378 



SCIEJSrCE. 



[Vol. IX., No. 219 



that occur in the first four books of Caesar, and 

 has appended to each its principal derivatives as 

 employed by Caesar and Cicero. In a second 

 part are arranged sentences containing the words 

 given in the vocabulary, and illustrating their use. 

 The sentences are bona fide excerpts from the 

 authors mentioned. By way of appendix, a 

 chapter is added on the main principles in the 

 formation of derivatives, and exercises on the de- 

 clensions and conjugations. 



The author's theory is, that the memorizing of 

 the primitives, and the perception of the general 

 principles in the composition of words that will 

 soon arise from practice, will prove the shortest 

 and at the same time the most effective means to 

 the attainment of a vocabulary. There can be 

 no doubt that the theory is a sound one. The 

 little book before us contains an outline of the 

 practical application of the theory. That the plan 

 may be carried out indefinitely is obvious, and 

 the author has accordingly left space after each 

 root-word for the insertion of new derivatives as 

 they occur in the pupil's later reading. The lists 

 given in the book are in general exactly suited to 

 the elementary character of the work. No pre- 

 tence is made to fine-spun etymological accuracy. 

 Words cognate to the root-words, as well as those 

 derived from them, are grouped together. It is 

 likely that in some cases the connection of words 

 given as derivatives with the root-words will be 

 found too remote for the beginner. Cautes, for 

 example, from acuo, involves a rather profound 

 etymological principle. Bellum from duo, vates 

 from for, and primus from prae, would not be 

 easily grasped by a twelve-year-old boy. So, too, 

 it would probably be as useful for a beginner to 

 put copia and imperium among the primitives as 

 to class them as derivatives of ops and paro. 

 Some etymologies appear which are not only quite 

 doublful, but are apt to be very misleading. Such 

 are merces from cedo (instead of mereo) and elem- 

 ens from mens. Pollex from valeo, and cervix 

 from veho, are probably doubtful, and certainly 

 not useful in this book. But, in spite of such 

 little inaccuracies in detail, there can be no ques- 

 tion as to the value of the book in general. Many 

 a struggling teacher will arise and call blessed the 

 man who conceived and brought forth the little 

 manual. W. A. D. 



SOME RECENT CLASSICAL PUBLICATIONS. 



Aeschylus : the seven against Thebes. By A. W. Veekall, 

 M.A. New York, Macmillan. 8°. 



The literary interest that one feels in the ' Seven 

 against Thebes' is of a purely negative kind. The 

 play has always served as a striking illustration of 



the divergence between ancient and modern criti- 

 cism, both in theory and in practice ; for while 

 antiquity gave high rank to what is very little 

 more than a dramatic monologue, or rather series 

 of monologues, modern literary judgment has 

 been much less favorable. Mr. Verrall, in the 

 very admirable introduction now before us, has 

 attempted to show that the modern view is based 

 upon a number of "misconceptions, small in 

 themselves, but not small in their effects ; " yet he 

 is nevertheless constrained to admit that there 

 does exist a certain incongruity in the combina- 

 tion of extremely rapid, even hasty dramatic ac- 

 tion, and the measured pomp and stateliness of 

 the Aeschylean dialogue. In fact, as he well 

 points out, the structural slowness of iambic verse 

 is always open to the charge of inappropriateness, 

 and when used by Aeschylus, who knew not the 

 metrical arts of his successors, the discrepancy 

 between the exigencies of the action and the 

 measured rhythm of the verse becomes a serious 

 bar to the success of a play like this. 



Mr. Verrall has in general performed his task 

 well. Scholars who have only known him by his 

 ' Medea ' will be agreeably disappointed in the 

 present volume ; for in it he exhibits a much riper 

 scholarship, a much more original style of treat- 

 ment, and a wider range of vision. In fact, he 

 seems to have profited greatly by a very thought- 

 ful criticism of his former work, which appeared 

 some years ago in the Philologischer Anzeiger, by 

 Dr. L. Schmidt, — a criticism to which, in fact, 

 he has made a direct reference in the smaller edi- 

 tion of the ' Medea.' In the present commentary 

 he is even more to be commended for what he has 

 rejected than for what he has advanced new. 

 While folio ving the text of Wecklein, he has had 

 the courage to restore some of the older readings, 

 and, furthermore, has been able to defend them 

 with much sagacity and taste. Thus in v. 998, 

 where modern editors have almost universally read 

 Evvoia from the late manuscripts, Mr. Verrall 

 properly restores ehvaia, making it a substantive 

 with xdovb- depending upon it, — a reading that 

 is not new, for it was defended by the scholiast, 

 yet which has seldom been properly understood. 

 Mr. Verrall rightly justifies it by referring to the 

 TToii xSovo^ . . . TTcipevvov of vv. 993 - 995, and also to 

 the ironical sentence in v. 1012, which loses much 

 of its point if we read evvoia. In many other 

 passages Mr. Verrall shows a similar good judg- 

 ment and sober discrimination. We might, per- 

 haps, reasonably join issue with his assertion, on 

 p. 33, that fuaivov evakjisLav necessarily requires a 

 personification of evasiSeia to make tolerable Greek : 

 for such passages as Pindar, N. III. 25, Soph. 

 Antiq. 1044, and Eurip. Hipp. 1437, make the 



