The Origin of Attic Comedy. By F. M. Cornford. London: Edward Arnold; New York: Longmans, Green, and Co. (1914). Pp. xii + 252. $2.40 net. The present reviewer is free to confess that he took up this book with a distinct prejudice. Mr. Cornford belongs to a group of English classicists the brillance of whose scholarship is second only to their intrepidity. Much as Mr. Gilbert Murray, Miss Jane Harrison, Professor William Ridgeway, and the rest may differ in other respects, they agree in seeking light upon classical problems from anthropological lore and in sticking at no exegesis which will contribute to this happy consummation. Then, when I read in the first paragraph of Mr. Cornford's Preface that "the constant features of the Aristophanic play were inherited from a ritual drama" and recalled how disingenuously the same author, in his Thucydides Mythistoricus, had resolved the three appearances of Cleon on that historian's pages into “the complete outline of a drama", my misgivings did not lessen. If I add that with further reading my prejudice against Mr. Cornford's volume has vanished, I must not be understood as accepting to any great extent his conclusions. But with the exception of his statement that "it is tempting to see in the two half-choruses of twelve in Attic Comedy, the twelve months of the Old and the New Years" (p. 129, n. 2), Mr. Cornford rides his anthropological hobbyhorse with comparative discretion. In fact this is the only utterly preposterous suggestion that I have noted. Of still greater consequence than the sober application of his viewpoint, however, is the fact that there is a certain factor which differentiates the origin of comedy from most other studies in origins. This factor is brought out in Aristotle's statement that "comedy originated with the leaders of the phallic ceremonies, which still survive as institutions in many of our cities". Mr. Cornford finds the best illustration of these ceremonies in Aristophanes, Acharn. 241 ff., and concludes from this and other evidence that the phallic rites had a double object-that they were both a "positive agent of fertilization" and a "negative charm against evil spirits". The former result was obtained by the invocation of friendly powers: as to the latter, the simplest of all methods of expelling such malign influences of any kind is to abuse them with the most violent language. No distinction is drawn between this and the custom of abusing, and even beating, the persons or things which are to be rid of them. There can be no doubt that the element of invective and personal satire which distinguishes the Old Comedy is directly descended from the magical abuse of the phallic procession, just as its obscenity is due to the sexual magic; and it is likely that this ritual justification was well known to an audience familiar with the phallic ceremony itself. I believe these quotations to represent sound conclusions. Now, if the phallic ceremonies continued until Aristotle's day and if their connection with comedy had always been recognized, the hypothesis that comedy always harked back to this primitive ritual is not so fantastic as it would otherwise be. In my opinion, our author is correct also in tracing the agon and the parabasis of Old Comedy, as well as its physical violence and horseplay, back to the magical aversion of evil in the phallic rites. I regret to state that, with minor exceptions, this marks the limit of the concessions I can make to Mr. Cornford's views. Writers on the origin of Attic comedy are fairly well agreed upon one point, that only some features of it are indigenous and that it has been greatly modified by importations from Sicily and the Peloponnesus. But, when they undertake to separate the foreign and the native elements, concord flies out of the window. Yet even this single point of unanimity is unacceptable to Mr. Cornford, who maintains that every part of Old Comedy is Attic and would reduce the Dorian influence to a minimum. He acknowledges adherence to Professor Murray's theory concerning the origin of tragedy and constructs a very similar hypothesis, mutatis mutandis, for comedy. Comedy, then, was derived from sympathetic magic, from "the fertility drama of the marriage of the Old Year transformed into the New". Every year a stereotyped series of incidents was repeated. The ritual began with an agon between the good principle and the bad principle (the New Year versus the Old, Summer versus Winter, Life versus Death, etc.), was continued either by the defeat and death of the latter, followed by a sacrifice and feast of thanksgiving; or by the death of the former, who was slain, dismembered, cooked, and eaten in the communal feast, only to be triumphantly resurrected. In either case, the festivities are interrupted by a succession of "unwelcome intruders" consisting of stock characters like the buffoon, the doctor or cook, the soldier, the old man, the old woman, etc. These are just the characters that are required for the fixed plot of the fertility drama. Finally, in the exodus occurs a "sacred marriage" (together with a comus song and procession), derived from a sexual union which originally was consummated, or feigned, in order that all the natural powers of fertility might be stimulated to perform their function. The regular series of incidents, as outlined, forms the framework of Aristophanes's eleven plays, however diverse their themes. At first blush this statement must appear absolutely incredible to every reader, but Mr. Cornford displays the most amazing ingenuity in maintaining it. Tragedy and comedy, he continues, have both come from a ritual drama which was "the same in type and content, though not necessarily performed at the same time of the year". They differ in that, whereas comedy retains the whole series of canonical incidents, the Aeschylean trilogy stops with the happy ending of the hero's resurrection, the series being concluded by the satyric drama. These conventional features are what Aristotle had in mind when he declared that comedy already had certain definite forms when the record of its poets begins'. All criticism implies the existence of some standard of comparison, in this case the possibility of pointing out, or of establishing for one's self, a more satisfactory hypothesis. The latter alternative I intend to avail myself of in a forthcoming book on the Greek Theater and its Drama; accordingly, there is the less need of indulging in constructive criticism here. Nevertheless, I entertain no false hopes of setting up unassailable results. The evidence at hand is too scanty for that. Mr. Cornford truly remarks (p. 220): Many literary critics seem to think that an hypothesis about obscure and remote questions of history can be refuted by a simple demand for the production of more evidence than in fact exists. The demand is as easy to make as it is impossible to satisfy. But the true test of an hypothesis, if it cannot be shown to conflict with known truths, is the number of facts that it correlates and explains. The question left for the reader's consideration is whether, after following our argument, he understands better the form and features of this strange phenomenon, Aristophanic Comedy. The fact is that, if the true development of Greek drama were divinely revealed to some one, he would be unable to formulate a cogent proof for it. Notwithstanding, in spite of these considerations and without deprecating the value of anthropological parallels, it is still possible to comment in all fairness upon certain features of Mr. Cornford's conclusions. Pages 3-7 deal with some current theories of the origin of comedy. It is unfortunate that Mr. Cornford is apparently unacquainted with the two latest attempts, except his own, to treat the subject. I refer to Professor Capps's paper in Lectures on Greek Literature (1912), 124 ff., and Professor Navarre's paper in Revue des Études anciennes, 1911, 245 ff. These authorities closely agree in their results and differentiate Attic and Dorian influences most sensibly. Page 32. For the interpretation of Aristophanes's Ranae 790 compare Transactions of the American Philological Association 40. 93 ff. P. 36. For Aristotle's Poetics 1449a 37 ff. Mr. Cornford should consult Professor Capps, in the University of Chicago Decennial Publications, Volume 6, especially pages 266 ff. Professor Capps made it seem very clear that póσwяа, prologues, and a plurality of actors were introduced after 487 B. C., not before. Moreover, he has informed me by letter that he believes Tрóσwа in this passage to mean not 'masks' but 'characters'. All this has a direct bearing upon Mr. Corn ford's argument. Our author is troubled because, though the contents of epirrheme and antepirrheme in the parabasis are "iambic" (i. e. lampooning), the meter is not iambic. But iambic meter was invented by Archilochus, while the magical abuse of the phallic ceremonies must have started centuries before. Pages 51 and 183. The first actor in comedy, Mr. Cornford argues, was a projection of the vaguely personified genius of the Phallic rites, Phales. But in my opinion this would place the introduction of actors at far too early a date. See the preceding note. Pages 62 ff. Mr. Cornford makes the North Greece carnivals progenitors of comedy, as Ridgeway and others have made them the prototype of tragedy. But, since Mr. Cornford postulates practically the same source for both tragedy and comedy (compare pages 68, 190, 195, 246, etc.), the disagreement is only apparent. If the premises be granted, the original identity of tragedy and comedy logically follows. So irrational a result ought to open our eyes to the fact that arguments drawn from sympathetic magic cannot be unreservedly traced to their utmost implications. The ancient equation τραγῳδία = τρυγῳδία was due to a false etymology, and its modern analogue is equally impossible. The present-day carnivals are too full of later accretions to be safely employed as evidence for the sixth century B. C. and earlier; against the possibility of tragedy springing from them still stronger objections lie (see Classical Philology 8. 282 ff). Furthermore, the contention (246) that tragedy and satyric drama divided between them the ritual outlines which comedy preserved in their entirety must give us pause. What has become of the "choral agon" (the parabasis) in the division? And what convincing traces of a "sacred marriage" do Euripides's Cyclops and Sophocles's Ichneutae afford? I have too great respect for Mr. Cornford's ingenuity to assert that none can be found, but at least they are not at once discernible to the anthropologically unsophisticated. Pages 67 f. Mr. Cornford accepts Farnell's derivation of tragedy from the worship of Dionysus of the Black Goatskin and from the duel between Xanthus and Melanthus. Compare my criticism of this theory in Classical Philology 8. 270. Page 89. "The legends ultimately based on this ritual, the stories of Pelops, Pelias, Aeson, and the rest, have come down to us in forms which date from a time when their original meaning had been forgotten". I suppose this holds true also of the myths of Oedipus, Perseus and Andromeda, Heracles and Hesione, and Pentheus, which are the outgrowth of the same fertility ritual (58 and 66). Now, so far as fifth century dramatists treated these themes, they helped to fix the forms in which these stories "have come down to us". Consequently, according to Mr. Cornford's own admission, the "original meaning" of these had already been lost sight of at that period. Similarly, Mr. Cornford says that tragedy borrowed from heroic legends such stories as illustrate the fundamental conception of the old ritual plot, which explains Aristotle's statement "that 'Tragedies are restricted to a small number of (heroic) families . . . in which such horrors have occurred', but he could not know the reason" (p. 211 and n.). The words which I have italicized in these two quotations are a necessary concession; but, as has already been pointed out in the · second paragraph of this review, they relinquish the only consideration that could make Mr. Cornford's argument plausible. If so much can not be postulated for any part of his argument, that part is seriously impaired. It is partly because this can be postulated for the physical violence and obscenity of Old Comedy that I am willing to accept Mr. Cornford's reasoning at that point. Now, if Aristotle knew nothing of the ritual plot, neither did fourth century playwrights; and we have just seen that fifth century tragedians were equally ignorant. It follows that, if Aeschylus and Euripides when dramatizing the Pentheus myth, for example, were no more conscious of dependence upon a ritual plot than was Marlowe in writing Doctor Faustus, the influence of primitive ritual upon mature tragedy must have been nonexistent or negligible. Then the question takes another form-did the tragic poets unconsciously follow a fixed series of incidents? When this notion leads Mr. Cornford to allege that the agon between Admetus and Pheres in Euripides's Alcestis is "barely intelligible except in the light of the old ritual conflict of the Young King claiming to supersede the outworn Old King" (p. 78), I for one am not impressed. In comedy he fares no better: compare the suggestion that in Aristophanes's Frogs Euripides's complaint at being 'left for dead' in the underworld "gains point if we suppose a reminiscence that such had originally been the Antagonist's fate" (82). Mr. Cornford is constantly insisting that the strength of his arguments rests in its cumulative effect. But when this arises from such details as these, one's faith grows less rather than greater. Upon comedy, however, our author evidently believes the fixed plot of primitive ritual to have exercised a conscious influence. Such an unchanging plot would naturally result in a set of stock characters. Therefore, the heroes of comedy -"especially certain very important ones, who bear historical names-are made to wear one or another of a definite set of stock masks. They are, to the almost complete sacrifice of realistic portraiture, conformed to the traditional traits of these masks" (154). Lamachus and Aeschylus (!) are adaptations of the Miles Gloriosus, Socrates and Euripides of the Learned Doctor, Agoracritus of the Cook, Cleon of the Parasite, etc. All this implies conscious adaptation on the part of the comic poet and perfect understanding by the public of what he was doing. Now is it conceivable that Cleon would have been so stung by Aristophanes's attacks and that Socrates in the Apology could have attributed to the Clouds so much of the feeling against him, if every one had known that Aristophanes, like another Procrustes, was merely forcing his contemporaries to lie in the places of conventionalized, stock characters? The exigencies of this argument compel Mr. Cornford to maintain (168) that of all the historical characters in comedy "the only one represented by anything like a recognizable portrait is Cleon" (!). Óf course, he has to grant that "it is just in this case that Aristophanes explicitly says that the mask worn by the actor was not a portrait of the demagogue's real features". He tries to break the force of so damning a statement by alleging that "the excuse that no costumer could be found who was willing to make anything so terrific as a portrait-mask of Cleon, is a joke and not to be taken literally". But "so terrific" here is due to a misinterpretation of Aristophanes, for VæÒ TOû déoυs refers to fear of 'Cleon's vengeance. With this correction the "jol:e" disappears, and the whole argument collapses. Pages 100-102. Mr. Cornford considers the scattering of sweetmeats to the spectators in Old Comedy to be a survival of the communal meal. I venture to believe that I gave a simpler explanation, and all that is required, at Iowa City last spring; compare The Classical Journal 10.212 f. Page 217. 'ATάктws in Tzetzes does not, I believe, mean "without orderly arrangement", but "in an undifferentiated crowd". In note I more of Tzetzes's text ought to be quoted. Despite my inability to accept the major part of Mr. Cornford's theories, including his two main theses that Attic comedy was entirely indigenous and that Old Comedy closely followed the outlines of a ritual plot, I concede that he has written a valuable and stimulating work, one that will repay careful study and will add permanently to its author's reputation. It abounds in shrewd deductions and subtle observations. I regret that the length to which this review has already attained will prevent my citing any of these. The style and presentation are so attractive as scarcely to permit one to lay the volume down before the last page is reached. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY. ROY C. FLICKINGER. Livy. Books I, XXI, and XXII. Edited with brief Introduction and Commentary and Numerous Illustrations by Emory B. Lease. Boston: D. C. Heath and Company (1914). Pp. xl 352. This new edition of Professor Lease's Livy is well described in the Preface as a revised edition, for much of the material of the first edition (1905) has been recast, later returns have changed some of the statistical totals, while in other cases there are distinctly honorable omissions. The editor's justification of a new edition lies in numerous requests to him "to meet the needs of the less advanced student". The broader features of the first edition are retained, with altered proportions. stead of the 72 pages of Introduction, 38 now suffice, and they appear in greatly improved form. In In the subject-matter retained, some statements have been altered, and even some additions made. The wholly improbable surmise "that Livy intended to extend his history to 150 books and to close with the death of Augustus" is unfortunately repeated (xi). Eight books would seem too scant to cover, with all the fullness of contemporary history, the events from 9 B. C. to 14 A. D., and the plan could not have been intelligently made until the aged Livy was sure he would outlive the aged Augustus. The text of the two editions is identical, except that now and then an obviously necessary, or desirable, change was mechanically possible (for example, p. 4, 1. 34, factam for factum; in I. 1503, cum is adopted, <ul> deleted). A slightly changed list of Selections is offered, presumably that those who desire may take what they need from the fountain without risking the river's fullness. The Commentary is reduced from 237 to 173 pages; yet a number of excellent additions receive space, such as Canon Roberts's translation of Livy's Praefatio, summaries of Books II-XX and XXIIIXXX, interesting notes on The Later History of Hannibal and The Later History of Carthage, and a scant page of Loci Memoriales. One is a little startled in the summary of the second decade to find that certain portions "are devoted" to certain topics, certain wars "are described", and that Book XX "closes with", etc. Perhaps the less advanced student will remember the facts from the Introduction, and perceive that here the editor possesses a vivid style rather than some of the lost books, but I doubt it. The changes in the Commentary are after all the most significant thing. Here for the purpose in view Professor Lease has made excellent changes. Many errors of reference have been eliminated, cross-references have been reduced, and the bibliography brought thoroughly up to date. As the editor himself might put it, the new edition has in up-to-date professional literature 12 new references for Book I, 8 for XXI, and 5 for XXII. Sixteen new folklore references on Book I are added, 7 being from Frazer's Golden Bough; one new historical foot-note is given for XXI, and three new folklore references are found on XXII. Eight new references to standard English literature are found, but I frankly do not understand the purpose of referring to Emerson on I. 600. Emerson has no discussion of metempsychosis and the reference, an allusion to an allusion, does not point a moral though it may adorn the note. Professor Lease's industry in the field of statistical syntax is well known at home, and has had recognition abroad by Schmalz and other discriminating scholars. He himself has defended the statistical features of his first edition (The Classical Journal 1. 197). Perhaps it was too much to expect that the "less advanced student" should be supposed by the editor to have little interest, real or possible, in such matters. If the purpose of a freshman in reading Livy were the same as that of a specialist, only commendation should be offered. It is true that some of the freshmen may become intelligent specialists, but often characteristics and tendencies would suffice without details. To illustrate, one might say that now and then there is a monotony of phrase in Professor Lease's English, without citing (Catullus) "Rome's great lyric poet". (Vergil)"Rome's great epic poet" (page ix); (Quintilian) "Rome's great rhetorician" (xiv, n.3; xvi, 89); (Regulus, one of) "Rome's great heroes" (243); (Paulus, one of) "Rome's great men" (XXII. 1631, n.); (Carthage) "Rome's great rival" (348), or without reckoning the total and recording that the locution seems first to occur, in the editor at least, in his study of "Prudentius, Rome's great Christian poet". Such statements or statistics would be gratuitous. Just so a freshman is not likely to profit much by learning that adorati, “used of the worship of the gods, is found first in poetry in Laevius (flor. 100 B. C.) and in Vergil, first in prose in Livy" (XXI. 464,n.). Why rescue insignificant Laevius? Besides, Laevius used not adorati but adorans (or was it after all, as Baehrens suggested, adornans?), and the student must still await information as to who first used the passive. The "less advanced student" will often wonder if his needs have been constantly in mind. Certainly the point of view shifts. At one time the notes explain in lowest terms who "Dionysius Hal." was (xv, n. 4, though this is not the first reference to Dionysius); at another time, the difference between rēgi and régi is asked for (on I. 157, where regi could not be translated); presently exquilinus and inquilinus are cited in explanation of Esquilias (I. 1586); and again we have Nepotian (XXI. 1931), Zonaras (XXII. 1480), Claudian (XXII. 2119), Laevius (XXI. 464) and C. I. L. (XXII. 896, 1095). Nothing is gained for a freshman by explaining that Gronovius and Madvig are respectively responsible for the conjectured e (XXI. 1694), and a (XXII. 1178). But, by any standard, there is occasional unevenness. If at I. 78 Mr. Ashby's special article on Monte Cavo is to be cited, one might reasonably expect a reference to Miss Taylor's monograph on Ostia at I. 1234. Its historical introduction especially would be in point. And, since reference is made to the Chinese Hou Chi (page 188, n. 1), the Indian Gunâdhya (235, n. 1), and Sampson's foxes (XXII. 586), why forget Lot's wife on respicere vetitus (XXI. 649), not to mention Orpheus? Professor Lease does not often err in the matter of omissions, but at I. 1199 an explanation of the legal fiction involved in throwing a spear into a plot of ground near Rome should have been given; and better notes on venando (I. 129), equites tegendo (XXI. 1626), and ab tergoque (XXII. 1005) have evidently been repressed. In the by no means easy matter of using clear, concise and pithy English there is a distinct improvement. But occasional lapses have been noted: "When everybody has been whipped" (I. 640); "Mommsen sides with Livy" (XXI. 1919); "Each was ready to surrender their . guest" (347); "There later stood the temple of Veiovis, and today the Piazza del Campidoglio" (I. 268; a parallel would be at I. 195, "The Romans celebrated April 21st as the 'birthday' of Rome", if one added and to-day'); "Hannibal: the greatest general ever lived", parallel with the "second Punic War: the greatest ever fought" (page 350, n. 1); the translation "roll yourself down" for devolvere (I. 1687); and brevity at least is not a consideration in the review question, "When did Scipio, the victor at Zama, first step upon the stage of the world's history?" (351). Misprints, comparatively speaking, have disappeared. But in many cases the notes, while ostensibly on lines, are really on sections and all references to books other than those annotated are necessarily in 'Old Style', so that, with this confusion, I doubt any real gain in emulating Gruter's fame. The typography of the book is vastly improved, and many new illustrations add their share of interest. On the whole, in spite of certain defects, Professor Lease has undoubtedly produced a significant edition of Livy, one that is both intelligently conceived and diligently worked out. In point of real contribution its high merits cannot for a moment be questioned. NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY. O. F. LONG. INDEX1 Abbott's Roman Political Institutions (Knapp) Alexander, L.: The Kings of Lydia (Kent). Allen, W. F. A. and Katharine and Hendrick- America, Latin Version of, G. D. Kellogg . son 106-108 215-216 7 112 New York State.. New York State Teachers' Philadelphia. PAGE 136 47, 87-88 .56, 128, 152, 191-192 Philadelphia Society for the Promotion of Liberal Studies.. Pittsburgh Syracuse Central High School. 176 .61, 62, 135, 160, 168, 191 207-208 55, 95, 184 23-24 55-56 144 183-184 .48, 55, 72 Washington Classical Conferences: At Clinton, N. Y At College of the City of New York, Class-Room and the Telegraphic News, Olivia M. Pound.. Cleasby, H. L.: see Reviews, O'Brien.. 112 96 6-7 Baur, P. V. C.: see Reviews, Waldstein. Bice, H. H.: Sight Reading (Mitchell). Botsford, G. W.: see Reviews, Weigall. 125-127 Empire (Clark). 134-135 Brackett, H. D.: A Question of Values in the Study of Greek. 138-141 Bradley, B. W.: School Editions of the Cornford, F. M.: The Origin of Attic Comedy Crawford, J. R.: A Summary of Recent Crew, Helen C.: Ab Urbe Domum. 221-223 20-22 106-108 37-38 III-112 122-125 170, 200 Bryce, J.: The Value of the Classics. 80 Burchett, B. R.: The Divine Character of Direct Method and its Application to the 132-133 Douglas, S. O. G.: A Theory of Civilization, 117-118 127-128 Captives of Plautus, acted at Mt. Holyoke Earle, M. L.: Classical Papers of (Capps). 38-40 224 By Charles Knapp: Carroll, M.: see Reviews, Calhoun . Chickering, Edward C. and Hoadley, Har- A Bronze Statue of a Boy, etc. Classical Departments and the Classics.. 17-18 and Geological Studies.. 105-106 I-2 193-194 .89-90, 97-98 Classics and the Teaching of English. |