« ZurückWeiter »
object. Examples: yeyova, öλwλa, olda. Such perfects are frequent when the present tense is in the middle form; cf. the similar Latin revertor, perfect reverti. Homer shows few perfects with middle endings; for the perfect middle was not an original form. But as the secondary endings in the singular tended in Greek to disappear phonetically, the perfect with secondary endings was in Homer in the middle form, cf. ἔοικα ἔικτο. ἔμμορε εἵμαρτο. The participle was of either voice, τετευχώς and τετυγμένος.
But the tendency to create a paradigm brought into existence a perfect middle where the present tense was in the middle form, by analogy: thus γεγένημαι came in alongside γέγονα, since the present γίγνομαι was middle. The existence of a pluperfect with middle endings helped this development. This middle perfect also has the value of state or condition which persists in the subject.
The third stage of the Greek perfect was the creation of an analogical active perfect, such as βέβληκα to βέβλημαι, and of an active pluperfect; these normally have active transitive meanings. The sole example in Homer is βεβίηκεν (Il. 10.145 = 16.22), manifestly a late formation, since it is to a denominative verb.
Chantraine traces the perfect through the later Greek literature, into Hellenistic and later times. The old intransitive perfects of the first type become fewer and fewer, until in the New Testament the survivors become virtually independent verbs. The second type, the perfects of middle form, become more numerous, and are attached to the newly developed factitive actives as well as to the older middle presents. Even the familiar active δοκεῖ, ἔδοξε has a middle perfect, δέδοκται. The third type also increases, but ultimately, through identity of the personal endings in most forms, becomes merged in form and meaning with the aorist: this in literary Greek, but in the dialect inscriptions there are many forms which have assumed the inflexions of the present tense, showing the true nature of the perfect. Modern Greek has, of all the old perfects, only evрηka, with a few others that are new forms. Chantraine studies also the reduplicated future perfects, which he derives from old Indo-European desideratives; the periphrastic perfect with elui, which started in the optative and the subjunctive, then passed into the indicative, especially in the third person plural; and the periphrastic perfect with exw, found with a nominative active participle as early as Hesiod (Erga 42), and with an accusative passive participle in Diodorus and Plutarch. This last type is the regular perfect of Modern Greek.
The work is done with abundance of citations and of lists with statistics of occurrence in various authors. Many passages are given with careful translation into French, to show the precise shade of meaning conveyed by the perfect, as distinct from that of the aorist. The author demonstrates completely his point, that the perfect is an aspect of the present, and not a tense of the past. Those who are interested in the formantic side of the problem may regret that he did not treat the origin of the x in the perfects of the third type, nor the provenance of the 'Attic' pluperfect -n -ns -e etc.; but we have so much to be grateful for that we should not regret omissions.
There is also an application of this work, to a wider field. The whole argument demonstrates that of the various forms which we classify cheerfully under the heading of the Greek perfect stem or tense system, only a very little is inherited from the primitive Indo-European speech. This point was touched on by A. Meillet, Chantraine's honored teacher, in his Méthode Comparative en Linguistique Historique 48-52, with other illustrations; and all who are engaged in the work of linguistic science should take deeply to heart the lesson that comparatively little of that which we find in the recorded languages, either as vocabulary or as form, can be referred with confidence to the primitive Indo-European stage of our speech.
ROLAND G. KENT
The Vocabulary of Intrigue in Roman Comedy: Chicago dissertation. Pp. 124. By BLANCHE BROTHERTON. Chicago, 1926. Dr. Brotherton states her purpose as follows: "First, to illustrate the richness and variety of popular usage and the exuberance of comic diction in a group of words for which the plots of intrigue in comedy provide abundant material. Second, to illustrate the different spheres of human thought and activity from which are drawn the figurative expressions of the vocabulary of intrigue. Figurative language reflects the special interests of the people who use it for the expression of their thoughts. Third, to throw such light as may be available on the precise force of individual words and phrases, many of which are disputed or vaguely appreciated. A synthetic study of words covering the same general range of thought sometimes serves to illuminate the meanings of individual words within the group."
The third, or strictly linguistic, purpose of the dissertation is systematically worked out in pp. 7–118, while pp. 119-124 are occupied by an index of words. The stylistic and cultural purposes are touched
upon only in pp. 3-6, except in so far as materials for such studies are included along with the linguistic material.1
Characteristic of the author's method, is the discussion (70-3) of the development of the meaning 'cheat' in the verbs ferire, verberare, deverberare, and percutere. Editors have sometimes found in these verbs a reference to actual physical violence, where the context shows that the injury consisted merely of the loss of money or other property. Dr. Brotherton drives her point home not only by a study of the context in each separate passage, but also by bringing together the evidence for the four synonymous verbs.
Another highly satisfactory chapter is the discussion (94-103) of tricae and its derivatives, where the evidence from the later literature is considered more fully than the general plan of the dissertation requires. Three meanings for the word clearly emerge: 'trifles'; 'delays'; and 'difficulties'. Dr. Brotherton evidently believes that the word is Greek Tpixes; she answers the objections to the etymology, and points out the unconvincing nature of the rival etymologies; it is a pity that she doesn't go one step further. As far as I can see there is virtually no doubt that trīcae is an early loan word from the Greek. I would, however, explain the quantity of the first syllable in another way from that chosen by the author. Several early loan words show an interchange of long and short i, and this probably reflects the fact that in Greek i was a relatively close sound and i relatively open, while in latin i was close and ǎ open.
Here are a few other results of the study. Hoc denuo volt pallium detexere (Amph. 294) means 'he wants to weave my shirt over again' (and weaving involves some energetic pounding). Ducere, ductare, ductitare 'cheat' involve a metaphor from leading pack animals-certainly in two passages and so probably in all the others. In Most. 844-7, however, there is no idea of cheating; for perductor is here the agent noun beside ductare, and perductor always means 'pander'. Theopropides pretends to understand that Simo has offered him immoral entertainment. (Correct my edition of the play accordingly.) Captio (Most. 922 and elsewhere) means 'trap', not 'damage'. Tragula in Plautus involves a military figure; the word properly means a kind of barbed spear, and it is used figuratively of the monetary and other wounds inflicted on the comic stage. Dissignare (Most. 413) cannot mean 'reveal what ought to be kept secret', as has been maintained; it is
1 Does good wine need so much bush?
rather a <distant> synonym of facere as in Ad. 87; (it can perfectly well mean 'prepare, plan' in both these passages!)
Dr. Brotherton follows tradition in attributing Greek words in Plautus to the needs of translation and a desire to elevate the style-to the same motives, in short, which introduced so much Greek into Ciceronian and later Latin. My attempt (Transactions of the American Philological Association 56. 5-25-1925) to prove that a large proportion of Plautus' Greek came from the slang of the Roman streets probably reached the author after this monograph had gone to the press, and so I may still hope to convince her. I must add, however, that I did not there undertake a complete discussion of Plautine Greek; perhaps sycophanta was taken over by the comic poets in the process of translation, although it is not impossible that it was current slang (of course in the form sucopanta). Techina and machina, on the other hand, although Dr. Brotherton (2) mentions them along with sycophanta, are shown by their form to have been naturalized at Rome before Plautus' time.
One reason why Plautus has been so often misunderstood is that many scholars are temperamentally unable to look at life from the comedian's point of view. Dr. Brotherton suffers from no such disability. Her style is as dignified as a scholarly treatise requires; but an occasional happy translation leads the reader to suspect that she could write in the Plautine manner if she chose.
E. H. STURTEVANT
Les Peuples Primitifs de l'Europe Méridionale. Recherches d'histoire et de linguistique. Pp. xii +328. By EDOUARD PHILIPON. Paris: Leroux, 1925.
The author studies the less known ancient peoples of Southern Europe, and unites them into two groups: an eastern one, consisting of the Thracians, the Phrygians, and the Aegeans, who include the Carian Leleges, the Pelasgians of Greece, the Pelasgo-Tyrrhenians of Italy, and some minor tribes; and a western one, consisting of the Illyrians (with the Macedonians, the Veneti, and the Messapii), the Ligurians, and the Iberians. For him, these are all Indo-European, a view which he supports with a detailed phonology so far as the scanty linguistic remains, mostly place and personal names, permit. He traces the migrations of the various tribes, and gives a complete picture of the prehistory of the region.
But he accepts as historically valid the statements of the classical
authors with regard to the very earliest times. He takes too little account of the latinizing and hellenizing of proper names. He is not at home in dealing with phonology and morphology; for example, does not suspect that Italos, whom he accepts (p. 304) as eponymous hero of the Iberians in their conquest of Central Italy, ever had an initial w- in his name (Oscan víteliú on coins of the Italic Confederation would have set him aright). He shows no knowledge of the Hittite discoveries at Bhogaz-köi, nor of the Lydian inscriptions found at Sardis; his terminus ad quem is set by the récemment which he applies (p. 158, n. 1) to a section of Gröber's Grundriss d. rom. Philol. I2, which was completed in 1906. His work was therefore nineteen years old when it was issued from the press: a fact to be regretted, for it contains an immense amount of information which would be valuable if complete and up-to-date.
ROLAND G. KENT