NOTE.

NOTE ON CICERO, DE SENECTUTE 54 AND II.

Professor G. L. Hendrickson, in an article in the October number of the American Journal of Philology, on 'Pre-Varronian Literary History,' p. 291, gives a new interpretation to the words assigned to Cato by Cicero, in De Senectute 50: vidi etiam senem Livium qui, cum sex annis ante quam ego natus sum fabulam docuisset Centone Tuditanoque consulibus, usque ad adulescentiam meam processit aetate. They are to be regarded, he says, not as a mere "didactic digression," like many other passages in the De Senectute, but as an intentional emphasizing of the age of Livius for the purpose of overthrowing a popular error given currency by Accius, and formally refuted by Cicero himself in the Brutus (72), probably on the authority of Varro.

One other of Cato's digressions, in De Senectute 54, seems open to a similar explanation: Quid de utilitate loquar stercorandi? Dixi in eo libro quem de rebus rusticis scripsi, de qua doctus Hesiodus ne verbum quidem fecit cum de cultura agri scriberet. At Homerus, qui multis, ut mihi videtur, ante saeculis fuit, Laërtam lenientem desiderium quod capiebat e filio, colentem agrum et eum stercorantem facit. The words qui multis, ut mihi videtur, ante saeculis fuit are in themselves entirely pointless. But the question of seniority as between Homer and Hesiod was an open one among the scholars of that time. Accius put Hesiod first; Varro disagreed with him (Gell. III 11), and it may well be that Cicero in this passage is again intentionally throwing the weight of his authority on the right side, against the error of Accius, as in De Senectute 50.

In De Senectute 11, Cicero is himself guilty of a mistake. He names the Roman commander of the citadel of Tarentum, at the time of its recapture by Quintus Fabius (209 B. C.), as Salinator. It is generally agreed, however, on the authority of Livy (24, 20, 13; 27, 25, 3; 27, 34, 7), that the man in question was Marcus Livius Macatus, not Marcus Livius Salinator. The explanation generally offered for this mistake is merely that confusion between

names so similar was an easy matter, especially since they would often be found without the cognomen. In the light of Professor Hendrickson's investigations, it is possible to conjecture the origin of this mistake more definitely. Accius (Cic. Brut. 72) believed that the poet Livius was captured at Tarentum by Quintus Fabius Maximus in 209 B. C. St. Jerome, chron. ad a. 1830 (187 B. C.), gives evidence of having followed this false chronology of Accius, as shown by C. F. Hermann, quoted by Professor Hendrickson (p. 292). St. Jerome's statement reads as follows: Titus Livius, tragoediarum scriptor clarus habetur qui ob ingenii meritum a Livio Salinatore, cuius liberos erudiebat, libertate donatus est. Accius therefore believed that Livius the poet had been the slave of some Livius Salinator, and he brings him into connection with Marcus Livius Salinator by fixing the date of his play in 197 B. C., at the ludi Iuventatis vowed by Marcus Livius Salinator in 207 B. C. (Cic. Brut. 72; Liv. 36, 36, 6; American Journal of Philology, p. 291). It would have been most natural then for Accius, who has been proved to be wrong as to several points in regard to Livius, to suppose that the Marcus Livius with whom he connected the poet Livius, in later life, was the Marcus Livius who was conspicuous at Tarentum when he was captured there. That Cicero's error may be dependent upon such an error on the part of Accius seems not improbable. He was acquainted with Accius' literary work, and he even knew him personally in his youth (Cic. Brut. 107). Cicero had made the same mistake about Salinator many years before he wrote the De Senectute (De Orat. 2, 273). Meantime, in the Brutus (72) he had recognized and refuted Accius in regard to the chronology of Livius. That an error in a single name, dependent upon this more serious error in chronology, should re-appear after the latter had been recognized, would merely convict Cicero of carelessness or forgetfulness, such as must be imputed to him at any rate, from some other cause, if not from the one here suggested.

UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN.

KATHARINE Allen.

REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES.

CHAUCER.

The Complete Works of Geoffrey Chaucer, edited from numerous manuscripts by the Rev. WALTER W. SKEAT, Litt. D., LL. D., M. A. 6 vols. Oxford, At the Clarendon Press, 1894; with supplementary volume containing Chaucerian and Other Pieces, 1897.

Studies in Chaucer: his Life and Writings, by THOMAS R. LOUNSBURY. 3 vols. New York, Harper & Brothers, 1892. The Student's Chaucer. Edited by Prof. SKEAT, with Introduction and Glossary. I vol. Macmillan & Co., 1895.

The "Globe" Chaucer. Edited by ALFRED W. POLLARD, H. FRANK HEATH, MARK H. LIDDELL, W. S. MCCORMICK, with Introduction and Glossary. I vol. London and New York, Macmillan & Co., 1898.

In addition to his other well-known works illustrative of Chaucer's writings, Prof. Skeat has now placed all students of Chaucer under increased obligations by the completion of the Oxford edition with the publication of the supplementary volume containing "Chaucerian and Other Pieces." Although the other six volumes have been before the public for a few years, it may be well to state here the contents of each volume. Vol. I contains a Life of Chaucer, the Romaunt of the Rose, and the Minor Poems; II, Boethius and Troilus; III, House of Fame, Legend of Good Women, the Astrolabe, and the Sources of the Canterbury Tales; IV, the Canterbury Tales (Text); V, the Canterbury Tales (Notes); VI, Introduction, Glossary, and Indexes. Prof. Skeat has further edited the complete works of Chaucer in one volume, as "The Student's Chaucer," being the text of the Oxford edition. Mr. Pollard, author of the "Chaucer Primer," edited in 1894 the "Eversley" edition of the Canterbury Tales in two volumes, and now, with the assistance of co-laborers, he has also edited in one volume, as the "Globe" edition, the complete works of Chaucer, preceded by a Life and Introduction and followed by a Glossary. In this embarrassment of riches, especially when increased by the three volumes of Prof. Lounsbury's "Studies in Chaucer," which were published six years ago, it is difficult to see what more the student of Chaucer could desire.

Surely there is no excuse now for an ignorance of Chaucer even on the part of that much-addressed personage, the general reader. The several chapters of Prof. Lounsbury's work are numbered continuously and embrace the following subjects: I, the Life of Chaucer; II, the Chaucer Legend; III, the Text of Chaucer; IV, the Writings of Chaucer; IV, 2, the Romance of the Rose; V, the Learning of Chaucer; VI, the Relations of Chaucer to the English Language and to the Religion of his Time; VII, Chaucer in Literary History; VIII, Chaucer as a Literary Artist. A brief account of each is given in the Introduction. This is undoubtedly the most complete work on Chaucer and his writings that we possess. It is valuable for its account of exploded errors as well as for its statements of recently ascertained facts. A general criticism, however, may be made, that it is too diffuse; it might have been condensed to advantage. As to Prof. Lounsbury's views on some disputed questions, he acknowledges that they are not those generally held by Chaucer scholars, but he has the courage of his convictions and proceeds to defend earnestly his opinions. This is as it should be. In such a work an author should give the reasons for the critical faith that is in him. But I cannot think that Prof. Lounsbury has settled the questions. In regard to the burning one of the Chaucerian authorship, in whole or in part, of the existing version of the "Romaunt of the Rose," we must render the Scotch verdict in his case, not proven. I prefer for the present to take the views of Lindner, Kaluza, Kittredge, and Skeat. Prof. Skeat has already replied satisfactorily to some of Prof. Lounsbury's arguments in the Introductions of vols. I and VI, where he discusses the poem. The "Globe" edition prints the "Romaunt of the Rose" last, and the editor, Mr. Liddell, says of it: "All that we can say at present is that A (vv. 1-1705) may be part of the translation Chaucer says he made; that C is also possibly Chaucer's, but this assumption is less likely than the former; that B (vv. 1706–5810) is probably the interpolation of a Northern writer later than Chaucer who made an attempt to join the two parts of the poem A and C, and make a complete translation, but wearied of the task and dropped it at v. 5810." Prof. Lounsbury's view that Chaucer wrote the whole of the present version must be rejected. The evidence of language and metre is against him. Moreover, Chaucer could never have made the bungling junction of 1705 and 1706; something is wrong here. Why, too, did Chaucer refrain from translating the portion omitted between 5810 and 5811, or has that portion alone been lost? The last word has not yet been said on this poem.

A part of Prof. Lounsbury's "Chaucer Legend" appeared several years ago in The Atlantic Monthly as "Fictitious Lives of Chaucer." It was hardly necessary to occupy so much space in discussing the spurious "Testament of Love," for, with the reference to the "Troilus" before us (Skeat's ed. VII, p. 123, ll. 253-4), it is

hard to see how Chaucer could have written it, even if there were no other arguments against his authorship. The uncritical judgment of earlier editors is responsible for the inclusion in Chaucer's works of many writings now known to be spurious. Prof. Skeat has shown us that Moxon's edition is a prime offender and has been uncritically followed. Both Profs. Lounsbury and Skeat give due credit to Tyrwhitt for his sound judgment in editing Chaucer, but, unfortunately, he lived before the days of the Chaucer Society and the recent investigations of Middle English grammar and versification. In one important point I must take issue with Prof. Lounsbury. He says (Introd., p. xxv): "It will be observed, also, that in most instances the extracts that are introduced from Chaucer's writings appear in our present spelling. The reasons for adopting this course will be found at the end of the seventh chapter" [II 264-279]. I have re-read these reasons, but they do not carry conviction to my mind. Some of Prof. Lounsbury's quotations sound as if they were taken from a very bad text of Chaucer. The question is more one of pronunciation, especially of accent, than of spelling, and Chaucer's spelling is a key to his pronunciation as well as to his grammar, and pronunciation determines the rhythm, without which there can be no complete enjoyment of Chaucer. Modernize the spelling and we destroy the rhythm. The case of Shakspere is different, for his spelling is much nearer that of the present day, it does not affect his grammar and rhythm, and there is no question here of the final -e. I think that correct rhythm is an aid "towards the appreciation of the beauty and power of Chaucer's poetry" (III, p. 273), while fully conceding that "the literary study of Chaucer is one thing; the linguistic study is quite another." The former is certainly helped by the latter, even if the latter is very elementary. On this point I concur with Prof. Skeat (V, p. xxv).

Prof. Lounsbury's chapters V, VII and VIII are of particular interest, and chapters V and VII mark a distinct advance in our knowledge, showing the results of careful study of subjects which have never before been so well treated. The modernizations of Chaucer, from Dryden and Pope to Wordsworth and Leigh Hunt, are rightly characterized as failures, but no one is in danger of mistaking these for Chaucer, whereas, if we undertake to modernize Chaucer's language, we produce a Chaucer that is not Chaucer.

There is one reference of Prof. Lounsbury's, repeated four times, which is an oversight. In I, 271, 273, 442, and III, 44, we have reference to Beaumont's letter to Speght of June, 1597, and in each case he is referred to as "the dramatist Beaumont." According to the common chronology, the well-known dramatist, Francis Beaumont, was at that time about thirteen years of age, and could scarcely be referring to "those ancient learned men of our time in Cambridge," who "did first bring you and me in love with him," i. e. Chaucer. The reference is manifestly to Francis