ronsard. The gratitude of those who studied under him poured itself out in their ascription to him of a high quality of scholar- ship. Even Scaliger who could commend him only mildly for his poetry, speaks with enthusiasm when he styles him GrcBCCB Unguce peritissimus. The influence of Doratus is seen in the Greek spirit of Ronsard, found in those poems of his which recall the loftiness of iEschylus.^ In iEschylus, the studies of Doratus were very fruitful, since he combined learning and taste, so that Hermann, in after years, preferred him to any other critics of the great tragic writer.

Upon the recommendation of Doratus, Scaliger became a sort of travelling companion and tutor to a young lord of La Roche Pozay, named Louis de Chastaigner. The two young men were very sympathetic and set out upon a

^ Jean d’Aurat. His pupils named him by the Latinised form, Do- ratus.

^ See Chalandon, Essai $ur Ronsard (Paris, 1875); and Fieri, FStrarque et Ronsard (Marseilles, 1895).

326 HISTORY OF CXASSICAR PHILOLOGY

course of travel which was chronicled by Scaliger and is extremely interesting. At Rome they found the rather shifty but intensely clever Muretus, of whom Scaliger said with something of a sigh: “ There are not many Mure- tuses in the world. If he only believed in the existence of God, as well as he can talk about it, he would be an excellent Christian.” After traversing Italy they went north to England and Scotland, one of Scaliger’s letters being dated at Edinburgh. Scaliger cared little for the English. He despised their “ inhuman disposition ” and the narrowness which made them inhospitable to foreigners. It disappointed him also to find only a few Greek manu- scripts in England, and only a few scholars of the type with which he was so familiar on the Continent. Never- theless, he was a Protestant, and for that reason his life for many years had been often trying. One pleasant resting- place he found at Valence, where lived the most profound jurist of the age, Cujacius (Jacques de Cujas).^ This wise and temperate scholar had a remarkable collection of manuscripts on the Roman law, numbering more than five hundred; and here he lived and studied with tran- quillity, reconstructing the Roman jurists in a purely classic fashion, without any touch of mediaevalism. For three years, Scaliger enjoyed the hospitality of Cujacius with free access to his fine library for four years.

Then the so-called massacre of St. Bartholomew led

1 See Spangenberg, Cujacius und seine Zeitgmossen (Leipzig, 1882).

THE PEEIOD OF NATIONALISM

327

him to take refuge in Geneva, where he was received with high honour and appointed to be professor in the Academy. He lectured on both Greek and Latin authors, and gave great satisfaction to the students. But he himself hated lecturing and found the fanatical preachers of Protestant- ism as distasteful as the more subtle zealotes. Hence he returned to France (1574) and lived for the next twenty years in the various castles of his friend. La Roche Pozay. Much of his life was far different from that of a tranquil scholar. The Huguenots and the Leaguers with their outbreaks of violence often compelled Scaliger to move from one chateau to another, going on guard duty, taking part in military expeditions in the night-time, and wielding pike and dagger like any other freebooter.^ He had, however, for at least half the time, a chance to give himself up to study and composition; and his editions of the Catalecfa (1574), of Festus (1576) of Catullus, Tibullus, and Propertius (1577) are remarkable examples of true criticism, disdaining the prevalent happy-go-lucky guess- work for a fixed and ordered system of scientific scholar- ship.

In 1590, the great Lipsius retired from Leyden, where for twelve years he had been professor of Roman History and Antiquities. Leyden was then the fortress of Protes-

^ Our knowledge of Scaliger's life at this time is derived from a num- ber of letters in Lettres Fra7iQaises Inidites de Joseph Scaliger, discovered at Agen by M. de Larroque, and published there by him in i88i.

328 HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

tant learning, as Paris was tiie fortress of Catholic scholar- ship. And so, when Leyden saw its most famous scholar retire, it sought out Scaliger as his successor. In this, the University and also the States-General and the Prince of Orange gave their aid, and the Prince wrote a personal letter both to Henry IV of France and to Scaliger himself, asking that the latter might accept a chair in the Univer- sity. Scaliger had hoped that Henry IV would, when successful, give freedom of speech and thought to Protes- tants. Moreover, Scaliger hated to lecture, and much preferred the quiet of his study, and the learned inter- course of distinguished men. The drudgery of the Uni- versity made no appeal to him; the spirit of learning was all in all. Consequently he refused; but when the invita- tion was renewed in the most flattering manner at the end of another year, he felt that he would do wrong to remain in France, subject to the sneers and hidden innuendoes of the once Huguenot King. This second call from Leyden was accepted by Scaliger, and he was welcomed there with honours such as are given not only to princes of learning, but, likewise, to men of princely blood, as Scaliger believed himself to be. He dined at the table of Prince Maurice. The burghers at Leyden deemed his presence among them a glory to the town, and even the children louted low before him, when he took his walks abroad. Very different, indeed, was his lot as compared with that of poor Casaubon in England, who was hustled by British

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM

329

boors and his windows broken by the rabble in the street. Scaliger was in reality a prince of learning, and perhaps he should have been quite content with this. That he deemed himself the scion of a princely Italian family was not his fault, and to this day no one is certain of the facts. Yet this conviction which he inherited from his father, and which had never been questioned in his father’s life- time, was fated to destroy his happiness, and end his won- derful labours. The story is worth relating in some detail, because it illustrates the evil effects of the religious feuds which had broken out with the so-called Protestant Refor- mation.^

As was said before, the services of distinguished scholars were employed alike by the Old Church and the New in the way of theological sharp-shooting. Thus we have seen that Casaubon died while completing his attack upon Cardinal Baronius. He had himself been made the victim of a stream of vile abuse from a Cretan Catholic (Eudamon-Ioannes) who attacked him in a pamphlet.

Yet a much more skilful shaft was launched against him by one Caspar Scioppius (Caspar Schoppe). This man, who flitted back and forth between Madrid and Ingolstadt, was a really remarkable figure. He had been disappointed in many of his hopes, and he became a savage,

• See Pattison, Isaac Casaubon, pp. 389-400 (Oxford, 1892); and id.

Essays, ed. by Nettleship, i. pp. 132-192 (Oxford, 1889).

330 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

venomous creature ready to attack any one whom his Catholic masters pointed out to him. Unlike many of the literary bravos of the time, he was an accomplished Latinist, and was almost monstrous in his shameless in- genuity and audacious use of fiction. He had already scourged King James of England in two pamphlets. “ Now,” said he, “ I am going to flay the King of Eng- land’s dog.” This he did in his Holofernes. It was an atrocious libel from begiiming to end; yet it was piquant, and when decent, it was witty. But when he went on to charge Casaubon with every sort of imnatural crime and to support the charges by imaginary stories that had no basis, his fierce assault was neither plausible nor probable. Casaubon was too austere and virtuous a man for such insults to have any effect whatever.

Thus, only to a certain extent, the virulent libel against Casaubon did slight harm. Nor was Casaubon, although he was one of the Triumvirate, so conspicuous a figure as Scaliger, who remained at the very piimacle of sixteenth and seventeenth century scholarship. Unfortunately, his enemies found a flaw in his otherwise impenetrable armour. In 1594, he published a sort of glorification of his family, Epistola de Vetustate et Splendore Gentis Scaligem et J. C. Scaligeri Vita. This was really an exhibition of filial love, though there runs through it a vein of proud, and, one might even say, of noble self-appreciation. But it showed, nevertheless, a weak point in his nature, and

THE PERIOD OP NATIONALISM 33 1

one which his enemies at Ingolstadt assailed alike with every means that could wound so proud a spirit. Again and again he had been attacked; but he cared nothing for coarse and violent scribblers. In 1607, however, there entered the arena a foeman, vastly inferior to Scaliger in learning, but the peer of any one in wit, in all the artifices of debate, with a marvellous command of style, and wield- ing all the powers of sarcasm, in which he had no rival. Mark Pattison says: “ Every piece of gossip or scandal which could be raked together respecting Scaliger or his family ” was put at the disposal of Scioppius. With these gifts and with this material, Scioppius said, “ I shall kill Scaliger! ” and soon after launched a volume of some four hundred pages written with consummate ability so that “ no stronger proof can be given of the impression produced by this powerful philippic, dedicated to the defamation of an individual, than that it has been the source from which the biography of Scaliger as it now stands in our biographical collections has mainly flowed.” The book was called Scaliger Hypolimaeus (“ The Sup- posititious Scaliger ”), and it simply crushed the haughty Triumvir, as well it might. For he had always believed in good faith that he was a prince of Verona, and he had written a great many things which he had heard from his father, and which he believed to be true. But as a matter of fact, whether or not Julius Caesar Scaliger was de- scended from a princely family he was certainly a good

332 HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

deal of a romancer, and it was not difficult for so malicious and so clever an antagonist as Scioppius to show the blunders and errors of fact which had crept into the younger Scaliger’s Epistola. Around these errors and around other statements which were claimed to be erroneous, Scioppius danced and jeered with outrageous glee. As soon as Scaliger could rally from the unexpected attack, he wrote a reply to Scioppius which he called Confutatio Fabula Burdonum. This title refers to Benedetto Bordone, a person of humble birth and said by Scioppius to be the real father of the elder Scaliger. This would have made both Scaligers little less than impostors, and, therefore, in the reply the falsity of the charge was attacked, though with moderation and good taste. The Confutatio, however, does not bring forward a single convincing proof either of his father’s descent from the family of La Scala, or of any event narrated by Julius as having happened to himself or to any of his family before he arrived at Agen in France. The success of Scioppius was remarkable. The product of his almost devilish ingenuity was read all over Europe, and it was generally believed even by many who had passed for friends. Scaliger was too great, too learned, too much of a real prince in intellect and bearing, for these petty, jealous creatures to be otherwise than pleased at his overthrow. The name of the greatest man in Europe now evoked merely a grin, or a coarse joke. His very name was used as a synonym for a pedant (pidant ) ,

THE PERIOD OE NATIONALISM 333

while in French literature, especially, his memory has been covered with unworthy ridicule.^

So much for the chief incidents of his life and death. One recounts them because they are characteristic of the time in which he lived, and of the continual warfare be- tween literary ruffians and their betters. We must now return to an account of the great achievements which placed Scaliger at the very head of all men of letters and learning, from Varro to Mommsen. Having shown by his edited works, already mentioned,^ that he could criti- cise and amend according to a scientific system, he now moved on to a higher field than that of scholarship alone.

was reserved for his edition of Manilius ( 1579 ), and his De Emendatione Temporum (1583), to revolutionize all the received ideas of the chronology of ancient history, — to show for the first time that ancient chronology was of the highest importance as a corrector as well as a supplement to historical narrative, that

^ The most adequate biography of Joseph Scaliger is that of Jacob Bemays (Berlin, 1865). See also the essay by Mark Pattison in his book of essays, already mentioned. For the life of the elder Scaliger, the letters edited by his son, those afterwards published in 1620, and his own writings, are the principal authorities. See also Laffore’s Etude sur Jules Cesar de Lescale (Agen, i860) and Magen^s documents sur Julius Caesar Scaliger et sa Famille (Agen, 1873). The two books by Ch. Nisard — Les Gladiateurs de la R^puUique des Lettres (Paris, 1889), and Le Triimvirat Litteraire au Seizieme Steele (Paris) — are written with levity. The second of the two is little more than a digest of the volume by Scioppius; yet perhaps this makes it worth the reader’s while. There is an excellent account of the two Scaligers by Sir R. C, Jebb in the Encyclopaedia Britannicafgihtd. jVol.xZf pp. 361-365 (New York, 1886).

• Supra, pp. 334-340-

334 HISTORY OE CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

andent history is not confined to that of the Greeks and Romans, but also comprises that of the Persians, the Babylonians, and the Egyptians, hitherto neglected as absolutely worthless, and that of the Jews, hitherto treated as a thing apart and too sacred to be mixed up with the others, and that the historical narratives and frag- ments of each of these, and their several systems of chronology, must be carefully and critically compared together, if any true and general condusions on ancient history are to be arrived at. It is this which constitutes his true glory, and which places Scaliger on so immensdy higher an eminence than any of his contemporaries. Yet, while the scholars of his time admitted his pre-eminence, neither they nor those who immediately followed seem to have appreciated his real merit, but to have considered his emendatory critidsm, and his skill in Greek, as constituting his daim to spedal greatness. 'Scaliger’s great works in historical criticism had overstepped any power of appredation which the succeeding age possessed ’ (Patti- son). His commentary on ManiKus^ is really a treatise on the as- tronomy of the ancients, and it forms an introduction to the De Emendatione Temporum, in which he examines by the light of modem and Copemican sdence the andent system as applied to epochs, calendars, and computations of time, showing upon what principles they were based.”

His Manilius, while it represented a new field of labour, had puzzled and frightened away the smaller critics as being the most difficult of all the Latin classics. But this work, with him, merely served as an introduction to a comprehensive chronological system to which he gave the

^ The author of a Latin poem upon astronomy written in five books between 9 a.d. and 15 a.d. A proposed sixth book was never written. The first satisfactory text was that of J. J. Scaliger (1579). Late editions are by Bentley (London, 1739), and Jacob (Berlin, 1846). See Kramer, De Manilii Astronomicis (Marburg, 1890).

THE PERIOD OP NATIONALISM 33 $

name De Etnendaiione Temporum.^ In this latter effort of a great genius Scaliger created a science of Chronology. Heretofore, historians had merely arranged past facts in a tabular series to help the memory. On the one hand, the philologists know nothing of the mathematical prin- ciples upon which the calculation of period rests. On the other hand, the astronomers had not attempted to apply their principles to the records of ancient time. It was Scaliger who now, with a new light which Copernicus and Tycho Brahe gave him, turned back to the ancient epochs and systems and made it plain on what principles they had been formed. He instituted an acute comparison between the Greek and Persian methods of reckoning time; he studied even the Hebrew calendar, and then in ascending to primitive ages, he saw how chronology may become an instrument of discovery for times when written records do not exist. This suggestion is only a hint in the first edition of the De Efnendatione. It proved fruitful to him until he grasped the daring idea of compiling a book which should embrace the records of the prehistoric past Scaliger was the first to see that the history of the ancient world, if it could be known at all, could be known only as an entity; and that the facts of this remote period could be had only in the remains of those chronologers who, in copying statements which they often failed to

^ The first edidon pubKshed in 1583, Mowed by many other and fuller edidons.

336 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

understand themselves, did transmit in this way to future ages the universal tradition of the human species. The distorted fragments of Berosus, Menander, Manetho, and Abydenus were first to be collected. Finally, he adopted as a basis of primitive tradition, St. Jerome’s Latin trans- lation of the so-called Eusebian Chronicle.

It is necessary to explain in a few words what this Eusebian Chronicle was which gave the study of it so much importance. Eusebius was an Asiatic Greek, a friend of the Emperor Constantine, and bom in Palestine in the middle of the third century A.D. He was one of the most learned scholars of the time and the most widely read. A list of his books would be mmecessaiy here, but all his studies were of a nature which intended toward the dis- covery of religious truth. He was familiar with a great variety of Greek authors, philosophers, historians, theolo- gians, who lived in Egypt or Phoenicia or Asia and Europe. More than anything else he cultivated a study of chronology with a view to establishing on a solid basis the historical value of the Old Testament. This was practically a universal history (U.avroha'rrri 'Icrropia) divided into two books. The first book discussed the origin and the history of all nations from the creation of the world down to the year 325 a.d. Here Eusebius uses copious extracts from historians whose works are now lost. The second part, entitled “ The Chronicle Canon ” (Xpovt/eo? Kavdiv), consisted of parallel tables given by

THE PERIOD OE NATIONALISM 337

periods of ten years each, containing the names of the sovereigns and the principal events which had taken place from the call of Abraham (2017 b.c.). He had drawn largely upon the chronography of Sextus lulius Africanus, completing the whole by the aid of Manetho, losephus, and other historians. This was the famous chronicle which he continued down to his own time. The book was wddely read and was accepted as necessarily accurate. In course of time, after the death of Eusebius, St. Jerome trans- lated the Chronicle into Latin, continuing it to 378 a.d- For some centuries, the Christian scribes preserved it as an essential part of the works of St. Jerome, although they had no idea of its unusual value. When the Renaissance was well under way, neither the men of elegant letters, nor the Protestant controversialists, knew what to make of it, and at last it was omitted from their editions of St Jerome’s works as being without value. Even the great Erasmus, though he edited the other writings of Jerome, did not think it worth his while to include this Chronicle, and in fact, it was not replaced in the series of his works until 1734.^

It was left for Scaliger to appreciate the inestimable value of this document, which contains all that we know of a great deal of pre-classical history, cariying us back to the oriental countries as well as to Greece and Rome.

^ This was a handsomely printed edition published at Verona, but very uncritically edited, z

338 mSTORV OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

To edit and explain so complicated a work as this was a task fit for an intellectual giant like Scaliger. The sub- stance of the Chronicle was tempting to one whose tastes were annalistic; while the form in which it had come down was peculiarly attractive to a mind like Scaliger’s. A careful examination of it led him to doubt whether this was, in fact, an original document composed by St. Jerome, or whether it was the Latin version of a Greek original which had perished. The next point which he considered was this: Since we have not the Greek original, is the Latin translation a faithful version of what Eusebius set down? In the first place, all translators are liable to various defects, and in the Chronicle there was a greater chance of error because the work was written with such speed. St. Jerome himself calls it iumuUuarium opus and asks for lenity from his readers. Again Jerome did not write the book, but merely used it to supply the Latin world with a manual of general history. He omitted and inserted whenever he thought the book would be improved, and tried to communicate the elements of uni- versal history in countries where barbarous hordes were overrurming the civilisation of Christianity. Further- more, the manuscripts were peculiarly corrupt, as was natural in a book so full of dates.

Pondering over these facts, Scaliger came to believe that the original Chronicle as written by Eusebius had con- sisted of two books; and that the first of these books had

THE PERIOD OE NATIONALISM 339

been lost in the Dark Ages. The second book had been preserved for its utility as an epitome of ancient history, while the first book as consisting of extracts from the Greek historians, for modems was the lost book that was the most valuable. It would daunt the boldest text- critic of modem times to arrive at these conclusions from the slight indications which Scaliger had at hand. Even more reckless did it seem for him to reproduce a second book of the Chronicle of which he had only St. Jerome’s Latin, in its original language. But finally Scaliger’s almost miraculous mind attempted to recover the first book both in its substance and language. No such re- markable attempt had ever before or has ever since been known in the annals of criticism. What Scaliger relied upon was his skill in imitative translation, and his mastery of the whole remains of Greek literature. How ingenious was he in detecting the smallest scrap of Eusebius may be shovm by one slight incident. A few fragments of the original Chronicle had been recovered and fitted into their places by the skill of Scaliger; but these would have been of little use. In i6oi he came upon the vestiges of a manuscript chronicle by a Greek priest which possibly contained Eusebian fragments, and which by deduction was likely to be found in the Royal Library at Paris. It turned out that the manuscript was found there. Scaliger at Leyden in an agony of mingled anxiety and exultation, wrote letter after letter, and after a year’s siege secured

340 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

the manuscript over which he gloated, and presently de- clared that this single writer was more to his purpose than all the other Greek "writers combined. It was, indeed, another chronicle which had been compiled by Georgius S3mcellus at Constantinople soon after the year 900. To this chronicle the Greek monk had transferred almost the whole of Eusebius, together w’ith additions of his owm. The second book of Eusebius, therefore, — the only part that any one was sure of, — was published at last in 1606, as part of a folio, Thesaurus Temporum, in which every chronological relic in Greek or Latin was restored, placed in order, and made clear. This was an immense triumph for Scaliger. It placed him at the very head of all critics and chronologists from that time forever, since he had performed an achievement not to be paralleled. Many scholars, however, who admired his genius regarded his theory about a first book of Eusebius as fanciful. Could he have lived beyond the life of ordinary man, he would have witnessed a triumph even greater than his first. In the next century, while the Veronese edition of St. Jerome was passing through the press under the direction of Dominico Vallarsi, a complete Eusebius in an Armenian translation (a manuscript of the twelfth century) was slowly making its way to Italy, and was at last published (i8r8) in the Armenian Convent at Venice. Then it was shown that Scaliger’s wonderful divination had rightly guided him; that there was a first book to the Chronicle;

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM

341

that St. Jerome had translated only the second book; and that many of the omissions that he had charged against St. Jerome were actual omissions.

This remarkable discovery placed Scaliger indisputably above the heads of all his contemporaries. It was his great eminence which led the vile-minded Scioppius to assail him at a point which had nothing to do with either scholarship or morals. It is not surprising, however, that many who admired his genius were not friendly toward the man himself. His learning was so great as to make that of other men seem frivolous and slight, especially if they were men of his own age or older. His gravity might be called austere. His thoughts were settled almost wholly on his learning. He had a manner which was unfortunate, and it made him seem supercilious. For these reasons many persons disliked him, and many more actually hated him, besides those who were jealous of his great learning. Thus it was that the lampoon of Scioppius had more than a temporary effect In France and Ger- many and Italy, and even England, the name of Scaliger was derided. He was thought of mainly as a mere pedant, a butt for cheap wit, and one who might readily be fleered at with reason. Thus, M. Charles Nisard in his two enter- taining but trifling volumes^ displayed the opinions which have long been held of Scaliger in France. It was Pro-

^ Nisard, Les Gladiaieurs de la Riptiblique de Lettres (Paris, 1889); and Le Triumvirat Litter air e au Seizieme Sikh (Paris, no date).

342 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

fessor Jacob Bemays who, in 1855, revived the glory of Scaliger and made his name as illustrious as it had been two centuries before; and it was Mark Pattison who aided very greatly in this honourable task.^ It is they who recall to us, not merely the advance which Scaliger made in scientific chronology, and likewise in constructive criti- cism, but that he had also helped on the study of Numis- matics by his treatise De Re Nummaria (1616). To him are due, also, twenty-four indexes to Gruter’s Thesaurus Inscriptionum Latinarum^ (1603).

The death of Scaliger served only to stimulate the scholarly activities of the Netherlanders and Flemings, among whom we find, to be sure, no such mighty names as those of the Triumvirate, but many which have a peculiar significance because of some special incident or* achievement. Thus Jacques de Cruques (Latinised as Cruquius) will remain forever famous because in the Abbey at Blankenberghe he discovered a number of different man- uscripts of Horace with scholia (1578). Among these manuscripts was the famous Codex Blandinianus, possibly the oldest {vetustissimus). Unfortunately, an attack by a

1 Joseph Justus Scaliger (Berlin, 1855); and Pattison, Essays ^

i. pp- 162-171 (Oxford, 1889).

^ Janus Gruter (Jan Gruyt&re) was a classical scholar who studied in Cambridge and Leyden, and taught in Wittenberg and in Heidelberg. He was in Heidelberg keeper of the famous Palatine Library, which was presently carried to Rome. He edited a number of classical authors, but is best known for his collection of inscriptions, which was, however, most valuable from the indexes mentioned above.

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 343

mob upon the Abbey led to the destruction of this invaluable manuscript, so that we have now only the notes and excerpts of Cruquius. It is certain that they are of the greatest in- terest to Horatians, although some have endeavoured to repudiate them as either inventions or as inaccurately written out by Cruquius. Nevertheless, there are some lines which are almost certainly genuine, and they explain lines existing in other manuscripts, which had hitherto been almost meaningless.^ Another contemporary scholar was William Canter, a well-knovrn Greek critic of Utrecht, who had studied in Paris and edited Euripides ( 1571 ) in a fashion which made the distinction between strophe and anti- strophe by Arabic numerals in the margins. He also edited Sophocles (1579) and ^Eschylus ( 1580 ). Later in the cen- tury is Gerhard Johannes Vossitis, who taught at Leyden and afterwards in Amsterdam. He gave patient study to the syntax of Latin as well as to its etymology, writing five treatises on these subjects; and, like Scaliger, another Ars Poetica. He is best to be remembered, however, by t^^o treatises which, taken together, form an important con- tribution to the history of ancient literature. The first is entitled De Historicis Greeds ( 1623 - 4 ) and De His- torids Latinis ( 1627 ). All of his books were widely read

^ As to eminent scholars who doubt the accuracy of the Codex Blandi- nianus and even the veracity of Cruquius, the reader is referred to Keller’s Epilegomena zu Eoraz (Leipzig, 1879), accompanying a new recension of Keller and Holder’s first edition (Leipzig, 1S70) — a remarkable piece of critical work, though not convincing.

344 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

and studied, and a new edition of the former was printed at Leipzig in 1833. His interest in everything classical was very wide. He wrote a monograph on art {De Graphice) and in modem times he is the author of a very early treatise on Mythology (De Theologia Gentili). His brother-in-law, Franciscus Junius, who spent thirty years of his life in England as librarian to Earl of Arundel, made a special study of ancient paintings and published a vol- ume De Pictura Veierum (1637). Daniel Heinsius (1581- 1639) was the beloved pupil of Scaliger, and in his arms that great scholar died. Heinsius was a multifarious editor of classical books, though hardly worthy to rank with most of his contemporaries.

When Scaliger died in 1609 the chair of history, which was thus vacated, was left without an occupant for twenty- two years, although a very worthy successor would have been Vossius, who was widely known by his historical writ- ings on ancient history. The chair was not filled, however, until 1631, and then by a foreigner, Claude de Saumaise (Salmasius), — a brilliant figure among the sturdy Hol- landers, and one who attracted admiration, both for his personality and for his varied learning. In 1606 he had discovered the older Anthology by Cephalas in the Palatine Library at Heidelberg. The influence there probably in- duced him to become a Protestant, which was, indeed, the religion of his mother. In 1609 he attempted successfully a genuine feat of scholarship, in editing Florus, with notes.

THE PERIOD OE NATIONALISM: 34 $

wliich he compiled within ten days. In the next year he returned to France, studying jurisprudence but receiving no office because of his religion. He was, however, devoted to the classics, and when, in 1620, he published Casaubon’s notes on the Historia Augusta, he made so many acute and brilliant additions of his own as to render' his name illus- trious. His Protestantism was evinced when he married Anne Mercier, a Huguenot of distinguished family, and he reached the height of his fame by his commentary on the Polyhistor of Solinus (1629), a work that still remains a proof of extraordinary and conscientious industry. So anxious was Salmasius to attain complete accuracy that he learned Arabic to help him in the botanical part of his work; and he was so unwilling to let his book go to press until he should have consulted a rare treatise by Didymus that the third section of his commentaiy (De Herbis et Plantis) did not appear until after his death. Salmasius was at once a scholar of high rank, and a gentleman of polished manners — a genuine cavalier. It was natural that he should have received urgent calls from Oxford, Padua, and Bologna. All of tliese he declined. But in 1631 the University of Leyden presented him with a research pro- fessorship and a stipend of two thousand livres a year, a sum which was soon raised to three thousand. The only thing required of him was that he should live in Leyden, and refute the annals of Baronius.‘ He fulfilled the former

^ Supra, p. 309 n.

346 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

condition, but conveniently forgot the second. He was very prolific, however, in tracts and monographs, most of them classical. La spite of his Protestantism, and his attacks upon the papal power, Salmasius was popular in France, and the scholars of Paris evidently hoped that he would change his faith and return to them. He was, in- deed, made a royal counsellor and a Kmight of St. Michael, and great sums of money were offered him; but while he accepted the honours, he refused the money and remained faithful to his religion.

Salmasius is now best remembered by his Defensio Regia pro Carolo I, which he wrote in defence of Charles I of England and of absolute monarchy. It is remembered because it drew forth from Milton a virulent answer. Many have said that Milton overwhelmed Salmasius in this controversy; but such an opinion is due to the parti- ality given by English-speaking people to Milton, in this as in other things. The truth is that the Defensio, being written by one Protestant against another, was very widely read and had considerable influence. Charles II paid the cost of printing and gave the author a hundred pounds. Queen Christina of Sweden invited Salmasius to visit her at her court, and loaded him with gifts and other distinc- tions. The first edition of his Defensio was anonjmious. A French translation appeared at once under the name of Le Gros and was also the work of Salmasius. It must be said that neither Milton nor Salmasius showed his full

THE PEMOD OF NATIONALISM 347

powers in this famous controversy. Milton allowed him- self too much vituperation and vile language, while Sal- masius was not sufficiently carried away by his subject to give his words the ringing force of truth.

Nevertheless, Salmasius was gladly welcomed back to Leyden, where he died soon after, in 1653. He had by his great powers made himself a literary dictator, and we must ascribe this to his vast erudition, his natural good sense, his keen perception of an author’s meaning, all of which make his text corrections often ingenious and fre- quently most felicitous. He was, moreover, neither a sour Puritan nor a dissolute cavalier; but liberal, generous, and wise, and exercising a fortitude that enabled him to com- bat ill health, and yet produce books to the number of eighty, every one of which had a distinct value.

Contemporary with Salmasius and Vossius, and like- wise a great pillar of Dutch scholarship, was Hugo Grotius (in his native tongue called Huig van Groot), one of those ancient scholars and writers who, like Plato and Thucydides, and Caesar and Sallust, was a man of action and thought well as literary distinction. He served his State as well as raised the reputation of his country for scholarship. Young Grotius was able to write good Latin verses at the age of nine. He entered the Univer- sity of Leyden at twelve. Three years later he began an edition of the encyclopaedia of Marti anus Capella. In fact, he was a great favourite of Joseph Scaliger, who urged him

348 BISTOUY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

to edit this educational allegory. After travelling on the Continent, he took the degree of doctor of laws at Leyden, and entered on actual practice as an advocate. He was successful in his profession, and yet he could not put aside the classics. His Latin style was so pure that he was even read in the schools side by side with Terence, just as Muretus in France had been read side by side with Cicero. Apart from his text editions,^ however, he wrought out two great works which show how he was divided in his studies between the classics, pure and simple, and juristic science. The first is his extraordinary treatise on the principles of jurisprudence as relating to comba- tants. He went, however, much farther than this, and opened many larger questions which were subsequently to be developed by those who looked upon Grotius as a master. Thus, for example, he was the first to attempt to formulate a principle of right, as a basis for society and government, outside the Church or the Bible. His treatise De lure Belli et Pacis^ marks an epoch in the science of law. It is worth noting that even in this work one is struck by the beauty of his Latin style, and the glimpses of half-forgotten pearls with which he con- sciously adorned his pages.

The other remarkable work which he accomplished was

^ Of Martianus Capella, the Pharsdia, and Silius Italicus.

® Published at Paris in 1625. A French translation was long afterward made by H€ly (Paris, 1875).

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM

349

his translation into Latin verse of the Anthologia Planudea} This was the first and best translation of these poems, so varied, so sparkling with wit, and again so full of a per- vasive tenderness as to make it seem impossible that a grave jurisconsult w^ho had passed his fiftieth year could turn from his legal studies to attempt so difficult a task as this. But having attempted it, he succeeded, and his flowers of elegance and grace lose little or nothing by the artful way in which he has transformed them from Greek to Latin. Not for more than one hundred and fifty years was any serious rivalry with Grotius attempted; and then its preparation occupied Van Bosch and Van Lennep for seven years.^

With Grotius ^ ends the earlier type of Netherlandish scholar. For a time, there are no giants to be noted in the universities of Holland. There is much making of texts, as by the two Grono\di,^ the second of whom compiled in tliirteen volumes an immense Thesaurus Antiquitatum Grcecarum;^ Nicolaus Heinsius, the son of Scaliger’s dis- ciple Daniel Heinsius; and also J. G. Graevius (Greffe), who capped the Thesaurus of Heinsius by publishing three thesauri, containing in all thirteen volumes, relating to antiquarian topics.

1 Supra, pp. 256, 257.

• Utrecht, 1795-1822.

® See de Vries, Hu^o Grotius (Amst., 1827).

• J. F. Gronov (1611-1671) and Jacob Gronov (1645-1716).

® Published in 1702.

350 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

The study of ancient coins was taken up by Ezechiel Spanheim,^ whose life represents the union of the Protes- tant countries, since he was bom in Geneva, educated in Leyden, and died in London; Besides his Dissertation he wrote a famous commentary on the Hymns of Cal- limachus, which is still valuable in the edition of Emesti (1761). Spanheim was an industrious, though not an inspired, scholar, so that Wyttenbach said of him: “ Span- heimius multa, non multum, legerat.”

The two Peter Bunnanns (Burmanni) revived the old supremacy of Holland in letters. The elder® was a stu- dent of Grjevius, but spent the last twenty-six years of his life as Professor of Eloquence at Leyden. He was a voluminous editor, confining himself, however, to the Latin writers both in prose and poetry, for which he has been much blamed by the Grecians. The most notable are his editions of the Poetae Latini Minores, and of Petronius in prose. His editions were largely Variorum editions, and many of them are dull; though sometimes when his prejudices were aroused, he became so scurrilous that his introductions could not be printed during his life- time. So laborious was he, and so patient, that he was called by many “ the beast of burden ” (Burdomanus) of classical learning. Students of the history of scholar-

1 1629-1710.

• Dissertatio de U$u et Prastaniia Numismcdum Antiquorum (1664)*

» 1668-1741.

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 351

ship in the Netherlands will, however, continue to read the huge quarto volumes of his Sylloge Epistolarum a Viris Illustribus Scriptarum, which contains material of great value relating to classicists.*

Just as Burmann devoted his whole life to Latin studies, so the German, Ludolf Kiister (Neocorus)^ represented the investigation of Greek. Kiister was a German by birth, but something of a cosmopolite, since he visited Utrecht, Paris, and Cambridge, then lived for a long time at Rotter- dam, and died in Paris. He wrote (1696) a critical history of Homer, and in 1705 an edition of Suidas in three large volumes, published by the Cambridge Press. He then- busied himself on a life of Pythagoras (1707) and followed it up with a massive edition of Aristophanes, including all the Greek scholia, with a metrical version parallel to the text. He included also at the end of the volume all the modem comments, besides many notes sent by the great English classicist, Richard Bentley.®

The number of famous Dutch scholars who flourished in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries is notable be- yond those whom we have already mentioned. Thus, Lambert Bos,‘ the contemporary of Kiister, studied Greek grammar with much care at Franeker; and there was also the great edition of Livy by Arnold Drakenborch. This was originally in seven quarto volumes (1738-1746).

• See L. Miiller, op. cit., pp. 54-59.

• 1670-1716.

3 Infra, pp. 361-371.

• 1670-1717.

352 HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

His contemporary, Siegbert Havercamp, Professor at Leyden, edited Lucretius in two large volumes, full of errors. He was careless in neglecting the value of what lay nearest at hand, ix, the Leyden manuscripts. He col- lected a number of tracts on the pronunciation of Greek, and it was this collection which probably led to the ap- pointment of Havercamp as Professor of Greek at Leyden.

This honour should have been given, as is now plainly seen, to Tiberius Hemsterhuys,^ educated at Groningen and Leyden. At the latter university, when a mere youth, he was placed in charge of the public library, and at nine- teen was called to the chair of mathematics at the Athe- naeum at Amsterdam (1704). His acute criticism of clas- sical authors who were then being edited by the different professors led him to a distinction which was to become very great. J, H. Lederlin, who had been engaged to edit Julius Pollux, threw up his engagement, and de- parted suddenly for Strassburg, where a professorship had been offered him. The remaining three books of the work were assigned to Hemsterhuys, who, with natural modesty, wrote to Bentley, and begged for his opinion on ten pas- sages in the last two books. Bentley’s prompt answer to all these questions, thrown off at once in a letter that fills three pages of print, is a remarkable proof of his versatility and ready scholarship.^

^ 1685-1766.

• Still more striking was another incident connected with this book.

When Bentley received the first edition, he wrote back in words of high

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM

353

Later, this eminent Greek scholar began to edit the whole of Lucian, the minuteness of which can be judged by the fact that in ten years he had only translated and elucidated six of the texts. At that stage, however, the printing began, but proceeded slowly. The publisher, wishing to see the work completed during his own life- time, the remaining five-sixths were given over to one J. F. Reitz ^ of Utrecht, who finished them in five years. Hemsterhuys, likewise, did much text criticism in the editions of other men, correcting mistakes and emending doubtful passages. Meanwhile, he had been advanced to a professorship at the University of Harderwyk. Much to the disappointment of friends of learning, Hemsterhuys did not succeed Gronovius at Leyden, though he became professor at Franeker. Finally, however, in 1740, two years before the death of Havercamp, he received the

praise, but regretted that so learned a scholar as Hemsterhuys should have dealt carelessly with the metrical quotations in Pollux. Bentley, thereupon, proceeds to make the necessary corrections, and does so with such ease and fluency and fulness as would astonish the ripest scholar. They did, indeed, bring gall and wormwood to young Hemsterhuys. He had been well aware of the importance of these quotations, and had endeavoured with all his skill to rectify them. Hence Bentley^s easy mastery of the subject seemed maddening to Hemsterhuys who was so distressed, that he resolved to give up Greek forever; and for several months did actually not allow himself to open a Greek book.

1 Reitz (1695-1778) was head master of the local school at Utrecht. It was in this position that he assisted Hemsterhuys; but later for a period of thirty years he was Professor of History and Eloquence in the University.

354 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Professorship of Greek in Leyden, where he revived Hellenic studies so successfully that scholars from other lands flocked to hear him, while he was joined by his most famous pupil, David Ruhnken.^ Ruhnken had been studying Greek at Wittenberg; but so famous was Hem^ sterhuys, that even in the German universities students were advised to seek the Netherlands for the best instruc- tion in the Hellenic literature and language. Such renown had sprung from the arduous and brilliant labours of Hemsterhuys, Oudendorp, L. K. Valckenaer, Peter Wesseling, and one of the foreign contingent, Jacques Philippe d’ Orville, whose studies were made entirely in the Netherlands. There had been, indeed, a sort of rivalry between the Grecians and the Latinists at Leyden, and the other great Dutch universities.

For a time Latin was regarded as the chief of the classics, while Greek was, as it were, an oriental tongue to be grouped with Arabic and Hebrew. But Hemsterhuys and his colleague had taken Greek out of this unnatural position, and had taught it and its great importance, with brilliant effort and complete success. On the other hand, Latin for a time had become a sort of stamping ground for dullards, until Franz van Oudendorp* be- came a professor at Leyden, with the result that Greek and Latin were each represented by a man of stimu- lating power. Oudendorp’s Lucan, his editions of Caesar^

1 1723-1798.

® 1696-1761.

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 355

Suetonius, and Apuleius were excellent specimens of exe- getical work.

The Anglo-Dutch Period. — It has been said that the Protestant countries in the North had, by a natural sym- pathy, gradually been drawing together after the outbreak of Protestantism. But although the very early English scholars whom we have mentioned as flourishing in Ire- land and in the abbeys were in close contact with the schools of France and the splendid Italian seats of learning, not so much can be said for the Englishmen of the seven- teenth century. They had, however, a certain full-bodied enjoyment of the pagan side of classicism. They were not averse to the songs of the Goliardi; and, as a matter of pride, they patronised learning at Oxford and Cambridge and some of the public schools.

We have already seen that many yoimg Englishmen came to the Netherlands to study for a while, and the Netherlands were a source of English classical learning. A good type of these cultivated Englishmen was Sir Henry Savile,^ an Oxford man, who was tutor in Greek to Queen Elizabeth. Savile was a wealthy, high-spirited man, of much learning, although his learning was of a serious and painstaking sort. He translated four books of Tacitus, the Historim and also the Agricola. Fur- thermore, he wrote an excursus on the military usages of the Romans — a pamphlet which was translated into

• 1549-1622.

3S6 history of classical philology

Latin at Heidelberg in i 6 oi. Later he became Provost at Eton, and there he introduced a stem and austere disci- pline. He was one of those who were associated in pre- paring the authorised version of the Bible, and was knighted by James I.

Sir Henry endeavoured, as a work by which he should be remembered, to prepare a great edition of St. Chrysos- tom. He secured manuscript collections from Paris, but could not get a font of the royal type; whereupon, Savile bought a special font, employed the King’s printer, and oversaw the actual printing of the eight folio volumes which were done at Eton at a cost of;£ 8 ooo, the paper alone costing £2000. Casaubon, who was in England while this work was going on, describes it accurately as produced privata impensa, animo regio. No master- piece of English scholarship had heretofore been so splendidly executed and evinced such breadth of erudi- tion joined with lavishness of outlay. Savile was, indeed, a fitting type of the magnificent English scholar of the early school. Free-handed in gratifying his scholarly tastes, his generosity was felt all over England. He collected manuscripts, patronised other scholars; founded professorships at Oxford, and aided Bodley in foxmding the famous Bodleian Library.

Apart from his love of scholarship, Savile was, likewise, chivalrous in manner, and somewhat affected in his speech. He regarded himself as “an extraordinarily handsome

THE PEEIOD OF NATIONALISM 357

man, no lady having a finer, complexion.” His apprecia- tion of himself is commemorated by a portrait at Oxford, another at Eton, and by sculptured monuments at Merton College, Oxford, and at Eton. Associates of Savile were Andrew Downes,^ one of the revisers of the King James version of the Bible; but so fond was he of his haimts at Cambridge that he is said never to have attended the meet- ings of the revisers “ till he was either fetched or threat- ened with a Pursivant.” He was especially noted for his knowledge of Greek, and it is described by Fuller as “composed of Greek and industry.”

Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam,* entered Trinity College, Cambridge, at the age of twelve; and as a student he is said to have browsed chiefly among Cicero, Livy, Sallust, and Caesar in Latin; and in Greek among Homer, Xeno- phon, Plato, and Aristotle. Later he came to care little for Aristotle, while his attitude toward ancient philosophy is given in a sentence by Lord Macaulay: “Two words form the key of Baconian philosophy — utility, and pro- gress.” Bacon is unique because he regretted that there was a noticeable absence of any history of learning. Most striking is the famous Novum Organum (1620), which, by its title, declares the author to enter the philo- sophic field against the logical doctrine of Aristotle. As Aristotle thought that learning should be useful and, there- fore, content to be stationary. Bacon proceeds to develop

^ 1549-1628.

® 1561-1629.

3S8 history of classical philology

a system which shall be fruitful, and given to the develop- ment of new learning.^

There remain in this earlier period Ludwig Caspar Valckenaer, a professor in Leyden who made rather noticeable editions of the Hippolytus and Phosnissm of Euripides, and sundry editions of: (i) The Bucolic Poets , (2) The Fragments of Callimachus^ (3) Diatribe de Aris- tobulo. Valckenaer’s lectures were attended by English students as were those of Ruhnken, another professor at Leyden, who is to be remembered chiefly by his Lexicon to the Platonic words in the Timceus and his critical his- tory of the Greek orators.^ Daniel Wyttenbach,® a Swiss by birth, and educated at Marburg, studied also at the German University of Gottingen. He abandoned Ger- many to live at Leyden under Ruhnken, after which he taught at Amsterdam for twenty-eight years, then return- ing to Leyden for seventeen years. Wyttenbach produced a complete edition of Plutarch’s Moralia, with Greek texts, and Latin translation, with two volumes of notes, and two of an index, containing seven hundred pages. It is inter-

^ Another interesting writer and scholar of the same time was Robert Burton, who produced, after much quiet study, the famous Anatomy of Melancholy (1621). This volume is a delightful blending of what is grave, and what is gay, filled with apt and quaint quotations that contain the essence of human wisdom, so that from them many a gem has been drawn without acknowledgment.

2 See Wyttenbach, Vita Ruhnhmii, pp. 67-300, pp. 175-181; L. MiiHer, op, ciU pp. 84-88, 101-103.

• 1746-1820,

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 359

esting with regard to the scholarly relations existing be- tween Germany and Great Britain, that even when the two countries were at war, it was decided to print this great monumental work at the Oxford Press. The instalments of manuscript were sent successiyely to the Press through the British minister at the Hague, and several of these boxes were protected in a chest covered with pitch, that was mislaid for two years and a half, “ during all which time,” says Dr. Sandys, “ the editor (Thomas Gaisford) was anxiously uncertain as to its fate.” ^

In the course of time both Oxford and Cambridge began to spread their stately halls, and to cultivate the new learn- ing with Greek restored in some of the colleges where it had become almost unknown. There was at first a feud be- tween the Latinists, who had thought the Roman tongue sufi&cient, and their fellow-students — the two bands de- scribing themselves, respectively, as “ Greeks ” and “ Trojans.” Their animosity at times became so rampant, that parties of them took to fighting in the streets. But the progress of learning went steadily on, until England possessed classicists who were deserving of being matched with the great men upon the Continent. Charles Burney * declared, about the year 1800, that England had possessed a Pleiad: Richard Bentley (1662-1742); Richard Dawes

^ Sandys, op. ciL ii. p. 463 .

• 175 7-1818. He wrote a critical discourse on the metres of .®schy-

lus (1809).

360

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGy

(1708-1766); Jeremiah Markland (1693-1776); John Taylor (1703-1766); Richard Porson (1759-1808); Thomas Tyrwhitt (1730-1786); and Jonathan Toup (1713-1785).!

1 Andrew Downes (d. 1628) is associated with Savile’s gigantic edition of St. Chrysostom. Greek was largely restored by him in Cambridge, where he held a professorship of Greek for forty years (1586-1625). John Taylor (1703-1766) edited Lysias, .^schylus, and several orations of Demosthenes. Peter Elmsley (1773-1825) made, besides an edition of Thucydides, some excellent annotations on various dramas. Thomas Gataker (1574-1654), a Puritan scholar, published a Greek text of Mar- cus Aurelius, accompanied by a Latin version, and a commentary, so that this book was *‘the earliest edition of any classical writer published in England with original annotations” (Hallam). In his introduction there are many observations on the Stoic philosophy, and many illustra- tive passages from the Greek and Latin writers are given in the note. Morhof, in his Folyhistor^ i. p. 926 (Wiemar, 1747), placed Gataker among the six Protestants who were deeply read; and Gassendi calls him “a scholar of enormous reading.” A very versatile investigator was the jurist, John Selden (1584-1654), who sat in the Long Parliament, and in 1617 brought forth two works of which the first {The History of Tythes) was written in English, while the second treatise {De Diis Syris) was in Latin, and had a certain mysticism running through it. His name, how- ever, is far better known from its connection with the famous Arundel Marbles. These marbles were purchased in Assyria by an agent of the second Earl of Arundel. They were shipped to England, and placed in the gardens of Arundel House (1627). They consisted of two large frag- ments of a chronological table, which as a whole was called M armor Parium, The table begins with Cecrops, and continues as far as 354 b.c. The lost fragment, which would have been the third, ended with 263- 262 B.C., the year of its composition. Selden deciphered and interpreted the inscription, and published the Marmora Arundelliana with the most careful notes, description, and much learned information. When the marbles first came to England, they were gazed at by multitudes at Arun- del House, and Selden won universal praise. About 1667, John Evel3mL^s

TBE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM

361

Of these seven men, Richard Bentley was the most memorable master of Greek and Latin. He comes, indeed, in some respects close to the great Continental scholars, having the brilliancy of Muret, the versatility of Salmasius, and some of the depth of reading which was Scaliger’s. He was a burly, contentious Englishman, with a violent

diary describes the famous marbles as broken, and “scattered up and down about the garden, — exceedingly impaired by the corrosive air of London.” Some of these fragments had been used in repairing the house, while the upper half of the Marmor Parium was built into the chimney, whence it was rescued once more by Selden. At Evelyn’s request 250 inscribed pieces of marble were given to the University of Oxford. Only 136 arrived there. First they were inserted in the walls of the Shel- donian Theatre, and finally were placed in the University Galleries. Milton has been spoken of already as a controversialist and classicist, but belongs to the category of poets rather than that of professional linguists. He was a wide reader, wrote a number of Latin verses, “in the springtime of an ardent and brilliant fancy.” His Tractate on Education (1642) is, however, less the work of a poet than of a schoolmaster and encyclopsedist, since he arranged the classic authors according to a plan which he im- agined will form an “easie and delightful Book of Education.” He com- mends also the famous Italians for their commentaries and criticisms. Castelvetro, Tasso, and Mazzoni are those whom he especially mentions. It is interesting to note that he advises the Italian pronunciation of Latin and apparently of Greek. John Hales (d. 1656), and the still more famous Jeremy Taylor (d. 1667), and the dreamy “Cambridge Platonists” are an interesting but unimportant group of scholars. John Evelyn (1620- 1706), though best known for his English diary, translated into his native tongue the first book of Lucretius with a commentary (1656). A very learned lady was Mrs. Lucy Hutchinson, who translated the entire six books of Lucretius, dedicating them to the Earl of Anglesey. Her lack of sympathy with the poet is shown by her speaking of him as “this Dog,” and of “the foppish, casuall dance of attorns,” as “an impious doc- trine,” Thomas Creech, a fellow of All Souls, put forth a third transla-

363

HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

temper, and a pride so great, that when he was chaplain to Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, a nobleman, who was the Bishop’s guest, said to him after dinner: “ That chaplain of yours is a veiy extraordinary man.” “ Yes,”

tion of Lucretius and an edition of it with notes (1695) at the Oxford Press. Creech was a man of good taste, and a more serious scholar than most of his contemporaries. Besides his Lucretius, he translated portions of Horace, Theocritus, Manilius, Ovid, Juvenal, and Plutarch. The death of John Bryden occurred in the same year as that of Creech (1700). This manly poet had translated into metrical English not only Vergil, but also Horace, Perseus, and Juvenal. His renderings were far more spirited than Pope’s in his Homer; though Pope, by his neatness of phras- ing, brought the great epic poet into the hands of many. Pope, however, like the elder Dumas had collaborators, so that much of what passes as his work is in reality the work of others. Furthermore, a rh3mied version compelled him to depart from the original, or else to supplement it; so that the best-known couplet in his Odyssey is partly an interpolation: —

True friendship’s laws are by this rule exprest,

Welcome the coming, speed the parting guest. — xv. 74.

The seventeenth century was, in fact, one of classical taste. Joseph Addi- son, John Dryden, John Evelyn, and Joseph Spence were especially affected by the influence of Bentley, but perhaps even more by the so- called classic revival in France, of which we shall have something to say hereafter. Worthy of mention for serious classical study is Thomas Ruddiman (1674-1757), a Scotch printer and bookseller, who produced a practical grammar, entitled Rudimmts of the Latin Tonguej which went through many editions, was reprinted in England, and imported into the American colonies. His more elaborate work — Grammaticce Latinae Institutiones — was excellent for its treatment of syntax. He also printed the Latin works of George Buchanan, that truculent Scotchman who had assailed Queen Mary in Latin verse, and had made a metrical rendering of the Psalms, which brought him more credit than he deserved. Jere- miah Markland, already mentioned as one of Burney’s Pleiad, was a scholar of note, producing an edition of the Sihce of Statius, and showing

THE PERIOD OP NATIONALISM 363

replied the Bishop. If he only had the gift of humility, he would be the most extraordinary man in Europe.’’

Bentley was a Cambridge man (St. John’s College), and took his degree high among the wranglers. Later when chaplain to Bishop Stillingfleet, who had a remarkably fine library, Bentley read omnivorously, sounding deeply the vast reaches of classic lore — noting the nicest points, the most delicate shades of meaning, the cadences in verse, and the subtler laws of prose. After several minor writings, largely in the shape of letters, giving privately much aid to foreign and English scholars, he published, as an appendix to an edition of John Malalas of Antioch, his own now celebrated Letter to Mill (1691). In this letter he dealt most acutely with the Attic Drama, identifying Themis, Minos, and Auleas of the legendary history, as being actually the historical dramatists, Thespis, Ion of Chios, and iEschylus. He likewise discovered the metrical con- tinuity (syanphoeia) which exists in the anapsestic system. His monograph was less than one hundred pages in bulk, yet in it he criticised and explained more than sixty authors, Greek and Latin. By this achievement he won a reputa- tion among scholars on the Continent, who were, it must be confessed, better able to appreciate him than his own clever classicists in Great Britain.

critical ability in bis treatment of tbe Epistles of Cicero to Brutus, and of three plays of Euripides. He was familiar with the Continental learn- ing, and said of his own work: “Probably it will be a long time before this sort of learning will revive in England.”

364 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Bentley had a boundless ambition in these years. He projected a collection of the fragments of all the Greek poets, and another of all the Greek lexicographers. But his Epistola ad Millium was alone sufficient to place him at the head of all living English scholars. To quote Mark Pattison: —

The ease with which, by a stroke of the pen, he restores passages which had been left in hopeless corruption by the editors of the Chronicle, the certainty of the emendation, and the command over the relevant material, are in a style totally different from the care- ful and laborious learning of Hody, MiH, or Chilmead. To a small circle of classical students it was at once apparent that there had arisen in England a critic, whose attainments were not to be measured by the ordinary academical standard, but whom these few pages had sufficed to place by the side of the great Grecians of a former age.

Bentley’s only fault was a pugnacity and dogmaticism, which in after years made him as many enemies as his learning and genuine benevolence made him friends. In private life he was charitable to a degree, and young scholars found in him an unfailing source of aid.^ For some years after his Letter to Mill, his energy was extraor- dinary, though it took no shape in literary form. He won recognition from Continental scholars, and became librarian of the Royal Library, in which he worked labori- ously. The University of Cambridge asked him to obtain fonts of Greek and Latin type for the Press; and these he had cast in beautiful form in Holland. He aided Evelyn

1 Supa, p. 351-52.

THE PEKIOO OF NATIONALISM 365

in his work on ancient coins. He corresponded with such Continental scholars as his illustrious contemporary, F. A. Wolf, and supplied Grasvius with numerous suggestions, and especially an invaluable collection of the fragments of Callimachus.

The work by which Bentley is best known — hisDis^er- tation on the Epistles of Phalaris — need not be mentioned here at length. The so-called Epistles of Phalaris have already been suspected by many as spurious. Bentley had promised to prove their spuriousness, which he did in a short paper. This paper was resented by the Oxford editor of Phalaris, the Hon. Charles Boyle. Boyle at- tacked Bentley, and in so doing called to his aid his numerous friends, who saw in this controversy a battle between Oxford and Cambridge, and who, therefore, freely lent Boyle all the assistance in their power. The result was a tract marked by shallow learning and ingenious soph- istry, but full of clever malice and amusing wit. These last qualities made it good reading even for the unlettered, and it was widely read, going almost at once into a third edition. Bentley then replied in his immortal Dissertation, in which he put forth a part of his gigantic powers. In profound scholarship, as in wit, he crushed his adversary, so that no answer could possibly be given, nor was one ever tried.

Soon afterward he was nominated to the headship of Trinity College, Cambridge, most splendid in its traditions and in the magnificence of its foundation. It had, how-

$66 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

ever, in 1700, become the dwelling-place of cultivated idlers — men who dined and wined and cared little for the scholar’s life. To them Bentley came as an unwelcome reformer, riding roughshod over their traditions and their tastes. He diverted the college funds to purely academic uses, he introduced strict discipline, and, in fact, as De Quincey wrote, “He made Trinity College at once his reward and his scourge for the rest of his life.” This con- test, which has been styled “The Thirty Years’ War,” would have killed a less sturdy man than Bentley. But he fought through it all with the combative spirit that was naturally his. More than once it seemed as though he must go under in the face of an almost unanimous opposition. At one time he was deprived of his academic degree, and his headship was taken from him; yet when he died, he was an undisputed victor, secure in the possession both of his degrees and of his headship of Trinity.

It is an interesting fact that all of Bentley’s published work represents the casual hours that he could steal from his struggle against the enemies within his academic house- hold. This fact gives us one more proof of the man’s immense scholarship and his profound reading, every line of which was at the disposal of his wonderful memory. In his books we see, not the carefully finished work of a leisured scholar, but the mere play of a giant, whose mind is really bent on other things. This is true of his Dis- sertaMon on Phalaris; and it is just as true of his critical

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 367

edition of Horace (1712), in his Terence (1726), in his Milton (1732), and in his Manilius (1739), and the famous Critica Sacra with its notes on the Greek and Latin text of the New Testament.

An admirable account of Bentley’s work as a critic will be found in Sir Richard Jebb’s brilliant little monograph, published in the English Men of Letters Series.^ There will be shown, with many interesting illustrations, the almost preternatural ingenuity of Bentley’s mind. This best showed itself in the elucidation of passages in Greek and Latin, which had been utterly despaired of by preced- ing scholars. To throw a dazzling light into tibe deepest darkness was Bentley’s forte? He arrived at his results by happy combination of vast reading, minute scholarship, and a gift for conjecture which few have ever possessed. First of all he was a critic, and in a large measure he was the kind of critic who relies largely upon what the French call le sentiment critique — that is to say, upon an in- stinctive knowledge of what the author had in mind, and of how he would naturally express himself. Bentley for- mulated this theory of his in the famous sentence: Nobis et ratio et res ipsa centum codicihus potiores sunt?

It was Bentley’s command of the three instruments of criticism mentioned here that gave him his sureness and

^ London and New York, last ed. 1889.

• Cf. Jebb, op. ciLj pp. 139-140, and p. 211.

• In his note on Horace, Carm. iii. 27. 13.

368 HISTOHY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

dexterity. He possessed the “ critical sentiment ” in a high degree, he was a master of his subject (m), and he was familiar with the manuscripts (codices). Hence his great success in conjectural emendation. He became a new leader in the field of criticism, largely because he applied to his task each of these three aids; and so long as he gave each of them an equal share in his work, he remained un- rivalled in his chosen field. He leaned, however, too much toward the instinctive critical sentiment, and therefore, while his emendations often strike one by their brilliancy and ingenuity, they are not convincing. And so, for ex- ample, out of the hundred or more changes which he in- troduced into his edition of Horace, only four or five have been accepted to take their place in the texts of modem times.

Hence Bentley must be regarded chiefly as a pioneer. He was the first to point the way toward truly scientific methods. Others have followed in his steps, and have passed beyond him, but their achievements are all due to Bentley’s inspiration and example. He serves also as a warning; for when he tried to make criticism purely sub- jective, he, with all his powers, began to flounder in a bog of error. Thus in his edition of the Paradise Lost, under- taken at the request of Queen Caroline, he evolved the absurd notion that the text as we have it is not the text as Milton wrote it, but that it had been altered in places by a copyist through whose hands it had passed. There-

THE PERIOD OE NATIONALISM 369

fore Bentley goes through the book, and by an entirely subjective method, endeavours to restore it to its original form. The result is both ludicrous and pathetic, and may serve as a warning to those who think that merely by put- ting themselves in place of an author, they can think his thoughts, and rewrite what he wrote. In later years the Swedish scholars have shown something of this audacity. The French school have held to an intense conservatism, while the German school, to which we shall presently refer, learned from [^Bentley’s best work the value of correcting one source by another, and using the critical sentiment with caution.

Bentley’s emendations are dazzling examples of what a combination of learning and genius can effect. To him also we owe the discovery of the digamma in its relation to the prosody of Homer, the suggestion for a new and critical revision of the New Testament, and the flood of light which he throws upon the early Latin metres in his introduction to Terence. It is strange that not until the nineteenth century was his genius fully recognised in England. Eng- lishmen thought of him mainly as the contentious Master of Trinity, — as a quarrelsome, pugnacious creature; whereas, even in his youth, his name was known all over the Continent as the greatest scholar of his time. As late 1833, Bishop Monk, who wrote his life,^ regrets that he

1 See The Life of Richard Benidey, 2d ed. (London, 1833). This book

370 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

“wasted his time upon conjectural criticism” instead of turning his attention to Theology. But the Germans have never ceased to give him the praise that is his due. “ Thus,” says Mahly, “ Bentley is not merely one among the great classical scholars, but he inaugurates a new era in the art of criticism. He opened a new path. With him, criticism obtained its majority. When scholars had hitherto offered suggestions and conjectures, Bentley, with unlimited control over the whole material of learning, gave decisions.” Bunsen styled him: “The founder of historical philology.” Jacob Bemays, with rare enthusiasm, wrote: “ Corruptions which had hitherto defied every at- tempt, even of the mightiest, were removed by a touch of the fingers of this British Samson.”

But in the England of his day, even the most learned men were so far below him as not to appreciate the greatness of his powers. When \v\sDissertaiion appeared, his opponents at Oxford were aware that he had routed them; yet their learning was too slight to make them understand how utterly they were crushed; and as for the British educated public, it supposed for a long time that Boyle was in reality the victor. Thus when Bentley died, in his eightieth year, his own coimtrymen remembered him by his long struggle in Trinity College. They hardly dreamed that in Richard Bentley England had produced the richest intellect, and

has more to do with Bentl^r’s quarrels and personal affairs than with his work as a critic and scholar.

THE PERIOD OF NATIONALISM 371

the most remarkable t3rpe of scholarship that can be found in the annals of Classical Philology in Great Britain.^

Contemporary with Bentley and following him are a number of learned men who are chronicled by English- men, but who made no great impression upon the history of European scholarship, though one of them, Richard Dawes,* in his emendations to the Greek dramatists, was followed in some instances by Enmck, and was after- wards confirmed by the Ravenna MS. One who is other than an Englishman may find it worth while here to recall Christopher Pitt,* who made an excellent translation of the ^neid, and another of Vida’s Art of Poetry. Thomas Gray,^ best known to posterity for his Elegy in a Country Churchyard, was a writer of very careful and delicate Latin poetry; while he was mentioned by some as among the few Englishmen of his time who thoroughly under- stood Plato. Richard Hurd® should be mentioned be-

^The principal biograpliies of Bentley are those of Monk, already cited; Mahly, Richard Bentley. Bine Biographic (Leipzig, 1868); Ber- nays, Philol. Mus. viii. 1-24.; Wolf, Kleine Schriften, ii, 1030-1094; De Quincey, Complete Works j vi. 35-180; Nicoll, Great Scholars; Mark Pattison in the Encyclopcedia Britannica, vol. iii; and Jebb, Bentley, 2d ed. (New York and London, 1899).

The works of Bentley were collected and edited by Dyce, 3 vols. (London, 1836). Separate works have been edited as follows: Disserta- tion on the Epistles of Phalaris, edited by W. Wagner (Berlin, 1874); Horace, edited by Zangemeister (Berlin, 1869) > Critica Sacra, edited by A. A. Ellis (Cambridge 1862).

2 1709-1766. * 1717-1771.

• 1699-1748. ® 1720-1808.

372 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGy

cause of his jesthetic commentary on the Ars Poetica of Horace, and the Epistola ad Augustum which had the unusual honour at that time of being translated into Ger- man. One cannot pause to dwell upon scholars who were able and sometimes worthy of passing notice from their Continental contemporaries. Perhaps an exception may be made in favour of Samuel Musgrave,^ a student at Leyden, as well as at Oxford, who numbered among his correspondents foreigners of such distinction as Ruhn- ken, Schweighauser, and Emesti. He edited the whole of Euripedes, and twice visited Paris in order to make a careful collation of the text Thomas Tjrrwhitt, one of the Pleiad, was much admired during his lifetime, and was said to have a knowledge of almost every European tongue. Certainly his literary taste was excellent It was he who led the way in detecting the famous forgeries of Chatterton. He likewise edited Chaucer, and criti- cised Shakespeare with real acuteness. In some ways he was a worthy follower of Bentley’s method, for he dis- covered many traces of Babrius in the fables of .<Esop. His critical notes on many authors, and especially his valuable edition of Aristotle’s Poetics, with a Latin version, gained him recognition from France and Germany. But other Englishmen may be omitted from this short list until we reach the name of Samuel Parr.* Parr was essen-

^ I732-I7S0.

2 1747-1825. See Field, Life of Samuel Parr, 2 vols. (London, 1828); and NicoU, op, cit, pp. 139-187.

THE PEEIOD OF NATIONALISM 373

tially a Latinist, and practised the composition of Latin epitaphs and various inscriptions which gave opportunity for the cultivation of a stately style. He was fond of saying with regard to one friend or another, “ It is all veiy well to say that So-and-so is a good scholar, but can he write an inscription? ” He held that even in Oxford he could find but one inscription which resembles the models of antiquity, while in Westminster Abbey he could not find even one. Parr wrote a Latin preface to a work of Bellen- den, and made it so elaborate and so closely modelled on Cicero that this preface was studied in the schools, and even in Cambridge, as a model of Latin prose, in this respect resembling the Latin of Muretus upon the Conti- nent. Macaulay ‘ has spoken of Parr’s vast treasure of erudition as “ too often buried in the earth, too often paraded with injudicious and inelegant ostentation, but still precious, massive, and splendid.”

In fact, Parr was not one who concentrated his powers upon a single object. His reading was remarkably wide, both in the classics and in philosophy, and yet he always failed of being supremely great. Looking over the annals of scholarship in the eighteenth century, one finds between Bentley and Person (whom we have still to consider) less that is remarkable in the way of severe study than in a taste for elegant criticism. Bentley’s strange edition of file Paradise Lost was, in its way, a piece of English

1 Essays, p. 642 (London, 1861).

374 HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

exegesis; and we have noted some of the various transla- tions, such as Pitt’s version of the Mneid, and of Vida’s Art of Poetry. So Thomas Gray wrote more truly in a vein of criticism than of creation, while Hurd’s aesthetic commentary is remarkable for its time, and Tyrwhitt’s exposure of Chatterton, like his criticism of Shakespeare, was essentially the work of an analytic mind, which dealt with comparison and tbe application of the fundamental principles of the art which judges art.

By far the greatest English scholar after Bentley was Richard Person, ^ the son of a parish clerk in a small town in Norfolkshire. Person’s personality was extremely odd. In his prime he is described as having been nearly six feet high, with a bulging forehead, a Roman nose, and an expressive mouth, while his countenance suggested pro- found thought. Such is the description of his, perhaps, partial friends. If he was so impressive looking on cere- monious occasions, he was certainly otherwise in his daily life. His dress was slovenly and seemed to be thrown upon him; his hands were ink-stained, while his snortings and puffings and absent-minded contortions must have re- sembled those which Macaulay has ascribed to Dr. Samuel Johnson. Porson was, likewise, over-fond of drink, and it is related of him that even at official dinners he drank te excess; while after the guests had departed he would walk about the table, sipping up the dregs which remained

1 i7S9-x8o8.

THE PERIOD OP NATIONALISM 375

in the glasses of the others. When deprived of stimu- lants, he had a strange craving for such things as soap, cologne, and ink, which he would lap up with avidity wherever he could find them.

His mental powers were, however, remarkable. As a mere child he evinced a high degree of memory, so that a number of gentlemen provided him with funds to enter Eton and afterward Trinity College in Cambridge. There he took various honours, until he reached a fellowship. The unfailing generosity of his friends also gave him an annual income of £ 100 , and he was unanimously elected to the professorship in Greek, though the income from this chair vras only £ 40 . Two years before his death he was made librarian of the London Institution. In all the various posts that were held by him, he studiously neglected his duties, but no one called him to account. He was considered a prodigy, as much so when he was eating soap, as when he was overthrowing Gottfried Hermann as to nice points in Hellenic metres.

Person was naturally an indolent person, and yet he accomplished an enormous amount of work, and did an enormous amount of reading. There is a tradition that when he made the journey by mail-coach from Oxford to London, he crammed the pockets of his long top-coat with editions of the various classics printed in small type, anci by the swa3dng lamp of the coach, pored over them with painful assiduity. Among the really important results of

376 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Personas learning are (i) his restoration of the Greek in- scription on the Rosetta Stone; (2) his critical edition of four plays of Euripides; (3) the preface to the second edition of his Hecuba^ in which he completely disposed of the ingenious theories of Hermann; and (4) his Letters to Travis^ one of his early works, yet very important, be- cause in it he proved that the passage in the New Testa- ment (i St John V. 7) which speaks of the three that bear witness in heaven ’’ is wholly spurious. This opinion had been held by Erasmus, and by many other scholars down to the time of Bentley, but it was Person who first made it a certainty.

Person^ was essentially a Grecian, and his Latinity was not so remarkable as that of Samuel Parr; but as a Hellen- ist he excited the admiration of Continental scholars, with whom he maintained a continual correspondence, e.g, Ruhnken, Heyne, Villoison, and Hermann. In 1808 he died, and was buried in Trinity College, at the foot of the statue of Sir Isaac Newton. A portrait of him hangs in the dining room of Trinity Lodge, and another in the Univer- sity Library. If we wish to see a perpetual and ever

1 See Watson, Life of Richard Porson (London, 1861); The Table Talk of Samuel Rogers (London, 1856); and Luard, Cambridge Essays (London, 1857); also The Correspondence of Richard Porson by Luard (Cambridge, 1866) ] NicoU, op. cit. pp. 91--138, and Sand3rs, In Social England, vi. p. 300 foil. — Note: The authenticity of the traditional text on the “three heavenly witnesses” was defended by John Burgess, Bishop of Salisbury, but was finally and absolutely refuted by Dr. Turton, afterwards Bishop of Ely.

THE PERIOD OP NATIONALISM 377

present monument and memorial to him, we shall find it in the beautiful Greek type in which almost all our modem texts are printed. This was cast after Person’s death from the clear and elegant letters in which he copied his Greek manuscripts, and which is now everywhere known as the “ Porsonian type.”

From the middle of the eighteenth century until nearly the middle of the nineteenth, such renown as English learning shed upon English scholarship was in small measure due to the influence of the great English univer- sities. The colleges, both at Oxford and at Cambridge, were sunken into a sort of lethargy. The Fellows en- joyed their stipends in their beautiful academic homes, not by any means neglecting the routine reading of the classics, but doing nothing for the advancement of classical learning, and caring more for the fine vintages of the cellars, and the deep potations with which they ended every day, than for plainer living and higher thinking. If men of real distinction came from among their number, this was in spite of the university influence and not because of it. Thus, Lord Chesterfield spoke of the “ rust ” of Cambridge; and even West, the friend of the poet Gray, writing to the latter, says: —

“Consider me very seriously here in a strange country, in- habited by things that call themselves Doctors and Masters of Arts, — a country flowing with syllogisms and ale, where Horace and Vergil are equally unknown.”

378 HISTORY or classical philology

Gray, answering him, quotes the words of the Hebrew prophet, and insists that Isaiah had Cambridge no less than Babylon in view when he spoke of wild beasts and wild asses, of an inhabitation of dragons and a court for owls.

A more serious indictment was that of England’s greatest historian, Edward Gibbon, uttered in stem and stately language against the University of Oxford. After giving the particulars of his unprofitable stay there, he spoke the famous words which have become so widely known: —

‘‘To the University of Oxford, I acknowledge no obligation, and she will as readily renounce me for a son, as I am willing to dis- claim her for a mother. I spent fourteen months at Magdalen College; they proved the most idle and unprofitable of my whole life. The reader will pronoimce between the school and the scholar.'^ ^

It is Edward Gibbon who, thrust forth from Oxford in his seventeenth year, because he chose to become a Catholic, wrote with all the minute application and research of an accomplished scholar the greatest existing history of later Rome. From childhood he had been remarkable for his unusual memory, which his abundant reading fed. It was in Rome in 1751 that the first conception of his great work came to him. The plan then formed was originally limited to the decay of the imperial city, but after years of reading and reflection it was expanded to embrace the

^See Morison, Gihlon^ pp. 7--10 (New York, 1879); Lang, Oxford, pp. 199-218 (Philadelphia, 1906).

THE PESIOD OF NATIONALISM

379

Empire, as its title (The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire) shows. He began to write this book in 1772, after twenty-one years of reading and research, and pub- lished the first volume in 1776. Two more volumes were published in 1781, and the last three volumes in 1788. From the moment of its appearance, it ranked as a classic of the classics, nor even to this day has the most searching criticism discovered an important error in its massive structure. The book, indeed, has been rightly called, “ one of the greatest achievements of human thought and erudition. It is in reality a history of the civilised world during those thirteen centuries when paganism was being supplanted by Christianity.” New facts have thrown a different light upon some of Gibbon’s conclusions; but the most critical scholarship has not altered the essential truth of his great panorama. His style gives point and endurance to what he writes. It has stateliness and balance and a sort of “measured melancholy” befitting the author’s theme; yet it would, perhaps, have made the whole monotonous, were it not infused with a certain piquant quality which led Byron to speak of Gibbon as “ the lord of irony.” ‘ He died in London in r794.

How little the universities had to do with the broader field of classics, is seen by the fact that archaeological

^ The numerous editions of Gibbon’s Decline and Fall have all been supplanted by that of Bury in seven volumes (London, 1896-1909). See also Gibbon’s Memoirs, edited by Hill (London, 1900); and The Letters of Gibbon, edited by Pro there (London, 1896).

380 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

study was carried on almost entirely outside their precincts. The manner in which they treated the Arundel Marbles ^ is sufficiently characteristic. The reproach, however, was not applicable to Englishmen in general. Thus the so-called Dilettanti Society, which had been founded in 1733, produced some remarkable works for which it found the necessary funds. Two explorers (James Stuart and Nicholas Revett) furnished the material for a work of enduring value, known as T/te Antiquities of Athens Measured and Delineated? This book was rendered into German, and is still referred to by the student of archae- ology because its plates exhibit the earliest reproductions of the monuments at Athens.

Nolessvaluableweretheworksof Robert Wood {d. 1771), an inveterate traveller, who brought accounts and drawings of the ruins of Palmyra and Heliopolis. Sir William Hamilton sent to the British Society of Antiquaries a minute account of the early excavations at Pompeii. The British Museum was enriched by a splendid collection of Greek and Roman marbles, bronzes, coins, gems, vases, and other antiquities; while Richard Payne Knight col- lected a splendid set of antique bronzes and coins, which also fell to the Museum. The travels of Sir William Martin Leake in Upper Egypt and in Turkey and Greece (1801 and 1804) both enriched the literature of archaeology

‘ Supra, p. 360.

’First edition, 1762; second edition, 1823-1830.

THE PERIOD OP NATIONALISM 381

and added to the immensely valuable collections that were sent to England. In particular one may mention his Topography of Athens (1821), Travels in the Morea (1830), Travels in Northern Greece (1835), and Numis- matica Hellenica (1854).*

Hence, at a time when Oxford and Cambridge had lapsed into something like an academic languor, so that men of real genius left them and pursued their studies independently, much was done to stimulate research and classical scholarship by the splendid collections that were gathered by individual enterprise and by the generosity of the Government. One of the most magnificent insti- tutions of learning in Great Britain was, and still re- mains, the British Museum in London, which is rivalled only by the Louvre in Paris.*

^ See The Memoir, by Marsden (London, 1864).

• The British Museum had its nucleus in a fine collection of books,

manuscripts, and specimens of natural history gathered by Sir Hans Sloane. In 1753 ^6 offered this to the Government for £20,000, though it had cost him more than £50,000. The money was raised by a public lottery; and then the Sloane collection with the Harleian and Cottonian libraries were arranged in Montague House, which was purchased for this object. The institution was opened in 1759 under the name of the British Museum. New collections were added continually, until in 1823 the eastern wing of the present building was erected, and the whole structure as it stands to-day was finished in 1847. It is impossible to describe it, except to say that it is divided into various departments of (i) Printed Books; (2 and 3) Manuscripts; (4) Greek and Roman Antiquities; (5) Coins and Medals; (6) Egyptian and Assyrian Antiq- uities; (7) British and Mediaeval Antiquities; (8) Prints and Draw- ings. Some notion of the immensity of the Museum can be inferred

382 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

The monuments of the East beyond the domain of Hellas and Rome were splendidly exhibited in this struc- ture, and the travellers and explorers who had stimulated a knowledge of Archasology veiy naturally were destined to excite and increase the study of language in a new and hitherto unknown form. English scholarship heretofore had done little or nothing to aid Philology, apart from the comparative study of Greek and Latin, leaving for the scholars of the Continent to speculate as to the relations of Hebrew which was regarded as a primal and original tongue; but now, at the close of the eighteenth cen- tury, there came an oriental scholar who was to open one of the most brilliant pages in the study of classical learning.

This was William Jones* (afterwards Sir William). He was bom in London, and was educated at Harrow, whence he was entered at University , College, Oxford. There he was able to gratify his strong desire to gain a thorough knowledge of oriental languages. His instinc- tive orientalism seems to have been like that of the late Edward Henry Palmer ’ in that, without visiting the East, he became versed in both Persian and Arabic, colloquially as well as in the dialects. In 1770 he published, at the

from the fact that if the books in the library were placed on end in book' cases eight feet high, they would extend to a distance of more than three miles.

1 1746-1794-

2 Edward Henry Palmer, by Walter Besant (London, 1883).

THE PEEIOD OE NATIONALISM 383

request of the king of Denmark, A Life of Nadir Shah, translated into the French from the Persian; in the next year, A Persian Grammar (1772); and in 1780 he trans- lated the seven exquisite poems, known to the Arabs as the Mo'allak&t. Sir William, like Hugo Grotius, was as remarkable in law as in literature. He wrote a number of legal essays, so that in 1783 he was knighted and made a judge in the Supreme Court of Judicature in Bengal. His delight at finding himself amidst everything that was oriental showed itself in many ways. He established the Royal Asiatic Society, to whose volumes he contributed largely, and of which he was the first President. He published the translation of a story in verse, called The Hindu Wife, and finally an English rendering of the ancient work, now well [known to Sanskrit scholars, Sakuntala, or the Fatal Ring (1789). This aroused a wide interest throughout Europe, and led to a general discussion of Hindu literature. Jones was engaged in a digest of the Hindu and Mohanomedan laws at the time of his death in 1794.

He was one of the most noted linguists and oriental scholars that England has ever produced;* one passage penned by him in the first volume of Asiatic Researches^ after he had given what one may call only a slight

^ See The Life of Sir William Jones by Lord Teigmnouth (London, 1807).

® Asiatic Researches j i. 442 (1786).

384

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

glimpse of Sanskrit) is memorable in the history of lin- guistics: —

“The Sanskrit language, whatever may be its antiquity, is of a wonderful structure; more perfect than the Greek, more copious than the Latin, and more exquisitely refined than either, yet bear- ing to both of them a stronger affinity, both in the roots of verbs and in the forms of grammar, than could have been produced by accident; so strong that no philologer could examine the Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, without believing them to have been sprung from some common source, which, perhaps, no longer exists. There is a similar reason, though not quite so forcible, for supposing that both the Gothic and Celtic had the same origin with the Sanskrit. The Old Persian may be added to the same family.” ^

1 Though Sir William Jones rightly pointed out the peculiar similarity between Sanskrit, Greek, Latin, and Old Persian, we must remember that something had been done before his time to help the progress of this discovery. In the Middle Ages, the Arabs introduced some knowledge of the Hindu science, and the so-called Arabic (Hindu) numerals. In the sixteenth century, the Portuguese, Dutch, English, and French obtained a foothold in India. They sought there, however, only merchandise and precious stones, though some knowledge of Sanskrit was gathered by missionaries, and one of them even translated a Sanskrit poet into Dutch as early as 1651. The first Sanskrit grammar to be issued in Europe was compiled by Father Paulinus, who had it printed in Rome in 1790, only a few years before Jones’s death; but the real mediator be- tween India and Europe were men of letters, like Charles Wilkens, H. F. Colebrooke, and H. H. Wilson, In Germany, their translations were admired intensely by men like Goethe, Herder, the two Schlegers, and after them those who found in Hindu literature something more interest- ing to them even than its lyrics, its remarkable epics, and its very strik- ing drama. See Frazer, A Literary History of I^idia (New York, 1904); Macdonell, A History of Sanskrit LiteraturCj with bibliographical notes (New York, 1900); Biihler and Kielhom, Grundriss der indoarischen Philologie (Strassburg, 1896 foil.).

X THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

Where shall we look for those early schools in which there were gathered togetherwandering scholars who yielded the first fruits of the early universities? We have already mentioned the revival of learning promoted by Charles the Great with the aid of Alcuin/ His successor, Louis the Pious, who “ knew Latin and understood Greek,’’ let learning lapse; and later the monastic school at Tours was of slight importance, although in it an Irish monk composed a Latin grammar. Charles the Bald, the son of Louis, was king of France from 840 to 876, and Emperor of the West. At the head of the school set up by him he placed the most noted philosopher of the early Middle Ages, John the Scot (or Duns Scotus), and he invited teachers from Ireland and even from Greece. At Fulda a school founded by Boniface was famous for the labours of those whom Alcuin taught. Among them was the German, Rabanus Maurus, bom at Mainz, Servatus Lupus, and Walafrid Strabo. It was Rabanus (or Hrabanus) who founded the library at Fulda and then retired to a lonely hill, where he composed a great many encyclopaedic works and several treatises on educa-

^ Supra , pp- 219-229.

2C 385

386

HISTORY OT CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

tion. He introduced Priscian’s grammar into the schools of Germany, besides a short tract on alphabets and abbreviations.

In the Middle Ages many fragments of classic literature were read and studied, and some of them much more fully than we should have supposed. The historians (Caesar, Sallust, Livy, Suetonius, and Florus) were very familiar, and Valerius Maximus was popular because he abounded in historical anecdotes. Germany was not so well supplied with books as were France and Italy. Nevertheless, one cannot be veiy precise upon this point. For instance, Pliny the Elder’s Historia Naturalis is catalogued nine times in France and in Germany, and only twice in Italy and Eng- land. On the other hand, the younger Pliny is mentioned only twice in the book-lists of Germany, while his letters are quoted once by a scholar in Verona. There are more traces of Tacitus in Germany than elsewhere.^

Petrarch, who knew something of the North, regarded the Germans of Austria as by no means strangers and incuUL Thus when the German Emperor, Charles IV, became head of the Holy Roman Empire^ and showed himself a generous patron of literature, the Italian poet hailed him as a new Augustus, a sincere friend of all the arts. Petrarch corre-

^ An elaborate account of the preservation of the Latin classics in the monasteries of the East, arranged in a very careful way, will be found in a number of works and monographs such as West, in Proc, Amer. Phil. Assoc., 1902, xxii foil.; Wattenbach, Sckriftwesm im Mitkldter (Berlin, 1871), etc. ^ 1346.

THE GERMAN INELTJENCE

387

sponded with the Emperor, from 1350 to 1356, when he was sent to the Emperor’s capital at Prague,^ then supposed by the Italians to be ‘ the extreme confines of the land of the barbarians.’ Before this time he had given the Emperor an effigy decorated with gold and silver coins of ancient Rome, showing the images of his great predecessors. Arrian’s ac- count of Alexander in easy Latin verse was taken to Vienna (1442-1455). .®neas Silvius wrote (1450) a Latin treatise on education for the benefit of his imperial master.

When .®neas was made Pope in 1459, his former pupil, Hinderbach, who was fond of him, promised on behalf of Germany that this country should continue to cultivate the humanism of which the new Pope had been so admirable an example. Classics were, therefore, soon taught by him (1460-1469 ); and he also lectured in Vienna, not only on mathematics but astronomy. His pupil, Johann Muller, of Konigsberg, best known as Regiomontantos, lectured on Vergil, Terence, and Cicero’s De Senectuie. A number of classicists and also astronomers now spread throughout Germany, establishing rude schools where lectures were regularly given and where editions and translations of Greek and Latin works were put into circulation. It is interesting that at Ratisbon the calendar was so studied as to lead to a proposal for its correction. Because of this the Archbishop was summoned to Rome, where he died.*

Let us trace briefly the rise and progress of the greater

• 1356.

’ 1476.

388 HISTOEY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

German universities. It came partly from Paris and partly from th,e influence of Italian universities, especially Bo- logna.^ The earliest of them was at Prague (1348), and the next the University of Vienna (1365). Paulsen says tliat both of these were on the eastern borderland of German civilisation in that Paris was near enough for Western Ger- many, and because between the old church schools, such as Cologne, a close connection was kept up. In the same century (1385) the Westerns founded the University of Heidelberg (1385) and the University of Erfurt. Five of these remain at the present day; Cologne having been closed in 1794 and Erfurt in 1816. It must be remem- bered that it was Austria and the parts of Germany which bordered on Italy that receive more directly the fruits of French and Italian culture. Though rude and touched with the semi-orientalism of Byzantium, Austria was at least more civilised than the barbaric North. All this is prior to the Renaissance, and these imiversities were the homes of scholasticism. A second period of great activity opens with the humanistic movement. Such doctors as Albertus Magnus and Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus had taught and argued in many of these schools. Then came the Hussite schism which lost Prague to Germany. In its place the University of Leipzig was founded (1409). Rostock opened its halls (1419) to meet the needs of the Baltic countries.

1 Originally devoted solely to the study of law.

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

389

The humanistic movement naturally called into being fresh seats of learning. Of these there were nine German universities/ of which four (Greifswald, Freiburg, Basle, and Tubingen) still continue to exist. It is characteristic of the German mind that the universities in Austrian Ger- many did not arise gradually like the older ones in France and Italy. They were established after a scheme already in operation, both the spiritual and temporal power con- tributing to their foundation. It was the Pope who founded the institution, and gave it the privilege of bestowing de- grees; while its continued existence was assured by the local sovereign, who provided the revenues and granted to the university temporal and corporate privileges. Thus we see that the German notion of a higher seat of learning was one that had been mapped out in advance, with a defi- nite purpose and a somewhat cut-and-dried academic ideal. The triple division of scholaris, baccalatireus, and magister is, as Professor Paulsen says, “ evidently identi- cal with that of apprentice, journeyman, and master work- man, which we find among the mediseval artisans.” * Thus the historical development of German universities went on, though with alterations in their character con- cerning which we shall briefly speak. For a long time a

^ Greifswald (1456), Freiburg (1457), Basle (1460), Ingolstadt (1472), Treves (1473), Mainz and Tubingen (1477), Wittenberg (1502), and Frankfurt'On-the-Oder (1506).

® See Paulsen, The German Universities , Eng. trans. by E. D. Perry (New York, 1895).

39 °

HISTORY OF (XASSICAT PHILOLOGY

university might be a great seat of learning, or it might be only a humble school with a small foundation, destined to be swept away in a few years. It may be convenient for reference to name the universities in Germany and Austro- Hungaiy which exist to-day,^ and to say a word or two con-

^In Germany to-day there are twenty-one universities, the largest being Berlin (with about 5800 students), Munich and Leipzig, Bonn, Breslau, Freiburg, Halle, Tubingen, Heidelberg, Gottingen, Marburg, Strassbiorg, Wurzburg, Kiel, Kbnigsberg, Erlangen, Giessen, Greifswald, Munster, Jena, Rostok. At Freiburg, Munich, Munster, and Wurzburg the faculties of theology are Catholic; at Bonn, Breslau, and Tubingen they are mixed Catholic and Protestant; while the faculties at all the other universities are Protestant. It might as well be added that the universities of Austria-Himgary number seven — Vienna, Gratz, Inns- bruck, Pesth, Breslau, Cracow, and Limberg.

Of the distinguished men who first made German learning illustrious — omitting those of whom we shall speak above — are Peter Luder (c. 1450), who matriculated at Heidelberg before he visited Rome. Later he returned to his German academic home and lectured on the Latin poets (1456). This was such an innovation that his older colleagues did every- thing possible to hinder him in his work, so that when the plague afficted Heidelberg, Luder lectured with much applause at Ulm, Erfurth, and Leipzig. One of his most ardent pupils at Leipzig was Hartman Schedel (1440-15 14), who became known as a collector of humanistic literature. It was he who preserved a great part of the journal of Ciriaco d^Ancona (see supra, p. 268) with copies of monuments and inscriptions. His own collection is now in the library at Munich, and his work on the history of the world from the Creation to the year 1492 is everywhere known as the ‘‘Nuremberg Chronicle.” His sketches of ancient monuments are said to have inspired some of the drawings of Albrecht Diirer, now in Vienna. Schedel was, therefore, an important figure in the human- istic period of German scholarship. Another leading humanist who deserves especial mention was the Frisian who is best known by his Latinised name Rudolphus Agiicola (1444-1485). His mental and

THE GEEMAJ!T DSTELHENCE

391

ceming their characteristics. In the earliest days of Ger- man scholarship the universities were essentially scholastic.

physical activity is shown by his interest in travel and observation; for he was educated at four German universities and, perhaps, at Paris. He then journeyed to Italy, studying at Pavia and at Ferrara, where he was a student of Greek under Theodorus Gaza. After so much activity he appears to have dropped to a rather humble station in his native city of Groningen, where he was town clerk for four years. However, during this time he acted as a town-envoy, and often visited Deventer, where he met Erasmus. Later he taught at Heidelberg, lecturing on Aris- totle, and translating selections from Lucian. Humanists in Germany looked to him as their leader. Like Erasmus he was very influential in his private and personal associations, though his scholarship was some- what overrated. He wrote a treatise on education which appeared in the same volume as like works by Erasmus and Melanchthon, an honour which it did not deserve. He had, however, the truly humanistic spirit, and urged carefulness in reading, practice of the memory, cheerful alacrity, and a quiet but earnest opposition to the stiffness of scholas- ticism, Alexander Hegius (1433-1498), who was a teacher of Erasmus, made Deventer a great humanistic centre of Northern Germany. He mocked at the old mediaeval text-books, and pointed back to the Latin Classics as the true source of a perfect Latin style. There follows him, Rudolf von Langen (143S-1519), who studied at Erfurt, visited Italy, and finally founded a great humanistic school at Munster. Another famous school was that of Jacob Wimpheling (1450-1528) at Schlett- stadt in Alsace, which was the third of the schook of Germany. Later, at Strassburg to which he migrated, he founded a literary humanistic) group which followed the teachings of Erasmus. He was the friend of Sebastian Brant, well known in English literature as the author of the Ship of Fools (1494). Conrad Celtes (1459-1518) is rightly called by Dr. Sandys “the knight-errant of humanism in Germany,” His early years were unfavourable, but after spending some time under Agricola at Heidelberg and learning a little Greek, he made his way into Italy, living with the] most cultivated Italians at Padua and Ferrara, and in Rome. When he returned, he received the poetk aown from Fried-

392

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

From the middle of the fifteenth century, the humanistic in- fluence came in strongly, especially with those men whom we have already mentioned. Subsequently arrived a period of partial reaction, owing to the influence of Martin Luther

rich III at Nuremberg. Celtes was the J&rst German to win this honour. Immediately afterward he founded humanistic societies in rapid succes- sion in Poland and Hungary, and along the Rhine. The last (at Mainz) was a very famous group. Its first president was the Maecenas of the time, Johann von Dalberg, and among its members were the two Greek and Hebrew scholars, Trithemius and Wilibalc Pirkheimer. Johannes Trithemius was a great collector of manuscripts, and is still remembered for his learning. Celtes, also a member of this group, was later called to be the head of the Imperial Library in Vienna. He travelled a great deal throughout Germany, and described his adventures in a collec- tion of Latin poems, many of which do not tend to edification, but suggest the semi-pagan spirit of the early Renaissance. He is best remembered to-day for a discovery which he made in the Vienna Library of a thirteenth-century copy of a Roman map {itinerarium). The origi- nal was as early as the third century, and is of great interest, although a part is missing. This map Celtes bequeathed to a rich patron of learn- ing, one Conrad Peutinger of Augsburg, from whom it gets its familiar name Tabula Peutingeriam. This copy was painted at Kolmar after the model of an original map, which consisted of twelve broad strips of parchment showing all those parts of the world that were known to the Romans. The pieces which should contain Spain and Britain are lost, with the exception of the southeast comer of Britain (Kent). It is disproportionately lengthened from east to west, the ratio of its height to its breadth being 1:21. The distances from town to town are marked on lines running from east to west. The relative sizes of the towns are indicated by distinctive marks. Those who are interested in this very early map can find it in the little Atlas Antiquus of Justus Perthes (Gotha, 1893). — On all that proceeds, see Lernen wtd Forschen (Berlin, 1892); Pearson, Ethic of Freethought (1901); Janssen, A History of the German People^ Eng. trans,, i. 63-80 (London, 1891); Bursian, Gesckkkte der Mass* Philologie in Deutschland j etc. (Munich, 1883).

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

393

(d. 1546), who introduced a purely ecclesiastical mode of learning, but it was checked by the great scholars who pre- ceded F. A. Wolf (1739)- If we prepare a scheme of Ger- man scholarship from Luder dowm to Bopp,^ it will stand somewhat as follows: introducing not only Criticism and Hermeneutics, but Archseology, including History, Gram- mar, Religion, Geography, Chronology, Metrology, Nu- mismatics, and Epigraphy.

I. Ecclesiastical Period (1400 to c. 1415).

II. Humanistic Period (c. 1415 to c. 1660).

III. Ante-Wolfian Period (c. 1660 to c. 1739). rV. Wolfian Period (c. 1739 to c. 1810).

V. Post-Wolfian Period (c. 1810 to c. 1870).

After 1870, as will be seen, German scholarship was no longer isolated, but belonged to the cosmopolitan creative study of all the western world. There are many different ways of subdividing these periods of German learning. Al- most all scholars agree in speaking of the Ecclesiastical i’eriod. Almost all of them will speak of the Humanistic Period. After that, there are other divisions in terminology. Thus we shall hear of the Grammatico-critical School, of the Historico-antiquarian School, and finally of the Junggrammatiker, until the scholarship that is purely Ger- man ceases to exist as an isolated phenomenon. Ger- many first teaches all the world, and then learns from all the world, until at last the divisions of learning cease to be ^ That is to say, from about 1451 through 1867.

394 mSXOEY oj classical phtlology

National, and become wholly Cosmopolitan. The Eccle- siastical Period has already been sufficiently described in the preceding pages, and so has the spirit of the early Renais- sance.

One should speak more fully of the first great Grecian to arise in Germany, in the person of Johann Reuchlin,! who studied at Paris and at Basle, — at the latter school under a native Greek. It was there that he wrote a Latin dictionary, entitled: Vocahvlarius Breviloquus, an excellent work which was preferable to its predecessors in the clear- ness of its arrangement, and which was the more remarkable from the fact that he was only twenty years of age when the book was finished. After some further study, he taught both Greek and Latin at Orleans and Poitiers. He describes Greek as “ necessary for a liberal education; for it leads us back to the philosophy of Aristotle which cannot really be comprehended until its language is understood.” Later, in Rome, he met Argyropulos, who was surprised at Reuch- lin’s command of Greek. Later still he learned Hebrew, and thenceforward pursued the study of it as the most im- portant thing in life. For the last year of his existence he was professor of Greek and Hebrew at Tubingen.

The fact that Reuchlin urged the study of Hebrew was distasteful to the bigots of the day. They preferred dog- Latin and still more barbarous Greek to a language which they regarded as almost impious to learn. Reuchlin was,

‘ 14SS-1S2*-

THE GEEMAN INELUENCE

39 S

therefore, abused and assailed for a long wMle, until the enlightened humanists of the day came to his defence. They believed that anything and everything should be studied, and they fell upon Reuchlin’s enemies like a band of light horse. These witty and nimble-minded scholars came to the defence in the once famous satire called Epis- tola Obscurorum Vir&rum (1516-1517). The first book of the Epistola was largely composed by a humanist named Johann Jager, while the second was mainly the work of the famous writer, Ulrich von Hutten; and the quiet, deeply learned leader of this band was Conrad Muth (Mutianus Rufus), who had been at school with Erasmus, and with him had felt the earnest inspiration of early hu- manism. Returning to Germany, he made his canonical residence at Gotha, and over the door he set in golden letters the words: Beata Tranquillitas. There he lived as a lover of all that is beautiful in literature. It was a strange fate that he should have survived to see his home plun- dered by a ProtestEmt mob at the time of the Reformation.

For Protestantism had broken in upon the mild and gen- ial humanistic learning, especially in Germany, where the followers of Luther were savage in their assault upon what- everwasrefined and beautiful. The humanistssaw that they had more to fear from the stark ignorance of the Protestants than from the occasional intolerance of the Catholics. Not long, however, did this Lutheran riot continue. The inven- tion of the printing-press and the setting up of printing-

396 HISTORY or CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

presses all over Europe did much to beat back Protestant- ism of the radical sort, and to bring again the more graceful attitude of the classicists. The desecration of cathedrals with their beautifully painted windows, the pillaging of art galleries, the smashing of the most exquisite statuary, — these atrocities did not continue for very long. With the multiplication of printing-presses a love for classical learn- ing returned, and before the end of this period (r66o) the modem languages had begun to exercise an influence whicli classicists deplored, but which was in reality a humanistic trait Among the greater humanists of Germany was Helius Eobanus Hessus,^ who lectured to enormous audiences on poetry and rhetoric. Of his pupils was the famous Camerarius,® who formed one of the interesting group who clustered around the press of Froben at Basle. He is chiefly noted for his criticism of Roman chronology.® Among his friends at Basle were Beatus Renanus,‘ the associate and biographer of Erasmus, and well kno\vn for his editio princeps of Velleius Paterculus, and his work on the text of Tacitus; Clareanus, who held the professorship of poetry; Giyaenus of Heidelberg, famous for discovering a manu- script of the first five books of the fifth decade of Livy; and finally Galenius of Prague, who produced editions of Callimachus and Aristophanes, as well as of the Planudean

^ 1488-1540, * 1500-1574. Really Kammennaim.

• See Bursian, op, cit,, i. 154 foil.

See his life by Horawitz (1872-1874).

THE GEEMAN INELUENCE

397

Anthology. Many minor scholars helped to give distinc- tion to Basle, partly by residing there, and partly by accept- ing professorships for short periods in French and German universities. In this way they scattered the rich seed of classical learning and of liberal education.

The great educator whom Germany remembers best to- day by the name of “ The Preceptor ” was Philip Schwarz- erd, better known to us and to the world at large as Me- lanchthon.* Though a friend of Luther, he could not be in thorough sympathy with that boisterous, unruly spirit, but was instead a classical scholar of great diligence. Ger- many to-day feels the influence of Melanchthon in its severe training in grammar and style. Melanchthon wrote grammars of Greek and Latin and a large number of classical text-books. The works that he composed in Latin, especially his Latin Letters, are written in a style that is clear and simple, though without distinction. He was a Lutheran in his dislike for the paganism of Italy; in fact, he was essentially a German philologist and not an Italian classicist or a French one.

Johann Sturm of Strassburg was another important name in the educational development of early Germany.^ He

1 1497-1560. There is an excellent biography of Melanchthon by Hartfelder, in Woodward^s Renaissance Education; while he is criticised by Pearson in his Ethic of Freetkought, already quoted. A biography in English by T. B. Saunders has been announced for publication.

® 1507-1589. Other educators who were contemporaries of Sturm were Rivius, who corrected many passages in Sallust; Michael Neander,

398 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

was head-master of the school at Strassburg for forfy-three years, and made the chief work of his scholars the writing and the speaking of Latin, for tin's seemed to him the whole of education. Pupils from all countries came to visit him, and his school became a sort of model for most German gymnasia. It happened that Roger Ascham, who never met him, was a correspondent of his and once wrote to him: —

“For our time the odde man to perform all three perfitlie, what- soever he doth, and to know the way to do them skilfullie, whan so ever he list, is in my poore opinion, Joannes Sturmus.”

A work written by Conrad Gesner, just mentioned, was a somewhat remarkable attempt at achieving what many were at that time studying and discussing with great inter- est. This was a book known as MUhridates (1555), which has been styled the first effort toward the comparative study of language. When Hebrew was added to Greek and Latin as a subject for wide study, linguists began to look at it with a peculiar interest. Very many scholars held that all living languages must have sprung from a single tongue.

who prepared a so-called Opus Aureum, made up of Greek and Latin moral sayings; Basilius Faber, whose Latin Thesaurus or Lexicon long survived, being reedited by Cellarius (1686); Grsevius (1710); and J. M. Gesner as late as 1726. An earlier Gesner at Zurich wrote a sort of combina- tion of a biographical-bibliographical dictionary, united with an en- cyclopaedia, together with a dictionary of Greek and Latin, and one of proper names. A pupil of Rivius was Georg Fabricius (1516-1571), who studied in Italy, and explored with lively interest the monuments and inscriptions in Rome. Like modem editors of the familiar classics, he used his knowledge of topography and antiquities to illustrate his editions of them.

THE GERMAN INELUENCE

399

Furthermore,' they argued that as the Old Testament was written in Hebrew, Hebrew must have been the earliest lan- guage in the world, — a theory which has found adherents down to Gesenius in recent times. Great was the industry devoted to collecting words from different languages which had the same meaning, in order that they might then be studied for traces of their common origin.

After the rise of the Reformation there was less literary study of the classics, but everyv'here one might notice a sterner and stricter discipline both in the schools and in the universities. Especial branches of learning were cultivated. Lexicography is represented by Basilius Faber (1571), and a very thorough knowledge of Greek with critical acumen were the characteristics of Friedrich Sylburg and Lorenz Rhodomann, the latter of whom was remarkably skilful in writing Greek hexameters, so that his epic poems which he put forth anonymously (1588) were widely believed to be genuine works of antiquity.

In Hungary during the Renaissance there were some few well-trained classical students, such as Johannes Vit^z (d. 1472), who corresponded with the Italian scholars; and J£nus Pannonius, who brought to Hungary a large collec- tion of Greek and Latin manuscripts. The king of Hun- gary, Matthias Corvinus,^ was interested in the humanities. He founded an academy at Pressburg, and also a university at Buda, where he maintained thirty copyists and artists

1 1443-1490-

400 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

to continue the supply of illuminated manuscripts. It is interesting that Latin remained the spoken language of the Hungarian aristocracy down into the nineteenth century. Maria Theresa’s famous harangue to the Hungarian nobles was delivered in Latin, as was their spirited response:

Moriamur pro rege nostro, Maria Theresa! ” Latin was also the ofhcial language of the Hungarian Diet, until 1828.^

1 Almost the same thing may be said of Poland, where a well-known humanist who had studied at Cracow, and seems never to have visited Italy, maintained for some twenty years a brisk correspond- ence with Filelfo. The first Latin history of Poland was written by Johannes Dlugosc. Latin poetry was mainly studied by Gregor of Sanok, who finally became a lecturer at Cracow. The most famous humanist, however, who made Latin popular in Poland was Filippo Buonacorsi. He, with Celtes, founded classical societies both in Poland and Hungary, as the latter had done in Western Germany. See Zeissberg, Die polnische Geschichisschreihimg des MUklaUers, etc. (5. 1. 1847), and on Polish classicism see Sokolowski and Szujski, Mon. Medii Mvi, t. ii (Cracow, 1876). Classical studies in Russia began in the seventeenth century, when the Academy of Kiev was founded in 1620. Latin was studied rather than Greek in that century, and all instruc- tion was carried on in Latin. After Kiev, Moscow became a seat of learning, after the establishment there, in 1679, of a printing school. In this the study of Greek was carried on and was subsidised by the government. This developed into the Slavo-Grseco-Latin Academy (1685), with teachers who were of Greek descent, but who had taken their doctor’s degrees at Padua. This academy was favoured by Peter the Great, and here were published translations of classical authors, twenty-six volumes being rendered into Russian by the long-lived scholar, Martynov (1771-1883). The University of Moscow was founded in 1755, the University of Vilna in 1803, the University of St. Petersburg in 1819, the University of Kazan in 1804, the University of Kharkov in 1804, and that of Odessa in 1865. Much was done for the promotion of literary studies of every kind by Catharine H in the

THE GERMAN INELUENCE

401

Further students of distinction who followed in the seven- teenth century were Johann August Ernesti,^ a famous teacher of Latin style, especially of the pure Ciceronianism. His most famous books are an edition of Cicero in five volumes (1739) with an Onomasticon Ciceronianum pub- lished after his death at Halle (1832). To this school of stem scholarship we must also ascribe Johann Jacob Reiske, a student of oriental Greek, and author of full editions of Plutarch, Dionysius Halicarnassensis, and others, all of which were not published until after Reiske's death. He wrote his own autobiography, published in

eighteenth century, she who summoned Voltaire and other French writers of distinction to offset the German influence, which remained and continued to be very strong. Almost all the distinguished scholars of Russia were either of German birth and training, or at least of German training. Thus R. T. Timkovski had studied at Gottingen, under He5me; Professor D. L. Kriukos (1809-1845) had been a pupil of Boeckh; while one of the most brilliant scholars at St. Petersburg, Professor N. M. Blagoviestschenski (1821-1891) had “ heard ” Hermann, Becker, Haupt, Creuzer, and Schlosser at Leipzig and Heidelberg. This scholar wrote a very able work on Horace and his times, besides an annotated translation of Persius, and also discussed certain in- teresting questions of Roman History. Of native stock were V. K. Lernstedt (1854-1902), who made an edition of Antiphon; L. F. Voevod- ski (1846-1901), who wrote a peculiar treatise on cannibalism in Greek Mythology, which, however, he regarded as bearing upon the Sun Myth. Of the many Germans who taught in Russia the best known are Christian Friedrich Matthaei of Moscow, where he discovered a manuscript of the Homeric Hymns; C. F. Graefe at St. Peters- burg, who edited Nonnus, using German in this work because “ the revival of classical learning belongs to the Germans.” During the 1 1707-1781.

402

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Leipzig (1783). The true founder of the science of Ar- chaeology was Johann Joachim Winckelmann. Winckel- mann was the son of a poor cobbler, and was for many years a charity scholar, rising gradually by his energy and ability. At length his associates advised him to fol- low that career which ultimately made him the first great creative and critical scholar in the field of Classical Archaeology. He spent much time in Rome, Naples, and Pompeii, and became librarian to Cardinal Albani, the most famous collector of his time, to whom he owed innimerable opportunities. In many ways his work led to the elevation of taste in the decorative arts; but his monumental production is his Geschichte der Kunst des Alterthums, which appeared in 1764 (new edition by Julius Lessing with biography, 1882). Winckelmann was the

middle of the nineteenth century it may be said in general that the Germans greatly influenced and stimulated Russian scholarship. August Nauck spent the better part of his life in teaching Greek at St. Petersburg, while Lucian Muller was equally conspicuous for his work in Latin. Archaeology owes much to Russia, and its study began in the reign of Peter the Great, in the year of whose death the Academy of Sciences was founded. After the Crimea had been conquered in 1783, great interest was taken in the exploration of this former home of Greek civilisation. Much has been done in this fleld by H. E. Kohler, an authority on ancient gems, and especially by L. Stephani (d. 1887), who spent nearly forty years in charge of the antiquities in the Hermitage at St. Petersburg, while writing many | valuable monographs on the researches in Southern Russia. See the interesting S3mopsis of the history of classical scholarship written by Professor Maleyn of St. Petersburg, and incorporated by Dr. J. E. Sandys in the third volume of his work already cited, pp. 384-390.

THE GERMAN INELUENCE

403

teacher of his age and the expounder of Classic Art. It was his theory of the Beautiful which greatly impressed Goethe and which led Gotthold Ephraim Lessing to put forth his famous discourse called Laokoon^ which has never ceased to be discussed.^ Winckelmann’s death has an interest for the superstitious. In April, 1768, he left Rome to revisit Germany; but on the way a strong feeling came upon him that he should not departi rom Italy. This feeling finally amounted to a horror, yet a man so sane as Winckelmann disregarded it, and visited both Munich and Vienna. At the Austrian capital he was received with great honour by the Empress, Maria Theresa., who presented him with a number of very ancient and rare gold coins. Leaving Vienna, he hurried to Trieste to take ship for Italy. On his journey, however, he fell in with a man named Arcangeli, an ex-convict, whose greed was excited by the gold, and who in consequence entered Winckelmann’ s room and stabbed him to death, on June 8, 1768.

Joseph Eckhel,2 founded the science of Numismatics by making a specialty of Greek and Latin coins and med- als, on which he wrote eight volumes, entitled Doctrina Num- morum Veterum, the first volume appearing in 1798 and the whole work being reprinted in a fourth edition (1841).

Christian Gottlob Heyne, a persuasive teacher steeped in reading, ends this so-called Ante-Wolfian Period. He

^ See K. Justi, Winckelmanrij sein Lehen, seine Werke und seine ZeiU gmossen, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1872). ® ^ 7 S 7 -’i 79 ^>

404 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

was professor at Gottingen, and though his learning was preeminent, it was his exceptional gifts as a teacher which gave him and his university the leadership at this time. It is said that of his students at least one hundred and thirty became professors in various uni- versities throughout Germany and Holland. Friedrich August Wolf was born in 1739, and lived a long life and died in 1824. He was, as we have already said, the true founder of modem philology.^ He was at first Professor of Philosophy at Halle until that university was closed after the battle of Jena (1806). His teaching was marked by great breadth, since he held that classical study dealt with every phase of the life and thought of antiquity. In classical antiquity he found a model of public and private life, resting upon the highest ideals. In 1807 he went to Berlin, where he took an active part in founding the new university; but, unfortunately, he became involved in petty quarrels, so that he left Germany and visited Southern France, where he died. His lasting fame rests upon his so-called Prolegomena ad Homerum (1795). In it he traced the history of the Homeric poems, and sought to show that they have both been greatly changed from their original form, and that they are made up of separate poems by different authors. It is not true, how-

^ See supra, pp. 2-3. He attracted much attention by insisting on being matriculated in Philology, though there was no such faculty. He was told to matriculate under Theology, but refused; and thus he was the first Studiosus philologiiiexn. G&ttingen.

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE 405

ever, as many believe, that he denied the existence of a personal Homer. Wolfs views had in part been antici- pated by Giambattista Vico, by Robert Wood, and in a fashion by Bentley. They go back even to the of Alexandria; but Wolf knew nothing of Vico, and moreover his own minute researches were extremely stimulating, apart from his conclusions.^

Wolf marks the beginning of a new era in classical schol- arship. From this time on we find in Gennany two schools, one devoted to Criticism and Exegesis (the Gram- matico-critical School) , of whom the great exponents were Gottfried Hermann,^ a sort of German Bentley; Christian August Lobeck,^ whose Aglaophamus (1829) contains a vast fund of information on the Orphic and other mys- teries of the Greeks; August Immanuel Bekker,^ who, besides preparing text-editions of Greek authors, largely helped to edit the Corpus of the Byzantine writers in twenty-four volumes, and also a Homer with the digamma

1 See Volkmann, Geschichte und Kritik der Wolfs Prolegomena (Leip- zig, 1874).

2 1772-1848. Hermann was professor at Leipzig (1803 foil.) and gave courses which were wide in their scope and interest, especially in grammar and composition. Know your authors at first hand, ” was his motto. In the study of Greek prosody and rhythm, he was likewise a great and original expounder. He first set forth the doctrine of the Anacrusis^ and was the father of Metaphysical Syntax. See W. G. Hale, A Century of Metaphysical Syntax, published in part of the Proceedings in the St. Louis Exposition in 1904.

® 1781-1860.

^ 1785-1871.

4o 6 HrSTORY OF CXASSICAX PHILOLOGY

printed in the text. He spent a long time in making re- searches throughout the principal libraries of Europe, and he studied the texts with entire indifference to the printed editions. An epoch-making work was that of Karl Lach- mann on Homer’s Iliad (1807), and above all, his immortal masterpiece, in which he took the hitherto rent and little understood poem of Lucretius, and with his fine critical sense — far greater than Bentley ever possessed — restored it to its rightful place among the masterpieces of Latin genius. Lachmann was fiirst a professor at Konigsberg and afterward at Berlin, where he remained one of the most distinguished of his colleagues for more than a quarter of a century. It was late in life that he pro- duced his Lucretius, an accoimt of which is given in the preface to that poef by H. A. J. Munro, who says: “ Hardly any work of merit has appeared in Germany since Lachmann’ s Lucretius, in any branch of Latin literature, without bearing on every page the impress of his example.” He was, in fact, the creator of a strict and scientific system of textual criticism. In this he follows Bentley, of whom he cannot say too much in praise; but he goes beyond Bentley in restraining his “ critical sentiment ” by ascertaining the original form of the work through the evidence of manuscripts, and the correction of their errors. He was renowned no less for versatility than for profound learning, so much so that it may be said with truth that he was a master of three

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE 407

great departments of philology —oriental, classical, and Teutonic. In each of these he produced an epoch-making work. For, besides his Lucretius, by which he is per- haps the best known, he applied the principles of Wolfs Prolegomena to the German epic of the Nibelungen to show that this could be resolved into twenty original ballads or lays; just as he resolved the Iliad into eighteen, for he regarded the poem as inconsistent in details. In his treatment of Lucretius he was followed especially by Hermann Kochly, by Jacob Bemays, and by the Englishman, H. A. J. Munro; but we must not forget that the first clear light upon this difficult text came centuries before, from Lambinus (Denys Lambin). The third great achievement of Lachmann was his treatment of the New Testament, in which he brought out the methodology of scientific textual criticism.^ To the same period belong in the Grammatico-critical School the illustrious names of August Meineke,^ who wrote a critical history of the Greek comic poets, and edited the fragments, assisted by Theodor Bergk, as also the Alex- andrian poets in his Analecta Alexandrina^ K. W. Dindorf,^ Karl Lehrs, ^ Friedrich Ritschl,® and August

^ i793"'i85i. 2 1790-1870.

® 1802-1883. With his brother Ludwig he edited all the Greek plays and other texts, besides a lexicon to iEschylus. Both brothers shared in the making of three famous series — the Teuhner^ the Tauchnitz, and the Didot.

^ 1802-1878. A great authority on grammatical studies in Greece.

® 1806-1876. See Friedrich Ritscht, by L, Muller (Berlin, 1878),

4o8 histoey of classical philology

BTauck,^ who did so much for the lives of the Greek tragic poets. He was a professor in the Academy of St. Petersburg, — one of the many who carried the influence of German scholarship to Russia, as did his contempo- rary, Lucian Muller.

In the Historico-antiquarian School, we find Barthold Georg Niebuhr, * founder of a new school of historical study. Niebuhr was a Dane by birth and a lawyer by profession. But soon after the University of Berlin was founded he was called to the chair of history in that insti- tution, where he lectured almost wholly on the annals of Rome, before brilliant audiences who were charmed by his novel manner of treating what had become a threadbare subject. Hitherto, Roman history had been -told and written of with no great discrimination. The early legends had been accepted or rejected in a lump. But Niebuhr approached them in the spirit of a lawyer or a judge who knows that all human testimony is imperfect and yet con- tains a certain amount of truth. Therefore, he proposed without prejudice to take up the written records of Livy and other authors and to weigh and balance them as though he were presiding in a court. This method was singularly acute, and on the negative or destructive side was widely accepted. But when he came to constructive work and

iSas-iSga.

• 1776-1831. See Winkworth, The Life and Letters of Niduhr (London,

1853), and Eyssenhardt, Niebuhr (Gotha, 1876).

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

409

himself put forth two volumes of a History/ they were treated by historians according to Niebuhr’s own method, and had their defects pointed out with much acumen. The theory of tribal lays ” had been somewhat over- done; and when Niebuhr resolved tlais early history of Rome into the remains of a series of poetical ballads, he failed to convince. He was not even original.^

Yet it was Niebuhr who first treated his subject in a truly scientific spirit so far as his early lectures went His studies of the population of Rome under the Republic, and its divisions — the plebsy the patricians and plebeians, the ager publictis, etc. — were all new and acceptable to scholars. Furthermore, he put forth two volumes of mis- cellanies; mainly philological, and dealing partly with the criticism of classical texts® and topography, having himself in Italy discovered new fragments and palimpsests. Niebuhr had a freshness and vivacity of style which helped convince his hearers; nor was this effect diminished by a remarkable self-consciousness such as once led him to say: “ The discoveiy of no ancient historian could have taught the world so much as my work.” Though in

^ In 1812.

• Perizonius, the Dutch scholar, had anticipated this theory (1685),

while the Frenchman, Louis de Beaufort, had published (1738-1750) proofs of the uncertainty of early Roman History. Niebuhr was also preceded by Arnold Heeren (1760-1842), whose monographs on ancient commerce, politics, and colonization were in many cases written before Niebuhr began his lectures at Berlin,

® 1828-1843.

410

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

detail he was often wrong, the later researches of able men* have not shaken the foundations of his history. He was, in fact, a Danish Gibbon, dealing with the early Republic as Gibbon did with the later Empire.^

1 His friend, Georg Ludwig Spalding (1762-1811), went to Berlin with Niebuhr and there put forth three volumes of a fine edition of Quintilian, the fourth volume being seen through the press by P. K. Buttmann with an excellent lexicon to the author by Bonnel in a fifth volume.

2 Other scholars of the time were the famous F. E. D. Schleier- macher, who did so much for German prose style and for the ana- lytical study of Plato; Ludwig Friedrich Heindorf, also a Platonist, but best known for his notes on Horace; Philipp Karl Buttmann (originally Boudemont), author of a clearly expressed but purely dogmatical grammar, and of a Lexilogiis, an acute study of the Homeric vocabulary. His other works may be ignored. Immanuel Bekker (1785-1871), of Berlin, was a notable critic of Greek texts. For sixty-one years he held his professorship at Berlin, seldom lectur- ing, seldom heard, yet winning a brilliant reputation among scholars for his collection of manuscripts (over four hundred) and his improvements in the existing texts of Aristotle, Plato, the Attic orators, the Byzan- tine historians, many late writers, and in Latin, of Livy and Tacitus. It was first said of him, and not of von Moltke, that he could be silent in seven languages.*’ See H. Suppe (Gottingen, 1872). August Boeckh (1785-1867) was the rival of Gottfried Hermann. He devoted his attention to the antiquarian aspect of the classics. He made especial studies of Plato and the dramatists, while his elaborate edition of Pindar is a monument to his industry (i 81 1-1821). He was professor of Eloquence in the University of Berlin for fifty-six years. In his work he was more interested in broad views of classical learning, and unlike Hermann he published a treatise on the public economy of Athens (Eng. trans,, Boston, 1857), and a great part of the Corpus Inscriptiomm Grcscarumy but not ended until (1877) ten years after his death.

THE GEE31AN INFLUENCE 4”

Among the earliest text-critics and grammarians after Hermann was Christian August Lobecfc (1781-1860), who taught at Wittenburg and Konigsberg. He discussed with much acuteness the laws of word-formation in Greek, taking up the terminations of nouns and the general laws of the language in his Phrynicus (1820), his notes on a fragment of Herodian (1820), and his great Paihologia Sermonis Grad (1843-1862). His comprehensive knowl- edge of Greek literature enabled him to pour forth a mul- titude of examples and to detect and illustrate the living phenomena of the language. In addition to Lobeck was Gregor Wilhelm Nitzsch (1790-1861) , whose life was largely devoted to Homeric studies. He differed from Wolf in regarding the actual Homer as living near the end of the poems, and therefore the shaping artist; while he makes the point that the Cyclic Poets implied the existence of an Iliad and an Odyssey somewhat in their present form.

Better known, in foreign countries at least, was Karl Friedrich Kagelsbach, and most of all for his treatise on Latin style {hiteinische StMstih),^hIch. appeared in 1846, and reached its ninth edition at the hands of Iwan Muller (1905) , who gave it a complete index, and thus greatly added to its usefulness. The book deals with the most character- istic differences of idiom between Latin and German prose.

Lobeck and Elarl Lehrs carried on grammatical studies relating to the Greek from the begiiming of the decadence (300 B.c.) to the Byzantine Age. As a critic. Lehrs treated

412

mSTORV OF CLASSICAL PHttOLOGY

the text of Horace very severely, many of whose odes he even rejected as spurious! An early pupil of Hermann was Friedrich Wilhelm Thiersch (1784-1860), a lecturer at Munich, and doing much for the organisation of the educational system of Bavaria. He had studied the art of the Louvre and the British Museum, and therefore gave much attention to antique sculpture. It was due to him that the Glyptothek was founded at the Bavarian capital by the Crown Prince. Thiersch, however, rightly belongs to the list of grammarians, and besides two Greek grammars, he wrote innumerable treatises on the nicer points of word-formation and the particles. He was fairly intimate also with modem Greek, and wrote in French a treatise on the Greece of to-day. Other professors at the Bavarian university were Georg Anton Friedrich Ast (1778-1841), editor of the Characters of Theophrastus; Leonhard Spengel, Carl Prunst (1820- 1888); and Ludwig Doederlein, professor at Bern and Erlangen, and noted for his forcible and stimulating lectures, full of epigram, and for his rather unmethodical treatises on synonyms and etymologies in Latin {Lateinische Synonymen und Etymologien, 6 vols.; Lateinische Synony- mik, etc.), the first of which was published in 1826-1838, and the second in 1839.

Grammar was still the subject that attracted Karl Wilhelm Kruger (1796-1874), whose Greek grammar in two parts has its rules clearly stated and its examples

THE GERMAN INFLXJENCE 413

always pertinent. This book was rivalled by that of Raphael Kiihner (1802-1878), and the trio was completed by Heinrich Ludolf Ahrens (1809-1881), the author of an exhaustive treatise on the Greek dialects (Gottingen, 1839-1843). Many of the papers of Friedrich Wilhelm Schneidewin, the editor of several Greek dramatists, show that he, too, though given to criticism as Hermann was, and to archaeology as was Thiersch, was a grammarian in the sense that we now employ the word.

But Syntax led to another sphere of labor with Gott- fried Bemhardy (1800-1875), 1829, published a

volume on the scientific syntax of the Greek language, but regarded syntax solely in its relation to the history of Latin literature. As professor at Halle (where he was afterwards pro-Rector) he published a very interesting monograph on his own system of classical learning (1832), which is very suggestive and full of truth. According to him, grammar is the instrument of such learning, and Criticism and Interpretation its elements. Of less account and purely ancillary are Antiquities, Palaeography, Numismatics, and Epigraphy. In this, Bemhardy may be said to have set forth the whole tmth regarding classical study when regarded from the standpoint of a wise and widely read scholar who applies philosophy to the subject that is dearest to him. In Bemhardy one sees alike the influence of Hegel and of Wolf. He carries out his prin- ciples in two books which were the first of the kind to

414

HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

place the study of classical literature upon a very high level.*

Following Bemhardy, an excellent work on Roman literature® was prepared in two volumes by Wilhelm Sigismund Teuffel of Tubingen (1820-1878). This work is not intended for continuous reading, but is a sort of glorified bibliography with notes. It was at first vilely translated into English by W. Wagner, and later its fourth edition, having been enlarged and supplemented by L. Schwabe, was well rendered into English by G. C. W. Warr (1845 1901)) who added the more important

English and French references which the Germans had insolently omitted. This is a book of great value to the student of Latin for the easy access which it gives him to many details relating to Roman authors and their books. Closely linked with another valuable work of reference is the name of Teuffel, who assisted the completion of the great Real-Encyclopadie of August Pauly (1796- 1845), a monument of minute information regarding Greek and Roman topics, which, begun at Stuttgart in 1839, was finished after Pauly’s death.®

1 Gru 7 tdriss der rbmischen Litter aiur (1830, 3th ed., Brunswick, 1872); Grundriss der Griechischen LUteratur (1836-1845; 4th ed., 3 vols., 1876-1880). There is a Life of Bemhardy by Volkmann. It describes his other works, such as his Suidas (1853), rivalries with M. H. E. Meier and Theodor Bergk, and his fatherly friendship for his pupils, such as Heinrich Keil and August Nauck.

^Geschichte der rbmischen LUteratur (1870), last Eng. trans., 1900.

• New ed. by Georg Wissowa (1902).

THE GERMAN INELUENCE 415

Grammatical studies were further pursued by Karl Gottlob Zumpt (1792-1849), whose grammar of Latin prose (1818) was several times translated into English and was circulated in the British dominions as well as in the United States; by Karl Leopold Schneider (1786-1821) , whose large grammar was the first systematic treatise of the kind produced in Germany; Nicolai, Meisterhans, R. Klotz, J. F. Jacob, editior of the Mtna^ and Albert Forbiger (1798-1878), a second-rate scholar, but one whose pedestrian editions of Vergil and Lucretius were better known in England than those of Heyne and Lachmann. Forbiger was also the compiler of a German-Latin dic- tionary.^

^Lexicography, being an elementary part of grammar, may be considered here in its later developments, with a reference to early lexicography on pp, 96, 97, 108, 126, 165-167, 194, 246, 247, 254, 255, 305- Soon after the Renaissance began to make word-books and various kinds of lexica popular, one Ambrogio Calepino (Ambro- sius Calepinus) had prepared a Dictionarium which was widely used, because it defined the Latin words in Italian and later gave also the equivalent in Greek. The success of the so-called Calepintcs was extraordinary. It was republished, revised, amplified, and extended in every possible way, the definitions being given in many lan- guages, so that finally there was produced a Calepinus with the Latin defined in Italian, German, French, Dutch, Danish, English, and Greek. The vogue of the book, thus altered, continued into the eighteenth century, when still another revision was undertaken at Padua by lacopo Facciolati, who soon became convinced that the whole work was antiquated. He proposed that an entirely new lexicon be made out of the great body of Latin authors; and this was finally done by himself and his colleague Egidio Forcellini, in

41 6 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

The broadly scientific study of language which is va- riously known as Linguistics (Linguistik) , or Comparative

their Totius Latinitatis Lexicon (Padua, 1771), a splendid memo- rial of classical scholarship. This was revised by Vicenzo De-Vit (1879) 2-nd Fr. Corradini (d. 1888), who used the work of Klotz, and whose lexicon was completed after his death (1890) by Perin. It has been said of this great lexicon as made by Facciolati and Forcellini, so fully have they illustrated their articles by quota- tions from the classics, that the greater part of Latin literature could be restored from their lexicon, were it destroyed in the texts where we now find it. Other lexicons than those of the Italians have been independently made by Wilhelm Freund in Germany (enlarged and translated in the United States by E. A. Andrews) and made the basis of Lewis and Scott’s Latin Dictionary (1882). This was conveyed ” by the English publisher, William Smith (afterward Sir William), and is known in England as Smithes Latin Dictionary. Independently, Karl Ernst Georges (1806-1895), of Gotha, produced a German- Latin lexicon in 1833, and it was accepted at Jena as the equivalent of a doctor^s dissertation. A seventh edition appeared in 1882, as did (in 1879) the seventh edition of another lexicon which bears the name of Georges, but which is based upon the work of other scholars, such as Limeman, Forcellini, Gesner, and Scheller. Georges had ill health and weak eyesight, so that he did not often go far from his library; but he generously put his stores of learning at the dis- posal of scholars in every part of the world. Besides the books already mentioned he wrote a Latin-German and German-Latin Hand-- worterbuch and a Schulworterbuch, both of which have gone through many editions. The most ambitious attempt at a Latin lexicon was that planned by Eduard WdlflBlin, professor at Munich. As early as 1857, the king of Bavaria offered to contribute ten thousand gulden toward the cost of a truly complete dictionary of Latin. It was proposed to put the editorship into the hands of Carl Halm of Munich, Ritschel, and Alfred Fleckeisen, with Franz Bffcheler of Bonn as editor-in-chief. Political disturbances delayed the enter- prise until finally Wolfflin began the publication of his Archiv fUr

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

417

Philology, began with the discovery of Sanskrit by Sir William Jones, already mentioned (p. 383). The greatest

lateinisch Lexikographie und Grammatik (in 1848), a quarterly for collections and suggestions from scholars all over the world. In 1893 the Archil) announced a plan for a great Thesaurus in 12 vols. • of 1000 pages each, to be finished in twenty years at a cost of $150,000, and under the charge of the academies of Berlin, Gottingen, Leipzig, Munich, and Vienna. Professor Biicheler, Wolfflin and F. Leo were the first editors. It was to appear in fasciculi.

Greek lexicography reached its highest excellence with the dic- tionary of Stephanus (see p. 305), yet, as with Latin, there was felt the need of lexicons that should define Greek words in the language of the students using them, instead of in Latin. Faber, in 1571, had published a Thesaurus; but, using that as a basis, J. M. Gesner, between 1726 and 1735, issued two revisions, and now he set forth a Thesaurus of his own, eliminating barbarisms and solecisms, and though uneven in its treatment and explanation, it marked a distinct advance in the history of lexicography. Gesner was noted as a leader in the New Humanism. The Old Humanism of the Renaissance had sought to prolong the life of the Latin language and literature. Yet this was found to be impracticable as a spoken tongue, and the so-called School of Halle abandoned the attempt, and merely tolerated the teach- ing of spoken Latin in the schools. But the N ew Humanists, headed by Gesner at Gottingen, held that the classics had a psychic and philosoph- ical value which made the study of them peculiarly helpful, in leading to a broader and richer understanding of the modem literatures and of their art and poetry and every phase of learning. This view was that which bore fruit in the aesthetic teachings of Winckelmann, of Lessing, and of Goethe. Gesner was also the precursor of Heyne in let- ting taste play a part in his exegesis and commenting upon the authors whom he edited {Scriptores Rei Rusticoe, Quintilian, Pliny^s Letters and PanegyriciiSj Horace, and Claudian). Others of the New Humanists were Tobias Damm (1699-1778), a teacher in Berlin who compiled a great lexicon to Homer and another to Pindar, the words being etymologically arranged (alphabetically by V. C. F. Rost in 1833).

2E

4i8

HXSTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

achievements in this department of Classical Philology have been made by Germans or in Germany. Sir William Jones drew attention to the likeness of the structural system of Sanskrit and what we now call the Indo-Euro- pean languages; but it was Franz Bopp (1791-1867) who gave a scientific turn to the discovery. Bopp was bom in Mayence, lived in Paris (1812-1815), where he studied Persian and Arabic under de Sacy, and himself learned Sanskrit from the grammars of William Carey (1806) and Sir Charles Wilkins (1808). In 1821 he became professor, and held his chair for fifty-six years down to his death. ^ In 1816 he published his first work

Jolmnn Gotllob Schneider (1750-1822), of Breslau, whose lexicon supplied a model for those of Franz Passow (1819-1824), as Passow^s <^d for Rost and Palm (1841-1857), and this in turn for that of the Englishmen Liddell and Scott (1843), the last edition (1880) bearing on its title page also the name of Henry Drisler, an American Hellenist of Columbia College, New York, who had himself made an independent lexicon of Greek, including proper names. Messrs, Liddell and Scott were scholars of very unequal capacity. A popular rhyme in England runs as follows:

“ This is the book of Liddell and Scott,

Some of it’s good and some of it’s not,

That which is good is Scott,

That which is Liddell is not! ”

The first appearance of Liddell and Scott’s lexicon in 1843 was, however, noteworthy, because its definitions were given in English and not in Latin — an innovation for which the editors gave a very noble defence in their preface.

1 See Lefmann, Fram Bopp, sein Leben und seine Wissenschaft (Berlin, i89<5).

THE GERMAN INELUENCE 419

on the conjugational system of Sanskrit as compared with those of Greek, Latin, Persian, and German, endeavouring to explain the origins of our grammatical forms. This he discussed more freely and fully in his Comparative Grammar {Vergleichende Grammatik)^ which appeared in 1833. Bopp made much of “ roots ” and more legitimately of conjugational similarities in the lan- guages named. But when he wrote he was in advance of his time. Sanskrit was still imperfectly understood, and therefore Bopp’s earlier contemporaries, such as Hermann and Lobeck, held aloof, while some, like Ludwig Ross, even treated Comparative Grammar as a subject for witticisms.

Theodor Benfey, a converted Jew (1809-1881), gave an intense devotion to the study of Sanskrit, of which lan- guage he wrote a complete grammar (1852), having pre- viously published a lexicon of Greek roots ” (1839- 1842) and very many articles and monographs on scientific Greek et3niiology. After Bopp and Benfey, the two great pioneers in the comparative study of languages, there came many, of whom Georg Curtius (1820-1885), at Leipzig, was the most influential — the head of a school of language studyA Curtius, whose elder brother Ernst won fame for a history of Greece (1857-1867),^ in his inaugural, declared

^ See J. M. Edmonds’s Comparative Philology (Cambridge, 1906). Leo Meyer, who was a pupil of Benfey and did much to further his work, is at the present writing still living as an honorary professor at Gottingen. 2 trans. by A. W. Ward (1873),

420

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

that he should bring Classical Philology and language study into closer relation with each other. This he accom- plished by his own influence and that of his many dis- tinguished pupils — ten volumes of Studien (1868-1878) with five volumes of Leipziger Studien (1878-1882) being edited by himself and his colleagues. The chief works that were wholly his own were his Greek grammar for schools (Prague, 1832), principles of Greek Etymology (1858-1862), and his bulky treatise on the Greek Verb (1873-1876). In his etymological discussions, Georg Curtius investigates and classifies the regular phonetic changes in the consonants as they pass from Sanskrit to Greek, Latin, or German; but many of these changes are irregular and not in accordance with any settled principle known to Curtius at that time. So he dubs them “ spo- radic changes,” to be explained or not, according to the ingenuity of the investigator. In other words, he held that the exceptions to the consonantal changes set forth in Grimm’s Law were “ sporadic ” and really accidental.

What was Grimm’s Law? It is a law as to the relations between the consonants in (r) Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin, (2) High German and Low German (including English).^ The germ of this law was discovered by Rasmus Kris- tian Rask (1787-1832), who had travelled extensively in Iceland, Sweden, Finland, Russia, Persia, and India, care- fully comparing the different languages spoken in these ^ See Giles, Comparative Philology^ § 99 et, al.

THE GEEMAN INFLUENCE

421

coiintries. It was he who, first among Europeans, came to know grammatically the Old Persian form of speech that is variously called “ Zend ” or “ Avestan.” Rask’s book on Icelandic and other languages (1818) partly anticipated the law which generally governs the consonantal changes already mentioned. Jakob Grimm (1785-1863) who was preparing a German grammar, saw at a flash the great importance of Rask’s statements; and when the second edition of his Deutsche Grammatik appeared (1822), it showed the influence of Rask. Hence the law of consonantal change came to be styled Grimm’s Law; but the exceptions to it were regarded as inexplicable and as partly justifying the famous gibe of M, de Voltaire, Curtius with Grimm’s Law and the “ sporadic changes ” reigned content, until a yoimg Dane, Karl Ludwig Vemer, who was not a classical scholar at all, wrote a paper in Kuhn’s Zeitschrifi,^ which showed that these exceptions were due to the accentual system of the original Indo- Germanic languages. That is, the sonant spirants, except p, f, h, w, and s, became respectively the spirants d, d, g, gu, and 5 when the vowel immediately preceding them did not, according to the original Indo-Germanic system, have the primary accent of the word. This gives proof of the prevailing “ pre-accent ” down to about 300 a.d. These two discoveries — that of Rask (Grimm) and of

^ Vol. xziii, pp. 79-130 (1877), entitled Eine Atismkme der Ersten Lautverschiehung,

422

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Karl Vemer — are tlie most remarkable and have been the most fruitful in the study of languages since Classical Philology began. They were applied with great skill by Karl Brugmann of Leipzig, who may be styled the chief of the Jung-Grammatiker, among whom are numbered Hermann Osthoff of Heidelberg, August Leskien of Leip- zig, Hermann Paul of Munich,' and Ludwig Lange of Leipzig (1825-1885). The New Grammarians hold in general (i) that language-changes, so far as they are mechanical, occur according to definite and immutable laws, and (2) that the principle of Analogy, which is always at work, has been so ever since speech began.*

The Young Grammarians found a powerful ally in Friedrich Karl Brugmann (1849- ), who cooperated

with the others, and wrote a paper almost as revolutionary as Vemer’s, in Curtius’s Studien? The subject was Nasalis Somns, and proved so destructive to the theories of Curtius as to bring about a personal rupture between the two men; so that for many years Curtius and the Old Grammarians waged an unceasing war on Burgmann and his disciples. It is now imiversally accepted that Brug- maim was correct in his view of the Indo-Germanic

^ PauPs Principien der Sprachgeschichte (Eng. adapt, by Strong, Logeman, and Wheeler); and Brugmann’s Grundriss der verglei^ chenden Grammatik der indo-germanischen Sprachen (Eng. trans.).

2 See B. I. Wheeler, Analogy and the Scope of its Application in Sittdy (1887).

• Vol. iz (Leipzig, 1877).

THE GERMAN INELUENCE

423

vocalic nasals.^ In fact, owing to the labors of Vemer, of Brugmann (who finally succeeded Curtius at Leipzig), and the Young Grammarians in general, language-study has been put upon a sound scientific basis, wherein changes are to be traced, not to sporadic causes, but to analogy, which has laws of its own.

It was natural that so great a change in linguistics should be accompanied by a new movement in the field of grammar which sets forth, quasi-dogmatically, the truths of language-study. Hence we find the German influence exhibited by Johann Nicolai Madvig (1804-1886), a Dane of great distinction who was educated at Copen- hagen. He became professor of Latin there (1829) and re- mained as such for more than fifty years. Like most of the greatest scholars whom the world has seen, Madvig was remarkably versatile, engaging as much in politics, law, and diplomacy as in classical study. He was a mem- • ber of the Diet, President of the Council, Inspector of Schools, and Minister of Education. As a grammarian and critic his best work was done in Cicero, but his collec- tive papers, Adversaria Critica, etc., are masterpieces of interpretation and criticism. His Latin grammar (1841) was translated in every European country and in the United States. His personality was remarkable. To his death, in his eightieth year, he was vigorous and full

1 See Brugmann^s great work, Grundriss der vergleichenden Gram- matik der indo-germanischen Sprachen (Eng. trans., 2d ed., 1897).

424 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

of the scholar’s zest, combined with the graceful poise of the diplomat who has mingled with kings and nobles. “ Speak the truth in love” was his favourite maxim, and it was carried out to the letter. He taught all the scholars of modem Denmark and most of the Scandinavian coun- tries. Among his pupils were Christensen, Sophus Bugge, and Johan Louis Bugge (1820-1905) of Christiania. As a critic, Madvig was less given than his contemporaries to the minute study of manuscripts, except in determining their relation to the archetype. He dwelt largely on verbal criticism, and was an adept in conjectural emendation. In his judgments he recalled the judicial methods of Niebuhr. Such was Madvig, a great classical scholar — a Grecian, a Latinist, a critic, a grammarian, and a brill- iant man of the world.

To be compared with the Danish Madvig was the Dutch scholar, Caryl Gabriel Cobet (1813-1889), whose mother, however, was a Frenchwoman, and Cobet was bom in Paris. He showed the brilliancy and wit of the French, though his education was carried out at the Hague and at Leyden. It is said that on entering Leyden he was already steeped in the ancient classics, and had a verbal familiarity with them. His doctor’s dissertation excited high hopes, and the Royal Institute gave him leave of absence for five years so that he might study Greek manu- scripts in Italy. On his return, he was made an extraor- dinary professor at Leyden, and his inaugural address has

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

425

become a classic in the field of text criticism.^ The story is told that during one of the symposia of the professors, they fell to arguing on a certain point of usage in the Greek drama. Cobet was on fire with enthusiasm, and so pelted his colleagues with quotations from i®schylus, Sophocles, and Euripides and from the Fragments, that they gave way and admitted his claim. Then, with a roguish smile, he informed them that most of his quotations were spurious, that he had invented them on the spot as a bit of academic play. Not long after the retirement of Petrus Hoffman Peerlkamp, who had been full professor (1848) and who is best known by his critical work in Horace, Cobet succeeded him. He was the greatest Greek scholar of modem Hol- land. Dr. Sandys recalls the meeting of Cobet and Mad- vig at the tercentenary celebration at Leyden in 1875. A hush was felt when Cobet’s turn came to address his great contemporaiy in Latin, for Cobet was first of all a Hellenist as Madvig was first of all a Latinist. But Cobefs words were full of grace, compliment, and dex- terity, so that Madvig began his reply: Post Cohetum Latine loqui vereor? Cobef s most enduring work is to be found in the numerous lectures, papers, and examples of criticism that are contained in his Yaria Lectiones and his Novcs Lectiones^ which with Madvig’s Adversaria and

^ Oratio de Arte Emendandi (Amsterdam, 1840).

• Cobet did later (in 1877) criticise the Latin of Madvig. His own

was superb, — flashing, graceful, sinuous, reflecting his remarkable personality.

426 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

0 -puscida, and the addresses of Edouard Toumier (1831- 1899), of Paris, might well constitute a Corpus of modem critical work.

The German influence on France in classical studies has been more subtle and less direct than upon other peoples, mainly because of the difference of race and the clash of politics, and also because of the French genius which cre- ates and transforms in its own way. If less profoimd than the German, it is more lucid, and, one may say, more logical. Yet since the great discoveries were made by Germans or those allied with them, and since even in the department of Romance Philology the more minute and careful work has been done by Germans, ‘ the genuine scholars of France have accepted and merely elucidated what the Germans found. Because, however, they have lacked originality one passes over their later work with the mention of a few con- spicuous names, such as those of men who wrote with charm — H. J. G. Patin (1792-1876), whose studies in the Greek and late Latin poets are learned and widely read; D&ir6 Nisard and Charles Nisard, who set themselves to making the classics popular even at the cost of inaccuracy; £mile Egger (1813-1885), author of the first treatise on Com- parative Grammar (1852); the able lexicographers, L. M. Quicherat (1799-1884), author of a Latin thesaurus, and femile Littr6 (1801-1881); the distinguished paleeographer, Charles Graux (1852-1882), whose brief life was one of 1 E.g. Dietz, KSrting, Meyer-Liibke, GrSber.

THE GERMAN INELtJENCE

427

remarkable achievement; and Otto Riemann (1853-1891), best known for his work in Livy. The French School in Athens was founded as early as 1846, and has helped to stimulate such archasologists as Bumouf, Fustel de Cou- langes, Perrot, CoUignon, hom*olle, and Reimarm, — with scores of others whose names are known to every scholar. Victor Henry (1850-1907) wrote comparative grammars that were translated into English, and his wide knowledge of all languages made him a universal authority. One of the most brilliant expositors of Roman life and Latin literature was Gaston Boissier (1823-1908), whose lectures were absorbing and whose books were fascinating (Ciciron et ses Amis (Eng. trans., 1892), V Opposition sous Us CSsars (1874-1875), La Fin du Paganisme (1891), and L’Afrique Romaine (1895)).

Archaeology in its broad sense and Fine Art owe less to Germany in their development than other branches of Classical Philology. To be sure, there is Winckelmann, the father of archaeologists, and Lessing, his greatest critic, but scholars of other nations share the honours with these two illustrious men. We have seen how early the Anmdel Marbles were admired in England, and how the British Museum was created for the repository of rare objects of antiquity. The Louvre in Paris was begun in 1204 and converted into the beginnings of an art museum by Fran- pois I. Upon it were lavished all tire genius of men like Pierre Lescot and Jean Goujin, and its beautification con-

428 HISTORy OF CLASSICAL PHTLOLOGY

tinned through the Napoleonic wars, during which the great Emperor filled the galleries with the richest spoils of the countries he conquered, as did his nephew Napo- leon III. Its collections undoubtedly surpass in richness, beauty, and value those of any other structure in the world to-day. Even those of the Vatican must be reckoned inferior. Throughout France, the provincial museums exhibit separate collections, though it is becoming the policy of the government to draw these gradually to Paris.

Side by side with archaeology stands history, and here the German influence is very great. There are in Ger- many editions of the Latin fragments by H. Peter, Friedrich von Schlegel, Johann Wilhelm von Siivem (d. 1829), while Kauri Bdttiger (1760) wrote Sabina, the daily life of a Roman lady, a model for Bekker’s well- known Gallus and Charicles (1796-1846). More serious historians of Rome were Ernst Curtius^ and Theodor Mommsen ^ (1817-1903), of whom we shall have more to say. But in England there were giants of history, — Connop Thirlwall (1797-1875) and George Grote (1794- 1871) — each having written a monumental history of Greece, Thirlwall’s being called “ a Tory history,” and Grote’s, “ a Whig history,” from the evident partiality of their respective authors. Thus, Thirlwall, a lecturer in Trinity, was in S3mipathy with the English patriciate, while Grote was a banker, not a university man, and fully in

^ See the Deutsche Rundschau (Berlin, 1896).

• See Infra^ pp. 443-444.

THE GERMAN rNELTJENCE 429

S3anpathy with the Athenian democracy. Of late years, a young Italian, Guilelmo Ferrero, has sought to throw a new light upon the problems of ancient Rome, though he seems largely to have drawn upon the French history of the Romans by Jean Victor Duruy. Other French classical historians have been Napoleon III, whose CcBsar deserves attention, Francois Villemain, a rhetorical lecturer, Aubin Louis Millen (1759-1818), who gave a remarkably full description of the Roman relics in the south of France; and Jean Francois Boissonade (1774-1857), who spent most of his time in studying the later Greeks, of the decadence of whom he modestly said that “ the mediocrity of their talent was suited to the mediocrity of his scholarship.” But his work was prodigious. In nine years (1823-1832) he produced twenty-four volumes of annotated Greek poets, and his was the edi/io p-inceps of Babrias (1844). We must note, also, though many names are omitted: BarthSlemy St. Hilaire (1805-1895) , lecturer on Greek and Roman philosophy, translator of Aristotle (1891), and publicist as well as scholar, besides the Due de Luynes (1803-1867), numismatist and explorer, Charles Lenor- mant (1816-1881), a student of ancient monuments; and his son, Francois (1837- ), a scholar of the most

varied attainments, best known for his minute studies at Eleusis with reference to the Mysteries.'

1 In modern Italy, the name of Cardinal Angelo Mai (1782-X854) is to be remembered for his study of the manuscripts in the Vatican and

43 °

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Since the splendid career of Cobet, the Dutch univer- sities have had no classical scholar of the first order, but they honourably maintain the traditions of the past. They are Groningen (founded in 1614), Utrecht (1636), Leyden 1575), and Amsterdam, whose Athenaeum was raised to the rank of a university in 1877. The greatest number of students is to be found at the oldest seats of learning, — Leyden and Utrecht. There were two more universities in Holland, — Franeker and Hardervyk, — but these were suppressed by Napoleon I.

Belgium, as a separate state, is of recent existence, having formed a part of Holland until the revolution of 1831. It contains more than one famous and ancient

Ambrosian libraries of which he had charge. Some of his discoveries were of works hitherto unknown to exist, as a part of Dionysius Hali- carnassensis, fragments of the lost Vidularia of Plautus, and remains of Cicero’s lost treatise, De Republica (1822). Since Comparative Philology has been in vogue, Domenico Pezzi (1844-1906), and Graziadio Ascoli (1829-1907) are the greatest names among the com- parative philologists of Italy. We have already mentioned Vin- cenzo De-Vit (1810-1892) as the reviser of Forcellini’s great lexicon, and Fr. Corradini (1820-1898) whose like task was completed by Perin in 1890. Studies in early Latin were ably undertaken by Giovanni Battista Gandino (1877-1905); while Domenico Com- paretti, professor of Greek at Pisa, is widely known by his account of Vergil in the Middle Ages (1873; Eng. trans. 1895). Luigi Canina, Bartholomeo Borghesi, and Francesco Maria Avellino were all distinguished archaeologists; but first of all stood Giovanni Battista de Rossi (there were two of the name), who made collections of inscriptions, especially of those in the Catacombs, and of Christian Archseology.

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

431

university and is remarkable for the number of its learned societies. The Catholic University of Louvain was founded in 1426, having separate colleges, as in England. Of these the best known was the Collegium Trilingue^ over which Erasmus for a time presided, cultivating the three languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. Lipsius also lec- tured here and styled the University “ the Belgian Athens.’’ Louvain has had its vicissitudes, having been closed by the Austrian Emperor, Joseph II, and by the French in 1797; but in 1834 it was refounded as a strictly Catholic University and has resumed its old prestige. Besides Louvain, there are Ghent (1816), Li^ge (1816), and the free university ” of Brussels (1834). As Dutch scholarship tends toward textual criticism, so that of the Belgians has by preference turned to archaeology and constitutional antiquity, these being represented chiefly by Jean Baron de Witte (1868-1889), a scholar largely influ- enced by the Germans; J. E. G. Roulez (1806-1878), Professor of Greek at Ghent, and an authority on ancient music; Joseph Gantrelle (1809-1893), Professor of Latin at Ghent, a defender of the classics and editor of the Agricola (1874), Germania (1877), Historice

(1881), besides publishing a special study of the style of Tacitus (1882), to whom, indeed, he devoted his chief labours.^ The influence of Germany is plainly seen in the

^ Other Belgian scholars of note were Auguste Wagener (1829- 1896), largely influenced by German teaching; Louis 'Chretien

432 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

work of the Belgian scholars, because at so many of their universities, Germans have held professorships (e.g. J. D. Fuss; G. J. Bekker), yet the native Gallic strain has made Belgian scholars not only profound but lucid.

The Scandinavians, as we have already noted, are among the most original of classical scholars. It is unnecessary, however, to trace their work farther than the beginning of the nineteenth century, for it is only then that Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians became conspicuous for their prowess in learning. Their universities to-day are, first of all, Copenhagen (founded in 1478) and one of the most famous in Northern Europe; Upsala, in Sweden (1480); Christiania (1812), the Norwegian State University; besides Lund in Sweden (1666). The most famous Scandinavian scholars have been already named, — Rask, Madvig, Niebuhr, and Vemer, — but several others now require attention.

Johan Louis Ussing (1820-1905) was the close associate of Madvig and was the most celebrated Scandinavian archseologist, writing his dissertation on the subject of

Roersch (1831-1891), of Liege, and noted for his valuable reviews and monographs; F 61 ix Neve (1816-1893), of Louvain, orientalist by choice, but classicist by profession; Jean Joseph Thonissen (1816- 1891), a jurist who wrote a long work on primitive criminology in Greece and Rome; and finally, Pierre Willems (1840-1898), author of a standard work on the political institutions of ancient Rome (Louvain, 1870), and another on the Roman Senate.

THE GEIiMAN INFLUENCE

433

Greek vases. He travelled for two years in Greece and Italy and founded the Museum of Classical Archaeology at Copenhagen, where he was made Reader. The influ- ence of Madvig led him to more closely philological work, so that he took part in editing Livy and annotated Plautus on his own account (1875-1887). As a text-editor he was conservative, unlike most Scandinavians, who are possessed of a cacoethes emendandi^ of which the Swedish Ljundberg furnishes an awful example in his edition of Horace (1872), where out of all the lines he has left barely sixty unaltered (Reinach). In Iceland, there arose one splendid scholar, Sveinbjoin Egelsson (1791-1852), whose thunderous trans- lations of all Homer unite a fire and splendour that rival the Sagas of the North, while they recall them. Esaias Tegn^r of Lund (1782-1846), the most popular poet in Swedish literature, so that in 1808 he was, to quote Dr. Sandys, “ the Tyrtaeus of Sweden,’’ was professor of Greek, but insisted more on Latin, while Karl Vilhelm Linder (1825-1882) was a strenuous advocate of Greek.

Sophus Bugge (1833-1907) not only investigated conso- nantal changes, studied Latin under Madvig, in Berlin, Sanskrit under Weber and Bopp, and Germanic philology imder Haupt,^ but he investigated further the principles of

^Moritz Haupt (1808-1874) was a pupil of Hermann, whose daughter he married. His was a vigorous, impetuous personality. He is said to have taught Nettleship in his lectures the value of Bentley. He himself learned from Hermann’s Bacchos what is meant by “ really understanding an author.” He was appointed

434 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Vemer’s Law. He is mentioned here, however, because of his criticism of a very important work which caused a revo- lution in Latin studies everywhere. Wilhelm Corssen (1820-1875), a teacher at Schulpforta, undertook an acute and accurate investigation of the sounds of the Latin language. Materials for this work had been gathered by Albert Benary (1807-1860), while further notes had been made by Friedrich Ritschl (1806-1876) in his Plautine studies. But no preceding scholar had made Latin phonetics a definite object until Corssen appeared with his TJeher Aussprache, Vokalismus und Betonung der laieinischen Sprache} In it, Corssen sought to study the sounds {i.e. the pronunciation) of the Latin language, using not only the earliest literary sources, and the most ancient inscriptions, but also the Italic dialects such as Faliscan, Oscan, and Umbrian, with a vast collection of quotations from the Roman grammarians, whose work had been little studied. All these means of information Corssen used with scholarly ability, and his results as to phonetics have stood the test of time, so that his book is definitive. It was needed, for the confusion in the pronunciation of Latin had become great. There was no standard, and there had been none since the time of the Protestant Reformation.

after Lachmann’s death to fill the latter’s chair at Berlin. Though his Fach was Germanic philology, the list of his published works on Greek and Latin is a very long one.

1 Published in 1858-1859 at Leipzig, where it received a prize for scholarship; reedited in 1868-1870, 2 vols.

THE GEEltAN INFLUENCE

435

Each nation had pronounced Latin as though it were its own language, and while on the continent of Europe this was of no great consequence, since the vowel sounds were generally the same, it shut Englishmen, and later, Ameri- cans, away from using Latin as an intelligible medium of speech. Lipsius, Cardinal Wolsey, and Milton had all complained of this, but there was no one to guide men until Corssen appeared, spurred by the necessity imposed by the new science of Comparative Philology. He showed clearly the phonetic basis for the “ Roman ” sys- tem, and after some grumbling, every university has adopted it. In England it met with much opposition from the public schools, and even to-day it is not commonly employed; though in the universities and in advanced work it is not only accepted, but taught.^ In the United States, where colleges have been founded from many countries, Corssen’s authoritative statements were soon received, because it gave to students one single, accurate pronunciation instead of many inaccurate ones; so that to-day the phonetic system is universal both in school, college, and university.^ Curiously enough the phonetic system had been anticipated by an American of German parentage. Dr. Haldeman, of Philadelphia, though he had

• See the more recent English grammars of Latin, such as Kennedy’s,

Roby’s^ and the luminous work of Lindsay, The Latin Language, (Oxford, 1894), chh. 2-4,

2 The standard work on Latin pronunciation is that of Seelmann, Ueber die Aussprache des Latein (Stuttgart, 1885).

436 HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

access only to the Latin grammarians and to written litera- ture rather than to dialects and inscriptions. This book is entitled Elements of Latin Pronunciation (1851), and was finished before Corssen’s work appeared. An indepen- dent attempt to reach the same end was made by Professor Richardson of the University of Rochester, and he did arrive at many of Corssen’s results (1859), though differing from him grotesquely in other conclusions. Corssen spent the last years of his life in Rome, where he died, it was said, of disappointment and chagrin. His Aussprache to this day is an authority. Flushed by his success, however, he undertook the task of solving the problem that still awaits solution, — the origin and linguistic affinities of the Etruscans, that strange people who lived in Italy and at one time conquered the greater part of it, yet who, in ap- pearance as in language and customs, were like neither the Latins, the Umbrians, or the Oscans, but suggested an oriental origin. Corssen resolved to dispel this mystery. In his colossal work, Ueber die Sprache der Etrusker,^ he lavished all the powers of his intellect and all the vast materials at his command. For a moment, so great was his prestige, the learned world believed that he had suc- ceeded, yet criticism soon showed that he had failed, and he went down to his death with the sneers of his late friends to smooth the way.

1 Leipzig, 1874-1875, 2 vols. See Deecke, Corssen und die Sprache der Etrusker (Stuttgart, 1875). Deecke edited the Etrusker, in 1877.

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

437

Practically all that is known about the Etruscans was known before Corssen turned his attention to the subject In 1826, the Royal Society of Berlin offered a prize for the best essay on the Etruscans. In 1828 an elaborate monograph on the subject was presented by Earl Otfried Muller^ (1797-1840). Already Muller had done much. He had felt the influence of Niebuhr and had studied under Boeckh at Berlin, and both had aroused his interest in historical topics. A monograph on ^gina and the JEgm- etan marbles was his first published work, and in 1819, at the age of twenty-two, he was made Professor of Classical Learning in Gottingen, where he lectured on Archaeology and art. His book upon the Etruscans contains all that was known until recent years. He did not attempt to establish a theory, like Corssen, but only to present the facts and to make suggestive comments; and that is all that can be done down to the present day. Muller was interested in mythology, religion, literature, and upon especial classical authors, such as Pindar, ^schylus, and Herodotus among the Greeks, and among the Romans, writers of the Silver Period. In 1833 edition of the Eumenides with dissertations on the manner of presenting the play and its purport, caused much interest, as shedding new light on the Greek theatre; and the author was not disturbed when even Hermann called him “ mistaken ”

^ His real name was Karl Muller, but as this was and is so frequent in Germany (like John Smith in England), he inserted the “ Otfried.’’

438 HISTORY OP CXASSICAL PHILOLOGY

and “ presumptuous.” He at once edited the fragments of Varro, De lAngm Latina, and later of Festus. He died at Athens and was buried there (1840) . He had done much for historical research and for themethods of Niebuhr. His acquaintance, Friedrich Gottlieb Welcker (1784-1868), who long survived him, turned more to the artistic manner of interpretation. He early studied at Rome; he was professor at Giessen (1808), he fought as a volunteer against Napoleon (1814), and was afterwards again a professor, first at Gbttingen and then at Bonn, where he presided over the first Museum of Ancient Art ever known. His lectures were stimulating by reason of his personality, and his reach was broad, including both Greek and Latin poetry and the mythology of Greece. He made numerous translations, wrote monographs on many subjects, and is especially known by “ WelckeFs Cyclus," or Greek Trag- edies in Relation to the Epic Cycle} It has been said of him that his chief strength lay in interpretation, while that of K. 0 . Muller was in historical research.

A contemporary of great fame was Otto Jahn (1813- 1869), also given to archaeology. He was at various times professor at Greifswald (1842-1847), at Leipzig (1847- 1851), at Bonn (1855-1869). He died at Gottingen. Though an archaeologist and the author of many mono- graphs, he will be longest remembered by his critical revisions of Persius (1843) and Juvenal (1851), witb an 1 3 vols., 1839-1844.

THE GERMAN INELUENCE

439

edition of both in the year before his death. For text- books he edited the Cupid and Psyche of Apuleius, the Athenian Acropolis from Pausanias, the Electra of Sophocles, the Symposium of Plato, and the Treatise on the Sublime ascribed to Longinus. It would be impos- sible here to enumerate his minor treatises on artistic subjects, whose very titles fascinate and attract.^

Classical literature treated either with deep learning or with distinction was a subject for study at all times, though the Germans are not happy, as a rule, in that which requires the aesthetic as well, as the historic element. We have already mentioned Bemhardy as an historian of both the two great literatures. K. 0 . Muller began a history of Greek Literature at the request of the London Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, in 1836, but he died before its completion. The full text was not published in English until 1858, when Dr. J. W. Donaldson finished it in a three-volume edition. Yet much has been done for classical literature by German scholars, many of whom translated, and others wrote special monographs on par- ticular authors, such as the illuminating papers on Plautus {Parer go) by Friedrich Ritschl (1806-1876), who also wrote of the literary activity of Varro and the laws of the

1 Latin archaeologists are Conrad Bursian (1830-1883), the his- torian of classical studies in Germany; Otto Benndorf (1838-1907); Peter Willen Forchhammer (1801-1894), the topographer; and Heinrich Ejiepert (1818-1899) the well-known cartographer. Professor of Geography at Berlin, and maker of many maps and charts.

440

HISTORY OR ClASSICAI, PHTLOIOGY

Saturnian verse/ More strictly historians of literature were J. A. Fabricius (1668-1736), who condensed and compiled the whole of the classic writers, without whose aid no subsequent history of either Greek or Latin has been written; Teuffel, already mentioned; and Otto Ribbeck (1827-1898), professor successively in five uni- versities, but passing his last years at Leipzig. To him we owe much of the history and criticism of the early Latin dramatists, whose fragments he edited (3d ed., 1897- 1898), a study of Roman tragedy under the Republic,* with editions and conservative texts of Vergil, Horace, and Juvenal. His most interesting work is his history of Roman poetry.’

Since the Middle Ages, some lost fragments of impor- tant authors have been discovered. Such is the long episode of the Cena Trimalchionis from the Latin novel of Petronius, edited by Friedlander; the so-called Anthologia Palati- nas, already mentioned; quite recently, fragments of Bacchylides {ed. prin. Kenyon); Babrius (122 fables,

1 He is best known by his monumental edition of Plautus in con- junction with Gustav Lowe, Georg Gotz, and Friedrich Scholl. Pitschl himself edited and reedited nine plays (1848-1854), and his three coadjutors were assisted by Alfred Fleckeisen (1820-1899), Wilhelm Studemund (1843-1889), who also was a noted Greek palaeographer, Wilhelm Wagner (1843-1880), and especially in the prosody by the researches of Wilhelm Corssen, already mentioned,

• 1875.

• 3 vols., 1859-1868; abridged, 1895. See a volume compiled by

his friends, Otto Ribbeck, Ein Bild (1901).

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

441

ei. prin, Boissonade); a lost treatise by Aristotle on the polity of the Athenians {ed, prin. Kenyon); ^ and fairly complete plays of Menander (ed. Lefebvre in 1907, Headlam in 1908); with seven poems of Herondas {ed. prin. Kenyon, last ed. by Creuzer, Leipzig, 1894). It is believed that the papyri of Egypt will yield new treasures, as they have in the past five years, and scholars look eagerly for other plays of Menander, some of the exoteric works of Aristotle, and it may even be the famous lost books of Livy.

Archaeology (to revert to a subject already spoken of) has been greatly enriched by the compilation of corpora to each of the classic languages. With the aid of Epigraphy, a collection of Greek inscriptions has been made by Boeckh, who edited the first two volumes of the Corpm Inscriptionum Grcecarum (1825- 1843), followed by other volumes by Franz (1845-1853), the fourth by E. Curtius and A. Kirchhoff (1826-1908), and the whole completed by the Index of H. Rochl (1877). Assistance was given to the work by Wilhelm Dittenberger (1840-1906), professor at Halle. He did much also for the Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum (1878- 1882), and prepared himsef a Sylloge of Greek inscrip- tions that are especially important (1882, 2d ed. 1898-1901). Apart from his epigraphical work, Dittenberger was a spe- cialist in Csesar, having prepared eleven editions of Kraner’s Commentary. Georg Kaibel (1849-1901), editor of the ^ See Gilbert, Greek Constitutional Antiquities, 1895.

442

HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

EUctra of Sophocles (1896) and of Athenaeus (1886-1890), collected a volume of some 1200 epigrams (1878) copied from stones (ex lapidibus) and covering a thousand years.*

Latin Epigraphy was pursued in a desultory way for a long time, chiefly in Italy. The Romans do not appear to have collected inscriptions as the Greeks did. It was only at the beginning of the Middle Ages, when Rome became a Christian Mecca, that pilgrims copied some of the most famous inscriptions to carry home. With the Renaissance came a genuine interest in them as in gems and carved work. Cola di Rien2i (about 1344) prepared a topographical account of Rome, in which he drew largely on inscriptions; while Poggio Bracciolini* collected them. Unfortunately, many were forged,® and some of them have only recently been stamped as spurious, mainly from the unscrupulous hands of Pirro Ligorio of Naples. The first printed collection of inscriptions seems to have been that of Ravenna (1489). For Gruter’s great work the reader is referred to another place.* The study was taken up by others, among them Raffaele Fabretti (1618-1700), but it was L. A. Muratori (1672-1750) who gave a great impulse to Epigraphy by his Novus The- saurus Veierum Inscriptionum (4 vols., Milan, 1739- 1742), and to Palaeography by his researches in Milan

^ Other noted Greek epigraphists were K6hlen, — and outside of Germany, CEconomides, Dobree, Riemann.

• Supra, pp. 276-9. • Supra, pp. 284-5.

• Supra, p. 342.

THE GERMAN rNFLUENCE

443

and other seats of learning. Bartolommeo Borghesi (d. 1859) made epigraphy a science, and to him is due the splendid work that has been accomplished in this field. Both the French Academy and that of Berlin planned a vast Corpus of all existing Latin inscriptions, but this was not undertaken until 1863, when the first volume of the present Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum appeared imder the editorship of Theodor Mommsen and Wilhelm Henzen (1816-1887). The work has steadily progressed, volume by volume, with supplements, but it will probably never be wholly finished, owing to new discoveries.^

The greatest mind since Scaliger’s, if not the greatest mind of all time, is recalled in the illustrious name of Theodor Mommsen (1819-1893). Like so many dis- tinguished men of letters, he became famous for his versatility, so that in him we find the young poet, the ardent politician, the close student of inscriptions, the master of ancient constitutional law, and finally the his- torian of the Roman Empire, — chronologist, numisma- tist, and lyrist. It was he who made the plan for the splendid Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, in 1847, as against A. W. Zumpt, and to Mommsen the Academy entrusted the scheme as he outlined it.

1 See the article “ Inscriptions ” in vol. xiii of the ninth edition of the EncycloftBdia Britannica. It was written by Professor Emil Hubner of Berlin, himself a famous archaeologist. On the Corpus especially see Egbert, Latin Inscriptions, pp. 6-15 (New York, 1896).

444 HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

He came to write his History of Rome with a certain naivete. While spending a vacation with his father-in- law, the old gentleman said, “ Why, yes, Theodor, your studies have fitted you for just such a work.” Young Mommsen flushed with pleasure, and at once began the history. Out of the fulness of his mind, he made no preparation, but just wrote on, chapter after chapter, book after book, and volume after volume, until, instead of composing a “ popular ” work, he had poured the wealth of his wide knowledge into a book which is informing in matter and brilliant in style. It aroused a storm of con- troversy, the more so as Mommsen had not thought it worth while to equip it with footnotes. These were given later by a sixth volume, and another book entitled Romische Forschungen.

The History of Rome is in reality a protest of New Germany against the old feudalism which Napoleon had failed to shatter. It pleaded for a brilliant dictator, and told the story of Julius Caesar, the greatest man who ever lived, as the ideal head of a State. He lashed the weakling, Cicero, and wrote some of his papers with great flashes. No one has refuted him and neither Gisner nor Ferrero has made a satisfactory response. The climax of Roman grandeur comes with Caesar; and Mommsen beholds a grandeur in the North, when the petty, ignorant squires of Junkerthum are scattered by an enlightened Dictator.

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

445

A picturesque figure among archaeologists is that of Heinrich Schliemaim (1822-1890), at fourteen a grocer’s boy, at thirty-six an ^‘Indigo King” in St. Petersburg with a fortune that grew every year. He then betook himself to archseology, teaching himself Greek, and read- ing carefully. He believed the site of Troy was on the hill of Hissarlik. The hill was opened (1870-1873), as he had Mycenae explored (1874-1876), Troy again (1879), Archomenos (i88r), and very successfully Tiiyns (1885). Many excavations were made, quite enough to justify the Homeric story, and to shed light upon Thucydides.

Schliemann chose to live a la grecque for his own gratification. His house was constructed at Athens, and was embellished with mosaics, friezes, and illuminated Homeric quotations. He married a Greek wife, who bore him a girl whom he called Andromache, and a boy, Agamemnon. Even his porter was styled Bellerophon. Just as he was about to explore Crete, death came on him suddenly at Naples, leaving Dorpfeld to finish the Trojan discovery.^

It may be said that all of Continental Europe felt the influence of the extraordinary range and originality of German scholarship; yet of England, until very lately, this has been less true. Great Britain has had her own ideals, her own traditions, and her own intellectual character, and her learned men have not interchanged

^See Schuchardt, Schliemanns Atcsgrahungerti Eng. trans. (1890), containing a bibliography.

446 HISTORY OT CLASSICAl PHILOI-OGY

their acquisitions with any other country to the extent that even Spain and Portugal have done. This has not been true of her greatest scholars, such as Bentley, for example, but in general the British distaste for foreigners has ex- tended even to their leammg. Hence the German influ- ence in its full sweep is a thing of the past two or three decades, and has been shown in the persons of men still living, whose names are (except casually) excluded from this survey. A passage in George Eliot’s Middlemarch, where young Ladislaw tries to make Dorothea see how backward is her husband, Mr. Casaubon, in modem scholarship, says: —

“ If Mr. Casaubon read German, he would save himself a great deal of trouble. ... It is a pity that it [devoted labour] should be thrown away, as so much English scholarship is, for want of knowing what is being done by the rest of the world.”

“I do not understand you,” said Dorothea.

“ I merely mean,” said Will in an oS-hand way, “ that the Germans have taken the lead in historical inquiries, and they laugh at results which are got by groping about in woods with pocket- compasses, while they have made good roads.”

But Great Britain had a scholarship of her own, a schol- arship of elegance, and again of sound tmth. In Greek and Latin, as such, she surpassed all her rivals. No verse or prose in either language was so near the classical stand- ards as that which came from Oxford or from Cambridge. The Italian school of Latinity with its Ciceronianism was near to that of England; while, for a time at least, the

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

447

critical work of the Netherlands was stimulated by the example of Englishmen. Names such as those of Bentley, Person, Peter Elmsley (1773-1825), Thomas Gaisford (1779-1855), C. J. Blomfield (1786-1857), Paxil Dobree (1782-1825), James Scholefeld (1789-1853), Charles Badham (1813-1884), J. W. Donaldson (1811-1861), who finished K. O. Miiller^s Greek literature, W. E. Jelf (1811- 1875), George Long (1800-1879), John Conington (1825-1869), the first professor of Latin at Oxford, Henry Nettleship (1839-1893), who with Conington pro- duced a definitive edition and translation of Persius, and William M. Leake (1777-1860) — all these were familiar to Continental scholars. More especial mention is due to one of the most brilliant men of his country, Sir Richard Claverhouse Jebb (1841-1905), who at the time of his death was professor of Greek at Cambridge. He was a witty, versatile man of the world, a humanist in the highest sense of the word” (Sandy s), who had no equal in his mastery of both classical form and spirit. Though not a stranger to drawing-rooms and polite society, he edited Sophocles (1883-1896) and Bacchylides (1905), translated Theophrastus, published an introduction to Homer, a life of Porson, of Erasmus, and one of Bentley, helped found the British School at Athens, and was a master of English prose and of Greek verse. It is impossible to overrate his combination of deep learning, so easily car- ried, with the easy tone of an accomplished gentleman.

44? HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Further mention must be made of Benjamin Jowett (1817-1893), Master of Balliol, who admirably translated into English, Plato (1871), Thucydides (1881), and the Politics of Aristotle (1885), both of the latter with com- mentaries. But perhaps it was Jowett’s personality that must be taken into account. His influence over awkward and bashful undergraduates was remarkable, as it was with those of his own age. His pungent, witty, unexpected sayings will be remembered and quoted as long as his translations are read.

Mention has been made elsewhere of many noted British scholars. We must refer again to H. A. J. Munro (1819-1885) to note his splendid work both as an editor and translator of Lucretius, and because he gave “ the first impulse to a reform in the pronunciation of Latin.” ‘ And one must also mention the services which Great Britain has rendered to Classical Archaeology in the work of the British Schools at Athens (1883-) and at Rome (1901-); Banks, Arden, Harris, carried on fruitful explorations at Herculaneum, resulting in the course of a century, in the rescue of important fragments of Epicurus, Philodemus, a part of the Iliad, speeches of Hyperides, and others already mentioned as recovered. And perhaps the ex- treme of minute commentary was reached by Professor J. E. B. Mayor (1825-1911) in his two volumes of closely printed notes on the Satires of Juvenal (lasted., 1886).

^ See Sandys, op. cU.^ iii. p. 433.

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE 449

These and such as these are of the ^lite of British scholar- ship. Their names are known wherever classical learning exists. One is reminded of the story of how Gaisford when in Germany went to pay a call on Dindorf at Leipzig. The door was opened by a shabby man who resembled a servant; but when Gaisford’s name was mentioned, rushed into his arms and kissed him.^

If England felt only in the person of her most learned men the influence of Germany, the United States of America may be said not to have discovered Germany at all until within the memory of those still living. Settled at first by Englishmen, such rude culture as it had for more than a century was wholly English. The first institution of higher learning was Harvard College, now Harvard University, named from John Harv^ard of Cambridge, who gave half his fortune and all his library to the college that was to bear his name (1638). In age, among American homes of scholarship, the College of William and Mary, chartered by those sovereigns in 1693, comes next to Har- vard;^ and in order, during the colonial period, are Yale (1701), so named in 1718 after one Elihu Yale; Princeton

^ Tuck well, p. 13 1.

2 Dr. Sandys {op. cit., iii. 452) oddly omits this venerable seat of learning, which has existed down to the present time, and among whose graduates have been four Presidents of the United States, the most learned of our Chief Justices, and one of the most brilliant of our soldiers (General Winfield Scott). He makes Yale to have been the second college established in the United States.

2G

45° HISTORY OF CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

(1746); the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, originally an academy, assisted by Benjamin Franklin (1751); in New York Cily, King’s College, chartered by George II (1754), but renamed Columbia College in 1787, and Columbia University in 1890. Brown University was established in Providence, Rhode Island, in 1764. These five centres of the higher education were all in existence before the Revolution. There are now in the United States more than four hundred institutions that call themselves colleges or universities, but barely a score satisfy the definition. In general it may be said that the older colleges that have become universities deserve the name, and are splendidly equipped with the most modem apparatus for research, with specialists trained in Germany or in other foreign countries to satisfy the most exacting seeker after knowledge; while the newly founded ones are still to prove their right to scholarly esteem.

It must be noted, however, that this statement is only general. Some of the youngest universities, like Chicago, (1892), Johns Hopkins (1876) in Baltimore, Leland Stanford at Palo Alto, California (1891), Cornell at Ithaca in New York (1865) , were nobly endowed by the generosity of some very wealthy men. The Clark University in Worces- ter, Massachusetts, admits no undergraduates, but gives all its energy to intense specialisation. All these newer uni- versities are modelled mainly on the German, while the

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE 451

older ones still retain in large measure the traditions of English scholarship.

There was scarcely any standard but the English standard known prior to the nineteenth century, and the wide separation of the United States from Europe made this natural enough; but it led to a sort of intellectual dry-rot. The first American to study in Germany was George Ticknor (1791-1871), afterwards Professor of the French and Spanish Languages and Literatures at Harvard. He spent four years divided between Gottingen, Leipzig, Halle, and Paris, visiting also Weimar, Naples, and Rome, and meeting some of the most eminent scholars of his time.

In like manner, Edward Everett (r 794-1865), afterwards President of Harvard, and Professor of Greek, spent four years (1815-1819) abroad. On returning, he said: “In regard to university methods, America has nothing to learn from England, buteverything to learn from Germany.” George Bancroft (1800-1891), the long-winded historian of his own country, was another of those sporadic pilgrims whose isolated enthusiasm bore no fruit because the Ameri- can people were not ready for it. Let us add to the list C.C. Felton, Professorof Greek at Harvard, who annotated Wolfs text of the Iliad, and wrote a singularly naif account of his travels in Europe. T. D. Woolsey of Yale was a more able and active scholar, and more deserving of regard. He edited a number of Greek texts with a fair comprehen-

452

HISTORY OF CLASSICAX PHILOLOGY

sion of their meaning.^ Harvard possessed two foreign- bom professors whose influence was felt, as was that of the poet Longfellow (1807-1882). These were E, A. Sophocles (1807-1883), who wrote a Greek grammar of the Roman and Byzantine periods, Carl Beck (1798- 1866), a German by birth. His pupil, G. M. Lane (1823-1897), was Professor of Latin for thirty-three years. After his death, a Latin grammar upon which he had long laboured was finished and seen through the press (1898) by his former pupil. Professor M. H. Morgan.

Many American grammars were published in this period, the more popular being those of Albert Harkness, Pro- fessor of Latin in Brown, often revised;* Allen and Greenough; * Gildersleeve,‘ Gildersleeve-Lodge,® Hale and Buck,® Bennett* and especially a grammar little known, but made on a theory of his own, by Gustavus Fischer, who resigned the chair of Latin at Rutgers College in order to pursue this work. By an unfortunate fatality, the whole edition of this learned work was, with its plates, de- stroyed by fire, so that a copy of it is a very rare possession.

The true spread of the influence of German learning in America is due to Charles Anthon (1797-1867) of Columbia College, who was himself of German descent. He produced a large number of annotated editions of Greek and Latin

1 For a criticism of American colleges at this time, see Bristed, Five Years in an English University (New York, 1855).

2 1898. ® 1904. ^ 1875. ® 1905- ® 1903-

^ 1908.

THE GERMAN INFLUENCE

453

text-books, in whose commentary he drew freely upon the best German sources. For the fulness of his annotations he was severely criticised, but the extent of them was in reality due to the lack of knowledge among classical teachers who had never heard of Doring or Jahn, or even Bentley. Anthon’s texts were very widely circulated, as were his handbooks on geography, mythology, prosody, grammar, besides a Latin lexicon. In this way, the teachers as well as schoolboys came to know something that was more accurate and broader than the New England horn-books which had done duty for too long. Anthon may, therefore, be regarded as the first American to bring the German influence to bear,^ and he could do it the better because the events of 1848 in Germany had driven to the United States thousands of involuntary emigrants. So, Columbia University has the honour of securing the services of Franz Lieber as an expounder of international law; and of initiating the study of archaeology by the labours of Augustus C. Merriam (1843-1895), who worked hard for insufficient recognition, and who died at Athens, where he is now buried. Finally, it is an interesting fact that each of the two lexicons officially adopted at Oxford and Cambridge should be wholly or in part the work of

^ Englishmen who sneer at him should remember that his books were pirated multitudinously by English publishers, and that his Horace, in particular, was used in all the English public schools, where they were wholly ignorant of German.

454 HISTORY OP CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

Columbia professors. The Latin lexicon by Lewis and Short tells that Charles Lancaster Short (1821-1886) was Professor of Latin at Columbia; while the Greek lexicon of Liddell and Scott, in the latest edition, ac- knowledges the services of Dr. Henry Drisler (1818- 1897), who had collaborated with the English editors, and who held the Greek chair in Columbia.

The first university to be founded after German ideals was the Johns Hopkins, endowed by a gentleman of that name, and its first president, Daniel Coit Gilman (1831-1909), gave full swing to his Germanising tendency, so that in a few years he had gathered around him a group of scholars in the European sense and compelled the older universities to reform their methods. Johns Hopkins has been the alma mater of many able men, most of whom still live to do her honor. The American Journal of Philology, edited by Professor Basil L. Gildersleeve, is published there. Other studies and classical series emanate from Chicago {Classical Philology and the Classical Journal), as do Harvard Studies, Cornell Studies, etc., from other uni- versities.

Profound scholarship was represented by William Dwight Whitney (1827-1894), Professor of Comparative Philology at Yale, who was a Sanskritist and student of language, widely known in Germany and wherever oriental studies are pursued. He was one of the four chief contributors to the St. Petersburg dictionary of Sanskrit;

THE GERMAN rNFLtTENCE

455

his own Sanskrit grammar is a standard work; with the first volume of the Atharva-V eda-Samhita (1855-1856), the second volume being completed by Whitney’s former pupil, Professor Lanman of Harvard. Other professors of distinction at Yale were James Hadley (1821-1872), who is known by his Greek grammar; ^ L. R. Packard (1836-1884), and Thomas Day Se3unour (1848-1907), whose studies were largely upon Homer, though he pro- duced one edition of selected odes from Pindar (1882). His last work was Life in the Homeric Age, his swan-song, the results of long years of patient study.

Of American scholarship it is difficult to write, for the fine flavour of it and its opportunities are all new, and its ablest representatives are still living men. Let it be long before it becomes possible to mention them in a volume that has to do so fully and almost wholly with those who have laid aside their pleasant labours.

^ i860; last ed. rev. by F. D. Allen (1884).

XI THE COSMOPOLITAN PERIOD

With the death of Theodor Mommsen, the twentieth century appears to have entered upon a new and remarkable period of scholarship. It has passed through the rough and rugged paths by which all learning is attained, the value of classical training is now recognised on every side, and all possible means are provided for its efi&cient and illuminating study. Immense sums are given for its betterment, and many countries maintain special schools for classical study in Rome and Athens.

Furthermore, the scholars of to-day are divided into groups according to their own inclination and their especial ability. A still more marked distinction from the past is that universities are not now separated and isolated as they were even in the period of Nationalism. The students and professors of one country pass to the fellowship of the professors and students of another country, very much as they did in the time of the Renaissance, but with much more facility and a still greater assurance of welcome. This is noticeable in the United States, where chairs are established for the interchange of American Professors

456

THE COSMOPOLITAN PERIOD 457

with those of foreign lands, which lecturers are welcomed every year from Germany, France, England, Italy, and the Scandinavian countries. The whole world of learning has become a single world without becoming a narrow world.

Every division of Classical Philology is now regarded as intimately united with all the rest. Archasology throws light on usage and on custom, Art refines and gives beauty to Numismatics, and makes the readings of the Classics an aesthetic pleasure. Language study is no longer crude nor a matter of mere guesswork; but since the remarkable discovery of Vemer and the splendid expository work of Brugmann, it is a science of the highest order. Moreover, the love of the Classics for themselves has grown and flourished.

But perhaps the greatest gift which has come to us in modem times, from the teaching of Scientific Philology, is the recognition of the value of scientific truth. When we look back upon the controversies and foul wrangling of men of genius like Scioppius and Scaliger and Milton, we see that they in reality were fighting first for victory and only partially for truth. To-day, one hopes that in whatever form the higher study may reveal itself, it will reveal itself as a longing for idealised worship of reality and verity in all things.

So long ago as 1870, the great Romance scholar, Gaston Paris, uttered in a lecture this splendid credo: —

4S8

HISTORY OR CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

I profess absolutely and without reserve this doctrine that science has no other aim than truth, and truth for its own sake, without care for the consequences, good or ill, regrettable or happy, which that truth might have in practice. He who from a patriotic, religious, or even from a moral motive, allows himself in the facts that he is studying, in the conclusions that he draws, the smallest dissimulation, the slightest alteration, is not worthy of a place in the great laboratory to which truthfulness is a more indispensable claim to admission than skill Thus understood, studies in common carried on in the same spirit in all civilised countries, form, above restricted, diverse, and often hostile nationalities, a great father- land which no war soils, which no conqueror threatens, but wherein souls find the refuge and the unity which was given them of old by the citadel of God.”

INDICES

I. SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

II. GENERAL INDEX

SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

• Abbott, E. Pericles (London, 1891).
• Abbott, F- F. The Use of Repetition in Latin (Chicago, 1902),
• Adam, James. The ReligioiLS Teachers of Greece (Edinburgh, 1908).
• AUbut, Thomas C. Science afid Mediceval Thought (London, 1901).
• Allman, G. J. Greek Geometry from Thames to Euclid (Dublin, 1S89).
• Antichan, P. H. Les Grands Voyages de Dicouvertes des Anciens (Paris, 1891).
• Arbenz, Emil. Die Schriftstdlerei in Rom zur Zeit der Kaiser (Basle, 1877).
• Archer, T. A., and Kingsford, C. L. The Crusades (New York, 1898).
• Assailly, Octave d’. Albert le Grand (Paris, 1870).

B

• Ball, R. S. Great Astronomers (New York, 1899).
• Ball, W. W. R. A Short Account of the History of Mathematics (London, 1901).
• Bascom, John. The Philosophy of Rhetoric (New York, 1888).
• Bayet, Charles. VArtByzantin (Paris, 1892).
• B6mont, Charles, and Monod, G. Medice^al Europe^ English translation (New York, 1906).
• Benn, Alfred W. E^rly Greek Philosophy (London, 1908).
• --Greek Philosophers (London, 1883).
• Bentley, Richard. Critica ScLcra, new ed. by A. A. Ellis (Cambridge, 1862).
• Dissertation on the Epistles of PhalariSf last ed. by W. Wagner (Berlin, 1874)-
• Bernays, Jakob. Life of Joseph Scaliger (Berlin, 1855).
• Bernhardy, Gottfried, Eraiosthenica (Berlin, 1822).
• Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratwr, 5th ed. (Halle, 1877-1892).
• Grundriss der Romischen Litteratur. 2 vols., 5th ed. (Brunswick, 1865).
• Bernstein, G. H. Versus Ludicri in Caesar es Prior es (Halle, 1810).
• Berry, Arthur. A Short History of Astronomy (New York, 1899).
• Besant, Walter. Edward Henry Palmer (London, 1883).
• Binde, Robert. Seneca (Glogau, 1883).
• Birt, Theodor, Das Antike Buchwesen (Berlin, 1882).
• --Hisioria Hexametri Latini (Bonn, 1876).
• Blass, F. W. Die Attische Beredsamkeity 2d ed., 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1898).
• --The Pronunciation of Ancient Greeks Eng. trans. (Cambridge i8go).
• --Die Inter polationen in der Odyssee (Halle, 1904).
• Blau, August. De Aristarchi Discipulis (Jena, 1883).
• Boeckler, Doctor. Die Polychromie in der Antiken Sculptur (Aschersleben, 1882).
• Boissier, Gaston. Etudes sur la Vie et les CEuvres de M. T. Varron (Paris, 1861).
• --La Fin du Paganisme (Paris, 1891).
• --La Religion Romaine Auguste aux Antonins (Paris, 1906).
• --Le Poete Attius (Paris, 1857).
• --Roman Africa, Eng. trans. (New York, 1899).
• Bonnet, A. M. Le Latin de Grigoire de Tours (Paris, 1890).
• Booth, John. Epigrams Ancient and Modern, 3d ed. (London, 1874).
• Botsford, G. W. A History of the Orient and Greece (London and New York, 1904).
• Botticher, K. E. F. De Alliterationis apud Romanos Vi et Usu (Berlin, 1884).
• Br6al, M. J. A. Pour Mieux Connattre Homire (Paris, 1906).
• Broglie, Emmanuel de. La SocM de VAhhaye de Saint-Germain des PrSs, 2 vols. (Paris, 1891).
• Browne, Henry. Handbook of Homeric Study (London and New York, 190s).
• Brugmann, Karl. Zum heuiigen Stand der Sprachwissenschaft (Leipzig, 188s).
• Brunet, Gustave. Manud du Libraire, etc., 8 vols. (Paris, 1880),
• Bud6, E. de. Vie de Budi (Paris, 1884).
• Biihler, J. G., and Kielhom. Grundriss der Indo-arischen Philologie (Strassburg, 1896 fol.).
• Bunbury, E. H. A History of Ancient Geography, 2d ed. (London, 1883).
• Burckhaxdt, Jakob. Geschichte der Renaissance in Italien (Stuttgart, 1890-1891).
• --Kultur der Renaissance in Italien, 8th ed. (Leipzig, 1904).
• --The Civilization of the Renaissance in Italy, Eng, trans. (London, 1898).
• Bursian, Konrad. Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie in Deutschland, etc. (Munich, 1883).
• Bury, J. B. A History of the Later Roman Empire (London, 1887).
• --Ed. Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (London, 1896).
• --Life of St. Patrick (Cambridge, 1905).
• Butcher, S. H. Aristotle's Theory of Poetry and Fine Art (London, 1902).
• --Demosthenes, last ed. (London, 1903).

C

Cajori, Florian. A History of Elementary Mathematics (London and New York, 1907).

A History of Mathematics (New York, 1906).

Capes, W. W. University Life in Ancient Athens (London, 1877).

Cara, P. C. A. Gli Hethei Pelasgi (Rome, 1894-1902).

Carroll, Mitchell. Aristotle's Poetics (Baltimore, 1895).

Castellani, Carlo. Delle Biblioteche nell' Antichitd (Bologna, 1884).

Cave, William. Primitive Christianity (London, 1834).

Chaignet, A. E. Pythagore et la Fhilosophie Pythagorienne (Paris,

1873).

Chalandon, Georges. Essai sur Ronsard (Paris, 1875).

Charles, Emile. Roger Bacon; sa Vie, ses Ouvrages, ses Doctrines d^aprh des Textes Inidits (Paris, 1861).

Chassang, Alexis. Histoire du Roman, &c. (Paris, 1862).

Church, R. W. Miscellaneotcs Essays (London, 1888).

The Beginning of the Middle Ages (London, 1895).

Cirbied, J, C. de. Mimoires et Dissertations (Paris, 1824).

Clark, J. W. Libraries in the Medice^al and Renaissance Period (Cam- bridge, 1894).

Clark, Victor S. Studies in the Latin of the Middle Ages (Lancaster, Penn., 1900).

Clarke, George. The Education of Children at Rome (New York, 1896).

Classen, Johannes. Introduction to the edition of Thucydides (Berlin, 1897).

Clement, Louis. De Hadriani Turnehi . . . Praefationihus et Poe- matis (Paris, 1899).

Clinton, H. F. Fasti Hdlenici, 3 vols. (Oxford, 1824-1834).

Clodd, Edward. The Story of the Alphabet (New York, 1903) .

Cochin, Henri. Boccace, Etudes Italimnes (Paris, 1890).

Collignon, Albert. Et-ude sur P drone (Paris, 1892).

Comparetti, Domenico. VergU in the Middle Ages, Eng. trans. (Lon- don and New York, 1895).

464 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

Compa3n:4, Gabriel. Aboard and the Origin and Early History of Univer- sities (New York, 1893).

History of Faedagogy^ Eng. trans. (Boston, 1886).

Condanain, J. P. De Tertulliano Christiance Linguae Artifice (Lyons,

1877).

Conway, R. S. Verner's Law in Italy (London, 1893).

Cook, Albert S. The Age of Poetry (Boston, 1892).

Cooper, F. T. Word Formation in the Roman Sermo Pleheius (New York, 1895).

Cotton, Henry. Typographical Gazeteer, 3d ed. (Oxford, 1852-1866). Couat, Auguste. La PoSsie Alexa}tdrine (Paris, 1882).

Courthope, W. J. Life in Poetry: Law in Taste (London, 1901).

Cox, G. W. The Greeks and the Persians (New York, 1897).

Cramer, Friedrich. De Graecis Medii Aevi Studiis (Lund, 1849-1853). Creuzer, Georg F. Opuscula (Leipzig, 1817).

Croiset, Alfred. X&nophon^ son Caractere et son Talent (Paris, 1873). Croiset, A. and M. An Abridged History of Greek Literature, Eng. trans. (New York, 1904).

Cros, C. I. H., and Henri, Charles. UEncaustique (Paris, 1884).

Curteis, A. M. A History of the Roman Empire from 375 to 800 A.D. (London, 1875).

Curtius, Ernst, History of Greece, Eng. trans., 5 vols. (New York, 1868- 1872).

D

Decharme, Paul. Euripides and the Spirit of His Dramas, Eng. trans. (New York, 1906).

Dedouvres, E. Les Latins (Paris, 1903).

Dejob, Charles. Marc Antoine Muret (Paris, 1881).

Delbriick, Berthold. Einleitung in das Sprachstudium, 3d ed. (Leip- zig, 1893); Eng. trans. (London, 1882).

Delepierre, J. 0 . La Parodie chez les Grecs, etc. (London, 1870).

Denis, Jacques. La Comedie Grecque, 2 vols. (Paris, 1886).

Deschamps, Pierre. Dictionnaire de Gio graphic d V Usage du Libraire (Paris, 1870).

De Vinne, T. L. The Invention of Printing (New York, 1878).

Notable Printers of Italy during the Fifteenth Century (New York, 1910). De Vit, Vincenzo. Preface to the Lexicon of Forcellini (Prato, 1879). Didot, A. F. Aide Manttce et VHdl^isme d Venise (Paris, 1875). Bibliotheca (Paris, 1872).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX 465

Draper, J. W. History of the Intdlectual Deodopment of Europe (New York, 1899).

Dressel, Heinrich, De Isidori Qriginum Foniihus (Turin, 1874).

Drisler, Henry. Classical Studies in Honour of (New York, 1894). DuBois, E. H. Stress Accent in Latin Poetry (New York, 1906).

Du Cange [Charles du Fresne], Glossarium ad Scriptores Medics et infimee Latinitatisj ed. by Favre (Niort, 1884-1887).

Duff, J. W. A Literary History of Rome (London and Leipzig, 1909). Duffield, S. A. W. Latin Hymn-Writers and their Hymns (New York, 1889),

Dugdale, William. Monasticum Anglicaniim^ 8 vols. (London, 1817- 1830). ^

Du M6ril, Edelstand, Poesies Populaires Latinos Anterieures au Dou- zUme Siecle (Paris, 1843).

Poisies Latines du Moyen Age (Paris, 1847).

Dunlop, J. C. A History of Prose Fiction^ last ed. (London, 1896).

Dyce, Alexander. The Complete Works of Richard Bentley, 3 vols, (Lon- don, 1836).

The Table-Talk of Samuel Rogers, to which is added Porsoniana (Lon- don, 1856).

E

Eckstein, F. A. Lateinischer und Griechischer TJnterricht (Leipzig, 1887). Egger, Emile. Callimaque et VOrigine de la Bihllographie (Paris, s. a.). Essai sur VHistoire de la Critique chez les Grecs (Paris, 1886). UHdUnisme en France, 2 vols. (Paris, 1869).

Einstein, Lewis. The Italian Renaissance in England (London, 1907). Emerton, Ephraim. Erasmus (New York, 1899).

Engel, Carl. The Music of the Most Ancient Nations (London, 1864), Engel, Karl D. L. Zusammenstellung der Fatist Schriften (Altenburg, 1885).

Erasmus, Desiderius. De Recta Latini Grcecique Sermonis Pronunda- tione (Basel, 1528).

Epistola (1484-1514), ed. by P. S. Allen (Oxford, 1906).

Opera Omnia (Basel, 1540).

Essen wein, A. O. Byzantinische Baukunst (Darmstadt, 1896). Eyssenhardt, Franz. Niebuhr (Gotha, 1886).

F

Faulman, Karl. Geschichte der Bucktructverkunst (Vienna, 1882). Federn, Karl. Dante and His Time, Eng. trans. (New York, 1902).

2H

466 BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

Feug&:e, L. J. Es$ai sur la Vie et les Ouvrages de Henri Etienne (Paris,

1853)-

Field, W. The Life of Samuel Parr, 2 vols. (London, 1828).

Fink, Karl. A History of Mathematics (Chicago, 1900),

Fitz-Hugh, Thomas. Outlines of a System of Classical Paedagogy (Balti- more, 1900).

Flach, H. L. M. Peisistratos und Seine Litter arische Thdtigheit (Tubingen, 188s).

Fleischer, L. 0 . Die Reste der Altgriechiscken Tonkunst (Leipzig, 1900). Forbes, W. H. Life and Mind of Thucydides (London, 1895).

Fowler, H. A., and Wheeler, J. R. A Handbook of Greek Archeology (New York, 1909).

Frazer, R. W. A Literary History of India (New York, 1901).

Frick, Carolus. Pom-ponius Mela und Seine Chorographie (Leipzig, 1880). Froude, J. A. Erasmus (London, 1894).

G

Gardner, Percy. Nesjo Chapters in Greek History (London and New York, 1892).

Gardthausen, V. E. Griechische Paldo graphic (Leipzig, 1879).

Gasquet, F. A. The Eve of the Reformation (London, 1898; New York, 1900).

Geiger, Ludwig. Petr area (Leipzig, 1874).

Geraud, P. H, J. F. Les Livres dans VAntiquitt (Paris, 1840).

Gerlach, F. D. Geschichtschreiher der Romer (Stuttgart, 1855).

Gevaert, F. A. Histoire et TMorie de la Musique dans VAntiquitB (Ghent, 1875-1881).

Gibbon, Edward. The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, ed, by Bury (Cambridge, 1899).

Giles, P. A Short Manual of Comparative Philology (London, 1895). Girard, Jules. La Peinture Antique (Paris, 1895).

Etudes sur V Eloquence (Paris, 1874).

Gleditsch, J. G. Die Pytkagoreer (Posen, 1841).

Grafenhan, E. F. A. Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie in AUerthum, 7 vols. (Bonn, 1843-1850).

Grandgent, Charles H. Vulgar Latin (Boston, 1908).

Graves, F. P. A History of Education before the Middle Ages (New York, 1909).

Greenwood, J. G. Pneumatics (London, 1851).

Gregorovius, F. History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, Eng. trans. (London, 1894).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX 467

Gresswell, W. P. ^ Memoirs of Angelus Folitianus^ etc. (London, 1805). Gros, Etienne. Etude sur la RMtorique chez les Grecques (Paris, 1835). Gubernatis, Angelo de. Storia della Poesia Epica (Milan, 1883). Gudeman, Alfred. Outlines of the History of Classical Philology (Boston, 1902).

H

Haase, F. De Latinorum Codicum Manuscriptorum Suhscriptionibus (Breslau, i860).

Hadley, James. Essays (New York, 1873).

Haight, A. E. The Tragic Drama of the Greeks (Oxford, 1896).

Hall, H. R. The Oldest Civilization of Greece (London, 1901).

Hankel, Hermann, Geschichle der Mathemalik in Alterthum und Mittel- alter (Leipzig, 1874).

Hankius, Martinus (Martin Hanke). De Byzantinarum Rerum Scrip- toribus Graecis (Leipzig, 1677).

Hardie W. R. Lectures on Classical Subjects (London, 1903).

Hardouin, Henri. Essai sur la Vie et les Omrages de du Cange (Paris, 1 849) . Harnack, Adolf. Das M’onchthum (Giesen, 1895).

Harrison, Frederic. Byzantine History in the Early Middle Ages (Lon- don, 1900).

Hart, G. De Tzetzarum NominCy Vitay Scriptis (Leipzig, 1880). Hartfelder, Karl. Philipp Melanchihon als Praeceptor Germaniae (Ber- lin, 1889).

Hartmann, Paul. De Canone Decern Oratorum (Gottingen, 1891).

Havet, P. A. L. De Saturnio Latinorum Versu (Paris, 1880).

Henderson, W. J. How Music Developed (New York, 1898). Hergenrother, J. A. G. PhotioSy 3 vols. (Regensburg, 1867-1869). Heyse, C. W. L. System der Sprachwissenschaft (Berlin, 1856). Hildebrand, August. Boetkis und Seine Slellung zum Christenthum (Regensburg, 1885).

Hill, G. B. Ed. Gibbon^s Memoirs (London, 1900).

Hodgkin, Thomas. Italy atid Her InvaderSy 8 vols. (Oxford, 1892-1899).

The Letters of Cassiodorus (London, 1886).

Hoe, Robert. A Short History of the Printing Press (New York, 1902). Holm, Adolph, History of Greece from Its Commencement to the Close of ike Independence of the Greek Nation (London, 1894-1899).

Howells, W. D. My Literary Passions (New York, 1895).

Hiibner, F. Enyclopddicy 2d ed. (Berlin, 1892).

Hyde, Douglas. A Literary History of Ireland (Dublin and New York, 1899).

468

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

I

Ihne, W. Early Rome (New York, 1902).

J

Jannet, Claudio. Les Institutions Sociales . . . d Sparte, 2d ed. (Paris, 1880).

Janssen, Johannes. A History of the German People, Eng trans. (Lon- don, 1881).

Jebb, Richard C. Attic Orators, 2d ed., 2 vols. (London, 1893).

Bentley — English Men of Letters Series, 2d ed. (New York, 1899). Erasmus (Cambridge, 1890).

Homer (Boston, 1887).

The Growth and Influence of Classical Greek Poetry (London, 1893). Jevons, F. B. A History of Greek Literature (New York, 1897).

Joly, Aristide. Etude sur Sadolet (Caen, 1857).

Jones, Stuart. Select Passages from Ancient Writers Illustrative of the History of Greek Sculpture (London, 1895).

Jortin, John. Remarks on Ecclesiastical History (London, 1751-1773). Jowett, B. W. Dialogues of Plato, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1893).

Justi, Karl. Winckelmann, Sein Lehen, Seine Werke, und Seine ZeiU genossen, 3 vols. (Leipzig, 1872).

K

Keil, H. Grammatici Latini (Leipzig, 1 855-’! 880).

Keller, Otto, Epilegomena zu Horaz (Leipzig, 1879).

Ker, W, P. The Dark Ages (New York, 1904).

Kiessling and Lehrs. Chiliades (Leipzig, 1826 and 1840).

Kingsley, Charles. Alexandria and Her Schools (Cambridge, 1854). Klotz, Richard. Grundziige der AUrdmischen Metrik (Leipzig, 1890). Korting, G. K. 0 . Boccaccios Lehen ufid Wcrke (Leipzig, 1880).

Kortiim, J. F. C. Geschichtliche Forschungen (Leipzig, 1863).

Kraemer, August. De Manilii Qui Fertur Astronomicis (Marburg, 1890).

Kroll, Wilhelm. Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie (Leipzig, 1908). Kugler, Bernard von. Geschichte der Kreuzzuge (Berlin, 1891).

L

Laffore, Jules de B. de. Etude sur Jules Cisar de Lescale (Agen, i860). Lanciani, R. A. Ancient Rome in the Light of Recent Excavations (Boston, 1889).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

469

Lang, Andrew. Oxford (Philadelphia, 1906).

Larroque, Philippe T. de. Lettres Frangaises InSdites de Joseph Scaliger (Agen, 1881).

Laur, H. Durand de. Life of Erasmus (Paris, 1872).

Lawton, W. C. The Successors of Homer (London, 1898).

Leake, W. M. The Topography of Athens (London, 1821).

Lecky, W. E. H. History of European Morals (New York, 1884).

Lee, Vernon. Euphorion (London, 1884).

Lefranc, A. J. M. Histoire du College de France (Paris, 1893).

Lehrs, Karl. De Aristarchi Studiis Homericis (Konigsberg, 1833 J 3 ^ ed. 1882).

Appendix to Herodiani Scripta Tria (Berlin, 1857).

Leland, C. G. The Unpublished Legends of Vergil (New York, 1900).

Le Mire, Aubert. Life of Lipsius (Antwerp, 1609).

Leo, Friedrich. De Vidularia PlaiUi (Gottingen, 1895).

Lersch, Laurenz. Sprachphilosophie der Alien, 3 vols, (Bonn, 1838-" 1841).

Lichtenberger, Henri. Le Poime et la Ligende des Nihelungm (Paris, 1891).

Lindsay, W. M. The Latin Language (Oxford, 1894).

Lloyd, W. W. The Age of Pericles, 2 vols. (London, 1875).

Lobeck, C. A. De Antiphrasi et Eupheinismo (s. 1 . et a).

Lorenz, Ottocar. The Life of Alcuin, Eng. trans. (London, 1837).

Lowe, Gustav, Prodromus Glossariorum Latinorum (Leipzig, 1876). Luard, H. R. Cambridge Essays (London, 1857).

The Correspondence of Richard Person (Cambridge, 1866).

Ludwich, Arthur. Aristarchs Homerische Textkritik (Leipzig, 1884*-

i88s).

Die Homer-Vidgata als Voralexandrinische Erwiesen (Leipzig, 1898).

M

McCabe, Joseph, Peter Aboard (New York, igoi).

Macaulay, T. B. Essays (London, 1861 and foil.).

Macdonell, Arthur A. A History of Sanskrit Literature, with biblio- graphical notes (New York, 1900).

Mackail, J. W. Latin Literature (New York, 1907).

Select Epigrams (London, 1891).

Mahaffy, J. P. History of Classical Greek Literature, 2 vols. (New York, 1880).

Old Greek Edttcation (London and New York, 1882).

470

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

What Have the Greeks Done for Modern Civilization? (London and New York, 1909).

Mahly, Jacob A. Richard Bentley^ Eine Biographic (Leipzig, 1868).

Mahn, E. A. P. Darstellung der Lexicographie nach Allen Ihren Seiten (Rudolstadt, 1817).

Maitland, S. R. The Dark Ages (London, 1853).

Maittaire, Michael. Historia Typographorum Aliquot Farisiensium (London, 1717).

Mariette, P. J. Pierres Gravies (Paris, 1752).

Marrast, Augustin. Esquisses Byzantines (Paris, 1874).

Marschall, Carl. De Qiiinti Remmii Palaemonis Libris Grammaticis (Leipzig, 1887).

Marsden, William, Ed. The Memoirs of W. M. Leake (London, 1864).

Martha, Constant. Le Potme de Lucrdce (Paris, s. a.).

Martin, J. P. La Vulgate Lathie au xii s. Paprhs Roger Bacon (Paris, 1888).

Matthai, C. F. von. Glossaria Greece (Moscow, 1774-1775).

Mengin, Urban. Documents sur J. C. Scaliger et sa Famille (Paris, 1880).

Meyer, Eduard. Forschungen sur Alien Geschichte^ 4 vols. (Halle, 1892).

M6zi^res, A. J. F. PUrarque (Paris, 1868).

Michaud, J. F, The History of the Crusades. Eng. trans. (London, 1881).

Michaud Fr^res. Biographie Universelle Ancienne et Moderne^ last ed., 45 vols. (Paris, 1843-1865).

Michaut, Gustave. Le Ginie Latin (Paris, 1904).

Middleton, J. H. The Engraved Gems of Classical Times (London, 1892).

Migne, J. P. Patrologice Cursus Completus — Gr. and Lat. (Paris, 1857-1866).

Mohler, J. A. Geschichte des Mbnehthums (Regensburg, 1866-1868).

Mommsen, Theodor. A History of Rome, Eng. trans. (New York, 1903-

1905)*

Monk, J. H. The Life of Richard Bentley, 2d ed. (London, 1833).

Monro, D. B. Modes of Ancient Greek Music (Oxford, 1894).

Monroe, Paul. Source Book of the History of Education, Greek and Ro- man Period (New York, 1901).

Montalambert, C. F. de T. The Monks of the West, Eng. trans. (Lon- don, 1861).

Montfaucon, Bernard de. UAntiquiU Expliquie et RepresentSe en Fi- gures, 10 vols. (Paris, 1719).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX 47 1

Morison, J. C. Gibbon — English Men of Letters Series (New York, 1879).

Muller, F. Max. India^ What Can It Teach Us? last ed. (London, 1892).

Lectures on the Science of Language, last ed. (London, 1891).

The Sacred Books of the East, 2d ed. (London, 1892).

Muller, Iwan. Handbuch der Klassischen AUerthumswissenschaft, 3d ed., s vols. (Munich, 1901).

Muller, Lucian. Friedrich Ritschls Leben (Berlin, 1877).

Geschichte der Klassischen Philologie in den Niederlanden (Leipzig, 1869).

Greek and Latin Versification, Eng. trans, (Boston, 1895).

Muller, P. E. Be Genio A&oi Theodosiani (Copenhagen, 1797). Mullinger, J. B. The Schools of Charles the Great (London, 1877). Murray, Gilbert. A Handbook of Greek Archceology (London, 1892). Miintz, Eug^e. Les Precurseurs de la Renaissance (Florence, 1902).

N

Nettleship, Henry. Essays in Latin Literature (Oxford, i88g).

Lectures and Essays (Oxford, 1895).

Newell, E. J. St. Patrick, His Life and Teachings (London, 1890). Nichols, F. M. Epistles of Erasmus (New York, 1901-1904).

NicoU, H. J. Great Scholars (Edinburgh, 1880).

Nisard, Charles. Essai sur les Poetes Latins de la Dicadence (Paris, 1867). Les Gladiateurs de la Republique des Lettres (Paris, 1889).

Le Triumvirat Littiraire (Paris, s. a.).

Nolhac, Pierre de, Erasme en Italic (Paris, 1888).

Pelrarque et VHumanisme (Paris, 1892, 2d ed. 1907).

Norden, Eduard. Die Antike Kunstprosa (Leipzig, 1898).

Nordenskjold, A. E. Periplus (Stockholm, 1897).

Olcott, G. N. Studies in the Word Formation of the Latin Inscriptions (Rome, 1898).

Olleris, Alex. Cassiodore, Conservateur des Livres de V Antiquity Latine (Paris, 1884).

Oman, C. W. C. The Story of the Byzantine Empire (London and New York, 1892).

Orelli, J. K. Onomasticon Ciceronis, last ed. (Zurich, 1887-1888}.

472

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

Otto, Friedrich. Sprichworier der Romer (Leipzig, 1890).

Overbeck, J. A. Geschichte der Griechischen Plastik (Leipzig, 1894),

P

Pais, Ettore. Ancient Legends of Roman History, Eng. trans. (New York, 1905).

Parthey, G. F. C. Das Alexandrinische Museum (Berlin, 1838).

Pater, Walter. Studies in the History of the Renaissance (London, 188S). Pattison, Mark. Essays, 2 vols. (Oxford, 1889).

Isaac Casaubon, ed. by Nettleship, 2d ed. (Oxford, 1892).

Paul, F. De Sillis (Berlin, 1821).

Paul, H. Grundriss, 3 vols., last ed. (Strassburg, 1896, foil).

Paulsen, Friedrich. The German Universities, Eng. trans. (New York,

189s)-

Pearson, Alfred. A Short History of the Renaissance (Boston, 1893). Pearson, Karl. Ethic of Free Thought (London, 1901).

Peck, H. T. Cena Trimatchionis, 2d ed. (New York, 1908).

Liter aPure (New York, 1908).

Pennington, A. R. Life of Erasmus (London, 1901).

Perrier, J. L. The Revival of Scholastic Philosophy (New York, 1909). Perrot, Georges. Les Pr^urseurs de Demosthene (Paris, 1873).

Perthes, Justus. Atlas Antiquus (Gotha, 1893).

Peter, Hermannus. Historicorum Romanoru^n Fragmenta (Leipzig, 1883). Picavet, F. J. Esquisse d'une Histoire GenMe et ComparSe des Civilisa- tions Mediiuales (Paris, 1905).

Pieri, Marius. PUrarque et Ronsard (Marseille, 1895).

Plessis, F. MHrique Grecque et Latine (Paris, 1889).

Pokel, W. Schriftstellerlexikon (Leipzig, 1882).

Polle, K. F. De Artis Vocabulis Quibusdam Lucretianis (Dresden, 1866). Prothero, G. W. ed. The Letters of Gibbon (London, 1896).

Prutz, Hans. Kulturgeschichte der Kreuzziige (Berlin, 1898).

The Age of the Renaissance (New York, 1902).

Putnam, G. H. Booh and Their Makers in the Middle Ages (New York, 1896-1897).

R

Rabe, Hugo. De Theophrasti Libris (Bonn, 1890).

Rashdall, Hastings. The Universities of Europe during the Middle Ages (Oxford, 189s).

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX 473

Reiffenberg, F. A. F. T. De Justi Lipsi Vita et Scriptis Commentarius (Brussels, 1823).

Reiley, Katherine, Philosophical Terminology of Lucretius and Cicero (New York, 1909).

Reinach, Salomon. Manuel de Philologie ClassiquBy 2d ed., 2 vols. (Paris, 1885).

Renan, Ernest. M^ange d^Histoire et de Voyage dans V Antiquity (Paris, 1898).

Ribbeck, Otto. Geschichte der Rdmischen Dichtungj 2 vols., 2d ed. (Leipzig, 1897-1900).

Ridgeway, William. The Early Age of Greece (Cambridge, 1901, foil.). Ritschl, F. W. Die Alexandrinischen Bibliotheken (Breslau, 1838),

Neue Plautinische Excurse (Leipzig, 1869).

Opuscula Philologica (Leipzig, 1866).

Roberts, E. S. Greek Epigraphy (Cambridge, 1887-1905).

Roberts, William. History of Letter Writing (London, 1843).

Robinson, J. H., and Rolfe, J. C. Petrarch (New York, 1898).

Rahricht, Reinhold. Geschichte des K'dnigreichs Jerusalem (Berlin, 1898). Roth, K, L. Leben Varros (Basle, 1857).

Riidinger, Wilhelm. Petrus Victorinus (Halle, 1896).

Ruske, Lothar. De AiM Gdlii N odium Atiicarum Fontihus (Breslau, 1883).

S

Saalfeld, G. A. E. A. Der Hellenismus in Latium (Wolfenbuttel, 1883). St. Hilaire, Barth 61 emy de. De VJ^ole dlAlemndrie (Paris, 1845). Saintsbury, George. A History of Criticism^ 3 vols. (New York, 1900; London, 1901-1902).

Salverte, Francois de. Le Roman dans la Grhce Ancienne (Paris, 1894). Sandys, J. E. A History of Classical Scholarship, 3 vols., 2d ed. (Cam- bridge, 1908).

Lectures on the Revival of Learning (Cambridge, 1905).

Scartazzini, G. A. A Handbook to Dante, Eng. trans. (Boston, 1897). Schanz, Martin von. Die Sophisten (Gottingen, 1867).

Scherer, W. Poetik (Berlin, 1888).

Schmidt, Joseph. De Latinitate Tertulliani (Erlangen, 1870).

Schmidt, K. E. Beitrdge zur Geschichte der Grammatik (Halle, 1859). Schneidewin, F. W. The Preface to Pitidar (Gottingen, 1837). Schomann, G. F. Geschichte der AUerthiimer, 4th ed. (Berlin 1897). Schroeder, Leopold von. Indiens Litteratur und Cultur (Leipzig, 1887).

474

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

Schiick, Julius. Aldus Manutius und Seine Zeitgenossen (Berlin, 1862). Scott, Leader. The Renaissance oj Art in Italy (London, 1888).

Sears, Lorenzo. History of Oratory (Chicago, 1903).

Sellar, W, Y. The Roman Poets oj the Augustan Age (Oxford, 1892). Sergi, Giuseppe. The Mediterranean Race, Eng. trans. (London, 1901). Seymour, T. D. Life in the Homeric Age (New York, 1908).

Shepherd, William. Life of Poggio (Liverpool, 1837).

Simon, Jules. Histoire de VEcole d^Alexandrie, 2 vols. (Paris, 1844-

1845)-

Skrzeczta, R. F. L. Die Lehre des Apollonius Dyscolus (Konigsberg, 1 85 8-” 1 869).

Smyth, H. W. Melic Poets (New York, 1900).

Sokolowski and Szujski. Monumenta Medii Men (Cracow, 1876). Spangenberg, E. P, J. Jacob Cujas und Seine Zeitgenossen (Leipzig, 1822). Spanheim, Ezechiel. Dissertaiio de Usu et Prcestantia Numismatum Anti- quorum (Amsterdam, 1671).

Spiegel, F. von. Die Alexander Saga (Leipzig, 1851).

Spingarn, J. E. Critical Essays of ike Seventeenth Century, 3 vols. (Ox- ford, 1908-1909).

Literary Criticism in the Renaissance (New York, 1908).

Steffen, Georg. De Canone qui Dicitur Arisiophanis et Arisiarchi (Leip- zig, 1876).

Steinthal, Eduard. Geschichte der Sprachwissenschafl bei den Griechen und Romern, 2 vols., 2d ed. (Berlin, 1891).

Steup, Jul. De Probis Grammaiicis (Jena, 1871).

Stuart, James, and Rowe, Nicholas. The Antiquities of Athens Measured and Delineated, isted. (London, 1762); 2d ed. (London, 1825-1830). Sturz, F. W. Opuscula Nonmtlla (Leipzig, 1825).

Suringar, W. H. D. De Romanornm Autobio gr aphis (Leyden, 1846).

Historia Criiica Sckoliastarum Latinorum (Leyden, 1834-1835). Susemihl, Franz. Geschichte der Griechischen Litteratur in der Alexan- driner Zeit (Leipizig, 1891-1892).

Sutphen, M. C. Latin Proverbs (Baltimore, 1902).

Sybel, H, R. L. von. Geschichte der Ersten Kreuzziige (Leipzig, 1900). Symonds, J. A. History of the Italian Renaissance, 7 vols. (London, 1875).

T

Tannery, Paul. La GSomitrie Grecque (Paris, 1887).

Taylor, H. C. The Mediaeval Mind (New York, 1911).

Teignmouth, J- S. The Life of Sir WiUiam Jones (London, 1808),

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX 47 $

Teuffel-Schwabe-Warr. A History of Roman LiteraturOi 2 vols. (London, 1892).

Texier, C. F. M., and Pullan, R. P. Byzantine Architecture (London, 1894).

Thackeray, F. St. J. Anihologia Grceca^ with English notes (London, 1877).

Thiaucourt, Camille. Les TraitBs Pkilosophiques de CicBron et Leurs Sources Grecques (Paris, 1885).

Thumeysen, Rudolf. Der Saturnier (Halle, 1885).

U

Ueberweg, F. Grundriss der GescMchte der Philosophie, 9th ed. (Leipzig, 1907).

Usener, Hermann. Dtonysii Halic. Librorum de Imitaiione Reliqui(Z (Leipzig, 1899).

Epicurea (Leipzig, 1887).

XJlrici, Hermann. Geschichte der GriecUschen Dichtkunst (Berlin, 1835).

V

Vacherot, Etienne. Hisiotre Critique de VEcole d^AlexandriCj 3 vols. (Paris, 1846-1851).

Vahlen, Johannes. Lorenzo Valla (Vienna, 1870).

Vanel, J. B. Les Binedictins de Saint-Maur (Paris, 1896).

Verrall, A. W. Euripides the Rationalist (Cambridge, 1895).

Vibaek, M. Life of Karl Verner (Copenhagen, 1893).

Voight, Georg. Die Wiederhelebung des Klassischen Alterthums oder das Erste Jahrhundert des Humanistnus, 3d ed, (Berlin, 1893).

Volkmann, R. E. Geschichte im Kritik der Wolfs Prolegomena (Leipzig, 1874).

Voss, Otto. De Heraclidis Pontici Vita et Scripiis (Rostock, 1897).

Vries, Jeronimo de. Hugo Grotius (Amsterdam, 1827).

W

Wachsmuth, Curt. De Crateie Mallota (Leipzig, i860).

Walden, J. W. H. The Universities of Ancient Greece (New York, 1909).

Warren, F. M. A History of the Novel (New York, 1805).

Wattenbach, Wilhelm. Das Schriftwescn im Mittelalter (Leipzig, 1875).

Wegener, C. F. W. De Aula Attalica (Copenhagen, 1836).

476

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL INDEX

Weise, F. O. Characterisiik der Lateinischen Spracke^ 3d ed. (Leip- zig, 1905), Eng. trans. (London, 1909).

Weissenfels, Oskar. Ae$tket-K!rUische Analyse der Ars Foetica (Gorlitz, 1880).

Horaz (Berlin, 1899).

Welcker, F. G. Der Epische Cyclus, 2d ed. (Bonn, 1865-1882).

Werner, R. M. Lyrik und Lyriker (Leipzig, 1890).

West, A. F. Alcuin and the Rise of Christian Schools (New York, 1892).

Roman Autobiography (New York, 1901).

Westphal, Rudolf. Allgemeine Metrik (Berlin, 1892).

Die Musik des Griechischen Alterthums (Leipzig, 1887).

Whitney, W. D. Language and the Study of Languages, 4th ed. (New York, 1884).

The Life and Growth of Language, last ed. (New York, 1890). Whittaker, Thomas, The Neo-Platomsts (Cambridge, 1901).

Wiese, L. A. De Viiis Scriptorum Romanorum (Berlin, 1840). Wilamowitz-MSllendorf, Ulrich von. Euripidis Hcrakles (Berlin, 1889). Wilken, Friedrich. Geschichte der Kreuzziige, 7 vols. (Leipzig, 1807-1832). Wilkins, A. S. National Education in Greece in the Fourth Century before Christ (London, 1873).

Winckelmann, J. J. Geschichte der Kunst des A Iterthums (Dresden, 1754). Windelband, Wilhelm. History of Ancient Philosophy, Eng. trans. (New York, 1899).

Winkworth, Susanna. The Life and Letters of Niebuhr (London, 1853). Wissowa, Georg. De Macrobii Saturnalium Fontibus (Breslau, 1888). Wolf, F. A. Prolegomena ad Homerum (Berlin, 1795); last ed. 1859. Wolff, Max von. Lorenzo Valla, Sein Leben Seine Werke (Leipzig,

1893)-

Woltmann, Alfred von, and Woermann, Karl. A History of Painting, Eng. trans. (New York, 1901).

Woodward, W. H. Erasmits on Education (Cambridge and New York, 1904).

Z

Zacher, Konrad. Die Aussprache des Griechischen (Leipzig, 1888). Zeissberg, Heinrich von. Die Polmsche Geschichtschreibung des MitteU alters, &c. (s. 1., 1847).

Zeller, Eduard. Aristotle (London, 1897).

History of Eclecticism, Eng. trans. (London, 1893).

Zingerle, A. R, Zu SpUtern latein, Dichtern (Innsbruck, 1873).

GENEEAL INDEX

A

Abelard, 230.

Academic School of Philosophy, 122.

^lius Herodianus, 114, 186.

iElius Prseconinus Stilo, L., the first Roman philologist, 159, 160; his grammatical and critical work, 160.

^neas Silvius, 387.

^schylus, 72, 78, 94, 109.

^Esthetics, 71.

,/Esthetic Criticism, in Plato, 72, 73; in Aristotle’s Poetics, 73, 75.

African Period of Latin, 186.

Agricola, Rudolphus, 390 n.

Albertus Magnus, 388-

Alcaeus, 33, 109, 119.

Alciphron, 155.

Alcuin, his influence on Mediaeval study, 220-224, 238, 239, 385.

Alexander iEtolus, 98, 106.

Alexandria, founding of, 88; descrip- tion of, 88-90; the Library and Mu- seum at, 92-97.

Alexandrian Canon, gg, 100; its in- fluence on Greek Literature, 100,

lOI.

Alexandrian Influence, 96, 97, 102; at Rome, 152.

Alexandrian Library, 92-94, 98, 102; foreign books collected in, 93, 94; in Roman times, 93; its chief libra- rians, 98, 109; gradual destruction of, 116, 117.

Alexandrian Literature, 96-98, 101, 102, 106,

Alexandrian Philosophy, Jewish in- fluence in, 102, 103.

Alexandrian Poetry, 96, ror, 102.

Alexandrian Schools, 95, 96; late repre- sentatives of, n6.

Alexandrian Science, 103, 104.

Alexandrian use of terms <pt\ 6 \oyos, <pL\o\oyCa, 2.

Algebra, 104; invented by the Egyp- tians, 105.

Alphabet, taught by ypafj.fjLarurTr^s, 18; Plato’s classification of the letters, 65; teaching of the alphabet in schools, 69, 70; Roman alphabet, 132.

Altgrammatiker, 422, 423.

Ammianus Marcellinua, quoted, 211, 212.

Anacreon, 34.

Amalogy and Anomaly, 119, 120.

Anaximander, 21, 25, 26.

Anaximenes of Lampsacus, 21; his Homeric criticism, 44; his practical treatment of rhetoric, 45; his three rhetorical categories, 45.

Anaximenes of Miletus, 21.

Anglo-Dutch Period, 355.

Annalistic Method in Classical Philol- ogy, 3.

Anomaly, see Analogy.

Anthology, history of the Planudean Anthology, 256; of the, Palatine Anthology, 256, 257; ^44, 349.

Anthon, Charles, 452, 453.

Antiphon, first publishes speeches as models, 43.

Antiphrasis, as a principle in language, 68, 69.

Apelles of Ephesus, 83.

Aphorisms, Roman fondness for, 149, i5S» 156; Varro’s collection of, 162.

Apollonius Dyscolus of Alexandria, founded scientific syntax, 185.

Apollonius of Perga, 103,

Apollonius Rhodius, loi.

Apuleius, as a word-maker, 148.

477

478

INDEX

Aquinas, Thomas, 388.

Arabic, knowledge of, in the Middle Ages, 240.

Aratus, 96, 102.

Arcesilaus, 118.

Archseology and Antiquities, 250-254, 268, 269, 287, 288, 313, 315; in Russia and the Crimea, 401 n.

Archimedes, 103.

Aristarchus, 104; his critical methods, 109-116; his grammatical terminol- ogy» 109; his five critical processes, no; his Homeric criticism, 109-111; his five notes, 113; his successors, 114.

Aristobulus, 102.

Aristophanes, 72; his criticism of Eu- ripides, 76*

Aristophanes of Byzantium, invents accents, punctuation, and critical signs, 98, 107, 108; his hypotheses to the dramatists, 98; helps establish the Canons, 99; his ten jfrosodics, 107; his criticism of texts, 107, 108; as rile first scientific lexicographer, 108.

Aristotle, meaning of <f)L\o\oy[(i in, 2; his analytical treatise on rhet- oric, 45-47; his conception of rhet- oric, 47, 48; his metaphysical dis- tinctions, 48; his Organon, 48; his ten categories, 48; the importance of his categories in the development of formal grammar, 48; his Poetics, 73-76; his dramatic criticism, 74, 75; his criticism of Homer, 78; his “casket edition” of Homer, 78.

Aristoxenus, 80.

Arithmetic in the Grseco-Roman Period, 172, 173.

Ars Poetica, 181, 182.

Art, distinction between fine art and useful art, 73; aesthetic study of art, 1 2 7-1 29; mediaeval art, 243; Byzantine art, 250, 251.

Arundel Marbles, the, 360 n.

Asconius, Pedianus, 168.

Asiatic Style, 42.

Ast, G. A. F., 412.

Astronomy, 22, 103.

Athens, contrasted with Sparta, 28; as the champion of Hellas, 29, 30; as a centre of learning, 32, 35, 42; as a university town, 12 1-124.

A.ttic Style, 42.

Attius, his tragedies, 149; his Didas- coHca, 157 n.; his reforms in. Roman orthography, 157 n.

Aurispa, Giovanni, his enormous col- lection of Mss., 279, 280.

Auspidus, 216.

Austria, classical studies in, 386-388.

B

Bacchylides, 34, 234.

Bacon, Frauds, 357-359*

Bacon, Roger, 239-242; character of his writings, 239; his criticism of the Scholastics, 239; his suggestions as to Scriptural text-critidsm, 240, 241; his Greek lexicon, 241; his glossaries and modern methods, 242.

Bancroft, George, 451.

Baionius, Cardinal Casar, 309 n.

Beadus, Renanus, 396.

Beck, Carl, 452.

Bekker, August Immanuel, 405, 410 n.

Bcnfey, Theodor, 419,

Benedictus (St. Benedict), 197; founds the order of the Benedictines, 200, 202, 203.

Bentley, Richard, assists Kiister, 351; his relations with Hemsterhuys, 352 Jiv 353; included in the “Pleiad,” 360; as a scholar, 361-365; his Phdaris, 365; his critical power, 366-370; bibliography to, 371 n.

Bergk, Theodor, 409.

Bernhardy, Gottfried, 413, 414,

Bernard de Chartres, his method of teaching, 230, 231.

Bemays, J., quoted, 74.

Bessarion, his founding of the Library of St- Mark (Venice), 273.

Biographical Method in Classical Philology, 3.

Biography, 120, 153, 154.

Blagoviestschenski, N. M., 401 n.

Boccacdo, Giovanni, 267, 268.

INDEX

479

Boeckh, August, 410 n.

Boethius, Anicius Manlius, 206; his De Consoladone Philosophiae, 206, 207; first writer to use Arabic (Hindu) numerals, 207; translated by King Alfred, Chaucer, and Queen Elizabeth, 207.

Boissier, Gaston, 427.

Bopp, Franz, first scientific student of Comparative Philology, 418, 419.

Borghesi, Bartolomeo, the first scien- tific epigraphist, 443.

Bos, Lambert, 351.

Botsford, G. W., quoted, 7, 8,

Bouhier, Jean, 314.

Brant, Sebastian, 391 n.

British Museum, 381 n.

Brown University, 450,

Brugmann, Karl F., 422, 423.

Bruni, Leonardo, 268.

Bucheler, Franz, 417.

Buda, University at, 399,

Budaeus, 304.

Bugge, Sophus 4241 433 , 434 ‘

Burgess, Prof. J. W., quoted, 244.

Burlesque, of the SopMsts, 6$, 66, 76; of the tragic writers, 76; of Homer and the Cyclic writers, 77. See Parody.

Burmann, Peter (the Elder), his Latin editions, 350, 351.

Burney, Charles, his “Pleiad,’^ 359, 360.

Burton, Robert, 358 n.

Butcher, S., quoted, 73, 74.

Buttmann, P. K., 410 n.

Byzantine Empire (New Rome), charac- teristics of its history, 210, 247-250; its art, 250, 251; its literature, 251, 254, 256, 257; its jurisprudence, 252, 253; its scholarship, 253-255; its pillage by the Turks, 272; its earlier relations with Italy, 269.

C

Cajori, Florian, quoted, 22.

Calepinus, Ambrosius, his lexicon, 415 n; alterations herein, see Lexi- cography.

Callimachus, 93 n, 96; his bibliograph- ical work, 98, 106; his lyric poetry, loi; his epigrams, loi.

Camerarius, 396.

Canon of Ten Sculptors, 129.

Canter, William, his use of Arabic numerals in verse, 343.

Carneades, 150.

Carnegie Institution, 92.

Carolingian Period of Middle Ages, 214-218, 225, 226.

Casaubon, Isaac, 306, 308-312.

Cassiodorus, Magnus Aurelius, 203, 204.

Castelvetro, F., 75.

Categories, of Anaximenes, 45; of Aristotle, 46, 47.

Catholicon, 247.

Cato, M. Porcius, his OrigineSt 153; as the originator of Roman prose,

153.

Catullus, Quintus Valerius, 152.

Caylus, le Comte de, 315, 316.

Celtes, Conrad, 391 n.

Cephalas, 256, 344.

Charlemagne, his court school, 220,

Charles the Bald, 385.

Christomathies, see Lexicography.

Chrysoloras, Manuel, 269, 280.

Cicero, M. T., as a word-maker, 148; as a philosopher, 150; as a historian, 153; as an orator, 153.

Ciceronianism at the time of the Re- naissance, 281, 282, 302, 303; culti- vated by Ernesti, 400.

Ciriaco de' Pizzicolli (di Ancona), ar- chseologist, 268.

City editions of Homer, 16, 17, in, 112.

Clark, Victor S., quoted, 219.

Classical Archseology, studied in Great Britain, 380, 381; in France and Germany, 426-429.

Classical Philology, 1-4; definition of, 1-3; methods of treating, 3-4; his- tory of, 1-2.

Cobet, Caryl Gabriel, 424, 425.

Codex, meaning of, 280 n.

1 Colet, John, 295.

1 College de France, 305,

480

INDEX

Columbia University (King’s Col- lege), 450.

Comedy in Athens, 72, 76.

Commodianus, 193.

Comparative Philology, 3 n.; first at- tempt at, 398; first scientific study of 418, 419.

Conington, John, 447.

Constantinople, see Byzantine Em- pire.

Cooper, F. T., quoted, 187.

Corax of Syracuse, writes the first manual of rhetoric, 41; his rules, 41,

44.

Corpus Inscripiionum Atticarum, 441.

Corpus Inscripiionum Grecarum 441.

Corpus Inscripiionum Latinarum, 4.4.3.

Corpus luris Chilis, 253.

Corssen, W., 434-437.

Corvinus, Matthias, 399.

Cosmopolitanism at Rome, 186.

Crates of Mallos, 119, 120; his view of Homer, 120; the “Bentley of An- tiquity,” 120; his conception of text-criticism, 119, 120; his works, 120; hisembassy toRome, 120; 157.

Cratylus, synopsis of the dialogue, 61- 67.

Critical Signs, 98, 107, 108, 113, 114, 160, 166, 167, 186.

Criticism, of the Homeric Poems, in Early Greece, 13, 20, 25, 27; its varieties, 39, 40, see Text Criticism; aesthetic, 73-75; of the drama in Greece, 74-77; subjective, 107, 368, 369; verbal, 305, 306; diplomatic, 336-340. See Text Criticism.

Cruques, Jacques de (Cruquius), his studies of Horace in Mss. now lost,

342, 343; Codex Blandinianus, 342,

343.

Crusades, their influence on Europe, 257, 258.

Cujadus (Jacques de Cujas), his rela- tions with Scaliger, 326; his recon- struction of Roman law, 326.

Curtius, Ernst, 419.

Curtius, Georg, the head of a school of language study, 419, 420.

Cyclic Poets, 12.

Cylas, 174.

Cynics, 51.

D

Dalberg, Johann von, 391 n.

Damm, Tobias, 417.

Dante, 261, 262.

Dawes, Richard, 371.

Demetrius, Magnus, 120.

Demetrius Phalerius, 88-91.

Democritus of Abdera, ii; his theories of language, 58; his treatise on Glosses, 1 2 6 n. ,' his work on painting, 128.

Demosthenes, 44,

Descriptive Geography, see Geog- raphy.

Didascalica, 157 n.

Didymus Chalcenteros, his vast pro- ductiveness, 1 14, 1 16.

Dilettanti Society, 380.

Dindorf, K. W., 407.

Dindorf, Ludwig, 407 n.; 449.

Dinocratcs, the designer of Alexandria, 89.

Diogenes Lagrtius, 60.

Diogenes of Apollonia, quoted, 40.

Dionysius Thrax, the first teacher of formal grammar, 138-160.

Ditlenberger, W., 441.

Doederlein, L., 412,

Donaldson, J. W., 439.

Donatus, iElius, 184, 185; abridg- ment of, 246.

Doratus, Auratus (Jean d’Aurat), teacher of ScaUgcr and Ronsard, 326.

Downes, Andrew, 357, 360,

Drakenborch, Arnold, his great edition of Livy, 35 1.

Drama, its beginnings in Greece, 15; influence in Greece, 72, 75-77; na- tive Roman drama, 13 1.

Dramatic Criticism, in Aristotle, 74, 75; the three Dramatic Unities, 75; in Theophrastus of Ephesus, 76 ,* in Aristophanes, 76.

Drisler, Henry, 418 n, 454.

Du Cange, Charles du Fresne, his glos- saries of Low Latin and Late Greek, 312.

INDEX 481

Duff, J- W., quoted, 136.

Duns Scotus, 385, 388.

Dupis of Samos, 128.

Duruy, J. V., 429.

E

Eckhel, Joseph, 403.

Eclectics, si; at Alexandria, 97, 102.

Editiones Principes of the Fifteenth Century, 299, 300.

Education, in early Greece, 17-19, 26, 27; in the Prae- Alexandrian Period, 49-51; theancient universities, 1 21- 125; in early Rome, 13 1; the Graeco-Roman education, 171-191; monastic schools, 2 2 8-23 1 .

Egelsson, Sveinbjoin, “the Icelandic Homer, ” 433.

Egyptians, their influence upon early Greek thought, 22; their scientific knowledge, 105 n.

EfK6s, rhetorical meaning of, 41, 44,

Eiodographic Method in Classical Philology, 9,

Eleatic School, 24; linguistic theories of the, 56-59.

Elegiac Poetry, in Greek literature, 33; in Latin literature, 152.

Eliot, George, quoted, 446.

Encyclopaedists in Latin, 188-190.

English universities, scholarly relations between English and Dutch Univer- sities, 359, 447; the Oxford Press, 359; revival of Greek at, 359; Eng- lish scholars of the seventeenth cen- tury, 360-363; the Cambridge Press, 364; deterioration of from 1750 until 1820, 377, 378; German influence on, 446.

Ennius, Quintus, 138; changes made by him in Latin verse structure, 139-141; his AnnaUs, 139, 140.

Epic Poetry among the Greeks, 9- 12, 97; among the Romans, 134, 13s; 139, 151-

Epicurus, his theory of the origin of language, 60; his endowment of a school at Athens, 122.

Epigrams, of Callimachus, loi; of Martial, 155.

Epigraphy, origin and development of, in Antiquity, 167, 168; Greek, 441; Roman, of late development, 442, 443.

Epistulae Obscurorum Virorum, 394, 395 .

Epitome of the Four Treatises, 1 14, 1 15 .

Erasmus Desiderius, 290; account of his life, 291-294; his writings, 294- 297; his character and influence, 297-299.

Eratosthenes of Alexandria, styled 0tX6Xo7os, 2; in the Alexandrian School, 98, 103, 106, 107.

Ernesti, Johann August, 400, 401.

Ethics, in Homer, 18, 19; in the philos- ophy of Pythagorus, 23; of Socrates, SO, 51.

Ethnographic Method in Classical Philology, 4.

Etruscology, 436, 437.

Et3maology, 52; Plato’s discussion in the CratyluSj 61-67; popular ety- mologies, 66, 67; principles involved in developing words, 63, 64, 69; etymological schools among the Romans, 157, 162-164.

Euclid, 103.

Eudemus, his history of geometry, 22.

Eudoxus of Canidus, 174.

Eumenes, as founder of the Pergamene School, 1 1 8.

Euphemism, 69.

Euripides, 67, 72, 76, 78, 86.

Eusebius, his Chronicle, 189; restora- tion of, by J. J. Scaliger, 336-341.

Everett, Edward, 451.

Exegesis, 72, 73.

F

Faber, Basilius, 397 n„ 399.

Fabretti, Raffaele, 442.

Fabricius, George, 397 n.

Fabricius, J. A., 440.

Facciolati, lacopo, 415-416.

“Families” of Manuscripts, iii.

“Father of History,” see Herodotus.

21

482

INDEX

Felton, C. C., 451.

Fenestella, 168.

Ferrero, G., 429.

Fiction, see Prose fiction.

Filelfo, Francesco, 281.

Fisher, G., 452.

Folk Literature among the Romans, 131, 156.

Foreign schools at Athens and Rome:

(1) French school at Athens, 427;

(2) German school at Rome; (3) British school at Athens, 447; (4) British school at Rome, 448; (5) American school at Athens; (6) American school .-.t Rome.

Forgeries, of manuscripts, 284 n., 285; of inscriptions, 442.

Frederick of Urbino, his remarkable library, containing a list of Greek authors now lost, 273.

French School of Classical Philology, 304-320; studies in music, geog- raphy, history, and gem-work by French scholars, 315, 316.

Froben, Johann, 294.

Fronto, Marcus Cornelius, 186.

G

Gaisford, Thomas, 447, 449.

Gaza, Theodorus, grammarian and translator, 280, 281, 295, 391 n.

Geldner, K. F., quoted, 30.

Gellius, A., 186; IdsNoctesAUicae, 188, 189.

Gem-cutting, learned from the Egyp- tians, 83, 84.

Genealogy, 35.

Geographic Method in Classical Philol- ogy, 4.

Geography, 25; first scientific treatise on, 25; descriptive geography, 23, 35; I74> 175; first geographical dic- tionary, 176; in the French Period, 315; road-maps, 392 n.

Geometry, 22, 23; developed by Euclid and Archimedes, 103.

Germany, early culture in, 388; schol- asticism in, 388; humanism in, 388- 394» 396-398; universities in, 388-

393; intellectual influence of, 385- 455; periods of classical scholar- ship in, 393; study of Hebrew in,

394.

Gesner, Conrad, 398.

Gesner, J. M., 397 n.

Ges^a Romanorum^ 190, 224, 225.

Gibbon, Edward, 37, 378, 379.

Gilman, D. C., 434.

Glosses, 123-127; various meanings of the word, 126; their relations to

. lexicography, 126; Pamphilius, 194.

Glossographers, 127, 194.

Glossography, 126, 166, 167; see Lexi- cography.

Gnipho, M. Antonius, 166.

Goethe, J. W. von, 417.

Gorgias of Leontini, teaches rhetoric in Athens, 41-43.

Graeco-Roman Period, 130-190.

Graevius (Johann Georg Grave), 397 n.

Grtlfcnhan, A., quoted, 26.

Grammar, its early relation to logic, 47; meaning of “grammaticus,” 70; gradual development of grammatical terms by Protagoras, 70; by Prodi- cus, 49, 70; by Plato, 70; by Aris- totle, 70, 71; by the Stoics and Alex- andrians, 71, 109, 120; by Diony- sius Thrax, 158; first treatise on formal grammar, 139; L. Slilo, 139, 160; M. T. Varro, 162; the first school grammar, 183; later gram- matical writers among the Romans, 184-187; study of, in the monastic schools, 229, 231; grammatical

theories in the Middle Ages. 236; modern theories of, 401 n., 405, 412-415-

TpdfjLiJLara, ypanfAarLcrT'/js, 18, 69,

Grammatici Latini, 184-187.

Grammaticus, 70; 172, 173.

Gray, Thomas, 371.

Greek, in the Middle Ages, 235, 236; in the Renaissance and after, 269; taught in Italy by the Byzantines, 269; restoration of, in the English universities, 339.

Greek culture, antiquity of, 5-9.

Greek genius, character of, 83-87.

INDEX

483

Greek Literature, beginnings of, 9-13; Homeric writings, 13-is; teaching of, 18-20; early criticism of, 20; historiography, 26, 34-39; at Athens, 28 ff.; varieties of, 33-45; study of, 71; criticism of, 71; 73-75; the drama, 72; parody, 76-78; genius of, 83-87; in Alexandria, 91-116; in Pergamum, 118-120; set Renais-

SANCE-

Greek studies in Ireland, 235 n.

Gregorovius, F.,

Gregory Nazianzen, quoted, 123, 124.

Gregory of Tours, 216.

Grimm’s Law, 420, 421.

Grocyn, William, first teacher of Greek at Oxford, 293.

Gronovii (J. F. and Jacob Gronov), their Thesaurus of Greek antiquities, 349.

Grotius Hugo (Huig van Groot), great classical scholar and constructive jurist, 347; his edition of Martianus Capella begun at the age of twelve, 347; his treatise Be lure BeUi et Pacts, 348; his translation into Latin verse of the Planudean Anthology,

349.

Gruter, Janus Gfan GruytSre), his col- lection of Latin inscriptions, 342,

H

Hadley, James, 455.

Haldeman, S., 435.

Harpocration, Valerius, his lexicon to the ten orators, 194.

Harvard, John, founder of Harvard College, 449.

Havercamp, Siegbert, 352.

Haupt, Moritz, 401 n., 433 n.

Hebrew, study of, 240, 394, 398.

Hecataeus, 25, 26.

Hegemon, the originator of true par- ody, 77.

Hegius, Alexander, 391 n.

Heinsius, Daniel, pupil of Scaliger, 344-

Heliodorus, 155.

HeUanicus of Mitylene, 35.

Hellenes, origins of the, 5-8.

Hellenic Influence in Italy, 266—284.

Hemsterhuys, Tiberius, his acute criti- cism, 352; his edition of Lucian, 353; appointed professor in Leyden, 354; his fame in other countries, 354.

Henri, Victor, 427.

Henzen, Wilhelm, 443.

Hephaestion, on metres, 194.

Heraclides Ponticus, his treatise on language, 76.

Heracl*tean School, linguistic theories of, 56-59*

Heracl*tus, 21; his view of language, 56-60.

Herennius Philon, 194.

Hermeneutics, 73, 87.

Hermann, Gottfried, 401 n., 405.

Hero of Alexandria, 104, 105.

Herodotus, his contributions to geo- graphical knowledge, 34, 35; quoted, 34, 33; his history, 34*

Hesiod, 13.

Hessus, Helius Eobanus, 396.

Heyne, Christian Gottlob, 403.

Hieronymus (St. Jerome), 148, 195.

Hipparchus, 103.

Hippias of Elis, his experiments in literature, 50, 51.

History, 26, 34; in Greek literature, 34-38; among foreigners, 54, 55; in Latin literature, 153, 154; the Byzantine historians, 254, 258; later historians, — Gibbon, 378, 379,

Niebuhr, 408-410, Curtius, Ernst, 419, Grote, 428, Thirlwall, 428, Du- ruy, 429, Boissonade, 429, Momm- sen, 443, 444, Ferrero, 429.

Holmes, 0. W., quoted, 182.

Homeric Epic, character of the, 9, 10; early interpolations in, 9, 14-16; preservation of the probable arche- type, 9, IS; inspirational theory of, 10-12; influence upon Greek thought, II, 12, 17, 19, 26, 27; ethical value of, ii, 18, 19; early criticism of, 13-15, 20, 44; allegori- cal and rationalistic explanation of, 20; burlesques of, 77; editions made by Aristotle, 78, 79.

484

INDEX

Homeric Hymns, 13. i

hom*onsmiy, 58.

Horatius, I. Flaccus, quoted, 19; as a satirist, 149; as a lyric poet, 152; as a critic of literature, 181, 182.

Humanism, 269-271; contrasted with Mediaevalism, 270-273; in Germany, 3S8-394, 396-398; the New, 417.

Humboldt, of Antiquity, the, see Herodotus.

Hungary, classical studies in, 399.

Hurd, Richard, 371.

Hutten, Ulrich von, 395.

Hylozoism, 21.

Hymns, Homeric, 13; Latin, 218.

Hypsicrates, etymological school of, at Rome, 157, 158.

I

lambic Poetry, 33.

lamblichus, 103.

Iberians, the, 6.

Iliad, the, see Homeric Epic.

Interpreters of foreign languages, among the Greeks, 54.

Invasions of Italy, 213, 214.

Ionian Greeks, 17, 18, 28; educational influence of, 17, 18.

Ionian School of Philosophy, 21, 22, 24.

Ireland, Classical Scholarship in, 226; Mediaeval Schools in, 226 n,; La- tinity in, 233.

Irony, 69.

Isidorus of Seville, 187, 188; his OrigineSf 190; his De Nalura Rerufrty 190 ,' on the mystic number Seven, 248.

Isocrates, the first artistic orator, 43; his success as a rhetorical teacher, 43 ,* obligations of Cicero to, 44.

Italian Period of Scholarship, 284, 303, 304.

Itineraria, 175, 392 n.

J

Jager, Johann, 395.

John, Otto, 438^ 439 * i

Jebb, R. C., 447.

Jerome, 148, 195.

Jevons, F. B., quoted, 36.

John of Salisbury, 231, 232,

Jones, Sir William, his knowledge of Oriental languages, 382; his ap- pointment as a judge in Bengal, 383; his translations from the Sanskrit, 383; his anticipation of Comparative Philology, 383, 384.

Jowett, Benjamin, 448.

Juba of Mauretania, 194.

junggrammatiker, 393, 422.

Junius, Frandscus, his study of un- dent painting, 344.

Justinianus, 252.

K

Kaibel, Georg, collector of 1200 epi- grams, 441-442.

Riepert, Heinrich, 439 n.

Kirchhoff, A., 441.

Klassische Alkrthumsimssenschaftf 3.

Klotz, R., 415.

Kohler, H. E., 401 n.

Kruger, K. W., 412.

Kiister, Ludolf (Ncocorus), his devo- tion to Greek, 351; his edition of Aristophanes with the scholia, 351.

L

Laberius, D., 149.

Lachmann, Karl, 405—407; his Homer, 40s; his Lucretius, 406; his methods of text criticism influenced by Bent- ley, 406 ,* by Wolf, 406; his text criticism of the New Testament, 407.

Lambxnus, Dionysius, 306, 307, 407.

Lane, G. M., 452.

Langen, Rudolf von, 391 n.

Language, study of, in connection with philosophy and psychology, 51, 52; theories regarding the origin of, 51- 69, see Varro; indifference of the Greeks to foreign languages, 52-55; Eleatic theory of, 56-59; HeracHtean theory of, 56-60.

INDEX

485

Lasus of Hermione, 79.

Latin language, its characteristics, 131,

136, 139-141, 217, 218; as modified by Ennius, 141; by Plautus, 142- 147; by Lucretius, 147--148; by Cicero, 148; by ecclesiastical writers, 148; the sermo urbanus, 156; the sermo cotidianus, 156; the sermo plebeiuSy 156, 217; de line of, 193, 194; used in the Mediaeval Church, 20^210; used as a diplomatic lan- guage, 216; used as a liturgical lan- guage, 217; late Latin, 217-223, 229, 232; semibarbarous Latin, 218; scholastic Latin in thirteenth cen- tury, 232; use of, in Hungary and Poland, 399 n.

Latin literature, native period of, 130- 134; early Hellenic influence on, 134-

137, see Ennius, Plautus, Pacuvius, Terentius, Ludlius, Lucretius; the Golden Age, 151-153, see Epic Poetry, Lyric Poetry, Prose Fiction, Criticism, Varro; Spanish influence, 176, 178, 186, 187, 190; Roman oratory, 176-181; the Silver Age, 178-181, see Quintilianus, Seneca, Tacitus, Suetonius, Plinius Maior, Q, Remmius Palaemon; the African Period, 186-188, see Apuleius, Fronto, Tertullianus, Aulus Gellius.

Law, Roman, 252-253.

Lehrs, Karl, 407, 411, 412.

Leo, F,, 419.

Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim, 403.

Letter-play,” 69.

Lejdcography, beginnings of, 96, 97, 126; scientifically undertaken by Aristophanes of Byzantium, 108; developed by glossographers, 126; at Rome, 165-167, 194; in the Middle Ages, 244-247; by Suidas, 254; in the Byzantine Empire, 254, 255; during the Renaissance, 281, 304; lexicon of Calepinus, 415; m- rivalled Greek lexicon of Stephanus (Robert Etienne), 305; in Italy, 415, 416; in Germany, 416, 417; in Eng- land and in the United States 418 n.

Liberal Arts, the Seven, 237, 238.

Libraries: tiie libraries at Alexandria, 92-94, 98, 102; private libraries at Rome, 109, 1 16, 118; at Pergamum, 118; public libraries at Rome, 161, 198; at Constantinople, 198; mon- astic libraries, 233-235; Vatican, 273; St. Mark's, 273; Library of Urbino, 273.

Libyans, the, 6.

Lic3minius, his classification of syno- nyms, 68.

Ligurians, the, 6.

Linguistik, 3 n.

Lipsius, Justus, 317; his study of Palaeography, 318; his reverence for Tacitus, 319; his death, 327.

Literary Criticism, 20, 21; by Plato, 19, 71, 72; by Aristotle, 73-75 >* by the Sophists, 76; in the form of bur- lesque, 76-78; by the Alexandrians, 96-102; by Crates, 120; at Rome, 180-183.

Literary Study in early Greece, 18; in the Prae-Alexandrian Period, 71; by the Alexandrians, 96-98; by Crates, 120, 157 n.; by the Romans, 160-164, 166, 169; by the Byzan- tines, 251, 254, 256, 257; by the Mediaevals, 237, 238.

Literary Teaching, beginnings of, 18, 19; by the Sophists, 49, 50.

Littr6, Emile, 426.

Livius Andronicus, 134, 137.

Livius, Titus, 153, lost books of, 277, 278. i

Lobeck, Christian August, 405, 41 1.

Logic, 46-47; in relation to language, 51-60.

Logographi, 26.

Louis the Pious, 385.

Louvain, “ the Belgian Athens, ” 431 -

Ludlius, C., 149.

Lucretius, his theory of the origin of language, 60; his philosophical vo- cabulary, 147, 148; as a poet and philosopher, 151.

Luder, Peter, 390 n.

LuUius, Raimundus, 241, 242.

486

INDEX

Luther, Martin, 298, 302, 392, 395, 397 -

Lycophron of Chalds, 99, loi, 102, 255.

Lycurgus of Athens, his recension of the tragic poets, 78, 70 -

Lycurgus of Sparta, 17.

Lyric Poetry, among the *Eolians and Dorians, 33 ,* at Alexandria, loi, 105; in Latin literature, 131, 134, isii 152.

Lysias, 43.

M

Mabillon, Jean, 314.

Macedonian ascendency over Greece, 84.

Macrobius, his Saturnalia, 189.

Madvig, Johann Nicolai, 423-42S.

Mahaffy, J. P., quoted, 19.

Mai, Cardinal, 166.

Manuscripts, collection and preserva- tion of, 204-206, 273-280; during the Middle Ages, 233, 235; list of the oldest classical manuscripts, 202, 234, 23s; at Constantinople, 272; prob- ability of recovering Mss. now lost, 273 n.; recovery of lost Mss. in recent times, 440, 441.

Maps, see Geography.

Maria Theresa, 399, 403.

Mariette, P. J., 315.

Martianus Capella, 237, 238.

Massilia, the University at, 125.

Mathematics, 22, 103, 105.

Matron of Pitana, 77,

Matthaei, C. F., 401 n.

Maximus Planudes, 256.

Mayor, J. E. B., 448.

Medisevalism, characterized, 242, 243, 270; contrasted with Humanism, 270-273.

Mediterranean race, the, 6.

Meineke, August, 407.

Mela, Pomponius, 176.

Melanchthon (Philipp Schwarzerd), 396, 397 *

Meleager, 256.

Melic Poetry, 33.

Menander, 86, 91, 234.

Merriam, A. C., 453.

Metaphor, its use in language, 68.

Metres, early treatises on, 76.

Middle Ages, foreshadowed in the sec- ond century a.d., 192; decadence of Classical Latin, 193, 194, 214-220; influence of Christianity on class- ical learning, 195-200, 215-217; sep- aration of the Eastern from the Western Empire, igg; Monachism, 200-204; invasion of the Roman provinces, 213, 214; end of Middle Ages, 214; periods of mediaeval scholarship, 214; popular use of Latin after the fall of Rome, 214- 223; grammatical theories in, 236; art in, 243; philosophy in, 244, 263; letters and learning in, 244-247, 386.

Missing Analogy, 59.

Mock-heroic, 77.

Mommsen, Theodor, his remarkable versatility, 443; his plan for the Latin Corpus, 443; his history of Rome, 444; his supplementary papers, 444-

Monachism, 200-204.

Monastic Scholars, 222-225; their books, 223 n.

Monastic Schools, 228-231.

Montanus, 196.

Monte Cassino, 202.

Montfaucon, Bernard de, 306, 313, 314.

Muller, Lucian, 402 n., 407 n.

Muller, Otfried, quoted, 3; his mono- graph on the Etruscans, 437; his history of Greek literature, 439.

Munro, H. A. J., quoted, 406; his edition of Lucretius, 407, 448.

Muratori, L. A., his new Thesaurus,

442, 443.

Muretus, Marcus Antonius, 306, 308, 326.

Museum, the Alexandrian, 92-95; the Pergamene, 119; the Vatican, 428; Louvre, 427; British, 381 n.; at Copenhagen, 433; American.

Music, 33; early Greek treatises on, 79; foundation of Classical modes among the Greeks, 80, 81; vocal, 80, 81; notation of, in Greece, 81, 82;

INDEX

487

Fleischer^s theory of Greek modes. Si, 82; at Rome, 82.

Muth, Conrad (Mutianus Rufus), 395 *

Myron, 42.

Mythic Cycle, 12, 13.

Mythology, the oldest treatise on, 13; a great anonymous manual of, 116.

N

Naevius, G. N., 134; his Pmica, 13s, 136.

Nasalis Sonans, 422, 423.

Nauck, August, 402 n., 408.

Neo-Platonism, 102, 103.'

Netherlands, rise of scholarship in,

316, 317-

Nettleship, Henry, 447-

New Learning, the, 284, 285.

Nicholas V., 272,

Niebuhr, Barthold G., 37, 408-410.

Nisard, D^sir6 and Charles, 426.

Nitzsch, K. F., 41 1.

Nonius Marcellus, 189.

Numerals, Arabic (Hindu), 207.

Nuremberg Chronicle, 390.

O

Odoacer, 213,

Odyssey, the, see Homeric Epic.

Onomantia, 67.

Onomatopoetic theory of language, see Heracl*tean School.

Oratory, in the Prae-Alexandrian Period, 39; as an art, 39-47; Asiatic Style of, 42; Attic Style of, 42; its relation to Rhetoric, 43-48; in legal pro- ceedings, 41, 43, 46; taught at Rhodes, 124; at Rome, 132; orations written for friends, 159; Quintilian^s teaching of, 178, 179.

Oriental influence on Europe, 258.

Oriental languages: Arabic in the Middle Ages, 240; Hebrew in the Middle Ages, 240.

Osborn of Gloucester, 247.

Oudendorp, Franz van, revives Latin at Leyden, 354.

I ^

Painting in Early Greece, 82, 83; en-

t caustic painting, 83.

I Palaeography, 314.

Pamphilius on Glosses, 194.

^ Panorama, 247.

Papias, 246.

Paris, Gaston, quoted, 457, 458.

Parmenides, 24.

Parody, 77, 78, see Burlesque.

Paronomasia, in Greek, 66, 67.

Parrhasius, S3.

Parr, Samuel, 372, 373.

Pater, Walter, quoted, 2S8.

Paulsen, Friedrich, quoted, 388, 389.

Paulus Diaconus, 169.

Pausanius, 176.

Pauaas, 83.

Pelasgians, the, 6.

Peloponnesian War, 35.

Pennsylvania, University of, 450.

Pergamene Library, its foundation, 1 18; catalogued by Callimachus, 120.

Pergamene School, 118-120; con- trasted with the School at Alexan- dria, 1 1 7, 1 18; how founded, 118- 120; under Crates of Mallos, 119- 120.

Pergamum, description of, 118, 119.

Pericles, the Age of, 42, 43.

Peripatetic School of Philosophy, 122, 128.

Persian Wars, their influence on Greek civilization, 29-32.

Persius Flaccus, 149, 183.

Petrarca, Francesco, his studies, 264; his Latin epic, 264, 265; his recov- ery of classic authors, 265, 266; his relations with the German Emperor, 386, 387-

Petronius, C., 154, 157, 161; quoted, 177 n.; read in schools, 246; dis- covery of Cma> Trimalckionis in 1663, 314-

Phidias, 42.

Philetas of Cos, first attempt at an Homeric lexicon, 96, 127.

Philologist, various meanings of, 1-3.

488

INDEX

Philology, various meanings of, 1-3.

Philosophy, origin of, in Greece, 21; the Ionian School, 2 1; Heracl*tus, 21; Pythagoras, 22-24; the Eleatic School, 24; Aristotle, 48, 122; Soc- rates and the Sophists, 50, 51; the Sceptics, so; the Stoics, 51, 122; the Epicureans, 51, 122; the

Cynics, 51; the Eclectics, 51, 97; Plato, 63-65, 122; Alexandrian

philosophy, 102, 103; philosophical studies at Rome, 147, iSo» iSi; Mediaeval, 243, 244, 263; in the Renaissance, 263,

Photius, 254.

Phrynicusj 41 1.

Pindar, 32-34-

Pisistratus, alleged recension of Ho- meric poems by, 14-16.

Plato, first uses terms </>cX6Xo7os, <pL\o\oyia, I; his opinion of writing, 19; his linguistic theories, 61-67; Ms physiology of language, 63-65; Ms ridicule of popular etymologies, 6s, 66; classifies letters of the al- phabet, 65; his grammatical dis- tinctions, 70.

Plautus, T. Maccius, Ms place in Ro- man literature, 138; his enrichment of the Latin vocabulary, 142-148; comparison with Shakespeare, 143, 144; text criticism of, 160; Varro’s Plautine Canon, 165.

Plebeian Latin, seeS^SMO Plebeius.

PHnius Maior, 188.

“ Poetic Prose,” 284,

Poetics of Aristotle, 73-76.

Poetry, inspirational theory of, 10- 12.

Poggio Bracdolini, Francesco, 276- 279.

Politianus, Angelo de, 282, 283.

Political Science, 38.

Pollux, Julius, his dictionary, 194.

Polus, 68 n.

Polyditus, Ms ‘‘Canon,” 128 n.

Polygnotus of Thasos, 82.

Polyonomy, 58.

Pompeius Festus, 169.

Person, Richard, characteristics of, 374>

375; Ms work and reading, 375-377 ,* restores the Rosetta Stone, 376; Ms letters to Travis, 376; the Three Heavenly Witnesses, 376; Porsonian type, 377.

Post-Renaissance Period, 289.

Prae-Alexandrian Period, characteriza- tion of, 84-86; its end, 87.

Princeton University (College of New Jersey), 450.

Printing, introduction of, 285; devel- opment of, 285, 286; centres of early book production, 286; effect upon Classical scholarship, 286, 395.

Priscianus Sdanus of Constantinople, i8s, 186; his grammar abridged, 239; introduced into Germany, 386.

Private editions, in.

Probus Berytius, M. Valerius, 186.

Procopius, 252.

Prodicus of Ceos, as a lecturer on style, 49-50; his treatise on synonyms, 50, 70.

Pronunciation, of Greek, 241 n., 290; of Latin, 434.

Prose, beginnings of Greek, 26; devel- opment of, 34, 35; Latin, 153, 154; methods of studying, 177, 178.

Prose fiction (Greek and Latin), 154, 15s; at Byzantium, 253.

Protagoras of Abdera, as a teacher of rhetoric, 49, 51; first distinguishes grammatical moods and genders, 70, 70 n.

Protestant Reformation, effects of, 301-303.

Ptolemius, Claudius, 176.

Ptolemy Soter, 90.

Publilius Syrus, 149.

Punctuation, in Greek, 98, 108.

Punic Wars, 31, 153, 154.

Pyrgoteles, 84.

Pythagoras, 21-24; Golden verses of, 24.

Q

Quadrivium, 238.

Quintihanus, M. Fabius, Ms treatise on education, 178-181.

INDEX

489

R

Rabanus (Hrabanus) Maurus, 185, 238, 239, 27s, 385-386.

Rask, R. K., his study of Old Per- sian, 420, 421.

Regiomontanus (Johann Miiller), 387.

Reiske, Johann Jacob, 401.

Reitz, J. F., 353.

Religion, ii, 13; taught by P3rlhago- ras, 23, 24; philosophical religion at Alexandria, 102, 103.

Remmius Palaimon, Q., 183.

Renaissance, the, characteristics of, 260-264,* causes of the, 262, 270- 274; philosophy in, 263; early scholars of, 281; Italian Period, 284, 28s; results of the, 285, 287, 2S8; Ciceronianism in, 302, 303.

Reuchlin, Johann, 393, 394.

Rhetoric, 40-51; first treatise on, 41; taught in Athens by Gorgias, 43; critically expounded by Aristotle, 45, 48; popularized by the Sophists, 49- si; the Alexandrian rhetoric, 98, loi; exhibition of, by Cameades, ISO.

Rhinthon of Tarentum, 78.

Rhodomann, Lorenz, 399.

Ribbeck, Otto, professor in five uni- versities, 440.

Richardson, J. F., 436.

Rienzi, Cola di, 442.

Ritschl, Friedrich, 407, 434, 439; his edition of Plautus, 439, 440.

Romance Languages, 219; study of, by Germans, 426.

Romans, early history of, 130-134; early literature of , 131-136, 138, 142- 144, 148, 149; their first relations with Greece, 132-134; Hellenic in- fluence on, 134; national charac- teristics of, 136-138.

Roman use of phUologmj phUologia,

2.

Rome, in the first century a.©., 170, 171; schools at, 172-181; the dtyin the fourth century a.d., 211, 212.

Ruhnken, David, 354, 358.

Russia, development of classical stud-

ies in, 400 n.; universities in, 400 n.; German influence in, 400 n.

S

Saintsbuiy, George, quoted, 20.

Salmasius (Claude de Saumise), dis- covered the Palatine Anthology, 344; edited Flonis in ten days, 345; edited the Historia Augusta, 345; his commentary on Solinus, 345; his calls from Oxford, Padua, and Bologna, 345; receives research pro- fessorship in Leyden, 345; his con- troversy with Milton, 346; personal characteristics, 347.

Salutati, Colutius, first Ciceronian, 268.

Sanskrit, first grammar of, 384.

Sappho, 33.

Satire, a Roman form of literature, 135, 149, 150, 162.

Savile, Sir Henry, tutor in Greek to Queen Elizabeth, 355; his transla- tions from Tacitus, 355; becomes Provost at Eton, 356; helps prepare the authorized version of the Bible, 356; produces a great edition of St. Chrysostom, 356; a founder of the Bodleian Library, 356.

Scaliger, Joseph Justus, 323-341; his early teaching, 323; his knowledge of Greek and Arabic, 324; his travels in England and Scotland, 326; his stay with Cujadus, 326, 327; his call to Leyden, 328; his feud with Caspar Scioppius, 329; his EpisttUa de Gente Scaligera, 330, 331; his Confutatio Burdonum, 332; his learn- ing as a chronicler, 333-336; his Manilius, 337, 338; his Eusebian Chronicle, 339, 340;' his personal characteristics, 341; temporary de- cline of his reputation, 341.

Scaliger, Julius Caesar, 320, 321; his Latin Grammar, 322; his physical theory, 322.

Sceptics, the, 50.

Schliemann, H., his remarkable exca- vations, 445.

Schola Palatina of Charlemagne, 220.

490

INDEX

Scholasticism, period of, 214; its prin- cipal features, 227, 228.

Scholia, origin of, 125.

Schools, see Education.

Sdoppius, Caspar (Caspar Sdoppe), 329-331-

Sears, L., quoted, 39, 40.

Seneca, quoted, 3.

Sermo Cotidianus, 136.

Sermo Plebeius, 156.

Sermo Rusticus, 215.

Sermo ITrbanus, 156.

Servius, 184.

Seven, as a mystic number, 248.

Seymour, T. D., 4SS-

Short, C. L., 4S4.

Sicily, first rhetorical teaching in, 41.

SiUi, 78.

Simonides, 72, 73.

Socrates, essentially a Sophist, 50; in- fluence of his teachings, so, Si; as a critic of poetry, 72, 73; burlesques the Sophists, 65, 66.

Solon, 16, 28.

Sophists, the, 49; character of their teaching, 49-50; their influence on Greek philosophy, 50-51; bur- lesqued by Socrates, 65, 66; literary criticism by, 76.

Sophocles, 42.

Sophodes, E. A., 452.

Spalding, Georg, 410 n.

Spanheim, Ezechiel, as a numismatist, 350.

Spanish Latinity, Period of, 178, 183.

Spengel, L., 412,

Stephani, L., 401 n.

Stephanus, Henricus, 305.

Stephanus of Byzantium, 176.

Stephanus, Robertus, 305.

Stoics, 51; their language teaching, 1 19, 120.

Strabo of Amasia, 174, 175.

Siudium Genet ale, 231.

Sturm, Johann, 397, 398.

Style, 40, 47, 49; Asiatic, 42; Attic, 42; Alexandrian Stylists, 98; Latin, in antiquity, 135, 138.

Suetonius Tranquillus, Gaius, 171.

Suidas, his lexicon and its sources, 254.

Symonds, J. A., quoted, 209.

Synchronistic Method in Classical Philology, 3.

T

Tabula Peutingeriana, 175, 392 n.

Tarsus, the university at, 124.

Teachers, in the Graeco-Roman Period,

172-173.

Tegn6r, Esaias, 433.

Terentius, P., 149.

Terpander of Lesbos, 33, 80.

Tertullianus, M. Aureus, 186, 196, 197.

Text Critidsm, beginnings of, 13-16; undertaken by Aristotle, 78; by Lycurgus of Athens, 78; at Alexan- dria, 98, 104-116; at Pergamum, 1 19, 120; iElius Stilo, 160; by Varro, 165; by other Romans, 166, 167; jee Criticism.

Thales, 21.

Theocritus, loi.

Theon, 116.

Theophrastus of Lesbos, his treatises on comedy, on style, and on metres, 76; succeeds Aristotle and endows Peripatetic School, 122.

Thiersdi, F. W., 412.

Thrace, mythical poets of, 10.

Thucydides, 35-37.

Ticknor, George, 451.

Timon of Phlius, 77, 78.

Tisia^, 41.

Topography, 175, 176.

Toumier, Edouard, 426.

Tragedy, 72; discussed by Aristotle, 73“75; among the Romans, 148, 149.

Trebonianus, 252.

Tribal Age in Greece, 7.

Trigonometry, 104.

Trithemius, Johannes, 239, 391 n.

Triumvirate, the, 317.

Trivium, 238.

Trojan Cyde, 12.

Tryphon, 116.

Tumebus, Hadrianus, 306, 307.

Tyrwhitt, Thomas, 372.

Tzetzes, loannes, 255.

INDEX

491

U

United States, universities in, 449“ 451; classical scholarship in, 452- 455; German influence in, 452-455.

Unities, the dramatic, 75.

Universities, at Alexandria, 92-97; Pergamum, 1 17-120; at Athens, 1 2 i-i 24; at Rhodes, 124; at Lesbos, 124; at Tarsus, 124; at Paris, 226, 426-428; at Bologna, 231; in Eng- land, see English Universities; in Germany, 232, 388-393; in Hun- gary, 399; in Poland, 399 n., 400 n.; in Russia, 400 n.; in Holland, 430; in Belgium, 431; in Scandinavia, 432-434; in the United States, 449 - 451 .

Ussing, Johan Louis, 432, 433,

V

Valckenaer, Ludwig Caspar, 358.

Valla, Lorenzo della, 281; his treatise on style, 281, 282; his contempora- ries, 281; his Ciceronianism, 281, 282; his first suggestion of Biblical criticism, 294.

Varro, M. Tcrentius, 160; as an en- cyclopedist, 160-161; as a man of affairs, 160, 161; his treatise De Lingua Latina, 162-164; his An- tiquitatum Libri, 162; his other works 162; his Plautine Canon, 165.

Vatican Library, the founding of, 273.

Verner’s Law, 421.

Verrius Flaccus, M., 168-170.

Victorias Petrus, 283, 284.

Viermenner Scholien, 114, 115.

Vipsanius Agrippa, M., 175.

Vocabulary, Latin, 141; enrichment of, by Plautus, 145-147; by Ennius, 141; by Lucretius, 147; by Cicero, 148; by Tertullian, 148; by Apuleius, 145, 146, 148; Plebeian Latin, 156.

VoevodsM, L. F., 401 n.

Vossius, Gerhard Johannes, 343, 344; his Ars Poelicay 343; his two great historical treatises, 343; his mono- graphs on Art and Mythology, 344.

Vulgate, the, criticised by Roger Bacon, 241; edited at Oxford, 241.

W

Walafrid Strabo, 385.

Warfare, as a stimulus to intellectual productiveness, 31, 32.

Watts, 2.

Welcker’s Cyclus, 438.

Whitney, W. D., 454, 455.

Willems, Pierre, 432 n.

William and Mary, College of, 449.

Wimphcling, Jacob, 391 n.

Winckelmann, Johann Joachim, 402,

403, 417.

Wolf, F. A., matriculation at Gdttin- gen of, 2; 403, 404.

Wblfiflin, Eduard, 416, 417.

Woolsey, T. D., 451.

Writing, Plato’s opinion of, 19.

Wyttenbach, Daniel, 358, 359.

X

Xenophanes, rejects Homeric theology, 24.

Xenophon, the historian, 37, 38.

Y

Yale, Elihu, founder of Yale College,

449.

Z

Zeno, 24.

Zenodotus of Ephesus, 98; his criti- cism of texts, los, 106; as a lexi- cographer, 106; called ^lopdwT'fjs, 105,

2Ieuxi3, 83.

Zumpt, E. Gt, 415.

By JAMES BRADSTREET GREENOUGH

Late Professor of Latin in Harvard University

AND GEORGE LYMAN KITTREDGE

Professor of English in Harvard University

Words and Their Ways in English Speech

Cloth^ izmo^ X + 431 pages, $1,10 net

As valuable as a dictionary and as readable as a vivid piece of narrative or descriptive writing. It is indispensable to every student writer.” — Boston Transcript.

By GEORGE R. CARPENTER

Professor of Rhetoric and English Composition in Harvard University

Exercises in Rhetoric and English Composition

Clotlfi, xiii 4 * 222 pages, $1.00 net

The text represents the substance of teaching which a fresh- man may fairly be expected to compass, and it is set forth with a clearness and directness and brevity so admirable as to make the volume seem almost the realization of that impossible short method of learning to write which has often been sought for, but never with a nearer approach to being found. ... We do not hesitate to give unreserved commendation to tins little book .” — The Nation.

PUBLISHED BY

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

64-66 Fifth Avenue, New York

By CALEB T. WINCHESTER

Some Principles of Literary Criticism

Cloth, i2mo, $1.50 nd

A compendious statement of the essentials of literature and the grounds of critical estimate. The author has attempted neither to expound a philosophy of criticism nor to elaborate a critical method, but simply to state some qualities that by common consent are to be found in all writing deserving to be called literature, and to lay down some fundamental principles that must be assumed in all sound criti- cal judgments.

By craven LAYco*ck and ROBERT L. SCALES

Argumentation and Debate

Cloth, i2mo, $1,10 net In this work the peculiar difficulties which stand in the way of making a text-book at once teachable, practical, and easily understood, for use in teaching argumentation and debate, have been overcome. The treatment of the topics presented — the proposition, the issues, pre- liminary reading, evidence, kinds of arguments, fallacies, brief-draw- ing, the principles of presentation, refutation, and debate — is lucid and interesting as well as highly profitable.

By henry SEIDEL CANBY and others

Elnglish Composition in Theory and Practice

Cloth, i2mo, $ 1.25 net

A thoroughly practical book of directions for good writing, based upon sound principles. An extensive collection of examples drawn from all the forms of discourse and inclusive of brief excerpts and complete essays is also included. The authors, who are professors of English composition in the Sheffield Scientific School of Yale Uni- versity, have so handled their subject that the work is not limited to any one class of students, but is of a general interest to all concerned in the writing of good English,

PUBLISHED BY

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

64-66 I'ifth Aveaue, Hew York

Front matter

A HISTORY'

OF

CLASSICAL PHILOLOGY

FROM THE SEVENTH CENTURY B.C

TO

THE TWENTIETH CENTURY AD.

BY

HARRY THURSTON PECK, Ph.D., LL.D.

MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF ARTS AND LETTERS

Neto gorfe

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY

1911

AH ri^Ats m«rv4d

OoyTneiGjrT*, x 9 tx»

B'sr THE MACMILI-A-lSr COMT^AISTY.

Set ux> SLXicl eleotr-otypedL. Ful^lisliedl Octobejr^ x^xx.

^oxtnoati ^Tsssss

J. S* Oiislilxig' Co. Berwick: &» SroliJa Oo.

ISTorwooii, AiCass., XT,S.^,

VXORI CARISSIMAE

Contents

Preface vii-ix

I. The Genesis of Philological Studies

II. The PRiE-ALEXANDRIAN PERIOD

III. The Alexandrian Period

IV. The Greco-Roman Period

V. The Middle Ages.

VI. The Renaissance

VII. Division into Periods

VIII. The Age of Erasmus

IX. The Period of Nationalism

X. The German Influence .

XI. The Cosmopolitan Period

Selected Bibliographical Index

See also

• Classical philology