A HANDBOOR OF lllfl ANTIQUE PROSE-RHYTHM BY DR A. W- DE GROOT CONSERVATOR OF THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN I HISTORY OF GREEK PROSE-METRE DEMOSTHENES, PLATO, PHÏLO. PLUTARCH AND OTHERS BIBLIOGRAPHY, CURVES, INDEX J. B. WOLTERS - GRONINGEN, THE HAGUE, 1919 KONINKLUKF RIRI iriTUB» I 0084 8561 A HANDBOOK OF ANTIQUE PROSE-RHYTHM BY D* A, W- DE GROOT CONSERVATOR OF THE LIBRARY OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN HISTORY OF GREEK PROSE-METRE DEMOSTHENES, PLATO, PHILO, PLUTARCH AND OTHERS BIBLIOGRAPHY, CURVES, INDEX J. B. WOLTERS - GRONINGEN, THE HAGUE. 1919 \ mm J PREF ACE. This work tries to apply and to propagate a new method of investigation of the clausula. It must therefore be considered as a simple introduction to this method, and is based upon much pioneer work, which, as such, will naturaüy be incomplete, and open to criticism. I have tried to confine myself to facts only and to give as few hypotheses as I could, as I am fully aware that the few hypotheses found here, will require important modifications. Of one thing I am firmly convinced, viz. that only with this method, that is either with mine or a similar one, at any rate with a method of comparison, reliable results can be obtained. I am also convinced that Zielinski quite wrongly looks upon his statistical basis as 'felsenfest', and that, if the science of antique prose-rhythm is to lay claim to this name, it will have to change the usual method of investigation altogether. To bring this clearly to light, I have often been obliged to discuss the opinions of others. For the sake of brevity I have only done so, when I could not agree with their theories and 'opinions: if I had not confined myself to this, my work would have failed in its purpose of being a brief introduction. I hope that the reader will IV understand that it is not my wish or intention to give to my work a somewhat polemic character. By choosing the form of lectures I have tried to make the matter which is naturrlly not very readable, a httle more attractive. One of the first things in future will be to investigate an absolutely non-metrical and non-rhythmical text. As I wanted such a text only for a comparison with the sentence-metre of Demosthenes, I have taken Thucydides as such. Further I take the liberty of pointing out that the words of Mr. Ammon (Berl. Philol. Wochenschrift 1918, col. 495) viz. that I should have considered Procopius of Caesarea as a metrical author, must be ascribed to a natural misunderstanding; of his valuable remarks as well as ot those of professor D. V. Hesseling in Leyden I shall be glad to avail myself later on. Of course I have made a frequent use of Clark's valuable Fontes prosae numerosae, of Laurand's clear E'tude sur le style des discours de Cicéron, and of many other works. This part will be followed by a second for the Latin prose and the later accent-rhythm, in which the bibliography will be completed with an extensive systematical one. I shall also discuss in it the modern theories of Zander and others from the standpoint of a comparative method. V In conclusion I want to express my gratitude to those that have offered their services to me. First of all to professor J. van Wageningen: if it had not been for the constant interest which he showed in my work, I could hardly have finished it; nis remarks both on the form and the contents have infhienced it in many respects. To my father whose invaluable assistance has facilitated my task in no small degree. To professor G. Heymans, Dr. P. J. van Khijn, and Dr. F. Zernike, by whose publications and oral information I have improved my work considerably. To my friend Mr. J. G. Holthuis, who assisted me in constructing the curves. And last not least to Mr. G. Dudok, who offered his time and valuable services in supervising the translation in a most unselfish way. CONéTENTS. *) FIRST LECTURE. Methodological problents. There is a definable prose-rhythm 1; different authors show different distribution of metrical forms; the synkriseis of Plutarch show the same peculiarities as the Lives •themselves 6; Demosthenes avoids www, -_^www, wwwws_.; a metrical effect can only be produced either by choice of words or by arrangement of words 11; Thumb points out tbJè necessity of comparing clausifiarhythm with sentence-rhythm 14. SECOND LECTURE. Methodological problents; sentence-tnetre of Demosthenes. It is necessary to investigate longer series of syllables 18; Thucydides in entirely or almost entirely careless of the arrangement of long and short syllables in the sentence as appears from a comparison with other authors and irom theoretical calculations 20; tendency of increasing avoidance of www, www, etc. in Demosthenes, and *) Reference is made to the pages. vm other tendenties; Norden's scheme for the clausula of Demosthenes is wrong 33; how to determine the length of the clausula in Demosthenes and other authors 36. THIPvD LECTURE. Methodological problents; clausula of Plutarch and Philo Judaeus. Mathematical problems 40. Tendency of increasing avoidance of , , etc. in Plutarch 42; Plutarch has only three 'clausulae': www—f — —, —w—w, 43; tendency in favour of forms in the whole sentence 49; tendency in favour of forms in the clausula only 49; importance for textual criticism 50; length of the clausula of Plutarch 25; clausula of Philo 54. FOURTH LECTURE. Plato. Clausula of Plato 59; importance of the fourth paeon; the quantity of the final syllable of the clausula is not indifferent 62; Bornecque on the negative clausula 65; the clausula heroica of Cicero is not an hexameter-ending^ 66; evolution of the clausula of Plato 68; clausula of the IX five chronological groups; chronology of the Phaedrus 69; its metre has influenced statistics of words 75; therefore the current method of using the statistics to determine the chronology of these dialogues is quite wrong 79. FIFTH LECTURE. Chartton, Libanius, Herodes, Lesbonax, typology. Consequences of the application of non-comparing methods by Heibges for Charito, by Heitmann for Libanius 83; typology is probably absent in the Greek clausula {Novotny) 90; Zander's hypothesis 94; quintessence of prose-rhythm and of the clausula 96. SIXTH LECTURE. History of the method of research; first stage of the clausula. Merits of Litzica, Jordan, Maas, Thumb, Novotny, Kroll, Laurand 98; value of antique theory 102; value of statistics 105; origin of the clausula 107; three stages in the evolution of the Greek clausula, 1°; classical stage, 2°; Hellenistic stage, 3°; rhythmical stage 109; theory of impoverishment 110; general features of Greek sentencemetre 112. X SEVENTH LECTURE. Development of the clausula; Wilamowitz. Typology preserves the falling rhythm 119; thequantity of the final syllable is not indifferent 121; resolutions and by-forms 123; relation between Greek and Latin prose-metre, 125; in Latin prose we note two groupsof metrical authors: 1°. Sallust and Livy, 2°. Cicero and the others 125; clausula of Sallust and Livy a typical Latin clausula 127; clausula of Cicero infuenced by Hegesias of Magnesia or others 128; characteristics of the Hellenistic stage 130; incorrect view of Wilamowitz in 'Asianismus und Atticismus' and 'Kultur der Gegenwart'. EIGHTH LECTURE. Last stage; rhythm and the Greek language. Ofigin of the Greek rhythmical clausula 132; the differences between the Greek and the Latin accent-clausula correspond with those between the Greek and the Latin quantitative clausula 133; the Greek rhythmical clausula is an imitation of the Greek quantative clausula 134; influence of prose-rhythm upon order of words 138; upon choice of words 141; importance of prose-rhythm for textual criticism 143. XI NINTH LECTURE. Statistical and mathematical problems 14.J. TABLES. Frequency of —, , , etc. in different authors 167, 172, ditto of w, ww, www, etc. 172, 176; clausula of Thrasymachus 182; of the more rhetoric parts of Thuc)'dides 183; of Thucydides 184; of Demosthenes; sentence-metre of Demosthenes as compared with that of Thucydides 186; clausula of Isocrates 188; of Plato 190; criteria for the chronological order of Plato's dialogues; clausula of Plutarch 194; of Philo 196; generel tables 196—197; typology of the clausula 197. BIBLIOGRAPHY, p. 200. CURVES. Thucydides' clausala and sentence-metre 219; Demosthenes 220; Plato 221; Philo 222; Plutarch 223; Livy 224; Cicero 226. INDEX. A. W. DB GROOT, A handbook of antlque prose-rhythm, I. CORRIGENDA. Page IV, line 16, D. C. Hesseling insteadofD. V. Hesseling. „ XI, „ 15, Thucydides „ „ Thycydides. • 8°. > !3- 4-9% „ , 0-00 0/0. „ 80, „ 21, p. 54 and 59 . „ p. oó and 00. „ 102, , 18, 'Quatenus Cicero ipse numerum suum oratorium in certam formulam redigere potuerit', instead of: 'Quomodo ... potuerit'. » 123, „ 5—6, assertion results instead of assertion, results. „ 124, „ 24, avoided ■ g sought. „ 127, ,, 4, exists exist „ 135, note *), passim jj „ p. 00. „ 136, line 24, and as an hexameter ending: instead of and. . 137, „ 2, diaeresis instead of caesura. „ 162, „ 23, 65% ; . 50%. * 162, „ 24, 50 0/0 . n 65o/0. „ 163, „ 10, psychical „ , pscyhical. „ 166, 9, read . n reed. „ 192, „ 27, ÓQ&ms ; l ós&me » 196-197 (table), line 1, TABLE OF CLAUSULAE, instead of TABLE OF CLAUSULA. , 196—197 (table), line 34 sqq.: (10) Polemo. — ~w— ï instead of: —— — ^ v_, , , (10) Polemo. — — ^ „ 197, line 8, — instead of —— . 197, „ 23, —^—w m _. „ 201, „ 23 and 24: La prose métrique etc. should be omitted. „ 228, „ 12, Wilamowitz 103, 130, 134, instead of 130, 134. ANTIQUE PROSE-RHYTHM. FIRST LECTURE. Is there indeed such a thing as a sharply definable prose-rhythm? will be the first question that arises with most of you, when discussing this subject. Are we not of the same opinion as those „who found themselves unable to use the concept rhythm in prose" because of its vagueness? Are we not to ascribe the occurrence of all kinds of so-called curious andtypical phemomena to chance? This question must be setüed first of all. It ought to be answered with a positive no. A systematic statistic investigation shows us, that a passage from the works of Demosthenes has another distribution of metrical forms than any passage from the Lives of Plutarch. To prove this, I topk from different writers pieces each consisting of 1000 syllables. These syllables are of course either long or short, and only in a very few cases we can't be quite sure whether they are long or short. Here we have consequently a perfecüy objective datum. Out of each group of 1000 syllables we take every two short syllables, between which there is no third short syllable and see how many. long ones there are between. There may be 0 long syllables between, 2 e.g. in fuxó. ww or 1, naQovaiv w—-—- or 2, ywaut&v nagóvzcov w w[ or 3, ywaixarv t&v noQÓvtcov w —-[ , etc. We now write down how often in every 1000 syllables there are 0 long, 1 long, 2 long between 2 short ones. For the first 1000 syllables from Thucydides and those from the life of Pyrrhus of Plutarch I found the following figures. Thucydides Plutarch ww 180 237 w_w 113 144 w w 57 60 w w 40 40 w w 18 23 w w 20 4 w w 2 1 Certain relations are noticeable here, for we see at once, that there is an intimate agreement between the two columns: in both the form ww is most strongly represented. So it occurs more frequently that there is no long syllable between two consecutive short syllables than that there is one, or than that there are two between two short ones. 3 When comparing the two columns, we notice a cer- tain difference. The forms ww, w—w, w w, and w w occur more frequently in Plutarch, the form w w occurs as frequently in both, whereas Thucydides oftener uses w w and w w. The question might now be put: are we not to ascribe all this to chance? Will not the following 1000 syllables give quite different figures? Will not, in connection with what you pointed out above, just the opposite results be obtained? It is unimaginable that the following 100O syllables of Thucydides will yield again for ww exactly 180, for w—w exactly 113, for w w exactly 57. Suppose we had 240, 120 and 70, then our previous statement could not be maintained. We doubt whether in the grouping of long and short syllables there is any difference between the two authors. We doubt very much whether you have sufficiënt material at your disposal to prove your case. To this I give you the following answer. Indeed the material of 1000 syllables is not sufficiënt for our purpose. Therefore my investigations are not based on these 1000 syllables only. Of practically all the authors I investigated, I did not take one group, but twelve groups of 1000 syllables. The question Is now: do the figures of all these groups point in the same direction? From a more extensive investigation it appears very 4 clearly that this is indeed the case. As an example I take the form '—w. The frequency of this form in the twelve pieces of Thucydides is the following: 113 70 89 98 113 107 93 105 99 91 109 85. In Plutarch: 144 143 152 135 142 134 148 141 126 135 138 127. From this we infer that all these figures in the works of Thucydides are lower than those in Plutarch. In Thucydides they vary between 70 and 113. In Plutarch, on the other hand, between 126 and 152. The highest figure in Thucydides is considerably lower than the lowest in Plutarch. I hope that by means of these figures I have convinced you somewhat of the fact that there is no question of Part de grouper les chiffres, but of la science de grouper les chiffres. The average figure for w—w per 1000 syllables is for Thncydides 97.7, for Plutarch 138.8. Are we to ascribe this difference to a preference for that form in Plutarch or to an avoidance of it in Thucydides ? This is a question we shall have to answer again and again 5 in the course of our investigations. Facts prove that this difference is owing to a preference for that form in Plutarch. This appears from a comparison with other authors. In the same marnier I also investigat$di, Xenophon, Isocrates, Demosthenes, Plato's Republic, Plato's Laws, and the Consolatio ad Apollonium, which has got amidst the Moralia of Plutarch. As an average figure for w—w on 1000 syllables they give: Probably you will be convinced now. But we have another conclusive proof. Not long ago Stiefenhofer convinced us that the ovyxofoeie of Plutarch form an essential part of his biographies. He showed us that the language of these ovyy.Qtoete, in which Plutarch makes a final comparison between the life of a Greek and that of a Roman, quite corresponds with the language of Plutarch- This in itself is an argument deservmg our careful attentioiL But secondly he showed us that they form an Xenophon Isocrates Demosthenes Plato, Repubhc Plato, Laws Consolatio ad Ap. Thucydides Plutarch 97-2. 85 2. 111-5. 105-0. 80-5. 102-0. 97-7. 138-8. 6 essential part of his biographies, a part which for reasons of composition cannot be dispenser! with. If the avyxQiaeig are indeed by Plutarch, they have to show the same peculiarities as the Lives themselves. Is this the case? To prove this we give the following figures for the frequency of w—w on 1000 syllables: w_w 131 119 134 143 132 155 134 139. Average 137.1. It seems to me that the proof could not have been more conclusive. The figures entirely confirm the results of the previous investigation. Attention should also be paid to the other forms. Another example. In the same manner as we have investigated the series of long syllables in Greek prose, we can investigate the series of short syllables. Whereas, as far as I know, the first possibility has never been thought of, Marbe already pointed out the last, which Thumb applied on a small scale. In other words investigations may be made how many short syllables there are between two long ones, i. e. the frequency of the forms —w—, —ww—, —www—, etc. may be determined. We then get for Thucydides and Demosthenes the following statistics for the first 1000 syllables of the Pelop- 7 onnesian war, and for the first 1000 syllables of the first Philippic. Thucydides Demosthenes _ 302 308 —w— 139 128 —ww— 66 129 _www— 26 7 —ww ww— 13 0 -5- 3 1 -7- 1 The greatest difference between the two columns is, that the choriamb —ww— or dactyl —ww is more frequent in Demosthenes, but that, on the other hand, the forms www , —wwww—, etc. rarely occur there. Will this be confirmed by an extensive investigation? To prove this I shall first give the figures for the choriamb. —ww— Thucydides 66 51 71 69 80 63 63 57 72 62 73 80. Demosthenes 129 93 112 132 126 95 126 101 106 103 109 81. About this there cannot be the least doubt "Now the longer series. 8 Thucydides. Demosthenes. 26 13 3 26 11 0 21 8 2 28 6 3 22 2 4 23 14 7 29 9 1 35 8 5 30 8 3 20 12 3 31 10 1 24 7 3 315 108 35 7 0 1 13 2 1 3 0 0 10 2 0 5 0 2 5 3 0 13 3 1 13 2 0 6 1 0 12 1 2 7 2 0 12 3 1 106 19 8 Average. Thucydides 1339 67-3 26-3 90 2-9 Demosthenes 147-9 109-4 8-8 1-6 0-7 In a similar manner, but with much smaller material Thumb already pointed out that Blass was right when he stated that Demosthenes avoids the tribrach. This proof of Thumb is very important. Münscher thinks it very unimportant, because it had already been discovered 9 before. He forgets, however, that Blass published no statistics, so that his statement might just as well have been incorrect. For so much of what Blass has said on rhythm has turned out to be incorrect later on. Marbe and Thumb were the first to point out to us in which way a scientific proof could be given. This first of all. But secondly we are now able to draw the following conclusions from our material: the cretic —w— has not at all been sought by Demosthenes to the same extent as the dactyl or choriamb —ww—. Recent scholars such as Norden like to speak about the preference of Demosthenes for the cretic. Already the ancients make mention of this. But this assertion — I need hardly say it — is not based on statistics. And to anticipate our further investigations: in the clausulae as such, the cretic does not play any part in Demosthenes. It will be understood that these are not the only results of our investigation. Of great importance is also this: between the metre of the Republic of Plato and his Laws there is a great difference. This difference is owing to the fact that Plato in his later years seeks for series of short syllables. Already Blass suggested this, but he only speaks of a preference for the tribrach (—www—). This one-sidedness can be accounted for: Blass did not know yet the method of arriving at a more certain result. 10 For Plato we get the following figures: Republic. Laws. Average. Average —w_ 146-2 112-8 -ww— 64-0 47-5 .www— 30-7 40-3 —4— 90 13-3 —5— 2-7 5-3 —6— 1-2 2-8 —7— 00 0-5 —8— 0-2 00 —9— 00 0-3 There are two curves here, which cross one another. In the Republic the forms —w— and —ww— occur more frequently than in the Laws, whereas with the other forms it is just the reverse. We see that it is not mainly the tribrach which is preferred. Though the forms —wwww— and —wwwww— in themselves don't occur so often of course, they are, comparatively speaking much more frequent in the Laws than the tribrach. The preference shown for such a form can be expressed by means of a quotiënt. What I want to say is this: suppose there are 30 forms in the Republic and 60 in the Laws, then they occur twice as much in the Laws; the quotiënt is 60:30 = 2. 11 The quotiënt for the forms—wwww— and—wwwww— is higher than that for —www—. We find for Republic Laws (average). (average). Quotiënt —www— 30-7 40-3 1-3 —wwww— 90 13-3 1-5 -wwwww— 2-7 53 20 www www— 1-2 2-8 2-3 You will now understand why Plato in his later works so often uses expressions such as: y.axa x6 dwaxóv, ué^qoieq, xa&éaKQ, ÈnavaqjÉQCov, anoko/j£v(OV, etc. You will also understand why he so often says: xiva xqónov wwww, and not xqójiov xtva w—w<—-. For such a metrical effect can only be produced either by choice of words : the author may make use of xaêdneg instead of Sojxeq, i.e. www instead of —w, or of HtXQmtQ instead of êwoneQ, i.e. www instead of w—w, etc, or by arrangement of words : he may make use of xwd xqónov instead of xqójiov xivd, i.e. wwww instead of The importance of all this, — we shall refer to it later on — should not be undervalued. Of late elaborate investigations have been made to fix by means of this choice of words the chronological order of Plato's dialogues. 12 It has been found that Plato used in his later works xa&anEQ instead of cóotieq, jié%QuiEQ instead of ecoojicq. To us this becomes quite clear now. There is no easier means to get a particular combination of long and short syllables than by substituting one synonym for another. And when I teil you now already that also in the clausula of Plato there is a gradual development, you will agree with me that for the chronology of Plato's works the metre may become of the highest importance. I also spoke about Plutarch and his preference for the form —w. This is not the only metrical peculiarity his prose shows. The most important is that Plutarch avoids series of long syllables. The forms , etc. occur here less frequently than in all other writers investigated by us. That textual criticism—be ifei only on a moderate scale-^might avail itself of this—I need not teil you. That this same tendency does not occur in Pseudo-Plutarch's Consolatio ad Apollonium will not surprise you. And perhaps all this may lead to prove more clearly and effectively the genuineness of many of the Moralia. Typical for Demosthenes is e.g. the following sentence (Olynth. II [5], ed. Weil): 13 Tb fier ovv èmooxov xal amotov xaXéïv av'ev tov td nejigay/uêva deixvvvcu, Xoiöootav elvai tig av cpv^Ete xsvi]v dixalcog ' tb de ji&v&' Soa nónot' ïnoa^e dieljióvta, êah>eovKai, xal tovs \mEQExnEnhr\y'fiévovg <5ff a[ia%6v two xbv (Pifajinov ïöeïv oti ndvta die^EhqXv&EV oïg TiQ&tBQov nagaxQovófievog fiêyag yfi^i^q, xal jiqós avtfjv {jxEi ti\v leXevttjv td nodyfiat* avxcp, i.e.: Typical for Plutarch are e.g. the following words (Life of Philopoimen I): Kkéavdgog ?p> èv Mavtiveiq yévovg te ngcorov xal dwrj&els èv toïg [idhota tarv Jtohxwv, i.e.'. From Plato we may quote (Laws IX, 8563): Metd de td jisqI fieovg td negl xatakvoiv vfjs noXitEÏag, i.e.: or (858a): relotav, & £éve, nQ0tivxÉf.iE&a rr\v oXqeoiv, xal dtsxv&g 14 &OJKQ xatexo/iêvois vojuo&éxai; ofioioi yiyvoifiev^' av vno fieyalrjs xivög óvdyxtje ijèt) vojuov^ereïv etc, i.e.: It was my intention to give you an idea of the importance of these metrical investigations and of the trustworthiness of their results. The man who occupied himself with this for the first time, was the psychologist Marbe, on whose suggestion Thumb applied this method to Greek prose. On Thumb's work we can in genera! make the following remarks. Also in his revision of Brugmann's Grammatik (p. 666 sqq.) he reproaches the modern clausulae-investigators with not having first of all investigated the immanent rhythm of the Greek language. He is even of opinion, and in this respect I quite agree with him, that the present investigation of the Greek quantitative clausula has in general not yet led to definite results. To his remarks 1 add the following. (1) The avoidance of —www—, —wwww—, etc. by Demosthenes is not sufficiently appreciated by him. He says that the figures indicating the frequency of the different forms in Plato and Xenophon do not differ much from those in Demosthenes, and that it lies in the nature 15 of ordinary speech that the rhythmical form —www— rarely occurs. (2) In his opinion about the clausula of Demosthenes he wrongly agrees with Norden. (3) His investigation of the rhythm is in so far onesided that it takes the series of short syllables into account, but not the series of long syllables. We have seen that also this may be of importance as a criterion of genuineness, e.g. for the Plutarchian and pseudo-Plutarchian works. The reason why he has not taken the series of long syllables into account, is easy to understand: his method is that of Marbe. The method-Marbe is intended for modern languages, where seldom two or more accents foliow one another. For in these modern languages we count the number of unaccented syllables which he between two accented ones, and in this way we often arrivé at the most interesting results, as has been pointed out by Lipsky. Why do in English two accented syllables succeed one another less frequently than two long syllables in Greek or in Latin? The principal reason is, because the accents which have to be taken into account do not depend, as in Latin and Greek on an objective factor, as the quantity of the syllables really is, but on a more subjective factor, sentence-rhythm, or emphasis, or stress. This is something quite different. According to Marbe's scansion the same word, the same syllable may be accentuated or 16 not, as sentence-|&ythm requires. In Latin, however, a syllable is either long or short. The one-sidedness, therefore, of the method of Thumb can be explained by going back to its origin, it being invented for a Germanic, not for a classical language. (4) He did not show us how to compare his own results for sentence-rhythm with those of clausula-investigations. Therefore we think we shall be able to improve upon his method by making it more complete. Why he failed in this attempt is obvious: With the help of his method it would be an impossibility to compare them. We gladly acknowledge Thumb's great merit of having formulated the problem correctly, but not of having solved it. SECOND LECTURE. In my last lecture I spoke to you about a preference for series of short or long syllables which in Greek occur in different writers. Some prefer corabinations such as wwwwww etc.; others distincüy avoid etc. Some, as e.g. Plato, show a clear development in their prose metre, a development of which I have only given you a single instance: peculiar usage of words in his latter works has in this way found an unexpected explanation. . We may, in the meantime, put this question: is this all? Is this preference only based on series of short and long syllables, or is there more behind it? Has Demosthenes possibly shown a preference for the form —**»——»—w above— w w—,orfor—ww—ww—ww above —ww ww— etc? When we know that —w— is sought by Demosthenes, we do not know yet whether the combination —w—w—w is just as much sought as —w w w—. We know that Demosthenes has also sought the form —ww—; was it then quite immaterial to him whether he used series of dactyls or choriambs, _ww_ww_ww Or —ww ww ww_? SO we shall have to investigate more. The question is only: how? 18 For these investigations I made use of a method some years ago, which proved to me to be the correct one. I investigated each combination of a fixed number of syllables, e.g. 6, 7, or 8. On practical grounds I took 7 and added — the reason why will be explained later on — an eighth, the quantity of which was left out of account. We then get 27 = 128 possible series. These are e.g. 7 short, 6 short and 1 long, 5 short and two long syllables, etc. We then get the following scheme: 2 —w^wwwww 3 ^—wwwwww 4 wwwwww 5 ww—wwwww 6 —w—wwwww 8 wwwww 9 www—wwww 126 — w w 127 w w 128 w We can now investigate how often these combinations occur in the different writers. 19 You will believe me when I say that in Plato's later dialogues the forms 1 wwwwwwww 2 —wwwwwww 3 w—wwwwww 4 wwwwww, etc. are more frequent than in his older works. We cut, so to say, a text into pieces of 8 syllables, and register these combinations. It will be observed that the frequency of the different combinations varies in the different writers. In the same manner the last 8 syllables of each sentence may be investigated. Here also differences will be found. In the same manner the middle of the sentence may be compared with the end. Probably also a difference will be noted here. The clausulae of one writer may be compared with those of another. Also here differences will be found. So, in Plutarch, the clausula htkiyovaw, or —w—^ is much more frequent than in Thucydides. Now, another important question arises: has Thucydides avoided this form, or was it used with undeniable preference by Plutarch? At first sight one would be inclined to answer: Of course Plutarch has sought this form. For is not the 20 doublé trochee one of the most favourite clausulae, which are frequentiy found in Greek as well as in Latin prose? I cannot, however, admit the strength of this argument. On the contrary, we have to acknowledge that, without the help of some other data, it will be impossible to decide which prose — i.e. the prose of Plutarch or that of Thucydides — we must consider as the prose of ordinary writing, and which, on the other hand, as metrically artificial. It might appear later on that Thucydides as well as Plutarch paid attention to the arrangement of long and short syllables in their prose, the latter, however, in a higher degree. This ought, therefore, to be settled first of all. We have to settle: what may we consider as natural and artless writing? What frequency of the different forms is to be found in Greek prose of ordinary speech? I venture to say that it is Thucydides who appears to be entirely or almost entirely careless of the arrangement of long and short syllables in the sentence, and for the following reasons. I think, we are justified to suppose that in artless natural writing there is no system whatsoever in the arrangement of long and short syllables. This is to be our ideal natural style. Let us, for the sake of argument, take it for granted that in Greek long syllables are much more frequent than short ones in a proportion of 2 : 1. 21 . . r frequency of long syllables „ . This proportion of -?—3 -—c , ° „ ,,— = f wnot r r frequency of short syllables the true one, but it may serve for example. If this be the case, a form —ww will in general occur more frequently than www. You will see that the latter will show a tendency to occur \ time as much as the former. The form —ww, however, will occur as often as w—w, or as ww—, as they consist of the same number of long and of short syllables. If we call the frequency of the form www x, that of —ww will come very near to 2 x. The frequency of w is greater than that of —it is twice as great as the latter. The frequency of w will be 2 X 2 x, that of 2 X 2 X 2 x. Now, we may calculate the frequency of www, —ww, w—w, etc. in Thucydides. As I said before, I have mostly neglected the quantity of the last syllable of each form; if we investigate the last four syllables of each sentence, only eight forms can be found, viz.: 22 If we now could point out that the mutual frequency of each of these eight combinations was only determined by the respective number of long and short syllables of which they are composed — there would remain no room for special metrical tendencies. We shall calculate this. Now, the ratio of the frequency of long syllables compared with that of the short ones in Greek seems to 577 be nearly —- in Plato and nearly the same in Thucydides. We shall call this ratio p. The frequency of www we shall call x. The frequency, then, of - x. _ww = px (= x = 1 '2 x) w = p2x ww_ = px —' = P2x w = p2X = p3x. The sum total is x + 3 px + 3 p2x + p3x = 13*10 x. This total amount of the cases investigated by us is 2000. If in fact these 2000 forms are distributed in what we are accustomed to call a merely accidental way, the frequency of www must be nearly x = ^— o/0 = 7.63 %, that of —ww nearly px = 10*01 %, etc. 23 As a matter of fact these numbers tally exactly with those, which wereyfc» reaHty found by us. A comparison of the figures follows here. Theoretical Clausula- Sentencecalculation. metre. metre. www 7-63 o/0 8-5o/o 5-8 o/0 w_w, ww_ 10-01 o/o 8-8, 7-9,10-4 o/0 10-7, 9-3,11-3r\v naQêxofiev xal ovx ëativ 8te levjftaöta? dneloyo/iév ttva ij fia&rjfiatos ij d-edfiatog 8 /lij xQV nokefdarv Idfov d>q>eXf]'deirj, mmevovte? ov taïg naoaoxevcüs tb nXéov xal óndtais ij tqt &

in addition 28 to the curious grouping and in addition to the arbitrary interpunction prove just the reverse of what is aimed at? In conclusion I would draw your attention to some figures to show what slight differences a comparison with Xenophon's sentence-metre gives. ABC Differences between Xenophon Thucydides sentence- sentence- Thucydides metres metres clausula A&B A&C B&C 0- 8 o/0 05 0-5 0-3 0-3 00 12-8 14-4 14-2 1-6 1-4 0-2 1- 7 1-8 2-0 0-1 0-3 0-2 4- 0 3-6 5-2 0-4 1-2 1-6 1- 4 1-1 1-3 0-3 0-1 0-2 3-1 2-7 3-5 0-4 0-4 08 2- 0 2-9 2-1 0-9 0-1 0-8 7-8 8-8 9-4 1 0 1-6 06 2-6 30 2-6 0-4 00 04 5- 1 5-1 3-7 0-0 1-4 1-4 2- 4 2-5 3-1 0-1 0-7 0-6 1 0 1-3 2-4 0-3 1-4 M 9-1 9-4 6-3 0-3 2-8 3-1 5-6 6-5 7-9 0-9 2-3 1-4 258 20-4 18-3 5 4 7 5 2-1 3- 7 2-6 6-1 1-1 2-4 3-5 29 The differences that occur are so slight that we in- voluntarily pay attention to the form ^ only, which, in Xenophon, shows a somewhat higher figure, namely 25-8 o/o, over against 204 °/0 and 18-3% in Thucydides. Is there indeed any question of a real difference and not of a difference that is the consequence of working with limited material? These questions can only be settled by more extensive researches. The very slight difference for the other forms, differences of, for the greater part, only parts of a percentage, exclude the presence of metrical tendencies altogether. Quite different is the case of the clever prose of Plato and Philo Judaeus. I will not annoy you any further by giving figures and statistics. The question, however, of a certain basis of investigation appeared to me of so much importance that I could not refrain from making more minute investigations. I will now give you a summary of the results yielded by a comparison of the metre of Demosthenes with that of Thucydides. Demosthenian prose is characterised by the following tendencies: (1) Preference for dactyls and choriambs in all combinations: d>g afiayóv xiva xbv 7iivov. The doublé trochee reaches 12-4% in the sentence, 18-9% in the clausula. I draw your attention to the curve; it gives the frequency of the forms 5—8 —www 9—12 w_ww 13—16 ww 17_20 ww_w 21—24 —w_w 25—28 w w 29—32 w For the sake of brevity they have been indicated by 1, 5, 9, 13, 17, 21, 25, 29. The results may be summed up as follows: (5) Tendency of dependence. The clausula of Demosthenes is almost entirely dependent on his sentencemetre. (6) Tendency of independence. In the clausula as such only a few forms are preferred. The question remains to be answered, a question of 36 the highest importance which is therefore often discussed: is ixliyovaw —w—m. to be considered as the real length of the clausula? Does the length of the clausula here comprise only four syllables? To answer this question we ought to find out what figures we should expect to find, if this should really be the case. Let it be assumed for the sake of argument that Demosthenes does not prefer any metrical form at the end of the sentence, except —w—w. Let it be assumed that this preference can be expressed by the quotiënt. 2. The frequency of the form in the sentence is really 12-4 °/0. If our supposition is correct, we shall find 24-8 % at the end of the sentence. If, however, the quotiënt is 2, this will hold good for all subdivisions of the form —w—w. We may find e.g.: Sentence- Clausulametres. metres. Quotiënt ww—w-w 1 »/0 2 2 (+) -w-w-w 2 4 2 (+) w w_w 4 8 2 (+) w—w 5 10 2 (+) Sum total —w_w 12% 24 2 (+) In other words: whatsoever precedes, the quotiënt will always be the same. This we might call an 'ideal' distribution of metrical 37 forms. Unnecessary to say that such a distribution will be found hardly anywhere. Often we have to be content to find for all subdivisions of the form a quotiënt with a + sign, or for all of them a quotiënt with a — sign. Only when our material comprises thousands of cases investigated, it is really surprising to see how often the percentages approach the 'ideal' figures. Let us now assume the reverse: the quotients for the different subdivisions vary altogether, e.g. in this way: Sentence- Clausula- metres. metres. Quotiënt, w 1-0% 0-2 5 (—) _w—w—w 2-0 0-4 5 (—) w w_w 4 0 8-0 2 (+) w—w 6-0 12-0 2 (+) What would it prove? First of all it would prove that the forms ww—w— and —w—w—w, which, as you see, constitute the form w—w—w!, arte not preferred, but avoided. Further it wouldprovethattheforms(w)w—w—wand(w) w—w do not really belong together. On the contrary, we must say; w—w—w is avoided, w—w is preferred. This means that the length of the clausula is not four syllables: —w—w, but five: w—w—w or w—w. For the quantity of the syllable which precedes —w—w, is not indifferent: if it is short, it gives a bad clausula; 38 if it is long, it gives a good clausula. Whenever it appears that the quantity of this syllable is indifferent, it does not belong any more to the 'clausula' in its technical sense. We may state: the length of the clausula ends with the syllable of indifferent quantity. To find out this indifferent syllable is theoretically very simple. Where a clausula of n syllables forms a metrically separated part of the sentence, all subdivisions of it will show the same quotiënt. Of course, the smaller the material that is investigated, the less frequenüy the figures approach their 'ideal' value, and the more one has to be content with an unbroken row of -4- signs, or of — signs. I feit obliged to make this digression to answer the question: how long is the clausula of Demosthenes? Does it really comprise only four syllables: —w—w? This is indeed the case. Even if not merely one, but two preceding syllables are taken into account, rather regular proportions are found: Demosthenes. Sentence- Clausula- metres. metres. Quotiënt. 2- 5% 2-6 1-0 (+) 2.2 4-6 2-1 (4-) 3- 2 4-9 1-5 (4-) 4- 5 6-8 1-5 (4-) 39 If we take only the preceding syllable into account, the agreement becomes even more striking: Demosthenes. Sentence- Clausulametres. metres. Quotiënt, w—w_w 4-7 7-7 1.53 (+) w-w 7-7 11-7 1-52 (+) We have now discussed the most important and most elementary methodological questions. We have seen what a preliminary investigation of Greek prose-metre — I do not say prose-rhythm — has taught us. Only one methodological question remains to be answered, and then we shall pass on to the applications of our results. THIRD LECTURE. In my last lecture I discussed a new method of investigating antique prose-metre. We concluded that the method of Marbe gives only a very bad idea of the metrical tendencies which may occur in antique prose. We answered the question what prose we were allowed to consider as absolutely unmetrical. We investigated the sentence-metre of Demosthenes, and also his clausula. We stated that the clausula of Demosthenes had in most cases to be regarded as a metrically non-separate part of the whole sentence, but that in one case out of five it was —yr—w, Indeed this figure was higher than we could expect. From this we inferred that Demosthenes has one clausula which is feit as something separate, viz. the doublé trochee. You will have seen that in dealing with antique prosemetre I never quoted the antique rhetoricians, where they are speaking of prose-metre, nor the orators themselves. I had a reason for doing so. From a methodological standpoint it is necessary to investigate first what objective facts we can find, to treat afterwards the notions and ideas of the ancients, which bear on them. If this rule is neglected, one may be tempted, as e.g. Norden to compose a scheme without any ground. Or one may 41 be tempted as e.g. Blass, Zander, and Bornecque, to explain the facts from an hypothesis, instead of deriving an hypothesis from the facts. It is necessary first to ascertain what hypothesis can be inferred from the facts, and only then to see whether it corresponds with the opinions and assertions of the ancients. Before I go on treating the metre of Plutarch and some other authors, I must deal with another merely theoretical question. It has been found that in Demosthenes the frequency of the doublé trochee in the sentence was 12-4%, in the sentence of Thucydides 14-1 °/0, in the clausula of Thucydides 14-2%. On the other hand in the clausula of Demosthenes we got 18-9%. We concluded that the difference between 12-4% and 18.9% was too great to be ascribed to chance only. Were we justified in doing so? To answer this question we shall have to consult the theory of probability. Suppose that the tendency which causes the frequency of a certain form, is quite the same in two different prose-texts, how great is the probability that we shall get a difference as e.g. between 12 % and 18%? We may calculate the probable error of a percentage. This probable error mainly depends on the material investigated. The larger the number of cases investigated, the more the figures will approach to the 'ideal' figures. For 42 the exact meaning of the probable error I refer here to the textbooks on the theory of probability. The probable error of our percentage 12-4 for the form —w—w in Demosthenes is 0-67451/—~^f^g~~~^' This means that it is as probable that the real figure lies between 12-4—1-0 and 12 4 4- 10, or between 11-4 and 13-4, as that it is lower than 11-4 or higher than 13-4. The greater the difference from these figures, the greater the improbabUity that this difference will occur. If we have therefore a difference such as e.g. between 12-4 and 18-9, the probability that this difference is due to chance is very small. We cannot but think that there is something behind it. The probability, however, that no special cause, no special tendency brought it about is not altogether impossible. As certainly as we can calculate that in casting a die we have 1 : 6 chance to get a 3, we can calculate the probability that exists in our case. The probability that no real difference exists, between 12-4% and 18-9% in our case is smaller than 1 : 5000. We shall now pass on to the metres of Plutarch. As we saw in our first lecture, Plutarch avoids the accumulation of long syllables. You will understand that here the law of increasing avoidance prevails. Whoever avoids will presumably avoid in 43 an even higher degree, and even more , and so on. This is really the case with Plutarch. It is possible, as we saw above, to express the degree in which the different series of syllables are avoided by a quotiënt: a quotiënt found by dividing the percentage for a certain form in Thucydides by that for the same form in Plutarch.' So the quotients are here: Thucydides. Plutarch. Quotiënt. (113—120) 10-3 6-3 1-6(—) (121-124) 3-8 3-3 1-1 (-] (125-126) 1-7 0-8 2-4 (-: (127) l ff 0-8 2-1 (- (128) 2-8 0-8 9-3 (- The form 128 comprises series of eight and more than eight long syllables. An even clearer insight into the metre of Plutarch is given by a comparison of his sentence metre with his clausula. To understand this, I refer you to the corresponding figures. Clearly three preferred forms must be regarded as a separate part of the sentence, viz.: 44 These three forms comprise the 'clausula' of Plutarch. The other forms do not belong to his favourite sentence endings: they are partly metrically indifferent to him, partly avoided. The 'famous' doublé cretic, which modern scholars like to consider as a preferred form everywhere, has no greater preference than other forms. The form — w—w is often combined with —w w and —w w— in one scheme for it is still often thought that the cretic is the base of all prose-metre. This form, however: namv ès #«joaff èk&eïv, is probably not avoided in a higher degree than the other subdivisions of —w—w. The quotients are: Plutarch. Sentence- - Clausula- metres. metres. Quotiënt. 81—82 www—w—w i-50°/0 3-10 2-07 (+) 83—84 — ww_w—w 2-00 3-15 1 -58 (4-) 85—86 w_w-w—w 1-60 2-55 1 -59 (+) 87—88 w_w_w 1-80 3-85 2.14(4-) 89—90 ww w_w 1-90 4-10 2-16(4-) 91—92 —w w_w 1-40 4 05 2-89(4-) 93—94 w w_w 2-20 4-25 1-93(4-) 95—96 w_w 1 -30 4.05 3-12(4-) 45 The quotiënt for —— w_w is 2-89, that for w—w is 3-12. The other forms, it is true, give lower quotients. Is there indeed any connection between the doublé trochee preceded by a cretic, and the same form preceded by a molossus? Only a more extensive investigation can give a satisfactory answer to this question. Suffice it here to have stated the method by means of which it can be answered. The common method of investigating the clausula is that of comparing only the figures of the second column (clausula metres) with each other. It will be clear to you that such procedure has no scientific base, nor can it give any reliable results. The doublé cretic, indeed, can hardly be regarded as metrically-indifferent to Plutarch. lts frequency in the sentence-endings does not reach the figure of its frequency in the whole sentence. So it has been avoided. Plutarch. Sentence- Clausulametres. metres. Quotiënt. _w—w 13-90% 29-10 2-09(4-) _w w_w 1-40 4-05 2-89 (+) __w w_ 4-00 2.35 1 -70 (—) In passing I drew your attention to the form w s__w. Whether it is feit as a separate part of the sentence, is not quite certain. That —w—w is 46 a good clausula can hardly be doubted. But whether the length of the clausula in such cases, where the doublé trochee is preceded by a cretic, comprises more than four, viz. seven syllables'. ncioiv èg %eiQag èA&eïv, is yet a problem. Only to state this problem, to show the way to its solution, and to point out its importance, I undertook as my task. Some years ago Mr. Henderson in the American Journal of Philology tried to tracé the origin of the Greek accent-clausula to the Greek quantitative clausula, whereas other scholars are inclined to think that it is of Latin origin. This later Greek clausula shows only a few favourite forms, viz.: uvÜQdbnovg naiöevovaiv ... co co co co ..., or av&Qcbnovg Xuiéiv ... co co co co..., or avdownvov xataieyóvrcov ...co co co co co có . .., or Myovoi Tiaidevóvicov ...co co co co co có... In general, the main rule of this Greek accent-clausula is: between the two last accented syllables of the sentence or colon there are two or four unaccented ones. Now, if the supposition is correct that there is a certain connection between long syllables and accented ones in later Greek, and that this connection shows itself in the clausula, it may be possible to find an evolution from 47 tO CO CO CO CO * * *, i.e. from the classic or quantitative to the accent-clausula. This accent-clausula does not distinguish between long and short syllables. Therefore it is desirable to use the sign eo for a syllable, the quantity of which is not feit; a syllable anceps, on the other hand, we shall still indicate by SÉ Now, we can perhaps explain có « co »..'. from _LW -L*. In this way —w w— or —w - is regarded as the original form of có «> co co co có co : for instance naoiv êe ^eijoas tt&eïv or iQr\oiiubtmov the number of the same forms in Thucydides reaches 47-9 %• A clear view of Philo's clausula is given by our graphical scheme. In the same way I shall give you a comparison of the corresponding figures in Thucydides (see curves). As to these curves you will remember what I have said bef ore: perhaps the slight differences which we are 55 able to state between Thucydides' sentence-metre and clausula-metre are not only and exclusively to be ascribed to chance. Perhaps they are caused by some metrical tendencies. Perhaps these tendencies will prove to be even more obvious in the more rhetorical than in the less rhetorical parts of his work, although Röllmann's investigations may have proved the reverse. In no case, however, are these differences so great here as in Plutarch, or as in Philo. In Philo we clearly see some culminating points in the curve. If we try to investigate them, we get for the clausula of Philo the following scheme: Quotiënt I 'Z L 2-0 (+) II www 1-6 (+) UI w 1-6 (+) www w 1-8 (+) ww_w 1-9 (+) —www 1-2 (+) ww^ ww 4-5 (+) IV _w_w 1-4 (+) V _w w 1-2 (4-) ww 1-1 (+) The first form: xit/utt' èldneto is entirely absent in Demosthenes, Plutarch, and, as far as I investigated, in Isocrates, as a favourite clausula. Very frequently it occurs 56 later on in Chariton (5-9%), and also in Plato it is feit as a favourite form. The form wwww, yevo/xévcov is very frequent in nearly all metrical Greek authors. It is the typical Greek clausula, which is entirely absent in Latin. In Philo it is only sought, if a long syllable precedes. For, if we try to determine the length of the clausula, we get the following figures. Philo. Sentence- Clausulametre metre Quotiënt wwwww xa yevófieva 30% 10% 3-0 (—) —wwww xójv yevofièvcov 5"9% 96% 1*6 (4-) The preceding syllable, therefore, is not indifferent. If the clausula wwww is to be a good clausula, it ought to be —wwww. The form www—, the fourth paeon, is, as you know, much recommended as a clausula by AristoÜe — we shall speak of it below. The third and fourth form: naoiv avêoémns, and èxUyovaiv occur in nearly all our authors: only Plato's later works avoid them, even to an ever increasing degree. Frequency of the clausula—■——as. Thuc. Demosth. Plut. Philo Plato Rep. Plato Laws èxUyovaiv 142 189 291 182 139 5-7 naaiv avêgónoK 9 4 8"0 9 8 15-8 6 5 6 0 57 In this connection I feel obliged to draw your attention to a fact of the highest importance which occurs again also in Latin. I think, we are allowed to regard the forms ld yevó/nev avdgcbnoi? www w naai naoé%ovoiv —www—w naai xazeXsuiófie&a www—www as by-forms of —w w. In Plutarch, where only three forms were preferred, we were not allowed to do so. In grouping the clausula-forms we are not allowed to arbitrarily substitute two short syllables for one long syllable. By so doing we should often make a bad clausula of a good one. But here the preference which appears for all these forms makes it very probable that there is some connection between them. Now, these by-forms appear to be preferred in a higher degree than the priricipal form. Of course, their absolute frequency is much lower, but, I think, you will not regard this absolute frequency as a criterion of preference any more! Therefore, we ought not to regard this notion 'principal form' as denoting a more preferred form than the 'by-forms', as is often thought. On the contrary, it denotes only the form which comes first in our scheme as it contains the lowest number of short syllables — nothing more. We might say: they are the most simple forms. As regards the connection between them and the by-forms we will suspend our judgment on this point for a moment. 58 The significance of the fifth form naai u/tojfiévois, the dieretic clausula, is generally overestimated. It is often thought that the cretic is the basis of all prose-metre, and from this postulate it is deduced that the doublé cretic is one of the most preferred forms. The deductive method in investigating antique prose-rhythm is, however, arbitrary and absolutely wrong. Only in a few writers, i.e. in Philo and in Plato the clausula — w— occurs as a favourite form. As you will see, Philo avoids the forms , , etc. In this way we get some insight into the simple means by which the ancients built their admirable proserhythm. The right feeling for its details we miss almost entirely. Only indefatigable industry of investigation and very long practice of reading aloud can give us back something of the beauty of the ancients. FOURTH LECTURE. As far as this I have dealt only with those authors in whose metre I was not able to state changes in the course of their activity. Probably there is no change, no evolution in their clausula. Quite different is the case with the artist of whom I intend to speak to you now, with Plato. In order to give you a superficial idea of the evolution of his metre, I shall remind you of our former results which we obtained with the help of the method-Marbe for the Repubüc, and for the Laws. We may regard the Republic as the end of the first group of his works — the Laws not only as the end, but also as the culmination of a second period of his evolution. Plato is his later years prefers series of short syllables as obviously as he avoids —— and —<*//*m'. Even more important than his sentence-metre is that of his clausula. Not only as to his clausula, the Laws show a certain culmination. It is very interesting to compare the frequency e.g. of the form —~—w in the Repubüc with that of the Laws. 60 Frequency of the clausula —*i*— (In percentages). Thucydides Phaedrus 164 (first thousand) 14 0 Convivium 14*3 Thucydides Phaedo 141 (second thousand) 14"4 Theaetetus 13 5 Demosthenes 189 Parmenides 160 Philo 182 Republic: Chariton 213 Book I 12 5 Lesbonax 11 '4 II 14 9 Herodes 161 UI 12 2 Libanius 161 IV 121 Plutarch V 126 (first thousand) 29'6 VI 15 8 Plutarch VII 135 (second thousand) 28*6 VIII 16*1 Plato; LX 14*3 Apology 141 X 16*9 Crito 158 Philebus 50 Protagoras 140 Politicus 7*1 Charmides 13*3 Sophistes 97 Laches 13*0 Critias 1*3 Lysis 14*7 Timaeus 15*2 Euthyphro 12*7 Laws: Gorgias 12*2 Book I 8 2 Hippias minor 15*2 II 7*5 Euthydemus 15*8 III 5*0 Cratjlus 161 IV 5*3 Meno 14*2 V 45 Menexenus 114 VI 33 61 VII 64 XII 46 VHJ 6-7 Epinomis IX 5-7 (first hundred) 4'0 X 5 6 Epistula 7ma 9*0 XI 45 | In the Laws the following clausulae form a separate favourite part of the sentence: II (-)ww_ww III (-)- ^ IV (-) —- V (_)www_w. Only one of these forms we find again in Plutarch, viz. www—. It is the famous fourth paeon. By way of exception I refer to a passage in Aristotle, one of the few passages of the ancients the contents of which have been confirmed by us in a most striking manner. He says (Rhet. III 8. 1409» 2): fort dè ncuavoe ovo eldt] avuxd/ueva dU.rjl.oig, tov to fihv h> dQxfj aQfióxxu... ItsQOS ó"éf êvavxiag, ov (igaxeiai (www) aQxovai xQeïg, ij dè ftaxga teXevxaia (www—). ftetd dè yav vdatd t' (bxeavöv rjcpdvioe And a ütüe above: ... ncudv, q> ixQdwto jusv dnb Ggaovfiaxov dogdfievoi... The fourth paeon is absent in Latin — it is the typical Greek clausula. 62 Most important is the occurrence of (—)w w— as a clausula. To this clausula may belong: Quotiënt. naai» fyyfyvetai (—)•— w— (_|_\ navxarv èxyiyvezai (—) W— (-|-) naaiv êyylyveo&at —«SM (—) There is an important reason for joining these forms: in all of them there is a preference to use a long final syllable, and not a short one. I can find no other hypothesis to explain these facts than that the last three syllables are feit to be a cretic —w—( or a molossus substituted for a cretic. To show this clearly I must make a digression to speak to you for a moment of the so-called syllaba anceps. In my investigation I myself neglected the quantity of the last syllable, except in Plato. For this investigation would have taken up much time: instead of 128 cases, we should have had ,to investigate 256 forms. It is the general opinion that the quantity of this last syllable is indifferent. Josephy, however, rightly doubted the correctness of this opinion, which doubt he based on most convincing statistics. The value of these statistics is questioned by Münscher (Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1915, col. 000) on the authority of ancient texts: a methodological mistake. The passages of Cicero and the others bearing on the clausula have deceived 63 us even more than those of many recent scholars: we had better put them aside. Besides we may cite the text of Aristotle in favour of the opposite opinion. But all these questions are very unimportant. The only important one is this: what do statistics show us? Statistics show that in the Laws a metrical form with a long final syllable is always more frequent than the same form with a short final syllable in the sentence as well as in the clausula. In connection with the greater frequency of long syllables in general we could not have expected otherwise. Only one form, however, deviates from this rule, in the sentence as well as in the clausula, viz.: _www; this form occurs more frequently than _ww—. But this need not surprise us, when we remember that Plato seeks the tribrach, and that he avoids the choriamb. We may draw a curve denoting the frequency of the forms ending in w, as well as a curve denoting the frequency of the same forms ending in —• It is most interesting to see how the forms w—www and www are more frequent than w—ww— and ww—. For all the other forms the ratio is quite the reverse. In this way it appears again and again that even the most subtile metrical tendencies are shown by means of simple statistics. And it is quite interesting to observe that all our figures bearing on Plato are derived from a paper of Kaluscha who made a rather curious 64 use of his statistics: the idea, the notion of percentage seems to be unknown to him. So we see that the last syllable in Plato is not anceps. Now the same is true for the form —w .w) where rijs yoaydorjs &ixr}s is preferred to xqvm0^™7' xqvmh-a- The quotiënt for the first form as a clausula compared with the sentence-metre is larger. The same holds good for After this digression on the 'syllaba anceps' we return to the clausula of the Laws. It appears that in the dicretic form (—w w—) either cretic can, so to say, be re- placed by a molossus. A doublé molossus, however, would destroy the character of the cretic clausula. Besides to the positive clausula we should also pay attention to the negative one. The latter is more important in Plato than anywhere else. The doublé trochee, for instance, is sought by most authors. Now, only few forms are avoided by Plato to such a degree as the doublé trochee: èxUyovaiv. On the whole we can say that the later a work has been composed, the lower the percentage. You will remember that the form naoiv dvêgónoig, —W •—', plays a part in Greek prose metre: even this form is avoided in Plato. For the bad clausulae we get the following scheme: 65 H ww w (—ww—w seems to be preferred to -ww ). III — w—w IV (including —>•»- w, > etc. as clausulae). The avoidance of the clausula heroica is important for this reason that it is a symptom of a general psychological law, which is here and there very obvious in antique prose-rhythm. Any metre in any way connected with poetry is avoided. Bornecque in his most important work 'La prose métrique dans la correspondance de Cicéron' is even inclined to believe that the whole prosemetre of Cicero is to be explained by this factor. So he acknowledges only the negative clausula. He says among others on p. 198: 'Je crois, d'ailleurs, comme M. Meyer, qu'on peut donner de la prose métrique une théorie simple: sans me flatter de Pavoir trouvée, je me hasarde a exposer celle que les faits m'ont suggérée... Le seul précepte absolu que nous donnent, non seulement Cicéron, mais les autres grammariens, est d'éviter que la fin dJune phrase ressemble a une fin de vers etc.' This opirtioh is very one-sided. Probably you will agree with me that the metre of Demosthenes, which recognises only the doublé trochee as a clausula cannot be explained in this way. Also the curves of the metre 66 of Cicero and of Livy wiü convihce you of the existence of the positive clausula. The main opinion of Bornecque, however, is this: the form of the word preceding the last one is determined by the form of this last one. This is even his definition of metrical prose: 'On dit qu'un texte est écrit en prose métrique lorsque la forme métrique du dernier mot de chaque phrase détermine la forme métrique des mots qui précédent le mot final' (La prose métrique, p. 1). We can only partly agree with him. If Demosthenes favours the form ——w( he likes to have before a last word afaoég a form like noiovaw, in order to get the clausula noiovaiv a&iovg. If, however, the last word is èxUyovaiv, we do not understand how it can have influenced the preceding one; for we are able to accurately détermine the length of the clausula, and to state that èxUyovaiv forms in itself a beautiful clausula, and that all the preceding words are indifferent. By means of this argument his theory is, as far as I see, refuted in a most simple and convincing manner. In the meantime Bornecque's remarks should not be regarded as unimportant. They clearly show the significance of the negative clausula. They are illustrated for instance by the clausula heroica of Cicero. He seldom uses it, but wherever he uses it, it is seldom the end of an hexameter. We know that a good Latin hexameter 67 in Cicero's days did not end in a four- or five-syllabic word or word-group. The current forms are vincla resovit, and lamentabile regnum. Only a few Greek words are excepted, e.g. Tyndaridarum, a phenomenon which need not be explained here. If, however, we look more closely at the clausulae heroicae of Cicero, we see that they are not hexameterendings. I quote here some clausulae heroicae cited by Zielinski from the speeches of Cicero (Clauselgesetz p. 751). Quinctius cupit commemorare tota res transigeretur paulo post commemorabo praetura Siciliensi passuum conficerentur videt discruciatur cautius composuisses pecuniam corripiendam copiosus est, commemoravit conscios flagitiorum. Although Cicero avoids the real hexameter-endings, he tolerates the use of such forms as caperentur and perlegerentur to a certain degree. So important a part does the avoidance of poetical metra play in prose metre. The avoidance of —w—w in Plato can also be explained in this manner. 68 It is very interesting to note how gradual the evolution is in the frequencies of some forms in the different periods of Plato's life. Bij means of hypothesis we can distinguish five chronological groups: I. Protagoras, Crito, Apology. II. Charmides, Laches, Lysis, Euthyphro, Gorgias, Hippias min., Euthydemus, Cratylus, Meno, Menexenus, Phaedrus, Symposium, Phaedo, Theaetetus, Parmenides. III. Republic. IV. Philebus, Politicus, Sophistes, Critias, Timaeus. V. Laws. This distinction is made by Kaluscha in his paper on the chronology of Plato's dialogues. It contains valuable material for the clausula, a material which is intentionally only partly used, and so far as it is used in a rather curious way. No comparison whatever with sentencemetre is made. The notion 'percentage' seems, as I said before, to be unknown to him. I will not, however, speak about this matter here. The gradual evolution to which I alluded appears most clearly from the following figures. 69 Group I I H UI IV V ,www 3-50/o 50 6-2 7-3 126 w 69 76 8.1 91 11*6 gügj. 6 1 57 55 5 2 37 ,__w 7-7 7 1 7-0 3-2 1"3 ^ 143 143 139 9 1 570/0 These figures have been calculated from the material collected by Kaluscha, a material which we are sorry to say he did not fully work out. Some of the clausulae show a gradually increasing preference for them, others a gradually increasing avoidance. And we are allowed to ask: what about the frequency of these forms in those of Plato's works the chronology of which is not quite certain? The history of the opinions of modern scholars about the chronology of his dialogues is somewhat as follows. The students who first occupied themselves with it all agreed on this point that the Phaedrus was one of his earliest works. As there were doubts about the correctness of this theory, careful investigations were made by many scholars, but even after these investigations most of them adhered to this theory. Some time later, however, statistical evidence seemed 70 to show very clearly, that the Phaedrus was written in a later period. Raeder is quite right in saying (p. 248): "...Meistens wird aber das Verhaltnis so dargestellt, als ob die aus dem Inhalt geschöpften Argumente den sprachlichen Kriterien schroff gegenüberstanden". It is easy to understand that people should try to overcome this difficulty, it was even a scientific requirement, and he who has any faith in statistics had to join the few who have placed the Phaedrus late. Owing to this there were scholars who, on the ground of, or rather with the help of the criteria which were formerly known, tried to assign a later place to the Phaedrus, in order to make their ideas correspond to the results of statistical investigations. In this connection I may quote Pohlenz, who says about Von Arnim (Götting. Gelehrte Anz. 1916, p. 259): „Es war also nicht Willkür oder Zufall, wenn fast alle modernen Forscher den Lysis mit dem Symposion in engste Verbinding brachten, und wenn v. A. diese gewaltsam löst, so wird man hier wirklich den Gedanken nicht los, dass er aus seiner Sprachstatistik die Ueberzeugung von der frühen Abfassung des Lysis mitbrachte1'. Nearly the whole of modern literature on this subject moves in the same direction. In this connection a particular preference is shown in the different works for the treatment of parallel passages in different works, the chronology of which one would like to détermine. Some 71 of them, such as Von Arnim, are of opinion that the result of their investigation 'vollkommen ausreicht die Prioritat des Phaidros unwiderleglich zu beweisen'. Others, such as W. E. J. Kuiper (Tijdschrift voor wijsbegeerte, jg. XI) are honest enough to admit that the treatment of parallel passages will often convince the writer only. Some philosophers are, in spite of all statistical investigations, convinced that the Phaedrus cannot have been written late; this view which was formerly held by Schleiermacher is still held by Natorp, Gomperz, and Ovink. But most of them have an other opinion, and wrongly. For statistical investigations on this subject, as it happens so often in other cases, have failed on account of the well-known statistical error: incorrect and wrong grouping. Too little account has been taken of the fact that different tendencies can lead to the same results. As easily as Kaluscha, a disciple of Von Arnim, has tried to détermine the chronological order of Plato's later works, he might have proved that the Phaedrus has been written in the earliest period. For, as you will remember, there are at least five clausulae-forms in the frequency of which a gradual development of Plato's metre is obvious. If we take the frequency of these very forms into account, we should be inclined to date the Phaedrus as early as possible. 72 Plato. Frequency of clausula-forms. Phae- Chronological group drus i | n | ni | rv, | v w—w 74 6-1 5-7 5*5 5'2 3"7 —w——ü 9-4 7-7 7-1 7-0 32 1"3 ———— 164 143 143 13-9 91 57 —-——4-9 35 50 6'2 7 3 126 hr ~— 6'2 68 7-5- 81 91 116 As you will notice: even the forms www( —ww—Mi and —w—w, are more frequent in the Phaedrus. The very clausulae —wwww and (—)w ww which are preferred in the later period are less frequent here. You will be inclined to suppose that we have here the commencement of a gradual metrical evolution. This, however, is not the case: quite other laws are at work. Among the works of Plato the Phaedrus is a very particular work. It is written in an exceedingly poetical language, which is found perhaps nowhere in Plato nor anywhere else in Greek. Nor will it surprise you to see that it has a poetical metre which shows a logaoedic character. 73 Plato. Sentence-metre. Phaedrus Chapt. XXVI | 2nd Republic Laws lst thousand thousand | Average syllables syllables | | 174 167 170S 146-2 112'8 —85 74 79'S 64 0 47"5 _3_ 12 21 165 307 403 _4— 3 8 5-5 9-0 13-8 _5_ 2 10 2-7 5-3 _6— 1-2 2*8 _ 7_ 0*0 0 5 _8— >2 00 _o_ 0-3 It is easily seen that the Phaedrus shows an abundance of dactyiic and trochaic metra. Of this fact everyone can convince himself by reading some chapters aloud. Remarks on this phenomenon have already been made in some commentaries, especially on the finishing prayer. It is seen that the forms —w— and —ww— are more frequent, that on the other hand —www—, —wwww—, etc. are rather avoided. Not seldom there are sentences like this: Ilaaa yag fjV tb nalai msQcaxr] —ww—ww—w (251e), etc. 74 We may say that there are three criteria which distinguish the Phaedrus from all the other dialogues, viz.: (1) poetical choice of words, (2) poetical metre, (3) avoidance of hiatus. We shall now investigate the influence of each of these factors on the results of the statistics. Therefore I especially draw your attention to a work of Barwick, De Platonis Phaedri temporibus, of 1913. Of course he does not yet know the peculiar metre of the Phaedrus, but he is a scholar who is not content with cleverly found probabüities nor does he get absorbed in general speculations which are pleasant to read but which do not prove anything. He gives his opinion in a few words, he gives simple and convincing statistics, he does not go too far in his conclusions. And that he has a correct insight into the problem appears from the fact that he gives an opinion somewhere which he is not quite able to defend, for which he has no explanation even, and which becomes clear only by means of metrical investigations. I mean the use of d>s in the Phaedrus, to which I shall refer presently. In a most convincing manner Barwick shows that the Phaedrus as to the hiatus stands quite alone. The number of hiatus in Plato's former works varies between 0-44 and 5-85 a page. In the later works this frequency varies between 31-18 and 45.87. It is rather surprising to see 75 that the Phaedrus has 23.90, a figure that Hes exacüy between the two other groups. That the hiatus is avoided in the later dialogues appears very clearly from these figures, nor is this, as far as I know, doubted by anyone. If, however, we think that the avoidance of hiatus may be used as an argument to détermine the chronological order, we should be inclined to fix the Phaedrus between both groups, i.e. before the Critias, Philebus, Politicus, Sophistes, Timaeus, Laws. In this case, however, the Phaedrus would have been written after the Parmenides and the Theaetetus, which is very unlikely. There remains only one possible hypothesis, viz. that the Phaedrus belongs to the former group, to the time when Plato did not yet avoid the hiatus: but the poetical style\ of this work involuntarily causes a certain avoidance of it, which, of course, is not so strong as that of the time when he pays a special attention to it. We shall discuss other pecuüarities of the Phaedrus, as the statistical treatment of its style by recent scholars offers many ülustrations of wrong statistical methods. The frequent use of tl pip is indeed, as has been remarked by the advocates of a later origin of this work, typical for the later period. But what is remarkable here? That the Phaedrus, as well here as in the treatment of 76 hiatus, stands quite alone. Though it is by no means the last dialogue, we get here a percentage of 68 8 on the sum total of the affirmative rhetoric questions, i. e. 24*4 % more than the figure coming next. Frequency of tl /urjv on the sum total of affirmative rhetoric questions. Phaedrus 68-8 % Sophistes 19-7 Republic 23-3 Politicus 37-7 Theaetetus 46-4 Philebus 347 Parmenides i 11 *8 Laws 37-2 Besides, the Phaedrus has a relatively very high number of dXXd ft/pr, ye juijv, and xal /utjv, as may be inferred from Lutoslawski's tables, in his propaganda work for statistical investigations on Plato, The origin and grorvth of Plato's logic (p. 184.). No other hypothesis can satisfy us than that these expressions suit the poetical rhetoric of the Phaedrus: also in the tragedy the expressions are very frequent. Also in another peculiarity the Phaedrus stands alone. In the former dialogues we often find drjXov Sn; only in the later ones it is sometimes replaced by èrjXov ó>g. The same is true for the Phaedrus. Now, we know that 8u in the later works is avoided because of the hiatus arising between Sn and a following vowel e.g. in on SxpèXifiog ioztv. The Phaedms, however, does not avoid any hiatus after as evidently in that period Plato did not consider 77 the hiatus as troublesome: drt is used 35 times bef ore a vowel, but only 16 times bef ore a consonant; whith me it is quite the reverse! Therefore there must be some other reason why bf(kov 3w is avoided in the Phaedrus, and replaced by ófjlov me. Now, in the Phaedrus me is very much more frequent than 6u, although this too is a peculiarity of Plato's later years. It should be noticed that also here the Phaedrus stands quite alone: the figure for me compared whith that for on is again much higher than that of all the other dialogues which were written before the Sophistes. Barwick also noticed this. He rightly thinks that this is the reason why dijkov me is so frequent in the Phaedrus, and he asks: why is me so frequent here? His answer is (p. 648i). 'Quod qui factum sit, utrum mero casu an aha re, alius aliter iudicabit; me quidem iudice artissime cohaeret illa res euro Phaedri pecuüari sermonis habitu.' Is this the true reason? To understand the true reason I must draw your attention again to the metre of the Phaedrus. It seeks logaoedic metra. Now, me consists of one long syllable, bxi of two short ones. If a writer has to choose between óijXov me and drjXov Sn, he has to choose between — w— and _www, i.e. between a cretic and a tribrach. The tribrach, however, is avoided here. This is the true reason. 78 We shall put this to the test There are many cases where a favourite form can be replaced by a bad one, and the reverse, by using o&c instead of Sn. Investigating in chapter 22 and the following ones all the passages where s is used 27 times, and that in the majority of cases, viz. 23, the use of Sn would have given a tribrach, whereas the use of d>s gives a favourite form. On the other hand Sn is used 21 times, in 13 of which ovu and fj otf, which depends on it. So the clausula must be excluded as far as it depends on the peculiar poetical metre of the whole sentence. On this metre, the main features of which are the preference for —w— and —ww—, and the avoidance of —www—f —wwww—, etc. depends the comparatively high frequency of the clausulae: —ww— with long final syllable (Phaedr. 10-1 %> Republic 7-94%), —ww—w (Phaedr. 9-4%, Republic 7-0%), —w_w (Phaedr. 16-4 °/0, Republic 14 0%) on the one hand, and on the other the low frequency of —wwww (Phaedr. 0-00 7„ Republic 6-20%). The peculiar substitution of örjkov -*—— without any ground. The negative forms are nearly these. Negative clausula in Chariton. Thucydides. Chariton. tot»? dv&Qcónovs 18'3 3*1 ftscav ëgya xaXèixai —w^_—w 7'9 2-0 Statistical evidence seems to prove that Chariton shows the strongest metrical tendencies of all the authors as yet investigated by us. Therefore the investigation of the frequency of the different forms in the sentence remains a question of urgent necessity. The same work as that for Chariton by Heibges, has been done for Libanius by Heitmann. The same formae principales have been distinguished here: Fositive (?) Clausula of Libanius. Thucydides. Libanius. — w 14-2 161 —— w 94 76 2-6 58 —w—w_ 37 55 By comparing in this way the frequency of these 'principal' forms in Libanius with that in Thucydides, the preference for these forms in the former appears to be quite hypothetical. We are even justified in supposing that the form —1*—^ was indifferent to Libanius, whereas —w w was avoided. Of course Heitmann 87 combines with «* So he is induced to give a comparison of frequency-figures for different authors, which comparison is given in such a form that it has not the least sense. It is righüy doubted by Maas whether any metrical tendency exists here at all. Nearly the only form which points to it is , which shows a very low figure. Negative (?) clausula of Libanius. Thucydides. Libanius. w 79 77 g 20*4 11 "6 Here as well as in Chariton only a minute statistical investigation of his sentence-metre can give convincing evidence. In any case the typical Greek form: Thucydides. Libanius. ~s 52 2-8 is not favoured. Some years ago I pointed out that there exists a certain agreement between the metre of Thucydides and that of Herodes and Lesbonax. Clausula of Lesbonax Herodes Thucydides (236 cases) (297 cases) (2000 cases) ~ ti'4 16"1 1*2 j| 106 84 93 £ 208 175 18-3 w w w i w (n ••■ cannot be explained very well without assuming that a secondary accent causes it. To ascribe, however, the avoidance of ——, —^ in Cicero, and of —w—, —w-w to a mysterious fear of the diaeresis would mean substituting one problem for an other. Why it should occur in the forms —-w w and — w-w, and why it is as strongly avoided in —w w—w, is somewhat strange. The true expla- nation seems to be that in the types something of the falling rhythm of the period has been preserved, which suits the end of a period. In Procopius the form CO CO I CO CO shows the same peculiarity. 121 So the favoured clausulae show a tendency to preserve the falling rhythm of the period, a tendency occurring in poetry as well. The artist can try to produce the same effect by using n*—aa: instead of —w—w. The avoided forms, however, if also occurring in poetry, show in Latin prose a tendency to avoid exacdy those types which are common in verse. The form ——w( for instance, which is most common in the few hexameterendings of Cicero's prose, of Lactantius, and others, is hardly found in any sound Latin hexameter of the postCiceronian period. Though it cannot be denied that also in Livy this form ——a-: is the most common, it should be borne in mind that the longest words generally occur at the end of a sentence, and that verse-ending and sentence-ending only in some cases coincide. In this manner the clausula ——w occurs in prose most frequenüy. Closely connected with the problem of typology is that the quantity of the final syllable. I have already referred to this more than once. It has always seemed to me that in order to get a clear insight into this problem we should sharply distinguish between two quite different groups of phenomena: (1) as to the metre, the quantity of syllable does not matter. Whether a trimeter consists of three times w—w—f or of three time» tf—, it remains a tri- 122 meter. It is not true that the first of these two feet is either a trochee, or a spondee taking the place of a trochee. In this case we should be obliged to assume that a long syllable may be shortened in some special cases. We can understand that a final syllable is lengthened by pronunciation, but we cannot see how this long syllable can be shortened. (2) as to the metre the quantity of a syllable does matter. The metre, e.g. in a tragic trimeter requires a long final syllable. It is really unimaginable that a short syllable could be tolerated here. If this trimeter is __ - ' w ww, we cannot but think that the last short syllable takes the place of a long one, i.e. that it is lengthened, so to say, positione. It is not true, however, that it was quite indifferent to the Greeks, whether in such cases, I mean the cases of group (2), the syllable was really long or short. On the contrary, where the metre requires a long syllable, there is often a tendency to put a long final syllable (see Havet, Cours élémentaire § 144). This tendency is found in the Greek and Latin pentameter, and also in the tragic trimeters ending in a cretic word or word-combination: —-—-— is preferred to —ww. Now, analogous cases occur in the clausula. In wwww the metre requires a long final syllable. This 123 is made probable by the passage of Aristotie, who speaks only of www—< it is confirmed by statistical evidence: Plato shows a preference for www— to wwww. Kaluscha is quite wrong in saying that Plato generally prefers a long final syllable to a short one: this his assertion, results from his non-comparative method of research. In —w—w he obviously prefers —w—w to —w , in other forms, such as —w ww, he prefers An even more difficult problem is that of the resolutions and by-forms. We have often stated in Greek, and the same may be said of Latin prose-metre, that in the same author different forms are favoured which show some mutual resemblance. This resemblance is mainly based upon what we are accustomed to call dissolution, and substitution. I think we have even reason to believe that these two words do not exactly render and express the real state of things. On the contrary, as we have seen before, we are not allowed to assert that two short syllables may be somewhere substituted for a long one, nor that one short syllable may replace a long one: it can only be said for instance that an author favours as a clausula either the form — w—, or the form —www, followed by —w. It is even questionable whether the word 'by- 124 form' is correctly used in this connection: it might wrongly suggest that the 'principal' form is more favoured, or more important. It is stated e.g. that in Philo the quotiënt for ———w as a clausula is 1*9 (+), whereas the quotiënt for —w w js only 1 "6 (4-). I think we have sufficiënt reason to assume that —www—w, www w (quotiënt 1*6 (+)), and —w w belong together. Why, however, the form —«*• W should be the most important of these forms, I cannot see. You will note the same facts in the prose of Cicero, where some 'by-forms' are more strongly favoured than the corresponding 'principal' forms, which phenomenon, of course, does not' appear from Zielinski's curious statistics. To antique evidence on this point I referred you before. This incorrect view of 'resolutions', including the conviction that a form containing a series of three short syllables cannot be a principal form, may have caused the wrong conception of the form www—, and the many different opinions about AristoÜe's fourth paeon.*) The question remains: how can it be seen that different forms metrically belong together? It is more easy to state that two forms do not belong together. Nearly everywhere in Greek prose —w—w is favoured, w is sought. So it cannot be asserted *) Cf. esp. Norden, 'Kunstprosa'* p. 916/17. 125 that these forms metrically belong together, unless we should be inclined to cite in favour of this opinion the fact that both forms have been avoided by Plato! It is more diüicult to formulate, when we are allowed to assume that different forms do belong together. Analogy of verse-metre may be applied with caution to show such relations. In verse-metre it is often allowed to use in a certain foot either — or ww. If, indeed, two clausula-forms firsdy contain the same number of morae, secondly differ only in so far that where ww stands in the one form, — stands in the other (e.g. —www—w and —w w)( and thirdly both forms are favoured to nearly the same extent, there arises some probability that these forms belong together. Other arguments may strengthen this probability. In Plato, for instance, in —w ww, in —w w, and in ww, the forms with long final syllable are preferred to those with a short one. Too often, however, the analogy of versemetre is cited as a sufficiënt proof to support most questionable hypotheses. *) Whoever would like to consider the problem of the relation between Greek and Latin prose-metre, should first sharply distinguish between two entirely different *) See Heibges, and his way of grouping different forms together and neglecting the simple form www—. 126 groups of Latin authors. The one group seems to begin chronologically with Cicero. The deviations of his successors from prose-metre point all to the same direction: impoverishment of favourite forms. The number of favourite forms becomes smaller; besides the number of cases of these forms becomes greater, whereas the exceptions gradually disappear: tendencies become laws. The other group o^ authors, however, is quite independent from Cicero. It seems to be mainly represented by Livy and Sallust. Their metre has hardly any features in common with Cicero. Whereas Cicero avoids the heroic clausula, the same form is favoured by Livy and Sallust. The same is true for —-ww. Whereas Livy and Sallust avoid —w—'ètL and —w w, these very forms are among the most favourite of Cicero's sentence-endings. There seems to be no difficulty in finding out the origin of Cicero's clausula. Hegesias of Magnesia shows the same metre in nearly all details. It is not altogether devoid of interest to note that Cicero has imitated from all Greek authors the rhetorician who shows the smallest number of exceptions in the few fragments which have come down to us. Not less interesting is the fact that Cicero imitates all forms which are favoured in Hegesias, whereas he adds only a few to them. That he omits the form wwww only proves that this form did not suit the Latin language. 127 In vain, however, would we try to détermine a possible Greek origin of the clausula of the other group, that is the group of Livy and Sallust. It is true that there exist some correspondence with Plato's later works, but the differences are, however, much greater. We cannot but regard this origin as purely Latin. This purely Latin clausula may have arisen under the influence of the highly refined feeling for the. quantity of syllables, after the Romans had become more familiar with Greek verse. The true origin of this Latin clausula, however, seems to be found in Latin literature itself. It seems to be an imitation (perhaps not altogether conscious) of the hexameter verse. In Demosthenes we often meet with half hexameters, and his prose shows a dactylic character. That no connection whatsoever with the national Greek verse-form should exist here, seems highly improbable. In the same way the metre of Livy has been influenced by Latin hexameters, I think more especially by Virgil. Everybody remembers the beginning of the praefatio: 'facturusne operae pretium sim ....' The clausula of Livy may have been stimulated by his knowledge of Greek literature, but it really strikes us that —*»*—Iée and —m w are avoided, whereas the dactylic forms —ww—w and www are favoured. Of course we can speak of a certain influence only, not of a conscious imitation. This influence quite corresponds 128 with the influence of Virgilian words and syntax on his prose. Therefore it seems probable that we have found here a purely Latin clausula. Now, Latin prose-metre has been directly influenced by Hegesias of Magnesia or other 'Asianic' writers. In his few fragments the following forms appear as favoured ones: most favoured: —w—w (often preceded by a cretic), and —www—w; rather favoured: —w w and wwww. Besides we note among others: —w—www and A curious agreement with Cicero is found in the comparatively high frequency of —www—w, as compared with —w w. An other striking feature is the frequency of —w w—w. It can be seen that Hegesias paid minute attention to his metre as perhaps no other Greek writer, so that his prose reminds us of the constant monotony of the later rhythmical cadences. Cicero omits the form wwww only, which proves that its absence in Latin has to be explained by the character of the language. To the forms of Hegesias he adds a few others, such as —ww—w—w. Though his number of favourite forms is really greater than that of Hegesias, their total frequency does nöt reach the sum total of the cases of 'good' forms in N 129 Hegesias. It is clear from these facts that the exact modelling of Hegesias according to a few patterns points to a later period of evolution, which has lost its freshness. A development of more than one hundred years precedes. Cicero, however, through far from original, shows a freshness which only by his successors degenerates into a ridiculous imitation: later on, when sense for metre is lost, it finds a substitute in rhythmical monotony. Hegesias' metre shows the symptoms of decline, Cicero's richness precedes the gradually increasing impoverishment. Cicero's influence seems to have entirely ousted the more typical Latin clausula. Generally speaking we may say that Greek and Latin prose-metre, though agreeing on many points, also show many differences. It may be that the Latin clausula is here and there longer than the longest Greek forms: e.g. —w—www—w is in vain sought in Greek. In Latin the negative clausula may be less prominent than in Greek, where the avoidance of is one of the typical features. Of course, an exception should be made for the clausula heroica, but though is avoided in Latin, Cicero as well as Apulejus tolerate —w . Typology plays an important part in the clausula in Latin. Here, some of the Greek forms do not appear, more especially wwww and —ww—ww. Nor do we find anywhere in Latin the lively metrical feeling of Plato, 130 whose metrical development begins only late and then gradually shows stronger tendencies. All these questions, however, have to be investigated more closely. The Hellenistic stage seems to us to begin with Hegesias. Though there is some difference between his forms and those of the later authors, his monotony sharply distinguishes him from the classic period. The main characteristics, however, of later Greek prose-metre appear for the first time clearly in Philo. For beside wwww and —w—w, he uses the clausulae _ww—ww, — w w, and —w ww. With him agree Charito, Flavius Josephus, Polemo, and probably Philostratus. Of these forms Plutarch favours only In two brilliant works Wilamowitz contended some years ago that the Atticistic reaction put an end to the Greek clausula.*) He thinks (quoting Marx) that the Asianic clausulae (Hegesias etc.) were introduced into Rome at the times of the Gracchi, and that the whole of Latin literature was uninterruptedly dominated by this Hellenistic tradition. In Greek, this should have been otherwise: by the imiÜation of the Attici the manner of *) Die griech. Lit. des Alt. in 'Kultur des Gegenwart', p. 103—104; Hermes 1900, p. 37 (Asianismus u. Atticismus). 131 Demosthenes and Isocrates would have been restored. I think, this assumption cannot be maintained. Philo, Plutarch and Philostratus cannot be regarded as nonmetrical authors. It cannot be asserted that under the Flavii the clausula did not exist any more. Nor can it be said that — w—w, —w w, and —w ~— are the clausulae of the later prose: wwww is really more typical Greek, and —ww—ww a more typical later Greek form. In fact, Wilamowitz bases himself mainly upon antique statements and upon the a priori investigations of Norden and others. But it would lead us too far to discuss in detail his assertions and the inferences drawn from them. EIGHTH LECTURE. I intend to discuss rhythmical prose in extenso later on. It may be of importance, however, to formulate in a few words the position of the problem. Modern scholars have not yet succeeded in explaining this origin from Greek metrical prose. On the other hand there seems to be a striking agreement between the Greek rhythmical clausula and the Latin. If we try to establish a certain connection between the Greek metrical clausula and the rhythmical, we shall first have to answer three questions. (1) Is it possible that there exists any relation between the long syllable in the quantitative clausula and the accented syllable in the rhythmical cadence? In Latin, the existence of this relation cannot be denied. The relation, however, between quantity and accent is, of course, much more intimate in Latin thart in Greek. (2) Which are the typical forms of the later Greek quantitative clausula, which those of the first Byzantine cadences? (3) What is the typology of the metrical endings, what that of the Byzantine? I shall show later on that it is the typology of the Latin clausula which clearly illustrates the origin of the later prose-rhythm; therefore 133 I highly regret that Harmon hardly investigated the typology of Ammianus Marcellinus, an author especially important on this point. Such an investigation could only have been made by means of a comparative method. In order to explain my hypothesis in a few words, I should like to draw your attentipn to the fact that at the time of the origin of the rhythmical cadence, the Greek language had lost its metrical character. The sense for metre had gone. Also the difference between " and t had disappeared. The metre of ancient verse could be made perceptible to the ear only by changing it into an accentual rhythm, in the same manner in which we ourselves are accustomed to mutilate Homer. Homer, of course, was recited, as we do, in this way: «itocot»tnt/>(/Jtoo>cotoB>toco«»t«>«>» and so on. This means that some long syllables are accentuated, whereas mainly the short ones are not accentuated. In this way modern sense for rhythm is satisfied. It is said that the syllable, thus accented, bears the 'ictus'. This treatment would, no doubt, have greaüy astonished the Greeks theraselves. Now, in the schools of the rhetoricians, the metre of the ancient orators could not be neglected, when the clausula was treated. Their way of reciting the quan- 134 titative clausula cannot but have been like ours, i. e.: substituting rhythm for metre. Thus —ww—ww was treated as In v> v> U co co', —w—w as i » i t» J —'—I w as có co co có co \ —"w w— as co co co co co co • Reading classical authors in this manner was difficult for this reason, that syllables which had what we call the ictus, would be just as well accentuated as the S37llables which had really the grammatical accent. If, therefore, this clausula had to be imitated in some way or other, this could only be done by making the two kinds of accent (I mean the 'ictus' and the word-accent) coincide. So the Greek accent-clausula has not developed from the Greek quantitative clausula, but it is an imitation of it. There is no regular line of development, neither a gradual transition from the one to the other. Wilamowitz, however, is wrong in stating that at the time of the Flavii the old clausulae are done with. Yet there may have been a time when a certain stagnancy begins, when metre and rhythm are lacking. Besides, in the accent-clausula not the slightest attention was paid to quantity in particular places, neither where in the quantity-clausula the syllables were long, nor were they had the 'ictus'. All this would have been the case, as has been said often enough, if the Greek rhythm had developed from the Greek metre. To ascribe, as W. Meyer does (Fragmenta Burana), the origin of a phenomenon which forms so organic and 135 so important a part in the whole of the Greek genius in literature, to the invention of some orator or rhetorican, would be more in accordance with ancient conceptions of history than with ours. On the other hand, the arguments for the derivation from Latin are not very convincing.*) First of all the argument that the use of accent in the clausula is typically Latin, is rather weak. That the Greeks used this accent in the clausula is quite natural in a time when accent-hymns arise independently from Latin. The other argument is the great agreement between the Greek and the Latin clausula. This great agreement, however, does not exist in reality. Firsdy Himerius, as far as I see the oldest accentwriter, has only a preference for the form có co co có • • •, while in Latin có co co co co có ... occurs by the side of có co co có ... . Secondly there is every reason to suppose that in Greek the form có co co co co có ..., where it occurs, is a by-form of <ó co co » ... *). Thirdly in Greek, viz. in Procopius of Caesarea, a form có co có co occurs, no prototype of which is to be found in Latin rhythm. The same holds good for có co co có co co in Sophronius: so in both cases the number of syllables after the last accent is a definite one. Fourthly the typology of the Greek accent-clausula has quite a definite character. As to the typology of the i) See Dewing, Origin, p. 00. *) See De Groot, Prokopius, p.p. 18—20. 136 form (O 0) (0 O) tf> W ***> it does not point back, as it does in Latin, to a Latin (or Greek) typology of the form —w w—, or —w —w( but to a connection with có co co có ..., of which connection not a tracé is to be found in Latin. In Ammianus Marcellinus the typology of the clausula corresponds clearly with that of the quantity-clausula; thus nosse confingit ( có CO ) co có co ) has been most favoured of all types of có co co có ..., which clearly points to the typology —w, and — ww. Neither of the form có co co có ..., nor of —w w or —w w— a special typology has up to now been found in Greek. The form co co co co IS lacking in Latin. In Procopius it shows the typology có CO I co co . The force of this typology is to preserve the falling rhythm also in the word-division. So I CO I co co CO CO 1 co and có i co có co are avoided, just as well as is avoided in the tragic trimeter and still more rigidly of course • • • a^ * ' , ' ) and *) This tendency of avoiding final words of four syllables has nothing to do with the avoidance of final words of five syllables. 137 The clausula-typology has to be explained not by a mysterious fear for the caesura, but by a tendency to intensify the falling rhythm. Now, all this proves that there is a greater agreement between the Greek accent-clausula and the Greek quantitative clausula than between the Greek accent-clausula and the Latin accent-clausula. In Greek the form co co co co co co • • ■ is a by-form of co co co co . . . : the metrical prototype of ói co co co co co... does not occur, unless we want to consider —# M— as such, a form which, of course, develops much more easily into CO CO CO CO CO CO • In Greek the form —M —w does not come to the fore. Quite in agreement with this we observe that Himerius, as well as some of those that come after him, does not know cocococococo.... co co co co is lacking in Latin, also có co co có co co, the prototype of which (—ww—ww) is likewise absent in Latin, and which is highly favoured in later Greek, among others in Philo, Chariton and especially Philemon. In the Greek quantitative clausula typology recedes into the background. In agreement with this the typology of the Greek accent-clausula must be explained independently from Latin and from independent and very general rhythmical tendencies. Where the Greek accent-clausula deviates from the Latin — and that is the case in many respects — these deviations correspond with those between the Greek and 138 Latin quantitative clausula. So the Greek accent-clausula can in no case be derived from the Latin. Thus it becomes clear that, owing to this very imitation, which is no development (in its more limited sense), as it is in Latin, only in later accent-writers the forms có to co co and có co co có co co erop up, forms which both have their prototype in the quantitative cadences. After having given in this way a brief survey of the history of the Greek 'clausula, and of Greek prose-metre in general, as far as our present knowledge of facts enables us to see it, I shall deal in a few words with the means by which clausulae and metre can be produced, to wind up with a few remarks on the results of our investigations for textual criticism. The existence of a certain influence of rhythm upon word-order cannot be denied. Firstly this influence is one of the only two means to arrivé at a definite metre or rhythm. Secondly it is clearly seen from the tendency to put words especially suiting the clausula at the end of the sentence: thus in Cicero 'Antonius', in Plutarch 'yevofiévcov', 'yevófieva', in Plato 'ttvd xqótiov' etc. are frequently used at the close of the period or colon. Thirdly it is known to have influenced the order 139 of the two last words of the sentence, e.g. in Cicero: 'videtur esse' instead of esse videtur, in Plato 'xivd xqójiov , but not xqójiov xtvd, and so on. The problems, however, concerning this influence cannot be studied very well, because of two deplorable facts. Firsdy because the laws of Greek word-order are only insufficiendy known to us, and secondly because the laws of Greek prose-metre and prose-rhythm are even less known to us. Therefore it may suffice to illustrate its importance by a few examples. A few years ago Pohlenz dealt with the group of manuscripts of Plutarch A containing a Byzantine recension of some works, in which many clausulae have been altered to suit Byzantine prose-rhythm. A clear example of this tendency is the alteration of xal a> có »). ojiovóaonxog del co»co to)', vófioim fiev roioviotoi ovxoi xt?&°»'ia< becomes roiovtotg fiér iXQCÓvto 'EqovXoi to naXaióv vófioiG (. .. co , w . . •)', êtdaoovto de dtde becomes xal èza£avro d>öe (co co co co co). With this question that of the influence of metre upon choice of words is closely connected. Also this influence exists undoubtedly, as it is one of the few means to arrivé at a favourite metre. Further its existence is proved by 1) See Crönert [on Haury]. 2) See Braun, Die Nachahmung Herodots duren Frokop. 142 simple statistics which show the use of óg and Su in the Phaedrus between syllables of different quantity. From these figures it can be inferred that the use of <5s or 8xi is influenced by the metr*. The choice made between them has mostly been determined by the choice between good and bad metre, in casu the choice between logaoedic and other metres. The importance of this influence can be seen from the following examples. As the metre has influenced the use óf nomina, forms of the verb, etc. in the hexameter to a great extent, so the use of the x-forms of the aorist in Demosthenes is determined by his tendency to avoid www, wwww, etc. He prefers èdutxafiev to edofiev, èömxaxe to ëdoie, and so on.!) When comparing Isaeus 8, 12 with Demosthenes 30, 37 2) the same fact can be seen: www dxQifièaiatov ëXeyxov Isaeus. axoifieoxarrfv Ttao&v Demosthenes. wwww avviaxe ydg 8xi has been omitted by Demosthenes. www ttvèg t!do£av ov xèXrjvxr) fiaoxvofjocu. rivet; ov xakrjdrj fiaQtVQrjoai êöo^av. Further the use of fiovfooêcu in Plato's later works becomes more and more limited in favour of êêéhtvs) 1) Fuhr, Rh. Mus. 57, 1902, p. 426 sqq. 2) Fuhr, Berl. Philol. Woch. 1904, col. 1030 sq. 3) This factor has been neglected by Rödiger, Glotta 8, 1917, p. 16. 143 (esp. êede êêélei www«4*—), for woneo is used xadajieo, for ëojojieo fd%QmeQ> anc* so on- Otrier examples I gave before. In quotations conscious alterations can be stated. More examples might easily be given to illustrate this tendency. I sincerely hope that I have been able to show the desirability or rather the urgent necessity of studying and investigating the relation between choice of words, order of words, and prose-metre in a much more satisfactory and exhaustive manner. In conclusion I want to make a few remarks on the importance of metre for textual criticism. As regards criticism of manuscripts, we can investigate whether different manuscripts of the same author differ from the audiëntie text. These differences may point, as far as we are interested here, into two directions: they may be rhythmical deviations or non-rhythmical deviations. With non-rhythmical deviations I mean deviations which have been introduced without any attention to the metre or the rhythm of the author. With rhythmical deviations I mean deviations which have been introduced in order to produce a certain rhythm. A peculiar instance of non-rhythmical deviations is offered by some manuscripts of Procopius of Caesarea. Crönert thinks that these alterations have been made in order to get a more 'open' rhythm, i.e. something like a rhythm with a 144 considerable number of unaccented syllables between the two last accented ones. The clausula: ramt] wxrjvxai for instance is changed into &xr\vxm xavxr); dgxrjv ëxcov into ë/wv agxrjV, and so on. The correctness of this remark seems to be liable to serious doubt. For if it were correct, there would be here a tendency hitherto unknown, viz. a tendency to get many (the more the better) unaccented syllables between the last two accented ones. This tendency has not yet been found anywhere. As, however, the principal feature of the rhythm of Procopius is a tendency to get few unaccented syllables between the two last accented ones (... w f l> có u>, có w, ... có co co co...), most deviations from this rule may seem to produce a more 'open' rhythm. A more interesting case is offered by the Byzantine manuscripts of Plutarch's Moralia of which I spoke before. Here the metre of Plutarch himself is changed into the rhythm of the later centuries. Here we observe the struggle between the sense for metre of the second century, and the sense for rhythm of a later period. As regards the criticism of single passages, our knowledge of prose-metre may be used (1) in order to choose between readings of different manuscripts, (2) in order to alter the text of our manuscripts. Of course the principal factors which have to be taken into account here are those which have nothing to 145 do with prose-metre itself. These factors are e.g. the general value of our manuscripts, the general character of the Greek language, the syntax of the author in question, and so on. These factors must form the basis of all further speculations. They must play a predominant part especially there where a certain reading occurs in all manuscripts, or in the archetype of our manuscripts. In order to détermine the importance of prose-metre for textual criticism, it is necessary to ascertain what value we would ascribe to it in such cases where we have to decide between two equivalent readings of two quite equivalent manuscripts. In this case, i.e. ceteris omnibus paribus, one will be mclined to decide^in favour of the better metre. What is 'better' metre? I have tried to show before that it is not the 'best' clausula, i.e. neither the most frequent form at the end of the sentence, nor the form which is most favoured at the end of the sentence, as compared with the metre of the whole sentence. On the contrary, it is the form the frequency of which most deviates from non-metrical prose. I need not dweil any longer upon the different factors which are at work here: (1) the dependence of the author upon the very limited choice of words of the language, and upon syntactical rules, (2) the preference for metrical forms in the whole sentence, (3) the preference for metrical forms at the end of a sentence only. The strongest arguments 146 exist there where forms which occur rather frequently in the ordinary language are not or are hardly ever found in a certain text, such as e.g. www, wwww, etc. in Demosthenes, , 1 etc. in Plutarch, ww w and —w—w as clausulae in Plato's later years, and so on. Much less convincing may be the argumentation where we have to decide between two more or less favoured forms. As to such questions many premature conclusions have been made. They can mostly be traced to an application of metrical rules to textual criticism without sufficiendy knowing the rules themselves. Thus Baehrens in his treatment of the clausula of Apulejus entirely ne- glects the form — w , so that he rejects rea- dings such as: acrius contemplantes —w . The general merits, however, of his investigations are, of course, hardly diminished by these errors of less importance. NINTH LECTURE. With the phüological problems presenting themselves to us in a statistical treatment of antique prose-rhythm some others of more mathematical nature are closely connected. Suppose that in one author on 1000 syllables 100 cases of —w_ have been found, and, on the other hand, in an other author on 1000 syllables 200 cases of the same form, is there any reason to infer from this difference that there exists a real metrical difference between the two texts which cannot be ascribed to chance? Suppose that there is indeed a real metrical difference between these two authors, is it correct to measure this difference 200 by means of a quotiënt ^ = 2? Would it be possible to find a figure which might express how much greater the chance is that a real difference exists in this case than that it is merely due to chance? So far as I know, these problems, which I think we may regard as the most important of all those with which we have dealt as yet, have been fully neglected by recent scholars. The consequences of this attitude towards methodological questions have occasionally been shown by me. And yet the same or nearly the same questions have presented themselves in other branches of science, 148 such as e.g. in astronomy, in biology, in differential psychology. Now, in all these cases they have been setüed in a rather satisfactory way. We shall often start from the results obtained there as a basis for the following researches. 1. In classifying the different metrical forms which may occur in antique prose, I often referred you to a scheme of the 128 combinations of eight syllables that may be either long or short, the quantity of the final one, however, being neglected. It is superfluous to emphasize the fact that in doing so, no length whatsoever of the clausula is postulated. To investigate eight syllables is not the same as to contend that the clausula comprises eight syllables. On the contrary, this is the only possible way to fix the real length of the clausula. Where we are able to state in the sentence a frequency of 2% for w—w_w and 0f 2V2% tor w——f on the other hand at the end of the sentence a frequency of 4% for w—w—w( and of 5% Ior w——> ^ appears from these simple facts that the quantity of the first of these five syllables in the clausula is indifferent Sentence Clausula- metre. 2-00/0 2-5% metre. 4- 0 o/0 5- 0 o/o Quotiënt. 2(+) 2(+) 149 From this we may infer that the form ——w has been feit as a metrical unity in itself, and that the length of the clausula here comprises four syllables, although five or perhaps even more have been investigated. In this way it becomes clear in what way the different combinations have to be grouped. At first sight we might be inclined to group in this way: and so on. This way of grouping has been followed by Kaluscha. Serious objections have to be made against it. We are justified in assuming that the more distant a syllable from the end of the sentence the more its quantity will be metrically indifferent. Consequently it is desirable not to separate cases such as w——w and 5—'—w( which differ only as regards their first syllable, or ww—ww and —wwww( for which the same is true. On the contrary metrically they belong together. Therefore the best way of grouping is that in which the same combinations of the final syllables are put together, viz.: 150 and so on. 2. The rehability of the results of our investigation firsdy depends on the exactness with which the quantity of the syllables investigated has been fixed. In doing so errors have undoubtedly been made. It is practically impossible tó détermine the quantity of hundreds of thousands of syllables without making mistakes now and then. Where, however, the material investigated is so large, such errors tend to neutralize each other. But we meet with another far more important difficulty. It is rather indifferent whether in comparing the prose-metre of Plutarch with that of Thucydides we shall take e.g. noirjam as or as ; nor is it very important whether we shall regard avxov f)v as , or as —w—. Provi- ded that we apply the same rules in both cases, they can never have bad consequences. There is no reason whatsoever tó suppose that any rule consistendy applied may cause a difference e.g. in favour of the frequency of 151 —w—w in Plutarch. On the contrary, suppose we have registered a material of 1000 cases investigated in A (a non-metrically writing author), as well as in some other author, whom we may call B. We have assumed that muta cum liquida nowhere lengthens a syllable which contains a short vowel. We state that nowhere differences arise which point to a preference or an avoidance of some form in B. Let the same procedure of collecting material be applied, but let us now assume that muta cum liquida lengthens a syllable everywhere. What will happen now? Many syllables which were short according to the first scansion become long now. These syllables are distributed in a most accidental way. Owing to this the number of cases of each combination in both statistics (i.e. that for the author A and that for the author B) will become larger in proportion as the number of long syllables which the combination contains, is larger, and the reverse. For instance, the combination wwwwwwww will lose the greatest number of cases. If the syllables in question (i.e. those syllables containing a short vowel before muta cum liquida) were all penults, the influence of this procedure would be feit only in a special way. For instance the frequency of w would increase at the expense of the frequency of ww. If they were all antepenults of the sentence, the frequency for instance of w 152 woulds increase at the expense of the frequency of —w—w j the 'doublé spondee' would get a higher percentage; in the same way the frequency of»— w would increase at the expense of the frequency of —ww—wf and so on. In both authors, in A as well as in B, this would be the case to the same extent. A comparison of the final figures resulting from our latter way of scanning would yield the same result as the figures of our former investigation, viz. that no metrical difference whatsoever would exist between both authors. *) The question becomes quite different, when we apply different rules of scansion to these two authors. Suppose we compare authors living in times quite dis tan t from one another, so that the pronunciation has considerably changed. Suppose that in A muta cum liquida lengthens by position, but not so in B. If in scanning one takes these differences into account, corresponding differences will arise in the statistics, which are caused by this factor only. It may appear that the author B suddenly shows a great frequency of —w—w( or other inexplainable tendencies. Nor need I say much on this point: in comparing the metres of two different authors one should apply exactly the same *) That is why the remarks of Münscher, who expresses his doubt as to the results of such researches, as it had not been clearly stated in what way dubious quantities had been regarded, are incorrect. Compare Bursian's Jahresbericht. 153 rules for each of them. Even if the pronunciation has changed according to time or place, these changes have to be quite neglected and on purpose. It does not matter how we regard either of these dubious cases, whether we suppose that muta cum liquida lengthens a syllable, or not. Suppose that it could be proved that in Plutarch the vowels e, o and v had to be regarded as being long, this evolution had to be neglected. For if we did not, any comparison with Thucydides for instance would be made impossible. In comparing, however, the sentencemetre of one author with the clausulae of the same author, we are allowed to take it into account. From this it appears again, how methodologically interesting the investigation of antique prose-rhythm is. When once by means of these seemingly inexact statistical methods the tendencies have been ascertained, the true quantity of the syllables can often be determined with the help of even these tendencies. If an author uses cases of muta cum liquida by preference there where the metrical tendencies favour a short syllable, e.g. ovx ajioxgovsi, eis avxovs duioxMveiv, etc. at the end of a sentence, while he generally prefers —ww—w to —w wt this may become the clue to his metrical appreciation of muta cum liquida. Then, it must be borne in mind that in the figures given for the frequency of the metrical forms in the whole 154 sentence, those for the forms occurring at the end of the sentence will necessarily be partly included. Should we try to exclude them from our statistics, we should be obliged to assume a certain length of the clausula, and it is this very length which we are trying to détermine. In comparing, however, the figures for the sentence with those for the end of the sentence, the real differences will never disappear. This comparison will show all' the metrical differences between the clausula and the remaining part of the sentence. If, for instance, an author wholly avoids w—-w— in the sentence, but seeks this same form as a sentence-ending, our statistics for the whole sentence will comprise some cases of it. Nevertheless its frequency in our clausula-statistics will be much greater, and in this manner the difference will appear very clearly. In order to be able to compare results obtained by different scholars, it is desirable to mention what has been chosen in such dubious cases. Therefore I shall give a list of the principal rules applied here. ovv-, not tvv-\ aki and det 1 noteïv J a short vowel is not lengthened before muta cum liquida, except before Pp, jiv, yp, yv, óp, óv; nor is a long vowel shortened before an initial vowel of a following word; elision of a short final vowel is accepted as a rule any where before an initial vowel of the next word (except of course o« before a 155 vowel etc.) a long final vowel is never elided, nor shortened avtov i)v — : 3. In the second place the reliability of the results depends upon the extent of the material, that is the number of cases investigated. If we have investigated two clausulae of the author a, and two clausulae of the author B, we are hardly allowed to draw any inference whatsoever from the figures thus obtained. If we should find in a two forms ——w( and in B two forms 'm, then this does not prove: (1) that all clausulae of a are —it*—w, nor (2) that all clausulae of B are — w( nor (3) that there is any difference between the clausulae of a and those of B. If, however, we should have investigated 1000 clausulae taken from a at random, all of which will prove to be of the form ——éé| and likewise from B 1000 clausulae, all of which will prove to be of the form w, we should be allowed to infer with great probability: (1) that in a about 100% of the clausulae are of the form —ré—£-3 (2) that in B about 100% of the clausulae are of the form jüj (3) that there exists a difference between the clausulaeforms of a in general, and those of B in general. 156 From this example it will be clear to you that the number of cases investigated highly influences the reliability of the results. I shall take another example. If we should take from A three clausulae, one of which would prove to be of the form ——the other, however, of the form w, we should not be able to infer that probably in A about 33% of the clausulae would be of the form —w—w, and about 67% of the form te. If, however, we should have found on 1000 clausulae 330 of the form —0—w, and 670 of the form w( this conclusion would hardly be premature. If a second group of 1000 cases would yield the same figures, our probability would virtually become a certainty. The question which will occupy us next is the following: is it possible to détermine in a scientific way what degree of certainty a material of 1000 cases is able to give? 4. It cannot be my task to deal here with the purely mathematical side of the subject, as it would not be possible for me to give you an independent judgment on such questions. Only the practical side of the problems can interest us. An empirically found percentage represents only seldom quite exactly the true proportions. As a rule the 157 percentage forms only an approximation to the true ratios. The mean error of such a percentage can be expressed by a formula mean error = 1/ ——N~~ where / represents the percentage, and N the number of cases investigated. Can this formula be applied to our philological material? Now, we can investigate whether in dividing our material into groups the formula e1 = ~\/ ——-, where d — percentage of a single group minus the average percentage of the five groups, and n — the number of groups, agrees with the formula e2 = J/' ——fl~~^> where p = percentage of a single group, and N — number of cases of the group. In order to answer this question I divided my material fór the sentence-metre of Livy into five groups of 200 cases. For each of these groups I calculated first the percentage of each of the sixteen possible combinations of 5 syllables (the last being taken as anceps), further of each 5 corresponding percentages the average, then with the help of these figures s1 and Of course our material of every time five cases does not suffice to expect an exact agreement of cx and 158 TABLE. Livy, sentence-metre, five groups of 200 cases.

7 +0.9 49 - 56 w ^w 13 13 14 16 io 66 11 18 —07 57—64 ww 15 15 25 30 26 11 1 3 4 2 2 + 1*2 65—72 www—w 9 3 5 6 4 27 V2 11 +01 73—80 —ww—w 15 12 8 13 15 6"3 T4 17 —0-3 81—88 w_w—w 2 10 15 9 7 43 2"4 14 +10 89—96 w_w 25 19 17 15 19 95 18 21 —03 97—104 ww w 7 16 5 7 7 4"2 22 VS +0.7 105—112 —w w 12 26 21 20 20 99 2"5 21 +0.4 113—120 w w is 20 18 18 13 8 7 2 3 2 0 +1 3 121—128 w 44 24 46 20 32 16 6 5 8 2 6 +3-2 The result is that in 11 of the 16 cases the figure found in an a posteriori way is higher than the a priori one; in 5 cases it is smaller. It appears from this that indeed *) n I t) N 200, ƒ = average %. 159 the formula 1 />(100-/) N ' within the limits of the ex- actness necessary for our purpose, is applicable to our philological calculations. 4. In dealing with problems to be considered now for the mean error of an empirically found percentage is applicable to our philological material. The question must be considered somewhat as follows. Let it be granted for the sake of argument that the Laws are a metrically homogeneous unity, and that the real percentage of the doublé trochees at the end of the sentence is 6. If this be the case, we may reason as follows. If a material of 1000 clausulae is taken from the Laws, and the number of doublé trochees is calculated, we shall get the figure a. Another group of 1000 clausulae will give for the same form a figure b, and so on. The errors which are made are a—6, b—6, etc. These errors are probably distributed in accordance with the law of accidental errors. Half the number of the figures a—6, b—6, etc, if distributed ideally, will he between -0-6745 Y*\P) »d +0'6745 V*™^* we shall assume that the formula e ssz V Xi oo-/) N the other half lies outside these limits. 160 Only 454 on 10000 cases with lie outside the limits -2 K-1^ md +2 Vm^L-- Only 26 on 10000 cases will lie outside the limits -3 and +3 Vpm^p)- To simplify such calculations I give here a table, taken from W. Johannsen, Elemente der ex akten Erblichkeitslehre, 2nd ed., Kopenhagen 1913, p. 74. 161 TABLE of the number of deviations on 10000 which, in the case of an ideal distribution, will lie be between deviation = 0 , • • d and some positive or some negative deviatiön — —. Number of Number of Number of d (deviation) deviations d (deviation) deviations d (deviation) deviations on 10000 on 10000 on 10000 e between e between e between 0 and d. 0 and d. 0 and d. 0.00 0 1.50 4332 3.0 4987 0.05 199 1 55 4394 3.1 4990 0.10 398 1.60 4452 3.2 4993 0.15 596 1.65 4505 3.3 4995 0.20 793 1 70 4554 3.4 4997 0.25 987 1.75 4599 3.5 4998 0 30 1179 1 80 4641 3.6 4999 0.35 1368 1.85 4678 3.7 4999 0.40 1554 1.90 4713 3.8 4999 0.45 1736 1.95 4744 3.9 5000 0.50 1915 2.00 4773 5000 0.55 2088 2.05 4798 0.60 2258 2.10 4821 0.65 2422 2.15 4842 0.70 2580 2.20 4861 0.75 2734 2.25 4878 0.80 2881 2.30 4893 0.85 3023 2.35 4906 0.90 3159 2.40 4918 0.95 3289 2.45 4929 1.00 3413 2.50 4938 1 05 3531 2.55 4946 1.10 3643 2.60 4953 1.15 3749 2.65 4960 1.20 3849 2.70 4965 1.25 3944 2.75 4970 1.30 4032 2.80 4970 1.35 4115 2.85 4978 1.40 4192 2.90 4981 1.45 4265 2.95 4984 162 5. So with the help of the figures obtained in this manner, it will be possible to détermine how great the chance is that the difference between two percentages which are empirically found is the (exact or inexact does not matter) expression of a real difference, a true tendency. If it could be assumed as a certainty for instance, that the figure 14-2% for the frequence of —w m non-metrical prose is correct, and if we should find a frequency of 29 % of the same form in Plutarch, it could be calculated how much greater the chance is that there exists a real metrical difference between these two texts on this point, than that no such metrical difference exists. Another question arises. Suppose that the frequency of _w_w in non-metrical prose is 14-2%, in Plutarch 29-0%, how can this difference be measured? At first sight one would be inclined to measure the tendency which has caused the deviation of 290% from 14-2% by taking the difference between the two figures: 29-0 (o/0) - 14-2 (0/0) = 14-8. If this should be done, the conclusion must be accepted that the tendency causing a deviation of 16 % in metrical prose from 1 % in non-metrical prose is exactiy as strong as that causing a deviation of 50% in metrical prose from 65% in non-metrical prose. And yet it is easy to see that, when only 1 % of a certain form occurs in non-metrical prose, it is much more difficult for an artist 163 to raise a figure from 1 (%) to 16(°/0) than to raise a figure from 50 (%) to 65 (%). Owing to this difficulty in using the difference between two percentages as a formula for measuring the tendency, it appears to be more simple to express the strength of the tendency by means ol a quotiënt -y and Is this way of expressing the strength of the tendency quite correct? I am not able to answer this question. Leaving alone the question, whether it is possible at all to measure pscyhical tendencies in a scientific way, supposing for a moment that theoretically it would be possible to do so, it is extremely difficult to give this answer. In favour, however, of the quotiënt some undeniable facts may be cited. If it be assumed that in non-metrical prose the form —w—w has a frequency of 12 %, and that in this prose the ratio in which short syllables stand to long syllables is 1 : 3, the frequency of w—w—w will be 3/0, and of w_w will be 9%. Now, if there exists some metrical text, where this ratio of the number of long syllables to that of the short ones is quite the same, but where exists a preference for one metrical form only, viz. —<**—w, the frequency 164 of which form is twice as great, viz. 24%, we shall get the following scheme: Non-metrical Metrical prose. prose. Quotiënt, w—w-w. 3/0 6 0/0 2 9> s5 ™ S 8 ReP- Laws. cl, ^ H X Q Q jj o.. I i I i — — 350 2 360 0 369 3 329 9 346 5 249-7 328 0 259-3 — 1339 133-8 128 6 1439 1370 1462 1128 155-0 1540 1580 -2— 673 61 1 64-3 1143 72.5 640 47 5 594 570 528 —3— 26 3 26-9 26 5 8-6 25*0 30 7 40 3 60-8 27 0 48 5 —4— 90 98 9 7 1-5 95 90 18-3 6-6 100 73 — 5— 29 3-3 15 0-8 25 27 6-3 28 30 26 —6— 1-5 1-5 13 0-1 1-2 2-8 08 0*8 —7— 04 03 03 0-6 01 —8— 02 01 02 01 10 —9— 01 0-3 10 — 10— -11- 01 FREQUENCY OF EACH OF THE 128 FORMS IN DIFFERENT AUTHORS. For Thucydides Hude's edition has been used. For his sentence-metre the beginning of the first book has been scanned. For his clausula see my paper in Classical Quarterly 1915, p. 231 sqq. For Isocrates the edition of Benseler and Blass, Leipzig 1886, has been used. For Xenophon the 'editio minor' of A. Hug, 1905, has been used. The beginning of the Cyropaedia has been taken. 177 For Demosthenes the edition of Weil has been used. The figures for his sentence-metre have been taken from the first 1000 syllables of Phil. A, item of Olynth. A and B, and the others from the beginning of Olynth. JT. The clausulae of Demosthenes (898 cases) are those of Phil. A, Olynth. A, B, r, LTegl xrjs eiotjvrjg, Phil. B, LTegl x&v èv Xeggovvrjocp, Phil. r, LTeol ovvld^eojs. For Plutarch the edition of Lindskog and Ziegler has been used; for the other lives that of Sintenis; for the Moralia that of Hatsidakis. For his sentence-metre the beginning of the live of Pyrrhus has been investigated. For his clausula see Classical Quarterly 1915, p. 231—32. For Plato the edition of Burnet has been used. The figures for his sentence-metre have been taken from the beginning of the first book of the Laws. For Philo the edition of Cohn and Wendland has been made use of. The figures of his sentence-metre have been taken from the beginning of LTeol nlas (vol. V, p. 279 etc.) The figures for his clausulae have been derived from vol. V, p. 279 sqq. (LTeol ydavêgamlas etc, 500 cases). 178 Thucydides. Sentence-metre. Thucydides. Clausula. Xenophon. Sentence-metre. Demosthenes. Sentence-metre. Demosthenes. Clausula. Plutarch. Sentence-metre. Plutarch Clausula. Plato. Laws. Sentence-metre. PhÜö Sentence-metre. Philö; Clausula. Isocrates. Clausula. Sum total: 1000 1000 lOOcjlOOO 1000 898 1000|l00o|l000|l00o|l000 500 | 338 I —— ~— | ■— 1 ————. 000001 1 122001 2 ———— 2121002214200 3 ————— 43 51 103625030 4 —— _— 12623123 10 5610 5 ————— 33521 12449210 6 — ——— 4672012582501 7 — ——— 3653003436700 8 ——— 3693025245800 9 —_—— 15541 17 12 76541 10 ———— 4345339 16 15 10 66 1 11 — _—— 2272006894772 12 . —— 7776316 12 75971 13 — —— 3777039 13 14 10 562 14 — 5953249 10 18 8872 15 — •_ —— 711 88 1 1 4 14 14 39 1 2 16 _ —— 7 6 11 5 2 4 11 19 .11 12 10 11 4 17 —————— 34 1 0002 3 54 1 5 0 18 ————— 24 1 8 1 2911 36 350 19 ——— 6853766423 850 20 ————— 8 2 12 6 13 13 19 5 5 6 5 2 4 21 ■ —— 362 1 5211 17 6372 1 22 —————— 6 5 1 5 10 10 12 9 8 7 7 6 1 23 — ———— 54458597 10 431 1 24 - >—w 4 9 9 6 8115 5 15 6 6 5 2 25 —— <— 4 3 3 1 0 010 4 5 6 3 0 0 26 —— — ——— 6 6 511 9117 3 4 8 6 2 1 27 —— ——— 9087 10 515 36594 1 28 —— 738568 879 12 93 1 29 — —— 2 8 6 811 3 8 3 811 6 1 1 30 —— —— 13 6 8 10 5 7 8 12 7 7 10 1 1 31 — —— 11 4 12 8 8 6 8 4 8 9 9 5 4 32 ——— 15 6 13 15 5 6 | 1 3 4 12 10 | 2 4 179 Thucydides. Sentence-metre. Thucydides. Clausula. Xenophon. Sentence-metre. Demosthenes. Sentence-metre. Demosthenes. Clausula. Plutarch. Sentence-metre. Plutarch. Clausula. Plato. Laws. Sentence-metre. Phila Sentence-metre. Philo Clausula. Isocrates. Clausula. Sum total: 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 898 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 500 338 33 WWW WW—WW 38 — w—_ ■ ww 46 —ww 56 w 3 58 — ww 59 w —w 60 ww 62 — ■ w-w 63 w ïtiak 64 ww 1 1 3 8 6 7 8 8 6 10 4 4 4 4 6 13 0 6 8 7 4 5 10 11 11 7 6 16 7 14 7 26 4 3 7 4 6 7 12 2 3 6 2 6 2 2 7 11 2 5 5 4 8 7 8 4 7 6 8 9 8 3 3 12 3 6 5 9 3 3 4 5 2 4 1 5 11 5 5 2 1 2 5 8 4 5 9 6 4 6 11 6 8 10 11 13 1 2 6 8 2 4 4 10 4 5 5 6 1 7 11 12 3 2 4 11 6 7 5 8 10 10 8 12 6 8 11 26 0 2 3 1 6 18 11 9 0 11 3 16 7 12 7 11 0 1 2 15 8 8 12 13 2 16 5 16 14 11 4 17 1 0 0 3 4 8 7 13 0 4 3 8 6 10 7 5 0 2 11 17 5 7 11 13 1 9 6 8 9 9 16 9 4 0 2 0 14 3 7 5 14 8 12 3 8 5 7 5 4 2 11 4 5 2 10 3 11 4 9 3 16 3 6 2 2 2 14 6 15 2 9 6 8 1 15 4 9 8 8 5 9 3 4 7 12 5 11 7 5 4 17 2 7 7 3 7 2 2 9 14 5 7 5 5 0 4 1 0 3 8 7 4 3 4 1 7 6 4 4 6 2 3 4 2 7 6 4 2 1 9 6 7 4 4 0 11 7 3 0 6 2 4 5 10 2 9 4 8 1 7 5 14 13 2 3 7 10 15 13 16 2 1 0 3 1 1 9 1 1 14 2 2 5 6 1 6 10 0 11 11 1 9 4 1 5 1 0 10 0 0 7 0 0 5 1 1 5 1 0 13 2 1 6 1 1 13 1 2 6 4 0 11 3 1 7 5 1 10 4 0 4 4 2 12 6 1 14 7 0 10 6 3 5 0 0 7 7 0 8 1 1 8 10 3 9 4 2 20 8 1 8 6 2 11 9 6 180 •Sa 4§ *' 3 8 e g fi « jq g i « "gg g >> fi .2 B B CO CO C/3" CO CO CO Sum total: 11000 1000|l000|l000|l0(X)j 898 11000 100ü|l00o|l000|l000 500 | 338 1 i i i i 2521 00 1 723 1 1 2 43 10 2 1 026364 1 2 4563013665323 11 7841 18736826 44473 1 10 14 10 8384 3 10 3632 19 3 18 5584 7 18 6 8 1 3 18 15 6 12 13 4 7 13 15 9 10 4 5 11 12 16 15 11 11 5 4565016354200 7 11 14 4 29 25 5 7 4 1 6 2 5 5 14 648 13 10 643524 9 12 13 5 18 17 7 8 4 5 21 i 3 79114 22 12 55723 1 7 7859 17 10 13 7865 1 2 10 11 5 8 16 13 4 4 5 13 11 1 9 16 11 16 17 17 14 1 7 10 18 11 1 10 433302 511843 1 1 6 12 9 6 0 3 10 20 23 9 12 2 4 9 5 10 3 11 9 14 14 16 2 5 3 1 11 10 9 9 14 10 6 19 14 5 8 8 3 77884 10 9 17 14 3862 758 6287 11 94330 8623579 18 17 442 1 13 11 20 17 11 16 9 18 24 8 7 1 7 70830 1 9 20 12 6411 4 6 11 6 5 14 16 10 16 34 10 11 5 2 7 14 5 6 10 5 5 26 16 8 10 4 0 16 13 13 8 8 22 19 18 21 12 10 11 9 10 12 9 13 9 12 12 11 25 6 6 3 2 14 8 11 10 10 18 10 28 21 2 16 8 6 5 7 8 7 10 14 7" 26 18 13 12 10 5 14 16 15 21 16 | 17 6 23 14 13 8 12 11 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 181 II li lifilif! a |!l o-loi if üü °« Cb2bO_SBC 3 ai o S Ui SPh j o « ll £° II §3 §ösl" Sö M * u Sum total: 97 98 96 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 100ü|l000|l00ojl000 1000[ 898 |l000|l000|l000 1000 1000 500 338 i i i I 2 3 6 2 014 3 1 5 2 3 0 6 6 8 5 0 2 3 6 1 3 5 6 5 6 9 9 7 1 1 10 6 6 10 12 8 2 11 10 11 10 0 3 8 12 13 20 9 6 4 2 14 15 7 14 3 7 2 7 7 10 2 4 5 11 12 5 17 9 17 6 10 5 6 3 4 13 14 14 9 22 9 6 6 9 6 13 3 4 6 19 22 16 19 12 9 5 4 8 13 0 5 11 5 12 5 1 1 11 9 4 15 9 5 2 6 14 15 6 15 7 8 12 17 3 11 11 1 13 9 7 9 7 6 11 12 12 6 8 9 6 10 8 8 13 8 11 7 13 16 8 17 14 7 12 12 10 7 7 5 4 10 8 8 8 8 4 7 10 12 8 14 15 8 14 13 12 17 11 5 10 12 16 13 12 12 10 17 12 10 15 11 6 19 21 16 17 15 15 ■ 6 14 13 13 13 11 11 11 33400422842 1 9 16 10 16 1 1 14 4 7 15 9 0 0 9 10 8 7 19 11 7 3 7 8 7 3 3 14 11 11 15 30 16 3 4 3 9 11 0 6 9 8 10 5 14 4 5 1 7 10 5 1 5 12 10 6 16 12 8 14 5 2 7 10 1 1 20 14 12 10 18 12 9 8 8 12 9 4 3 19 21 16 20 15 15 7 4 10 21 10 4 9 9 12 5 10 1 1 5 7 6 18 6 0 3 5 12 10 12 16 18 7 4 2 14 8 0 1 7 11 8 13 13 16 8 3 4 8 6 1 2 17 13 16 18 19 15 13 5 4 13 8 2 6 12 13 12 16 11 6 1 8 6 12 11 0 5 5 14 9 22 10 17 6 11 4 16 13 2 4 17 17 7 27 11 15 8 9 4 21 7 2 9 28 12 23 49 | 9 14 I 3 3 3 31 5 1 5 182 THRASYMACHUS. The few fragments wich have come down to us, do not enable us to draw certain conclusions with regard to his preference for any forms. Only the form —w—w shows a high frequency which may not be due altogether to chance. On 12 sentence-endings we find 427 of this of form. These 12 sentence-endings are the following. CrjTOVOtv êxdtegoi. dvdyxt] dè Xéysiv. vnoo/rjoet xdg alttas. ngóg aXXtjkovs éfptxéoêai. ioaxpgovov/uev. loiovrov toxai\ Xóyco Evóvxa. ovaa naoiv. nvv&dvEO&al. 2 21-24 — 18 20 1-8 —w 20 33 9-16 —36 52 5-4 35-36 ———11 1-3 69-72 — — 27 35 37—40 — ——— 2 9 2 1 105—112 — _± 8-8 94 9.2 53-56 — 3 0 26 18 41-48 — 51 37 97-100 2 5 3 1 57-60 — 40 29 61-64 54 34 57-64 9.4 63 73-80 — 65 79 115 — -w 113-120 — — 10-3 8-5 121-128 — 10-0 97 113-128 —i_ 20 4 183 208 101-104 — — 26 61 92 - — w 91-92 -— _w 2 3 2-3 51-52 —— 15 11 The great majority of the forms which as regarded by Röllman as being favoured in Thucydides are avoided in Greek prose, e.g. —w—( —w—w ww w 185 —ww ww—, etc. They comprise nearly: 33—64, 17—32, 101—104. The forms —ww comprise in Thucydides' sentence-metre 23-8 %- m ms clausula 18-4 °/o, in the clausula of the more rhetoric parts 14-6 %. So, if any forms have been favoured by him in the speeches (—wwww? —ww—w? and others), the statements of Röllmann seem to be wholly false. DEMOSTHENES. Comparison of his clausula with his sentence-metre. Number of Sentence- Clausula- Favoured the form. Form. metre. metre. forms. 17-18 www—www 0-1 o/o 0-2 81-96 — w—w 12-4 189 — w 21-24 —— ; 3-1 31 1-8 w w— 64' 2'6 07 — M 128 2.8 09 5-5 1-9 26 2.8 45 21 17 09 For Quotiënt. h (+) ii (+) 1-5 (—) 3-1 (-) etc. see page 176. ISOCRATES. Comparison of the frequency of the clausula of Isocrates with that of Thucydides. The short penult seems to have been avoided by Isocrates. Favoured is every form with lqng penult: w. w, 189 Isocrates Thucydides. (Panegyricus). Clausula. Clausula. Quotiënt, (sum total 2000 (sum total 338 cases). cases). 1-8 wwJ 3-3 % 06 5-5 (-) 9_16 -wwwü 52 45 12 (—) 17-18 — -ww— 05 O'O ~ (—) 19-20 -ww-www 1-4 12 1-2 (-) 21-24 -w-www 20 12 17 (- 25-32 ww- 50 39 13 (- 33-34 www w- 08 03 2"7 - 35-36 -www-w- II 0-9 1-4 (- 37-40 -ww-ww 21 0-9 f3 - 41_48 -w-ww 37 T5 15 - 49-52 ww w— 16 0-6 2 7 (-) 53-56 -w w~ 2 6 18 14 - 57-60 w w- 29 12 24 - 61_64 w- 3 4 33 0 (- 65-68 w w 23 39 VI + 69-72 -www-- 35 60 7 + 73-S0 -ww-- 79 11-3 '4 + 81-96 — w 14-2 170 12 (+) 97-100 www ==£ 31 3*3 1-1 (+; 101-104 t*J 61 51 12 (—; 105-112 —w w 94 12 5 13 (+( 113-128 — 18 3 185 10 (+] Only a comparison with Isocrates' sentence-metre can give a certain clue to his clausula-metre. 190 PLATO. LAWS. Comparison of the clausula with the sentence-metre. The figures for the clausula have been derived from Kaluscha. v J3 <- u V o ■ Form. v 2 B IS c/5 o u. i ü c V c v cfi V I* V g a 3 9 es Ö Favoured forms. Avoided forms. 1-8 3.8 % 6 2 1-6 (+) —~ 9—16 —» 3 6 6 8 12 6 19 (+) ——— 17-24 ld— .w 3 9 3 0 T3 (—) ——. w 25—32 - 7-0 3-7 1-9 (_) j .— 33-40 wü 4 2 5*7 P4 (+) - — wü 41-48 ——wü 5-1 3-7 4'2 11 (+) —w— 49-56 . wü 54 11 6 2 1 (+) * w— 57-64 —w 7.9 13-0 1-6 (+) —w 65-72 , —6 0 8-7 1 5 (+) - — 73-80 ———ü 6-5 52 P3 40 —) w 81-88 ——3 9 2-2 18 (—) 89-96 w-ifc 7 0 3-5 2*0 (—) —_-—— 97-104 w 6 4 4 4 15 (—) — 105-112 —— ü 8-8 7.5 6 0 PO (—) w 113-120 w——— 9 0 6 0 P5 (—) — 121-128 w 10 0 13 3 8 2 P6 (—) — — 191 PLATO. LAWS. 1-8 9-16 17-24 25-32 33-40 41-48 49-56 57-64 65-72 73-80 81-88 89-96 97-104 105-112 113-120 121-128 Investigation into the quantity of the last syllable. Clausul Sentence-metre. A. Frequency of the form with short final syllable. B. | Frequency .ij of the form o with long o» final syllable. C. Frequency of the form with short final syllable. a - me t r e. D. Frequency of the form with long final syllable. a CU O s O» wwwww 1-4 •/„ T9 + 2 4 3 8 + w 2-2 41 + 3-8 88 + _w 2-8 1-7! — 1-9 1-1 — —— 3-6 3-11 — 2-7 1-0 — w_ w 2-3 23 27 30 + _w_ww T8 2 1 + 1 8 2 4 + w 2-7 2-9 + 34 8-2 ++ ww 41 4-0 ? 4-2 88 ++ www—w 26 3-8 + 30 57 + _w w i-7 30 + 06 0-7 + —w 1-5 28 + 10 1-2 + w—w 2-2 46 + 1'4 2-1 + w 24 42 + 1 5 29 + _w w 33 40 + 2 3 37 + w 2-7 5-4 + 19 4-1 + w 51 78 + 3-0 52 + PLATO. Investigation into the quantity ot the last syllable. Quotients resulting from a comparison of columns A and C (= table E), denoting ergo the preference shown for the clausulae with short final syllable, and from a comparison of columns B and D (= table F), denoting the same for the forms with long final syllable. It appears that some clausulae are favoured in a bigher degree when ending in a long than in a short final syllable. 192 E F 1-8 wwwww 1-7 (+) 20 (+) 9-16 w—w i-7 (+j 21 (+) 17-*24 www i-3 (_) i-7 (_) 25-32 www i-3 (_) 3 ! (_) 33-40 • ww i-2 (+) 1-3 (+) 41-48 — w i-o i-i (+) 49-56 w ww 1.3 (+) 2 8 (+) 57-64 ww i-o (+) 2-2 (+) 65-72 ww. w i-2 (+) 1-5 (+) 73-80 —ww—w i-8 (_) 4-3 (_) 81-88 w-w—w j.5 (_) 2.3 (—) 89-96 w 1-5 (_j 2-2 (—) 97-104 ww w i-7 (_) !-4 (_.) 105-112 — w 1-4 (_) i j (_) 113-120 w w 1.4 (_) j.3 (_) 121-128 w 17 (_) 1.5 (_) Preference for wwww— over wwwww PLATO. Some of the criteria the occurrence of which makes it probable that a dialogue belongs to the second chronological group, which comprises the Republic, the Theaetetus, and perhaps the Phaedrus. R indicates the occurrence in the Republic, Ph in the Phaedrus, T in the Theaetetus. See Barwick's tables. (Barwick, table on page 56/7). 1. öed&g, oQ&óraza, öoêóxaxa Uyete and dkrjêéaxaxa J R 2. vjiêiafies in answers T R 3. navxanaai /uèv ovv (—w—w- •—) "p pjj R 193 4. avayxaUos, avayxaióxaxa, etc. R 5. dtjiov T Ph R 6. êfiol yovv doxeï T' R 7. ydo ovv in short answer T R 8. oiixovv OE alkd %Qrj T R 9. xal Tt&g; T R 10. xal Jt&e av; T R 11. rrf /wjr; T Ph R 12. r/ na>s; R 13. — ^ jïój?; R 14. R (Barwick, table on page 59). 15. n&s ydg; T R 16. 71(51; ya.Q av; R 17. Ttms d'ov juékket; R 18. xal ft&g; R 19. xal 7t<5? flv; T R 20. n' «J'oiV T Ph R 21. rt yag ov; R 22. n' y&o; T Ph R 23. dkkd tï /nikkei; R 24. dkkd tl iirjv; R (Barwick, table on page 62/3). 25. frequent ÓijXav &g (: drjkov on) T Ph R 26. fiaxgcp or uvokü T R 27. Ionic datives Ph R 194 28. èlotjtai ('in 2inilckverweisenden Relativsatzen) T Ph 29. é,QQt)vKri (item) T R 30. xa&djzsQ (\&onto) T Ph R 31. Svzcos ('. z& èvxi) T Ph R PLUTARCH. Comparison of his clausula with bis sentence-metre. Form. t> 6 U. u V O B s SC 17-18 81-96 21-24 1-8 9-16 35-36 69-72 37-40 105-112 53-56 41-48 97-100 57-60 61-64 57-64 73-80 113-120 121-128 113-128 101-104 91-92 51-52 ■2 V 3 1) SS «So- e V O 3 O» 1- 10 % i-io i-o 13*90 29-10 2 1 (+) 3- 70 385 1-0 (+) 2- 00 3-05 T6 (+) 610 9 95 1-6 (+) 2-10 1-70 1-2 (—) 5 80 4-70 T2 (-) 4 10 260 P6 (—) 6- 50 9-80 1-5 (+) 4- 00 2-35 1-7 (-) 7- 20 3-30 2-2 (-) 2- 50 2-40 TO(-) 3- 60 2-05 1-8 (-) 3 20 2-25 1-4 (-) 6-80 4 30 16 (-) 5- 10 4-70 l'l (-) 6'30 3-60 T8 (-) 5-10 4-20 1-2 (-) 11-40 7 80 1-5 (-) 3-90 2-45 1-6 (-) 1- 40 4-05 2'9 (+) 2- 40 0*85 2 8 (—) Favoured forms. 195 Syncrises. (246 cases). °/o 1-4 2 5—8 2 9—16 9 17—18 O 19—20 O 21—24 3 25—34 8 35—36 1 37—40 2 41—48 2 49—52 2 53—56 4 57—64 2 65—68 1 69—72 6 73—80 5 81—96 27 97—100 3 101—104 2 105—112 9 113—120 4 121—128 4 Lives % ' (sentence). 13-9 61 65 Syncrises % (Clausula). (clausula). 29 10 2-70 995 9-0 9-80 90 196 PHTLÖ. Comparison of his clausula with his sentence-metre. Jj *•"' ^ . ei . u S Form. S ü § J3 -Ja Favoured Avoided ^•2 ga la § forms- forms- a 10 u o 3 SB s?~óf —^ 0-4 0/0 2-0 5-0 (+) ~ ^-i 81-96 — 12-7 180 1-4 (+) —w-w 21-24 — ■ -w 2-3 2-8 1-2 (+) — ■ www 1-8 wwwww 30 1 0 30 M www w 59 9-8 1-7 (+) -wwww 35-36 —www—.ww 2-3 0-6 38 (+) 69-72 _www-w 3.2 6.2 !.9 + ____w 37-40 —ww—ww 3-i 6-2 2-0 (+) — w ww 105-112— w 9.g ,6.0 j.6 +j .53—56 —w ww 4-0 46 i-2 (+\ , . 41-48 — ww 6-4 ,.4 4.6 _ - _ 97-100 ww. w 2-8 46 1-6 (+) www w ~~ 57-60 v r-ww 28 3-6 13 (+) - 61-64 ww 4.8 5.4 ,., (+) 57-64 ww 7-6 9-o y% (+) 73—80 -w—w 64 2 0 32 (—) _w w 113-120 w w 6.5 3.0 2-2 - 121-128 w 6 4 1-6 4 0 M 113-128 tat 12 0 4-6 2 8 (-) _ w 101-104-ww w 4.2 i-6 2-6 -) -ZZ~ - 91-92 -w w_w 2.0 3.0 ,.5 |+j _. Sg 51-52 ww 1.7 j.g j., ^ METRE AS A DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTIC OF GREEK PROSE-WRITERS. total of cases insVestigated: Sentence-metre (%). I 3 w v SP w cj -2 i? O,* I I I I 1 ö | | i M o s § i § i 1 i l 5 | S Z j | o O £ | £ | | O Clausula (%). 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000ï1000 2000 898 2000 3778 3781 500 338 I 866 i 1646 '-16 www~ 5-6 54 1-7 10-6 8"1 8.9 8 5 26 13-0 9.2 18-8 108 50 12 9 14-3 3*-16 —www- 36 40 1-2 68 6'1 5.9 5"2 06 ÏO'O 62 12-6 98 45 8-40 —ww—w_w 29 20 44 V9 4 1 3 1 2 1 36 2"6 6-2 0'9 5-9 4"1 48 11-6 ,'-96 —w—w 14-4 12 8 12 4 10 9 13 9 12"7 14 2 18-9 29-113-9 5 7 181 17'0 21-3 161 16 2 9pH2 —w w 8-8 7-3 80 7"5 6"5 9.8 9"4 8'0 9-8 6 1 60 18-012-5 17-6 76 100 ,-100 www w 2'5 2-4 0-1 38 2"5 28 31 08 2.4 46 3"3 ,J-72 —www—w 2-7 3-1 l'l 40 58 32 3 5 1"2 47 6"2 60 J, 24 —w—ww— ].8 i-7 3-( 20 3-7 2'3 20 3 1 39 2'8 12 5'-18 www—ww— 0-5 o-8 0-1 10 11 0'4 05 0'2 Tl 20 0"0 . 113 sq. Kroll, W. Berliner Philol. Wochenschr. 23, 1903, col. 207. Berliner Philol. Wochenschr. 25, 1905, col. 1659 sqq. Moderne lateinische Syntax. Neue Jahrbücher für das' klass. Altert. 25, 1910, p. 318—326. Die wissenschaftliche Syntax im lateinischen Unterricht. Berlin 1917, p. 66 sqq. Literaturbericht, Qlotta, vol. 5 sqq., 1914 etc. See Cicero. Krumbacher, K. Qeschichte der byzantinischen Literatur*. München 1897, p. 8, 29, 1137 sq. 209 Langen, P. Bemerkungen über die Beobachtung des Wortaccentes int alteren lateinischen Drama. Philologus 46, 1888, p. 409, n. 2. Laurand, L. Études sur le style des discours de Cicéron, avec une esquisse de 1'histoire du 'cursus'. Paris 1907. De M. Tulli Ciceronis studiis rhetoricis. Paris 1907, p. 48-49, 57 n. 3, 101-2. Die Satzschlüsse der Interpolalionen in dem Traktat De Unitate Ecclesiae. Berliner Philol. Woch. 29, 1909, col. 1015-16. ' . De numero oratorio in Ciceronis orationibus. Vox Urbid 12, 1909, p. 18-19. Le rythme oratoire dans Cicéron. L'énseignement chrétten 29, 1910, p. 17-20. , Le cursus du Ie au VIIe siècle. L'enseignem chrétien, 29, 1910, p. 276-80. Le cursus dans la légende de saint Francois par Julien de Spire. Recherches de science religieuse I, 1910, p. 351—58. , Le cursus dans la legende de saint Francois par saint Bonaventure. Rev. d'Hist. Ecclés. 11, 1910, p. 257-62. , Les fins d'hexamètre dans les discours de Cicéron. Revue de philol. 35, 1911, p. 75 sqq. , Le cursus dans les hagiographes dominicains. Analecta Bollandiana (1912?) , Ce qu'on sait et ce qu'on ignore du cursus. Musée Beige 17, 1913, p. 91-107. Compare Lindsay, ClassicalReviewl913,Dec, Luterbacher, Jahresbericht dés Philol. Vereins zu Berlin 1913, p. 278 sq., Thomas, Revue critique 1913, 1 Nov. Strauss, Wochenschr. f. klass. Philol. 1914, col 465. , La theorie du cursus dans saint Augüstin. Recherches de science religieuse 4, 1913, 6, p. 569—71. , [on Di Capua], Musée Beige, Bullet. bibligr. 18, 1914, p. 10 sqq. Lehmann—Haupt, C. Jf. Schatzmeister und Archontenwahl m Athen. Klio 6, 1906, p. 313 sqq. Lehnert, G. Bericht über die rhetorische Literatur bis 1906. (Bursian's) Jahresbericht. Bd. 142, 1909, p. 226-340, esp. 237 sqq. , Bericht fiber die Literatur zu Apuleius und zurHistoria Apollonii aus den Jahren 1897-1914. Bursian's Jahresbericht 44, p. 12-14. Lejay, P. [On Meyer, Blass, Jordan, Candel, De Jonge, Zielinski], Revue critique, N. S. 60, 1905, p. 478 sqq. , [On Anonymi de rebus Bellicis liber, ed. Schneider 1908], Revue critique 1909, II, p. 289-91. Lenchantin De Gubernatis, M. II ritmo in un frammento di Asinio Pollione. Rivista di Philol. 37, 1909, p. 385-96. 210 Leo, F. Die beiden metrischen Systeme des Altertums. Hermes 24, 1889, p. 285 sqq. : , De Stati Siivis commentatio, Prpgr. acad. Gotting 26, 1892. Lietzmann, H. Fünf Pestpredigten Augustins in gereimter Prosa. Bonn 1905, p. 3. Lipsky, A. Rhythm as a distinghuishing characteristic of prose style. Diss. New York 1907. Litzica, C. Das Meyersche Satzschlussgesetz in der byzantinischen Prosa. Diss. München 1898. Compare Havet, Byzant. Zeitschr. 8, 1899, p. 535 sqq. Löfstedt, E. Zu Senecas Briefen. Eranos 14, 1914, p. 142 sqq. . , Arnoliana Lunds Univ. Arsskrift, N. F. I, p. 12, 1917. Compare Baehrens, Berl. Philol. Woch. 1917, col. 1291. , Erklarung. Berliner Philol. Wochenschr. 1918, col. 311. Lorenz, Th. De clausulis Arnobianis. Diss. Vratisl. 1910. Compare S k u t s c h, Qlotta 4, p. 425 sqq. Luterbacher, F. [On Zielinski], Jahresbericht des Philol. Vereins zu Berlin 31, 1905, p. 263. Haas, P. Rhythmisches zu der Kunstprosa des Konstantinos Manasses. Byz. Zeitschr. 11. 1900, p. 505. [On W. Fritz, Synesios, Abh. Bayer. Akad. 1905], Berl. Philol. Woch. 26, 1906. col. 777. [On H. Usener, Der heilige Tychon], Byz. Zeitschr. 17, 1908, p. 611. [On Dewing], Byz. Zeitschr. 19, 1910, p. 592. Wochenschr. fflr klass. Philol. 1911, col. 1254 sqq. . Die Rhythmik der Satzschlüsse bei dem Historiker Prokopios. Byz. Zeitschr. 21, 1912, p. 52 sqq. , [On Dewing], Byz. Zeitschr. 21, 1912, p. 287 sq. . [On Heitmann], Woch. fflr klass. Philol. 1913, no. 21. Macé, A. Essai sur Suédone. Paris 1900, p. 379—400. Mack, K. Der numerus oratorius bei Demosthenes. Programm Wien 1914. Marbe, K. Ober den Rhythm us der Prosa, Progr. Gi essen 1904. Martin, A. [on Blass], Revue critique 1903, I, p. 9. Marx, F. Ad Herennium libri IV. Leipzig 1894. Prolegomena p. 99-102. . Ueber die neueren Forschungen auf dem Qebiete der gr. u. lat. metrik. Neue Jahrbücher fflr das klass. Alt. 20, 1908, p. 233. May, J. Rhythmische Analyse der Rede Cicero's pro Sex. Roscio Amerinb, Leipzig 1905. Zur Kritik der Proömien des Demosthenes. Leipzig 1905. 211 Bericht über die Literatur zu Ciceros Reden aus den Jahren 1903-06. (Bursian's) Jahresbericht 1907, II, p. 123 sqq. Rhythmen bei Demosthenes und Cicero. Wochenschr. f. klass. Phflol. 24, 1907, p. 48-55. ■ Verhandlungen deutsch. Philol. u. Schulmanner auf der 45. Vers. in Bremen, p. 68. _ . , Rhythmen in Ciceros katilinarischen Reden. Progr. Durlach 1909. , „ . . . . Rhythmische Formen, nachgewiesen durch Beispiele aus Cicero und Dembsthenes, Leipzig Fock 1909. Compare A m m o n, Berliner Philol. Wochenschr. 1910, col. 1566—71, Bitachofsky, Zeitschr. f. österr. Gymnasien 60, p. 752 sq. Rhythmen in Ciceros Reden. Wiss. Beilage zum Jahresbericht des Gymnasiums in Durlach 1912. Compare Löschhorn, Wochenschr. für klass. Philol. 1913, coL 40-42. . . .. Meader, C. L. Types of sentence structure of prose wntere.» Transact. Americ. PbiloL Ass. 36. 1905. p. 32. Meister, L. Kritische Bemerkungen zu den Reden des Demosthenes nebst einem Anhang über Ciceros Rede in Pisonem. Progr. Durlach Gymn. 1914. .... . . .. , _ Quaestiones Tullianae ad hbros qui mscnbuntur De oratore pertinentes. Lipsiae [1912], p. 72—73. Meyer, G. [On W. Meyer, Der accentuierte Satzschluss], Berliner PhiktL Wochenschr. 1892, col. 182 sq. Meyer, W. Fragmenta Burana, Berlin 1901. Sonderabdruck aus der Festschrift zur Feier des 150-jahrigen Bestehens der kgl. Gesellschaft der Wiss. zu Göttingen 1901. p. 148 sqq. ' Abhandl. d. Gött. Ges. d. Wiss. 1901, p. 157 sqq. Das turiner Bruckstück der altesten irischen Liturgie. Gött Gelehrte Nachrichten, PhU. Classe 1903, p. 163-214, esp. 209. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur mittellateinischen Rhytn- mik, Berlin 1905. . . . , ,. . MiUer, O. W. E. The relation of the rhythm of poetry to that of the spoken language. Studies in honor of Basil L. Gildersleeve. Baltimore 1902, p. 497-511. , „' Misset. [On N. Valois, Etude sur la rhythme des bulles pontiticales], Lettrés chrétiennes [revue publiée a Lüle], 5, 1882, p. 89-90. Compare Laurand, Études, p. 365, note. Mocquerreau. Le cursus et la psalmodie. Palêographie musicale 5, 1893, p. 27-30. . . ' Note sur I'influence de 1'accent et du cursus tomques latins dans le chant ambrosien. Ambrosiana, Milan 1897, fase.. IX. Möller, J. De clausulis a Q. Aurelio Symmacho adhibins. Diss. Münster 1912. 212 Compare Fors ter, Class. Journal 8, 1—5, Tolkiehn, Wochenschr. fflr klass. Philol. 31, p. ïo—11. Münch, V. De clausulis a Valerio Maximo adhibitis. Diss. Vratislav. 1909. Münscher, K. (Bursian's) Jahresbericht. Bd. 70,1905, p. 150-152. Die Rhythmen in Isokrates Panegyrikos, Gvmn. Proirr. Ratibor, 1908. 8 Der Abschnitt vpm Rhythmus in Ciceros Orator, in Xdottes Berlin 1911. [On De Qroot], (Bursian's) Jahresbericht, Bd. 170. 1915, p. 148 sqq. Nassal, F., Aesthetisch-rhetorische Beziehungenzwischen Dionysius von Halicarnass und Cicero. Diss. Tflbingen 1910. Compare Zeitschr. f. österr. Gymn. 64, 4. Norden, E. De Minucii Felicis aetate et genere dicendi. Vorlesungsverz. Univ. Greifswald 1897, p. 18 sqq. • 1 Götting. Gel. Anzeigen 1904, p. 310. . Die antike Kunstprosa 2, Leipz. etc. 1909. Esp. Nachtrage. rtgnosios ineos. Leipzig etc. ïyiS. Novak, E. In pahegyricos latinos studia grammatica et critica. Prag 1901. Novotny, F. Z nové litartury o rhythmu antické prósy. Listy nlologické 1914, p. 88-102, 192-212, 414-422. —< 1- Eine neue Methode der Klauselforschung. Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 1917, col. 217 sqq. Paléographie Musicale. Par les Bénédictins de Solesmes. Solesmes 1894. Partzinger, P. Beitrage zur Kenntnis der Entwicklung des ciceronischen stils. Landshut 1910, p. 128—129. Peters, K. Festschrift fflr Raspe. Parchim 1883, p. 8-19. Petersen, E. Rhythmus. Gött. Gel. Abbandl. 1917. Peterson, W. The vatican codex of Ciceros Verrines. Amer Journal of Philol. 19aa, p. 409—36. Pichon, R. Lactance. These Paris'1901, p. 324—34, 439-40. _ Etudes sur 1'histoire de la littérature latine dans les Gaules. Les derniers êcrivains profanes. Paris 1906, p. 297 sqq. , Le texte de Quinte Curce et la prose métrique. Revue de Philol. 30, 1906, p. 90-100. Pietsch, G. De Choricio Patrocli declamationis auctore. • Breslauer Philol. Abh., ed. by Förster, Heft 42, 1910. Compare Maas, Wochenschr*. f. klass. Philol. 28, 1911, col. 1253. Pohlenz, M. Eine byzantinische Recenzion Plutarchischer Schriften. Götting. Gel. Nachrichten 1913, p. 338 sqq. Poppel, G. van. Over rhytbmisch proza in literatuur en liturgie. De Katholiek 140, 1911, p. 384—99; 438—52. 213 Pothier, J. Les mêlodies grêgoriennes. Touraay 1880, p. 237. Previtera, L. De numero sive clausula sive structura sive cursu. Syracusis 1899. „, ., , '{ Compare Wochenschr. f. klass. PhiloL 1903. II metodo statistico nelle nuove ricerche della prosa metrica. Qiarre 1903. > ,, _ , „.., . Compare Laurand. E'tudes, p. 189, n. 5. Kroll, Berl. PhUol. Woch. 1904, col. 1550, De Jonge, Buil. bibl.^u Mus.beige8,14. Przyehocki. De Qregorii Naz. epistulis quaestiones selectae. Compare Maas, Byzant. Zeitschr. 22, p. 246, Jager, Deutsche Lit Zeit. 1913, col. 1180. Queptin, H. La plus ancienne Vie de saint Sevnn de Bordeaux. Mélanges Couture. Töulouse 1902. p. 12-14. Badermacher, L. Qriechischer Sprachgebrauch. Philologus 65, 1906, p. 149. .„ Baspante, S. II numerus nel De morhbus persecutorum attnbuto a Lattanzio. Adernö 1913. Beitzenstern, B. Poimandres. Studiën z. gr. agypt. u. z. frtthchristl. Literatur. Leipzig 1904. _J* :^L..' „,,„ Bichter, E. Zur Entwicklung der romamschen Wortstellung, aus der lateinischen. Halle 1903. ~. , • • Rittelmeyer, F. Thukydides und die Sophistik. Diss. Leipzig ■ 1915, p. 81 sqq. .. , jLi _. .... , ,„,„ Böllmann, B. De numeri oratoni primordns. Diss. Munster 1910. Sabbadini, B. Del 'numerus' in Floro. Rivista di Filologia 25, 1897, p. 600-601. . ... i , De numeris in dialogo ,qui Vergilius orator an poeta inscribitur obviis. Rivista di filologia 1*97, p. 600 sqq.' , [on inscriptions], Riv. di filol. 26, 1898, p. 126. Saintsbury» G- History of English Prose Rhythm. Santi, A. de. II 'cursus' nella storia letteraria e nella liturgia. Civilta cattolica, serie 18, vol. 11, 1903, p. 24-39; vol. 12, 1903, p.3852 O 288-" 307 Schanz, M. Röro. Literaturgeschichte. I, 2, p. 206-7, 1909. Schlicber, J. J. The origin of rhythmical verse m late Laun. Diss. Chicago 1900. Appendix I, p. 83-87. Schmid, W., see Christ, W. von. Schmidt, A. Zur Lehre vom oratorischen Numerus. Progr. Mannheim 1858. [£, , . „ , ....„„, Schmidt, J. Das rhythmische Element in Ciceros Reden. Wiener Studiën 15, 1893, p. 209-247. jf^.L' L '2 ,e+0„ , Satzrhythmus und Neposfrage. Zeitschr, für die österr. Gvmn. 46. 1895, p. 97-109. „. i ... Schmiedeberg, P. De Asconi codicibus et de Ciceroms scnolns Sangallensibus. Diss. Bresl. 1905. 214 Schober, E. De Apulei Metamorphoseon comnositione numerosa. Diss. Halle 1904. Schönberger, J. K. Clauseltheorie und Textkritik. Zu Cic. De lege agr. II, 59. Wochenschr. f. klass. Philol. 1914, col. 1430 sq. Serruys, D. Les procédés toniques d'Himérius et les origines du 'cursus' Byzantin. Mélanges Havet 1909. Shelly, J. [On Clark etc.], Rhytmical prose in Latin and English. The Church Quarterly Review 74, 1912, p. 81 sqq. Shipley, F. w. The treatment of dactylic words in the rhythmic prose of Cicero, with special reference to the sense paus es. Transact, of the Amer. philol. assoc. 41, 1911, p. 139 sqq. , The heroic clausula in Cicero and Quintilian, Class. Philology 6, 1911, 410 sqq. Compare Di Capua, Boll. di Filol. class. 18, 1911—12, p. 244sqq. -, Preferred and avoided combinations of the enclitic 'que' in Cicero. Class. Philology 8, 1913, 23 sqq. Compare Schmalz, Wochensch.fflfklass.Philologie 1914,col.239. Sievers, E. Ein neues Hilfsmittel der philologischen Kritik. Verhandlungen der Vers. d. Philol. u. Schuim. 47, 1903, p. 33. , Sinko, Th. Die Descriptio orbis terrae. Archif f. latein. Lexikogr. 13, 1904, p. 535 sqq. Skutsch, F. Zu Favonius Eulogius und Chalcidius. Philologus 61, 1902, p. 193 sqq. , Firmicus de errore profanarum religionum. Rhein. Museum N. F. 60, 1905, p. 262—72. —, Die lateinische Sprache, in Die Kultur der Gegenwart, I, 8, 1905, p. 421—424, p. 431, , Sprache, Metrik und Rhythmus der Romer in ihren Wechselbeziehungen. Zeitschr. f. d. Gymnasialwesen 1909. p. 67 sqq. Literaturbericht, Glotta 1, 1909, p. 399. 413 sq.: 4, 1913, p. 422 sqq., 427. [On Gaffiot, Pour le vrai latin], Qlotta 3,1912. p. 366 sqq. Smedt, C. de. Le cursus dans les documents hagiographiques, Analecta bollandiana 16, 1897, p. 501—06; 17, 1898, p. 387—92. Stange, C. De Arnobii oratione. Saargemünd 1893 II: De clausula Arnobiana, p. 13—36. Stangl, Th. Bobiensia. Neue Beitrage zu den Bobienser Ciceroscholien. Rhein. Museum 65, 1910, p. 88, 249, 420 sqq. Zu Ciceros rhetorischen schriften. Wochenschr. f. klass. philol. 1914, col. 21 sqq. Steeger, T. Die Klauseltechniek Leos des Grossen in .seinen Sermonen. Haszfurt 1908. Stiefenhofer, A. Die Echtheitsfrage der biographischen Synkriseis Plutarchs. Tübingen 1915, p. 27, A. 60 (= Philologus 73 1914-16, p. 462). ik 215 Strauss, C. Die Klauselrhythmen der Bobienser Ciceroschoüen. Progr. Qymn. Landau 1910. Sundermeyer, A. De re metrica et rhythmica Martiani Capellae. Diss. Marpurgi Cattorum 1910. Terzaghi, N. Ciceronis De re publica IV, 11. Bollett di filol. class. 1911—12, p. 55r-58. Compare D i C a p u a, Le clausule in S. Agostino. Le clausole ritmiche negli Opuscoli di Sinesio. Didaskaleion 1, 1912, p. 205—225, 319—360. Compare Maas, Byz. Zeitschr. 22, 1913, p. 207, Draseke, Wochenschr. f. klass. Philol. 30, 15, p. 411-12; BerL Philol. Woch. 1906, col. 777; Byz. Zeitschr. 18, p. 342. Thalheim, Th. Zu Lykurgos und Lysias. Progr. Hirschberg i. SchL 1900. I. Der Rhythmus bei Lykurgos. Compare Drerup, Berl. Philol. Woch. 20, 1900, col. 1313—18, Thalheim, Bert Philol. Woch. 1900, col. 1534. Thiele, G. Ionisch-attische Studiën. I Gorgias. Hermes 36, 1901, p. 218. Thomas, E. Pétrohe3. Paris 1912, p. 193-200. Thumb, A.- Arch. f. Papyrusk, 3, 1906, p. 458. Germanisch-roman. Monatschrift 1911, p. 4. . In K. Brugmann's Griechische Grammatik, 4th ed. by A. Thumb. Mfinchen 1913, p. 666-672. Satzrhythmus und Satzmeiodie in der altgriechischen Sprache. Fortschritte der Psychologie 1, 1913. Compare Hubermann, Wochenschr. f. klass. Philol. 1913; . Münscher Berl. Philol. Woch. 1915, nr. 15. Thurot, C. Notices et extraits de divers manuscrits latins pour servir a rhistoire des doctrines gramm. du moyen age. Notices et extr. des mss. de la BibL impèr. 22. 2e partie 1868, p. 481—85. ToLkiehn, J. [On De Jonge], Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 26,1906, coL 907. Tyrrel, R. Y. On the third foot of the Greek hexameter. Hermathena 12, 1903, p. 280 sqq. Metrical prose in the correspondence of Cicero. [On Bornecque etc.]. Hermathena 13, 1905, p. 289 sqq., esp. 302. TJnser, H. Ober den Rhythmus der deutschen Prosa. Diss. Preiburg 1906. Vacandard, E. Saint Victrice. Paris 1903, appendice B, p. 173—77. . Le cursus, son origine, son histoire, son emploie dans la liturgie. Revue des quest bist 78, 1904, p. 59-102, 699. Valentin, L. Saint Prosper d'Aquitaine. Toulouse, p. 865—88. Valois, N. De arte scribendi epistulas apud Gallicos medii aevi scriptores rhetoresve. Paris 1880, p. 70—80. 216 Étude sur le rhythme des huiles pontificales. Bibl. de 1'École des Chartes 42, 1881, p. 161-98, 257-72. Vendryes, J. Recherches sur 1'histoire et les effets de 1'intensitè initiale en latin. Thèse Paris M902, p. 71-72. Verral, A. W. Longinus on the rhythmus of Demosthenes. Class. Review 19 (1905), p. 254. Compare Lehnert, (Bursian's) Jahresber. 1909, 380, p. 321. Volkmarm, B. Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer. Vossius,G. J. Commentariorum rhetoricorum libri VI*,Marpurgi 1781. Waltzing, J. P. Octavius de Minucius Felix. Lille-Paris 1909. Partie du maitre p. 137—139; partie de 1'élève p. 192-93. Watson, E. W. The style and language of St. Cyprian, chapter I § 13, Rhythm. Studia bibliaca et ecclesiastica, 4, Oxford 1896, p. 217—21. Wehofer. Untersuchungen zur altchristlichen epistolographie. Sitz. Ber. Wien 143, 1901. Weil, H. Les harangues de Dêmosthène. Paris 1912, p. LI, esp. note 2. Weinstock. De Erotico Lysiaco. Diss. Münster 1912, p. 86. Wendland, P. Quaestiones rhetoricae. Progr. acad. Göttingen 1914. Compare Berl. Philol. Woch. 1915, col. 28. Westaway, K. M. Quantity and accent in the pronunciation of Latin. Compare Berl. Philol. Woch. 1914. Wichmann, C. De numeris quos adhibuit Demosthenes in oratione Philippica prima. Diss. Kiel 1892. Wilamowitz—Moellendorf, U. von. Lesefrüchte Hermes 34, 1899, p. 214-18, laa. Hermes 35, (1900) p. 37, p. 536—42.- In Die Kultur der Gegenwart2 I, 8, 1907, p. 65 sqq., p. 104, p. 153. Compare Heibges, p. 109 sqq. Wilson, H. A. The metrical endings in the leonine sacramentary. Journ. of the theological studies 5, 1904, p. 386-95; 6, 1905, p. 381-91. Winterfeld, P. Der Rhythmus der Satzschlüsse in der Vita Bennonis. Sitz. Ber. Berlin 1901, p. 163-68. Über die Translatio sanctorum Alexandri papae et Justini presbyteri. Neues Archiv. der Ges. f. alt. deutsche Geschichtsk. 27, 1901, p. 751-54. , Die 4 Pabstbrïèfe in der Briefsammlung des H. Hilde- gard. 'Neues Archiv. d. G. f. alt deutsche Geschichtsk. 27, 1902, p. 237-44. Zu Avianus. Rhein. Museum 57, 1902, p. 167, esp. n. 1. Der Satzschluss bei Pavonius Eulogius. Philologus 61, 1902, p. 623-26. -. Satzschlussstudien zur Historia Augusta. Rhein. Mus. 57, 1902, p. 549-558. 217 Zu Mmucius Fellx, Philologus 63, 1904, p. 315—20. Die Handschrift des Bugippus und der rhythmische Satzschluss. Rhein. Museum 1903, p. 363 sqq. Wissowa, G. Genethliacon Carl Robert fiberr. von der Graeca Halensis 1910, p. 59 sqq. -v . Wolff, J. De clausulis Ciceromanis. Jahrbücher f. Philol. Suppl. 26, 1901, p. 581 sqq. Wuest, G. De clausula rhetorica quae praecepit Cicero quatenus in orationibus secutus sit. Diss. Argentor 5, 1881, p. 227-328. Zander, C. Eurhythmia vel compositie- rhythmica prosae antiquae. I. Eurhythmia Demostiienis. II. Numeri latini aetas integra. III. Eurhythmia Ciceronis. Leipzig. , Ziegler, K. Neue Firmicus-Lesungen. Rhein. Museum, N. F., 60, 1905, p. 273-96. vid. Firmicus Maternus. Zielinski', Th. Das Clauselgesetz in Ciceros Reden. Philologus, S. B. 9, 1904, p. 589 sqq. . Das Ausleben des Clauselgesetzes in der röm. Kunst- prosa (L Die Panegyriker; II. Cyprian). Leipz. 1906 (= Philol. S. B. 10, 1906, p. 429 sqq). . , Textkritik u. Rhythmusgesetze in Ciceros Reden. Philol. 65, 1906, p. 604* sqq. . . ■' f Def Rhythmus der röm. Kunstprosa und seme psycho- logischen Grondlagen. Archiv. f. d. gesammte Psychologie 7, 1906, p. 128—42 _1 [On May], Berl. Philol. Wochenschr. 26, 1906, col. 777 sqq., 286 sqq. CURVES. clausula- metre. sentencemetre. These curves show the striking agreement between Thucydides' sentence-metre and his clausula. The few deviations (e. g. for been discussed above (p. 184—85, p. 20—28); they are probably due to chance. 220 II. DEMOSTHENES. clausula-metre. -— sentence-metre. These curves show that Demosthenes has only one really preferred clausula, viz. ——■—See Norden, Antike Kunstprosa2, p. 911 and 923; and above p. 33—34. 221 III PLATO. From these curves it appears clearly, that the quantity of the last syllable in Plato's later works is not indifferent at all; see above p. 191. That, though in general a long final syllable is more frequent than a short one — owing to the greater frequency" of long syllables in the Greek language —, this rule does not hold good for the clausula —www^ where ——is preferred to —ww—, apparently owing to a general preference for a tribrach over a dactyl. On the other hand it appears that www— is preferred to wwww, which fact agrees with the passage in Aristotle who speaks only of the fourth paean (w- —, not wwww). Likewise —w w— is preferred to w; the same is 222 Irüe for w— and from which it may be inferred that — and '— belong together. See above pp. 191—192, and 61—64. IV. PHILO. clausula- metre. sentencemetre. These curves clearly show that the clausulae —wwwü, —www—w) ,—w and 1 w have been preferred by him. See above p. 196, and pp. 54—58. 223 and no other forms. See above pp. 33—39, and p. 185. See also my remarks in Berliner Philolpgische Wochenschrift 1917, col. 1158. 224 VI. LIVY. clausula- metre. sentence- . metre. These curves have been inserted in order to give a superficial idea of the reliability' of our results in details. The material on which the first curve is based comprises 1.000 cases from the sentence-metre of book IV, compared with 1.000 clausulae from the same book. The other is based upon the same number of cases from book XLII. The curves are nearly the same. The agreement would have been much more striking, if not the frequency of sur> 225 clausula- metre. sentencemetre. syllabic forms, but that of five- or /^wr-syllabic forms had been represented. The question will be discussed in the second volume. See above pp. 112, 121, 126, and my paper: De numero oratorio Latino, which will shortly appear. Livy prefers —^——■—■—se, and ■at. 226 vn. CICERO. u'L hl These curves show the preference of Cicero for ——www, See my paper: De numero oratorio Latino, and the second volume of . this work. ' IND EX Ammianus Marcellinus 108, 133 Heitmann 86 Apulejus 129, 146 Henderson 46 Aristotle 61, 114 Herodes 87 Arnim (Von) 70, 81 Herodotus 141 Himerius 135 Baehrens 146 Homer 133 Barwick 74 et passim Blass 8 et passim Isaeus 142 Bornecque 65, 91, 99 Isocrates 115, 188 Bornecque—Zielinski 100 • Johannsen 160 Charito 83, 130 Jordan 99 Cicero 67 et passim Consolaüo ad ApoUonium 12, 90 Kaluscha 63, 68, 123, 149 171, 172, 175, 176 Krumbacher 98 Crönert 141, 143 Kuiper (W. E. J.) 71 Demosthenes 8 sqq., 29 sqq. Lactantius 121 185 sqq. et passim; . Laurand 104, 110 see contents. Leo 101, 105 Dewing 135 Lesbonax 87 Libanius 86 Flavius Josephus 130 Lipsky 97 TTuhr 142 Litzica 98 Livy 112, 121, 126 sqq. -Gompertz 71 Lutóslawski 76 Gropp 31 Maas 87, 99 Harmon 133 Marbe 6, 14 et passim Haury 141 Marx 130 Havet 122 Meyer (W.) 65, 99, 134 Heibges 83, 125 Münscher 25 sqq., 34, 62, 88, 152 228 Natorp 7i Rödiger i42 Norden 9 et passim, 33, 99 Röllmann 26 Novotny 91 sqq., 99 Sallust 112, 126 sqq. Ovink, 71 Schleiermacher 71 Shipley n5 Phüemon 137 Sophronius m( 135 Philo Judaeus 54 sqq., 112 Stiefenhofer ' 5 Philo stratus 130 Plat0 11 et passim, 172, 176 Thrasymachus 107 sqq., 182 190 sqq.; see contents Thumb . 6, 14 et passim, 84, 99 Plutarch passim; see contents; Thucydides 20 et passim see Consolatio ad Apoflonium; see Stief enhofer Virgil 127 Pohlenz 70, 139 Polemo 130 Wilamowitz 130, 134 Procopius 90, 111, 120, 135, 143 Xenophon 28 Quintilianus 101 sqq. Zander 94 Sqq., 99 Raeder 70 Zielinski 67, 99, 124 arrangement of words 11, 138 choice of words II, 141 degree of preference and avoidance expressed by a quotiënt 43 ictus 133, ssq. negative clausula 47 order of words; see arrangement of the Greek rhythmical clausula 132 sqq. origin of the clausula 107 sqq. resolutions 103 CORRIGENDA. Page 7, line 4, 336 instead of 308. „ 62, „ 28, 463 „ „ 000.