VI. THE VOCATIVE IN AESCHYLUS AND SOPHOCLES. In Homer and Hesiod' it was found impossible to form any rules for the use of the interjection with the vocative, except negative ones. In Early Epic the interjection was not used in passages of worship, dignity, or elevation. In familiar scenes its use was not obligatory, but only permissive. First in Aeschylus and Sophocles is it possible to state the conditions, which require the addition of the interjection. The rules are as follows: I. The interjection must be used when the participle is used in the vocative without the noun. Aesch. P. V. 613, ὦ κοινὸν ὠφέλημα θνητοῖσιν φανείς, Pers. 673, ὦ πολύκλαυτε φίλοισι θανών, Pers. 708, ὦ βροτῶν πάντων ὑπερσχὼν ὄλβον εὐτυχεῖ πότμῳ, Eum. 754, ὦ σώσασα τοὺς ἐμοὺς δόμους, Sep. 951, ἰὼ πολλοῖς ἐπανθίσαντες πόνοισι γενεάν, Sep. 1001, ἰὼ δαιμονῶντες ἐν ἄτα. Ai. 379, 845, 1271. El. 134, 1162, 1273, 1326. O. R. 200, 903, 1223, 1327. O. C. 107, 337, 761, 1701. Ant. 1263, 1287, Tr. 99, 102, 633, Ph. 1006, 1128, 1290, 1380, 1402, 1445. There are no exceptions to this rule. The carrying power of the interjection with the participle was very great, and & could be held long in suspense, as in these three examples: 1 See A. J. P. XXIV 192 ff. The Vocative in Homer and Hesiod. II. The interjection must be used in addresses, or apostrophe to inanimate objects, or abstract qualities. As there are 208 examples of this rule, I shall illustrate by a single play from each poet. P. V. 45, ὦ πολλὰ μισηθεῖσα χειρωναξία. 88, ὦ διος αἰθὴρ καὶ ταχύπτεροι πνοαί, 694, iù poîpa poîpa, 1091, ὦ μητρὸς ἐμῆς σέβας, ὦ πάντων αἰθὴρ κοινὸν φάος εἱλίσσων. Ai. 14, 173, 356, 412, 417, 596, 845, 853, 856, 859, 982, 992, 1004, 1197, 1393. In over two hundred addresses to the inanimate the interjection is not omitted in a single case. How strong the feeling for the interjection was with the inanimate is shown by these two examples: Antig. 891, ὦ τύμβος, ὦ νυμφεῖον, ὦ κατασκαφής Phil. 936, ὦ λιμένες, ὦ προβλήτες, ὦ ξυνουσίαι Ant. 100 begins without the interjection, but renews the apostrophe with &. Ag. 508 is an address to both the animate and the inanimate, so the interjection is not necessary. A series of inanimate objects may be included under a single interjection. Here the interjection gives the feeling of interested, sympathetic personality. The converse of this rule is true. In names of persons, where the personality is in the name itself, the interjection is not used, unless the proper name be modified. There are over sixty examples of unmodified proper names of persons, and not one has the interjection. Phil. 793, & Mevéλae is in partitive apposition with the modified & dinλoî σrparnλára, and is no exception, and O. R. 1394. & Пóλuße Πόλυβε is joined to καὶ Κόρινθε καὶ τὰ πάτρια, where the address to the inanimate requires the interjection. In names of gods, particularly in prayers, even when the name is unmodified, the interjection is regularly used. In Soph. Zeû, once, & Zeû, 20 times. Here it is an appeal to the sympathetic, human personality in the divine, "My flesh, that I seek In the Godhead". III. The interjection must be used with an adjective in the vocative, when the adjective is used without a substantive, unless the substantive idea is given by the context. 1 As there are 127 examples of this use, I shall illustrate by only two plays : Ph. 339, 369, 759, 801, 930, 974, 984, 1016, 1031, 1096, 1170, 1196. Aesch. has one apparent exception to this rule, Cho. 1051, oè... piλrar', where the personal pronoun shows the substantive nature, and the interjection is not necessary. The rare exceptions in Soph. are easily explained from the context. As a corollary to this rule, while unmodified names of persons do not take the interjection, modified names may, where the appeal is to the attribute rather than to the person. In O. C. 740, & raλain wp' Oidinovs, Creon appeals to the old man "by his long suffering" to return, and live in peace. There are very few examples of the use of the interjection with names of persons, even when modified, as the personality lies in the name itself. IV. The interjection must be used in trimeter, when the arsis of the third foot is a monosyllabic vocative. P. V. 651 illustrates the rule, éλei' σú d', & maî. Other examples are: Sep. 255, Ag. 9o7, Cho. 18, 654, 896. No exceptions in Aesch. Ai. 1, 510, 593, 824, 831, 1180. El. 2, 251, 662, 671, 1112, 1130, 1180, 1184, 1220, 1224, 1230, 1354. O. R. 103, 286, 304, 834, 852, 1145. 1484. O. C. 322, 329, 553, 722, 846, 1014, 1104, 1130, 1173, 1177, 1420, 1431, 1507. An. 563, 639, 648. Trach. 61, 92, 738, 744, 1087, 1090, 1227, 1253. Ph. 242, 260, 478, 533, 578, 620, 628, 869, 889, 896, 967. In the two exceptions to this. rule, Ph. 50, 'Axiλéws maî, and 87, Aaepriov raî, the word of four syllables preceding makes the insertion of the interjection impossible. Except these cases mentioned above, the omission or use of the interjection is largely a matter of hiatus and rhythm, the position of the vocative in the verse, in general, determined the use; vocatives in the first three feet are likely to have the interjection, while Aeschylus has but four interjections in the last three feet in trimeter. This table shows the growth of the use of the interjection since Homer and Hesiod: Homer and Hesiod; Vocatives with &, 188; without &, 1166. iw, 43; &, 532; Fragments are omitted in this study. There is no difference in usage between Soph. and Aesch. Soph. simply has more examples of the above usages. Aesch. does not have a single exception to any of them.' NORTHWESTERN University, JOHN ADAMS SCOTT. 1 1 Aeschylus' fondness for ió seems not to have escaped the notice of Aristophanes, as it is found just twice in the Frogs, both times in the assumed words of Aesch. Frogs, 1141, 1142. REVIEWS AND BOOK NOTICES. Historische Grammatik der Lateinischen Sprache, . . . herausgegeben von GUSTAV LANDGRAF. Dritter Band. Syntax des einfachen Satzes. Erstes Heft. Einleitung in die Geschichte der Lateinischen Syntax (Golling); Literatur zur historischen Syntax der einzelnen Schriftsteller (Landgraf und Golling); Tempora und Modi; Genera Verbi (Blase). Leipzig, 1903. This long title is worth giving in full, because it informs us, briefly, in spite of its length, of the progress of an important undertaking. Vol. I of the new historical grammar, the phonology by Stolz, appeared in 1894-5. Since that time there have been changes among the collaborators, the general editorship has been placed in the hands of Landgraf, and the whole plan of the syntax has been apparently somewhat enlarged. Now, without waiting for the completion of Vol. II, on morphology, the first part of Vol. III is issued separately, with the assurance that the second and third parts are ready in manuscript. The disregard of strict succession, which carries with it an implication of considerable independence on the part of the several writers, is altogether to be desired and approved. The Einleitung in die Geschichte der Lateinischen Syntax by Professor Golling of Vienna consists of three parts:-I. The Roman grammarians, pp. 1-17; II. The syntax of the Middle Ages, pp. 17-37; III. Modern Syntax, pp. 37-87, of which nearly 30 pp. are given to the 19th century-a just proportioning of space. There are six lists of titles upon the history of Latin syntax, making altogether the most complete published bibliography of the subject. Within the space of 87 pp. it was plainly impossible to write a history of Latin syntax and Golling has confined himself to the narrower task of sketching the history of syntactical systems, that is, of following the successive steps by which syntax has been separated from grammar and has come to be an independent science, with its own body of principles and its special aims. The two important epochs in this development were the XII-XIII centuries and the end of the XVIII. In the first, the influence of the mediæval dialectic led to inquiry into the fundamental conceptions underlying language and to the beginning of syntactical system; this movement is illustrated by a rather full analysis of the Doctrinale of Alexander de Villedieu (pp. 28-33), perhaps the most interesting pages in the earlier portion of the sketch. It is from the same point of view-the rise of system— |